You Can't Have It "Your Way": A Response to Fr. Chazal's Arguments against Sedevacantism  in his Dec. 8 Letter to "Fr." Paul Kramer  by Gregorius

Here's a preview of the article:

We continue with what Fr. Chazal writes:

Quote

Just recently I bumped into another sedevacantist who told me that Mgr. Guerard des Lauriers is a traitor. But that Bishop is a founding father of the movement. Among the non conclavist sedevacantists, it is getting harder and harder just to know what the different schools think. Such total тαℓмυdization I refuse to find myself embarked on.

For those not familiar with the bishop mentioned, here is a little background. Bp. Michel-Louis Guerard des Lauriers, O.P. (1898-1988), was a highly-gifted Catholic theologian and mathematician who taught at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome. It is commonly said that he was one of Pope Pius XII's theological advisers on the dogma of the Assumption (defined in 1950). He ghostwrote the famous Ottaviani Intervention of 1969 and concluded at some point in his life that the See of Peter was vacant -- he became a sedevacantist. More specifically, he held the position that the Vatican II "Popes" were Popes "materially" but not "formally", which, translated into layman's terms according to Guerard des Lauriers' thesis, means that they were "Pope-elect", if you will, that is, someone who would become the true Pope automatically as soon as he would renounce his heresies and become a Catholic.

This position is known as the "Material/Formal Thesis", the "Cassiciacuм Thesis", or also as "sedeprivationism". It is held by a number, though probably the minority, of sedevacantists throughout the world, the most well-known defenders being Bp. Robert McKenna, O.P., and Bp. Donald Sanborn. The great advantage of this sedeprivationist position is that it provides an answer to the pressing question, "How do we get a true Pope back to restore the Church?" It answers this conundrum by arguing that the bogus Novus Ordo "cardinals", despite their invalidity, nevertheless possess the power to designate a true Pope, whether potentially or actually. One may not agree with this stance, but everyone should be put on notice that it cannot easily be dismissed and has very strong evidence in its favor, which should not be surprising given that it originated with the great theological mind of Bp. Guerard des Lauriers. For those interested in understanding this thesis, we recommend Bp. Sanborn's article "The Material Papacy" (click here), which explains it in detail.

So Fr. Chazal apparently bumped into a sedevacantist who disagrees with the Material/Formal Thesis. So what? Most likely, the man in question didn't really understand it, because to call Bp. Guerard a "traitor" on account of his theory is totally unjust. But in any case, whether it be true or false, the Cassiciacuм Thesis is a lot better than Chazal's "Popes-can-be-heretics-but-then-we-cannot-submit-to-them" position, which is theologically indefensible (although quite convenient and emotionally satisfying, we understand).

Next, Fr. Chazal cedes at least a little bit of respect to the Guerardian Thesis:

Quote

Archbishop Lefebvre was keen to say that the theory has some serious reasons, but it leads to no certain conclusions. It looks very clear at the start, yet ends in great confusion, leading to a dangerous fragmentation of the Remnant of the Faith. Theologians are split into those who don't even consider the case and those who do... and among those who do, there again, their sentences are split.

Ah yes, and of course Abp. Lefebvre's theological credentials when compared to those of Bp. Guerard were....? ...Exactly. We didn't think so.

Novus Ordo Watch does not endorse the sedeprivationist position but does not reject it either. The great St. Augustine advised: "In doubtful things, liberty." It should not be surprising that, being faced with the most horrible crisis the Catholic Church has ever gone through in her 2,000-year history, with an apparent disappearance of the Catholic hierarchy and the Magisterium, and nothing but blatant heretics claiming the Papal Throne, those few remaining Catholics should perhaps differ on the exact nature of the problem and therefore also on the means to its resolution. Only the proudest of the proud could possibly think they have all the answers in this time of the Passion of the Mystical Body. If anything, sedevacantism draws people to humility as we realize just how limited we are in the face of this terrible exile, and how we must beg God without ceasing to end this most distressing state of affairs if it should so please Him.

In the above quote, Fr. Chazal insinuates that we don't really know if Popes can be heretics; that, historically, Catholic theologians have been divided over this question and over what would follow if a Pope were to become a heretic or if a heretic were to be elected Pope. But this is not quite true. We can simply quote the great Doctor of the Papacy on the matter, St. Robert Bellarmine:

Quote

Therefore, the true opinion [of the five examined] is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian....

(St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Ch. 30; underlining added.)

St. Robert is clear that this position -- that a heretic Pope is impossible and any Pope who would become a heretic would thereby automatically cease to be Pope because he would no longer be a member of the Church or even a Christian -- is true. It is true and "the opinion of all the ancient Fathers." Furthermore, Pope Pius XII reiterated this teaching in his 1943 encyclical on the Church, in which he clarified that to be a member of the Church it is necessary to "profess the true Faith," which is something a heretic by definition does not do. Moreover, His Holiness pointed out that the sin of heresy "of its own nature [severs] a man from the Body of the Church" (Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, par. 22-23), so the question is really settled.

There is no great difficulty or mystery here; we simply have to accept it: A heretic is not a member of the Church and therefore cannot be Pope. Period. What is so difficult or hard to swallow about this? For anyone interested in studying this issue in greater depth, we recommend the well-researched essay Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism  by Mr. John Lane, which is a response to Fr. Dominique Boulet's 2003 book Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem.

The dreaded "fragmention of the remnant of the Faith" that Fr. Chazal mentions is no concern at all if people realize that in unresolved, doubtful matters, Catholics enjoy the liberty to accept that position which they find most reasonable, assuming at all times, of course, that no alternative runs afoul of Church teaching in any way. That in some matters we can currently have no certain conclusions is irrelevant, since we are not bound to have certainty in every matter, and in this, Almighty God has obviously not seen fit to give us the desired certainty. (We are speaking of sedevacantism vs. sedeprivationism here, not sedevacantism vs. the recognize-and-resist position.)

It is impossible to apply the above to the Vatican II "Popes" and still maintain the same Faith the Catholic Church taught from 33 AD to 1958. Yet, this is exactly what the recognize-and-resisters like Fr. Chazal attempt to do, and the result is a horrific distortion of sound doctrine they pass off as "traditional Catholicism." For a fairly recent example of the absurdity to which this attempt to square the circle leads, see our post on John Vennari declaring that he would not allow the "Pope" to teach religion to his children! Clearly, no confusion in the non-sedevacantist camp, eh?!

Fr. Chazal next advises:

Quote

We should be content with the principle of Nullam Partem ["no part"] with heretics, not denying the existence of heresies when they appear in Rome, unlike the XSPX [sic], who threw us overboard on account of us sticking to that principle.

The problem with remaining "content" with this principle of having no part with heretics is that if at the same time you say that one of those heretics is the Pope of the Catholic Church, you run into a conundrum, because not only does Catholic dogma require you to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff but also to submit to him under pain of eternal damnation. This goes to show how serious the matter is:

Quote

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

(Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam [1302]; Denz. 469)

Clearly, we cannot be content with Fr. Chazal's position because it is contradictory, that is, it is in blatant opposition to defined Catholic dogma. On the one hand, we must refuse to have anything to do with heretics; on the other, we are required to submit to the Pope. So how could a heretic possibly be Pope, or the Pope a heretic? Such a scenario would require us to do two mutually exclusive things. The concepts of "heretic" and "Pope" cannot go together, any more than you can have a married bachelor. Talk about a position that creates confusion!

A)  Who has the authority to proclaim that the Pope is no longer pope, because of this heresy that we perceive?

B)  If the Pope really believes that he is not a heretic, who then has the authority to pass judgment on him and tell him and the whole world that he is wrong?  

The Decree of Gratian (ca. 1150), reads as follows: “Whose sins [the pope’s] no mortal man presumes to rebuke, for he shall judge all and is to be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith [nisi deprehendatur a fide devius].” (Decree, I, dist. 60, ch. 6.)

Pope Innocent III:

"Without faith it is impossible to please God.’… And so the faith of the Apostolic See never failed, even in the most trying circuмstances [turbatione], but always continued intact and undiminished, so that the privilege of Peter remained constant and unshaken."

      “To this end faith is so necessary for me that, though I have for other sins God alone as my judge, it is alone for a sin committed against faith that I may be judged by the Church. [propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judicari.] For ‘he who does not believe is already judged’.”(Sermo 2: In Consecratione, PL 218:656)

      “You are the salt of the earth…  Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy. [quia potest ab hominibus judicari, vel potius judicatus ostendi, si videlicet evanescit in haeresim.] For he who does not believe is already judged.” (Sermo 4: In Consecratione, PL 218:670)

A heresy becomes manifest (or notorious), when its existence is “established in a public way” (constat modo publico). When John Paul II denied the existence of hell the mainstream newspapers all asked whether or not it was a heresy. When John Paul II died the general media recognized him as changing Catholic doctrine on inter-religious relations. The media and the general public, whether Catholic or secular, recognize Francis as changing doctrine (e.g. Time) and being revolutionary.

And unless you've been living under a rock, it's common knowledge by even regular non-Catholic heathens that John Paul II preached that everyone can get to heaven regardless of religions:

On the day of Pope John Paul II’s death, I received a phone call from a young lady in New Zealand, a friend of the family. She presently works in a situation where she interacts with Muslims and Hindus. When she tells these non-Catholics, with gentleness and charity, they must convert to the one true Catholic Church to save their souls, the Muslims and Hindus laugh at her. “Your Pope doesn’t believe that”, they cackle, referring to John Paul II, “Your Pope doesn’t teach that. Your Pope’s interfaith actions don’t convey that. Your Pope prays with the Dalai Lama and with Hindus. Your Pope visits mosques and kisses the Koran. You are out-of-step with your own Pope. Why should we listen to you?”

Two Catholic young men of my acquaintance, debating with a Protestant Minister, were likewise laughed to scorn when they in-formed the Protestant he must become Catholic to be saved. “What?”, said the Protestant, “You obviously don’t read the writings of your own Pope. He prays with Protestants. He praises Martin Luther as a man of ‘deep religiousness’. He calls Protestants ‘disciples of Christ’. He never says it is necessary to become Catholic for salvation.”

Brother Roger of the ecuмenical Taize Community, a place that was dear to Pope John Paul’s heart, said that during the Papal visit to Taize on October 5, 1986, John Paul II suggested a path of “communion” to the community. The Pope said, “By desiring to be yourselves a ‘parable of community,’ you will help all whom you meet to be faithful to their denominational ties, the fruit of their education and their choice in conscience ...”[1] Pope John Paul II thus encouraged Protestants to be faithful to false creeds solemnly anathematized by the Council of Trent. There is no mention of the need to convert to Christ’s one true Church for salvation.

The day after Pope John Paul II’s death, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League issued a press release praising the departed Pontiff for his relations with the Jєωιѕн people. Foxman wrote of John Paul, “Most importantly, the Pope rejected the destructive concept of supersessionism and has recognized the special relationship between Christianity and the Jєωιѕн people, while sharing his understanding of Judaism as a living heritage, of the permanent validity of God’s covenant with the Jєωιѕн people.”[2]

Foxman thus applauded John Paul II for rejecting the truth found in Scripture and in the defined dogmas of the Catholic Church, that the New Covenant superseded and made obsolete the old Judaic Covenant. Foxman rejoices in the error that members of today’s Jєωιѕн religion have their own covenant with God, and need not accept Jesus Christ nor convert to the Catholic Church for salvation. And Foxman praises John Paul II for championing this falsehood.

Here, then, is the secret of Pope John Paul II’s success with the world and with false religions — one of the main reasons he is loved by the multitudes, why almost all doors were open to him. Pope John Paul II was the man who, in effect, told the inhabitants of the world that everything is suddenly changed, that the “triumphalism” of the Church is passed, that they need not convert to the Catholic Church to save their souls. The eclipse of the infallible dogma, “Out-side the Church there is no salvation” is the defining mark of his Pontificate.

Taken from: http://www.cfnews.org/JP2-Success.htm

When Hindus, Jєωs, Muzzies, and Prots can recognize a manifest heresy that breaks from the past, so should a Traditional Catholic. To say the heresies of Vatican II aren't manifest is either insanity or cowardice. I went to Novus Ordo schools and the nuns/teachers would constantly talk about how bad the "old church" was and how great Vatican II was for changing doctrine and worship. Whenever I witness that Faith I'm constantly bombarded with "Catholic don't believe X anymore Pope Z said Y"! And Pope Francis? Oh my, he makes JPII look like Torquemada. On a personally note, Francis made me reject the "Refuse and Resist" position. I'm now deciding between sedeprivationism or sedevacantism. This is the same person who said he'd rather defecate on a crucifix than become a sedevacantist in the anonymous forum.

“Because the act of heresy is an erroneous judgment of intelligence to commit the sin of heresy it suffices to knowingly and willingly express this erroneous judgment in opposition to the Church’s magisterium. From the moment that one sufficiently knows the existence of the rule of the faith in the Church and that, on any point whatsoever, for whatever motive and in whatever form, one refuses to submit to it, formal heresy is complete.” (Ibid. 6:2222)

The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… [E]xcusing circuмstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (McDevitt, The Delict of Heresy, CU Canon Law Studies 77. [Washington: 1932] 35.)

Most of that was copy and pasted from Fr. Cekada.

C)  In Pascendi, the encyclical that defines what Modernism is, nowhere do you see in there any word of this, that any cleric whatsoever automatically loses his office because of him being a Modernist.  If it would be true of a Pope, then it must certainly be true of other offices too, such as archbishop, bishop, rector, prior, pastor, confessor, prelate, or even priest.  But there are no such words to be found in Pascendi.

By that logic you're gonna have to reject the Trinity, you won't find that word in the Bible  :reading: :smoke-pot: