R&R falsely apply this quote in support of their position.  There's a huge difference between simple obedience to "his orders" and submission to the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline.  As soon as I see this quote used in support of R&R I stop reading.  Thankfully it came very early on in this post.

In a world gone mad and in light of the current crisis in the church, going to Mass at a sedevacantist church to receive the sacraments is still a good thing. The "resistance" is still very small and not available in most places and becoming a stay at home catholic is a bad option.

The church has always said that in crisis situations, a catholic is allowed to receive the sacraments from a Greek or Russian Orthodox church and they don't believe in the papacy at all.

In a world gone mad and in light of the current crisis in the church, going to Mass at a sedevacantist church to receive the sacraments is still a good thing. 

"It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will"  St.Robert Bellarmine De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29.

 

 

CONTRA CEKADAM

 

 

 

By Father François Chazal mcspx, 2017

 

 

INTRODUCTION : SEDEVACANTISM AND FATIMA

I THEOLOGIANS

II CANONS

III POPES

IV ST THOMAS

V SCRIPTURE

VI HISTORY

VII COMMON SENSE

CONCLUSION

 

“Because of the errors and the heresies mentioned above and countless others, I turn away from the obedience of the false Pope...because of his errors and heresies, the same pseudo-Pope is heretical, deprived of his papacy and excommunicated by Canon Law itself without need of further sentence.” William of Ockham, Tractatus de Successivis.

Introduction

In 2015, as I was arguing endlessly with him, a Japanese sedevacantist told me to write to his mentor. Here it is.

Reverend Father,
 
 One of my lost sheep is Japanese, totally away from the sacraments, not just because of sedevacantism, but because of the side-effects thereof, because he now questions the validity of the 1967 ordination of Fr. Nariai, our local priest, typical of a disciple of yours. In turn, Fr Nariai fell into sedevacantism, and returned the favor, because for conclavist Texas pope Sedes of the Lienard theory, you, Fr Cekada, are not a priest.
 Other sheep also got entangled in the concept that nothing is left valid in the Catholic Church; better stay at home with a rosary and an act of contrition.
 
 In this current and confused situation of the Church, sedevacantism only adds to the confusion and scattering of sheep, which fall off the cliff for one false reasoning, for the omission of one theological distinction, or for the extrapolation of one text over the others.
 So I will not lead my sheep on that stray path, nor its many antinomies, while it would have been so much safer to tell the faithful just to stay away from heretics and have nothing to do with the new Rome, as it becomes less and less comparable with the one it supplanted in Vatican II. I will just cover three blatant antinomies.
 
 

FATIMA IS JUST EDIFYING
 
 For a sedevacantist, Fatima doesn’t fit, because the Fatima solution is at the hand of a Pope performing a request from Heaven. It does not suffice to say that Fatima is private revelation to brush it under the carpet of pious things, because this type of revelations is publicly approved by the Church (Lourdes and Fatima), are confirmed publicly by many miracles (Lourdes and Rue du Bac), especially Fatima with this outstanding public miracle before 70,000 witnesses, red aurora etc. These special revelations, are also tied to important public events like the advent of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (Quito), the revolution of 1830 (Rue du Bac), the war of 1870 (Pontmain) and of course WWI, WWII, WWIII and Communism (Fatima). They are indeed related to dogmatic affairs, like the “que soy era la Immaculata Conceptiou” in 1858 and that includes ecclesiology (Quito, La Salette) and the Papacy. Note that the really private revelations of Dom Bosco confirm the role of a Roman Pontiff after some wobbly moments! In Fatima, the Papacy plays the greatest role, with the poor Sister Lucy trying to persuade John XXIII, Paul VI and John-Paul II in vain. Cardinal Ratzinger literally buried the message in 2000 and Francis mocked it in 2012. It’s the Novus Ordo who don’t want the truth of Fatima to go public all the while Fatima occurs amidst three chastisements of humanity. So, no, Reverend Father, there is nothing merely edifying about this.
 
 What is wonderful in Fatima is that it concerns the fate of nations, the fate of the Papacy and the dogma of the faith. When it is edifying, it is terribly so, like the vision of hell by the three children.
 
 Therefore I think you are throwing discredit on your position by this video on You Tube, downplaying and cutting off Fatima from ecclesiology. Fatima is rejected by the new church because it doesn’t fit their ecclesiology, isn’t it? It goes straight against “DignitatisHumanae” by requesting a Nation-State to be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, exposing our present day Popes as bad ones in the process, which of course, you don’t find interesting, since, in your ecclesiology there is no more shepherd while in fact the shepherd has been struck.

François Chazal+

Thankfully, Fr. Cekada replied:
 
 “Fr. Chazal’s ‘Open Letter’ on the True Trad site is simply incoherent, and contains no discernible theological argument. Fr. Chazal doesn’t like what I said about Fatima, and believes that his private understanding of Fatima somehow ‘refutes’ sedevacantism.
 The reason Fr. Chazal follows this course is that the ‘recognize and resist’ line he takes on the false Popes of Vatican II cannot be reconciled with the standard principles of traditional ecclesiology which teach that a catholic must submit in doctrine to the Roman Pontiff.
 To defend his complete rejection of these principles, Fr. Chazal must turn to his private interpretation of a private revelation, neither of which are a proper basis for a theological argument.
 I have repeatedly laid out the argument for sedevacantism, citing text after text from Catholic theologians to support my conclusion. Fr. Chazal, a typical product of the SSPX, offers nothing but hysterical yammering, covered by a veneer of smug piety.
 Let him go through my article ‘Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope’ or ‘Resisting the Pope, Sedevacantism and Franken church’ and refute me point by point, citing theologians of equal stature to those I cited.
 Until then, those who read Fr. Chazal’s comments on sedevacantism should know that he is spouting nonsense.”
 Feel free to post this letter wherever you see fit.
 
 Fr. Anthony Cekada.
 
 
 Dear Father Cekada,
 
 Thank you for not replying to my argument, that Fatima was made public in front of at least 70,000 witnesses, was publicly approved by the Church as “A great sign from heaven” (Apoc. XII), and concerns the fate of nations at the hands of a POPE.
 So I went on ‘CathInfo’ & ‘ArchbishopLefebvreForums’ and tried to find the best Sede argument. It was hard because for the most of them, those replies veered off on side issues or details about “the errors of Russia.” The best I could find is that “yes, there is no Pope now, but when need be, one will pop and consecrate Russia”. My guess is that it is the CMRI position. But this means that Heaven requested something impossible to happen for 57 years (1958-2015); That Sister Lucy [Real (Fr. Gruner)/Fake (M.A. Horvat)] was wrong to beseech John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II.
 Fr Kramer says Mr. Putin is asking Pope Francis to consecrate. Has he in fact no one to turn to, to obtain the conversion of his country??  
 I won’t elaborate on the ludicrous belief that Pius XII sucessfully performed the consecration. (St Benedict Center). Satis.
 
 Interestingly my “hysterical yammering” resembles your booklet “Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope”: it is an induction. One accuмulates particular facts to conclude inductively one truth: Our Lady uses a Pope (my yammering)/ there is no Pope (your booklet).
 
 An induction is false or sophistic, if it leaves out or fails to mention contrary particular facts. And it is especially sophistic if it leaves out a majority of facts.
 You contend, Reverend Father, that there are no “Theologians of equal stature to those I cited", nay, you challenge us to give us any, with great chutzpah, with this great theological self confidence which is so typical of dogmatic Sedevacantism...
 And many have been led to believe that indeed this is the case; that the vast majority, nay, the unanimity of theologians, canonists, experts and ecclesiologists are all arguing in favor of the immediate and ipso facto loss of office of a heretical Pope without declaratory sentence. In the light of the vast amount of proofs to the contrary, I concede to you our immense past negligence.
 
 So, as your booklet indicates, the question of automatic loss of office is the main axis of your efforts; but I will also use this opportunity to assess your doctrine of sedeprivationism and other shades of the sedevacantist argument. But if you have shifted, again, to another position, it is of no surprise to us. Yet do not blame us for refuting your previous systems because innocent minds are inoculating your past errors still.

On the question of the Magisterium, like Bishop Sanborn, you enclose everything into infallibility, ignoring the real extent of secondary objects of infallibility, that unfortunately, Vatican I did not have the time to define. If there is no link to constant teaching through time and place, there is no Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, pure and simple. The same goes with infallible laws, they are such only if they are 1) Universal 2) Binding 3) Dogmatic in character. Hence you cannot figure out what happened in the Pius XII - Bugnini new Holy Week.

Likewise, your “sic et non” sacramental theology has led many families away from the sacraments, here in Asia at least. The changing of your stance on the validity of the Thuc consecrations (that you used to hold in your funnily titled “Two bishops in every garage”) show that sacraments don’t get invalid that easily. As with the question of the Magisterium, others, especially Fr Calderon, have dealt with the issue better than I would. But I just want to point out that sedevacantists box themselves first in a conclusion, and discard, ignore and condemn everything that does not fit into the box. Hence the two main questions are these:

-1 Is sedevacantism an opinion, or an obligation?

-2 If it is an opinion, is it a correct one?

Being confident you will care to reply, and if you actually do, I ask you to stay on course, because all too often Sedevacantists veer off on other aspects instead of replying to the exact truth, the exact point, which is objected to them.
 I am happy to see that you want to go “point by point” and let’s see if you stick to the seven course menu...

I THEOLOGIANS (première entrée/ crudités)

II CANONS (deuxièmeentrée/ soupe/ première salade)

III POPES (premier plat de résistance)

IV ST THOMAS (deuxième plat de résistance)

V SCRIPTURE (troisième plat de résistance)

VI HISTORY (fromages et deuxième salade)

VII COMMON SENSE (desserts)

CONCLUSION (confiseries/ café/ pousse-café)

In all this let the good wines of Charity be served, matching perfectly the succession of dishes, as the Canticle says, “Ordinavit in me Caritatem”, because I hear otherwise that you have good qualities, especially a sense of humor, and your health does not look good these days. If you don't trust my arguments, trust at least that I pray for you and all other sedevacantists of every shades, and believe that only when God restores the Papacy to its splendor, shall we know who amongst you is or is not a false brethren.

@page { margin: 0.79in } p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; color: #00000a; line-height: 120%; text-align: left; orphans: 2; widows: 2 } p.western { font-size: 11pt } p.cjk { font-size: 11pt } a:link { color: #0000ff }

François Chazal+

• Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
• Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
• It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
• Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
• Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.
• Canonists and theologians also teach that a public heretic, by divine law, is incapable of being validly elected pope or obtaining papal authority.
• Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. In 1559 Pope Paul IV decreed that the election of a heretic to the papacy would be invalid, and that the man elected would lack all authority.
• Since the Church cannot defect, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we repeatedly encounter is that they proceed from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, publicly defected from the faith, and therefore do not objectively possess canonical authority.

• recycles opinions on a heretical pope that were eventually abandoned after St. Robert Bellarmine,
• attempts to apply criteria pertaining to ecclesiastical crimes when sedevacantists maintain that the public sin of heresy, not the crime, is what prevents a heretical pope from obtaining or retaining the papacy,
• refloats the phony Adrian VI quote,
• repeats the Paul-vs-Peter canard [see Appendix at end of post here] on fraternal correction for a moral fault, which does not solve the problem of the Church defecting wholesale by promulgating theological errors and evil universal laws,
• in his treatment of Scripture as a “refutation” of sedevacantism, ignores St. Paul’s own assertion that he could in fact, “preach another Gospel,” for which even he himself would become “anathema.”
• recycles supposed incidents from history to demonstrate that there have been heretic popes before, but which incidents (a) are part of the standard arguments of protestants who reject papal infallibility, and (b) have been repeatedly refuted by Catholic dogmatic theologians.

• Evil changes + true popes = defected Church.

Jesus and Mary actually did with their own bodies what Jesus taught: "Upon the chair of Moses have sitten the Scribes and Pharisees: all things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe ye and do ye: but according to their works do ye not, for they say and do not."