Author Topic: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal (Read 10009 times)

DZ PLEASE · « **Reply #30 on:** August 22, 2017, 09:22:44 PM »

So you deny that, for example, a pope has supreme jurisdiction over Catholics, is NOT the SUPREME pastor, teacher, authority and judge?

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2017, 12:05:07 PM

A flaming-modernist, heretic pope is worse than no pope, but practically, has the same effect - no spiritual leadership. Either way, the sheep are scattered and must fend for themselves.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #31 on:** August 22, 2017, 10:07:16 PM »

This has nothing to do with my point, which is that practically speaking, it makes no difference if the chair of St Peter is empty or occupied by a horrible catholic. Either way, the Church suffers and we laity have to wait til God clears things up.

So let's concentrate on a topic we can all control, like growing in sanctity and converting our neighbor. The problem of the papacy is unsolvable, humanly speaking.

DZ PLEASE · « **Reply #32 on:** August 22, 2017, 10:58:57 PM »

Well, this just went from zero to crazy quick, fast, and in a hurry. There is no sanctity in one who thinks that it doesn't matter, "practically" or otherwise. Keep your "we". I want no part of it. Even the conciliars aren't this jacked up.

In the practical order and otherwise you don't have the option that you are trying to exercize.

Catholics MUST BE papal SUBJECTS.We don't get to not decide.

Just because we may be wrong does not excuse us from decision.

Did people in the GWS just go "meh"?

No, and all the popes then, valid or not, were CATHOLIC. There were saints on all sides. They didn't get that way by going "practically speaking"

The first in line for Hell are cowards. For good of souls, firstly your own, look it up (Apocalypse) and really think.

Oh, it is very relevant. 'Practically speaking" you deny papal primacy at the very least. That makes you, at minimum, "proper" matter for being both a heretic and, as it doesnt matter, "practically speaking" a schismatic. "Pope? Who cares? Doesn't matter 'practically speaking'"

Point: 1p5 1, faith none

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2017, 10:07:16 PM

This has nothing to do with my point, which is that practically speaking, it makes no difference if the chair of St Peter is empty or occupied by a horrible catholic. Either way, the Church suffers and we laity have to wait til God clears things up.

So let's concentrate on a topic we can all control, like growing in sanctity and converting our neighbor. The problem of the papacy is unsolvable, humanly speaking.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #33 on:** August 23, 2017, 07:20:16 AM »

In the last 50 years since V2, what is ONE error/evil that the V2 popes have commanded me to do/follow, under pain of sin?

If there is one, then I'm wrong. If there isn't any command, then I'm right.

P.s. Don't say V2, because there's nothing in that council that we must believe with a 'certainty if faith'. And don't say the new mass, because this is illegal per Quo Primum.

DZ PLEASE · « **Reply #34 on:** August 23, 2017, 08:56:27 AM »

Wait, I thought you couldn't know and"practically speaking" it didnt matter?

If theyre popes and they are still "within the lines practically speaking" then "practically speaking" how dare you act as if they don't exist, which you aren't doing now?

If youre going to be obstinate and assy when I'm trying to help you, then you may as well cut to the chase and link up with mith, who has a much tastier variety of snaKe oil to
sell, and LoL, master of copy/paste

Now, are we gonna chest press here or go at this in an ORDERLY, HONEST and CATHOLIC way?

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 23, 2017, 07:20:16 AM

In the last 50 years since V2, what is ONE error/evil that the V2 popes have commanded me to do/follow, under pain of sin?

If there is one, then I'm wrong. If there isn't any command, then I'm right.

P.s. Don't say V2, because there's nothing in that council that we must believe with a 'certainty if faith'. And don't say the new mass, because this is illegal per Quo Primum.

Bilbo · « **Reply #35 on:** August 23, 2017, 09:02:08 AM »

Quote from: happenby on August 22, 2017, 09:19:17 PM

Ok, I'm on the fence too, but must give some credence to Paul IV. All this is heresy-mongering is unprecedented. I'm no canon lawyer, but if anyone loses his office, he gets an hearing. That's for certain. Does he actually, really, lose his office? I do not know. Paul IV says yes. It's a problem likely in need of an epic scourge to clean up shop.

Here is what Bishop Williamson says on the subject:
VACANCY SENSE – I

April 18, 2015

Number CDV (405)

Church Councils can heretical Popes untie,
For Christ to depose, lest the whole Church die.

The Dominican priests of Avrillé, France, have done us all a great favour by republishing the considerations on the vacant See of Rome written some 400 years ago by a famous thomist theologian from Spain, John of St Thomas (1589–1644). Being a faithful successor of St Thomas Aquinas, he benefits from that higher wisdom of the Middle Ages when theologians could still measure men by God instead of having to measure God by men, a tendency which began as a necessity (if souls could no longer take medieval penicillin, they had to take a lesser medicine), but which culminated in Vatican II. Here, much abbreviated, are the main ideas of John of St Thomas on the deposition of a Pope:?—

I Can a Pope be deposed?

Answer, yes, because Catholics are obliged to separate themselves from heretics, after the heretics have been warned (Titus III, 10). Also, a heretical Pope puts the whole Church in a state of legitimate self-defence. But the Pope must be warned first, as officially as possible, in case he would retract. Also his heresy must be public, and declared as officially as possible, to prevent wholesale confusion among Catholics, by their being bound to follow.

II By whom must he be officially declared a heretic?

Answer, not by the Cardinals because although they may elect a Pope, they cannot depose one, because it is the Universal Church that is threatened by a heretical Pope, and so the most universal possible authority of the Church can alone depose him, namely a Church Council composed of a quorum of all the Church’s Cardinals and Bishops. These would be convoked not authoritatively (which the Pope alone can do) but among themselves.

III By what authority would a Church Council depose the Pope?

(Here is the main difficulty because Christ gives to the Pope supreme power over the entire Church, with no exception, as Vatican I defined in 1870. Already John of St Thomas gave arguments of authority, reason and Canon Law to prove this supreme power of the Pope. Then how can a Council, being beneath the Pope, yet depose him? John of St Thomas adopts the solution laid out by another famous Dominican theologian, Thomas Cajetan (1469–1534). The Church’s deposition of the Pope would fall not upon the Pope as Pope, but upon the bond between the man and his Papacy. That may seem hair-splitting, but it is logical.)

On the one hand not even a Church Council has authority over the Pope. On the other hand the Church is obliged to avoid heretics and to protect the sheep. Therefore, just as in a Conclave the Cardinals are the ministers of Christ to bind this man to the Papacy, but Christ alone gives him his papal authority, so the Church Council would be the ministers of Christ to unbind this heretic from the Papacy by their solemn declaration, but Christ alone, by his divine authority over the Pope, would authoritatively depose him. In other words, the Church Council would be deposing the Pope not authoritatively from above, but only ministerially from below. John of St Thomas confirms this conclusion from the Church’s Canon Law, which states in several places that God alone can depose the Pope, but the Church can pass judgment on his heresy.

Alas, as the Dominicans of Avrillé point out, nearly all Cardinals and Bishops of the Church today are so largely infected with modernism that there is no human hope of a Church Council seeing clear to condemn the modernism of the Conciliar Popes. We can only pray and wait for the divine solution, which will come in God’s good time. To follow, is a Pope not automatically deposed by his mere heresy?

Kyrie eleison.

Vacancy Sense – II

A heretic Pope is still the Church’s head,
Although, as personal member, he is dead.

Concerning the deposition of a heretical Pope, the Traditional Dominicans of Avrillé in France have done us a great favour by publishing not only the classic considerations of John of St Thomas (cf. EC 405), but also those of other outstanding theologians. In brief, the best minds of the Church teach that a simple and popular argument today, namely that a heretical Pope cannot be a member of the Church and therefore all the less its head, is a little too simple. In brief, there is more to the Pope than just the individual Catholic who by falling into heresy loses the faith and with it his membership of the Church. For the Church, the Pope is much more than just an individual Catholic.

For clarity, let us present these theologians’ arguments in the form of question and answer:?—

First of all, is it possible for a Pope to fall into heresy?

If he engages all four conditions of his Extraordinary Magisterium, he cannot teach heresy, but that he can personally fall into heresy is the more probable opinion at least of older theologians.

Then if he does fall into heresy, does that not make him cease to be a member of the Church?

As an individual Catholic person, yes, but as Pope, not necessarily, because the Pope is much more than just an individual Catholic. As Augustine said, the priest is Catholic for himself, but he is priest for others. The Pope is Pope for the entire Church.

But supposing that the great majority of Catholics can see that he is a heretic, because it is obvious. Would not his heresy in that case make it impossible for him to be Pope any longer?

No, because even if his heresy were obvious, still many Catholics might deny it, for instance out of “piety” towards the Pope, and therefore to prevent confusion from arising throughout the Church, an official declaration of the Pope’s heresy would be necessary to bind Catholics to stay united. Such a declaration would have to come from a Church Council, assembled for that purpose.

But if the heresy were public and obvious, surely that would be enough to depose him?

No, because firstly every heretic must be officially warned before being deposed, in case he would retract his heresy. And secondly, in Church or State every high official is serving the common good, and for the common good he must stay in office until he is officially deposed. So just as a bishop stays in office until he is deposed by the Pope, so the Pope stays in office until the official declaration of his heresy by a Church Council enables Christ to depose him (cf. EC 405).

But if a heretic is not a member of the Church, how can he be its head, the most important member?

Because his personal membership is a different thing from his official headship. By his personal membership he receives sanctification from the Church. By his offici al headship he gives official government to the Church. So by falling into heresy, he ceases to be a living member of the Church, that is true, but he does not thereby cease being able, even as a dead member, to govern the Church. His membership of the Church by faith and charity is incompatible with heresy, but his governing of the Church by his official jurisdiction, not requiring faith or charity, is compatible with heresy.

But by his heresy a former Pope has thrown away his Papacy!

Personally and in private that is true, but that is not true officially and in public until a Church Council has made not only public but also official his heresy. Until then the Pope must be treated as Pope, because for the Church’s tranquillity and common good, Christ maintains his jurisdiction.

Kyrie eleison.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #36 on:** August 23, 2017, 09:22:29 AM »

Is all that even necessary if the person was never validly elected in the first place? Where does it, in Catholic law say, Freemasons, Modernists and enemies of God can elect anyone to the Chair of Peter.

In other words; why bother a Church council with someone who was never a pope to begin with. Especially this so-called Church council OF TODAY is nothing TODAY, but a sham. ( controlled by the ilk described above)

Time is getting short, face the Truth!

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #37 on:** August 23, 2017, 09:36:20 AM »

Quote

Wait, I thought you couldn't know and"practically speaking" it didnt matter?

DEFINITION Practically Speaking: "What matters in actual, day to day life, rather than in theory."
In theory, yes, it matters who is or isn't the pope. But, it's not a layman's job to figure this out, so I don't/can't worry about. God or the Church will figure it out eventually. Therefore, apart from the theory, in reality/practical/day to day terms, who is or isn't the pope doesn't affect my daily catholic duties to God. The daily requirements of our religion exist independent from who sits in the chair of St Peter.

The matter of the Pope only affects me when he makes a solemn decree, or appoints a new bishop to my diocese, or issues an encylical which binds me to believe some article of faith, or he changes a liturgical law which I must follow. This is why, in the centuries prior to the 1930s (i.e. before TV and radio), catholics did not even have the ABILITY to see the pope, or hear him speak, or engage in any of the modern day "pope worship" that we now consider commonplace, but which is excessive and uncatholic.

And in the last 50 years, post V2, there has been NO command, order, or law passed which requires me to accept heresy or obligates me to sin, issued from the V2 popes. Until they do, I can ignore them, because they haven't told me otherwise. The V2 popes have watered down the catholic religion, but no one is required to follow them, legally. They can jump off the cliff, but I don't have to.

Matthew · « **Reply #38 on:** August 23, 2017, 09:41:43 AM »

Quote

Dear Fr Cekada,

i am truly amazed by your prophetic gifts, since i have not yet published my thesis, but only as an introduction, the view that Sedevacantism does not add up with Fatima, which, again, calls for the consecration of a Nation State by a POPE.

would you mind to wait for me to publish the series of article that will form this thesis booklet, even if i consider the statement of your own thesis very clear, at least in its internal logic?
if you fail to do so, could you at least wait until i publish the first course, that deals only about theologians?

i can only applaud to your great eagerness to enter into this coming battle, and the honor you have made to my invitation.
sincerely, in Iesu et Maria,
Francois Chazal+

Meg · « **Reply #39 on:** August 23, 2017, 09:46:31 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM on August 23, 2017, 09:22:29 AM

Is all that even necessary if the person was never validly elected in the first place? Where does it, in Catholic law say, Freemasons, Modernists and enemies of God can elect anyone to the Chair of Peter.

In other words; why bother a Church council with someone who was never a pope to begin with. Especially this so-called Church council OF TODAY is nothing TODAY, but a sham. ( controlled by the ilk described above)

Time is getting short, face the Truth!

I see what you are saying, Myrna. But since we MUST have a visible Pope, we have to consider that Pope Francis, as terribly bad as he is, is likely the only possibility for a lawfully elected Pope. It is possible that he's not really the Pope. But prudence dictates that for now, we should accept him as Pope.

As Stubborn has often pointed out, we have to adhere to the Catholic dogma of submitting to the Pope. Of course, practically speaking, as Pax Vobis states, this amounts to not really following the Pope, but we at least acknowledge that he is Pope. There's a danger in not acknowledging Francis Pope, in that we can become like Protestants - believing that we don't really need a Pope - all we need is access to Catholic teaching.

It's better, overall, to acknowledge Francis as Pope, than to go it totally alone, because we then become too independent in our thinking, and may forget that we really do need an authority above us. Catholics are not meant to be independent. Even if we at times must be so, we should try to seek authority that is above us.

Did you read the post that Bilbo posted, regarding Bishop Williamson's assessment of the article by the Dominicans of Avrille? I've not ever seen that assessment by Bishop Williamson before, but it's quite prudent, and practical.

God bless you, Myrna. I know that your heart is in the right place. You love the Catholic Faith, and hate to see it defiled as it has been.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #40 on:** August 23, 2017, 09:47:22 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 23, 2017, 09:36:20 AM

DEFINITION Practically Speaking: "What matters in actual, day to day life, rather than in theory."
In theory, yes, it matters who is or isn't the pope. But, it's not a layman's job to figure this out, so I don't/can't worry about. God or the Church will figure it out eventually. Therefore, apart from the theory, in reality/practical/day to day terms, who is or isn't the pope doesn't affect my daily catholic duties to God. The daily requirements of our religion exist independent from who sits in the chair of St Peter.

The matter of the Pope only affects me when he makes a solemn decree, or appoints a new bishop to my diocese, or issues an encylical which binds me to believe some article of faith, or he changes a liturgical law which I must follow. This is why, in the centuries prior to the 1930s (i.e. before TV and radio), catholics did not even have the ABILITY to see the pope, or hear him speak, or engage in any of the modern day "pope worship" that we now consider commonplace, but which is excessive and uncatholic.

And in the last 50 years, post V2, there has been NO command, order, or law passed which requires me to accept heresy or obligates me to sin, issued from the V2 popes. Until they do, I can ignore them, because they haven't told me otherwise. The V2 popes have watered down the catholic religion, but no one is required to follow them, legally. They can jump off the cliff, but I don't have to.

They won't admit it, but most Catholics trying to keep the Faith feel as you describe above. They just lack the fortitude to come out and say it.

DZ PLEASE · « **Reply #41 on:** August 23, 2017, 10:01:00 AM »

So, for example, praxis speaking, it doesn't matter whether or not one professes the same faith as, for current example, Francis? This is a y/n. Please refrain from the textual "sturm unt drang" the likes of which Lover of Myth are so fond of. K.I.S.S.

Refresh my memory please; who/what, distal to proximal, is the rule of faith?

We can skip the whole "command" thing, whatever you mean by that. I grant that, for now, for the sake of argument. It's a rabbit trail

Really really really. Convince me. I hate being a Sede, and who doesn't love perpetual cake?

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 23, 2017, 09:36:20 AM

DEFINITION Practically Speaking: "What matters in actual, day to day life, rather than in theory."
In theory, yes, it matters who is or isn't the pope. But, it's not a layman's job to figure this out, so I don't/can't worry about. God or the Church will figure it out eventually. Therefore, apart from the theory, in reality/practical/day to day terms, who is or isn't the pope doesn't affect my daily catholic duties to God. The daily requirements of our religion exist independent from who sits in the chair of St Peter.

The matter of the Pope only affects me when he makes a solemn decree, or appoints a new bishop to my diocese, or issues an encylical which binds me to believe some article of faith, or he changes a liturgical law which I must follow. This is why, in the centuries prior to the 1930s (i.e. before TV and radio), catholics did not even have the ABILITY to see the pope, or hear him speak, or engage in any of the modern day "pope worship" that we now consider commonplace, but which is excessive and uncatholic.

And in the last 50 years, post V2, there has been NO command, order, or law passed which requires me to accept heresy or obligates me to sin, issued from the V2 popes. Until they do, I can ignore them, because they haven't told me otherwise. The V2 popes have watered down the catholic religion, but no one is required to follow them, legally. They can jump off the cliff, but I don't have to.

St Ignatius · « **Reply #42 on:** August 23, 2017, 10:03:33 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 23, 2017, 09:36:20 AM

DEFINITION Practically Speaking: "What matters in actual, day to day life, rather than in theory."
In theory, yes, it matters who is or isn't the pope. But, it's not a layman's job to figure this out, so I don't/can't worry about. God or the Church will figure it out eventually. Therefore, apart from the theory, in reality/practical/day to day terms, who is or isn't the pope doesn't affect my daily catholic duties to God. The daily requirements of our religion exist independent from who sits in the chair of St Peter.

The matter of the Pope only affects me when he makes a solemn decree, or appoints a new bishop to my diocese, or issues an encylical which binds me to believe some article of faith, or he changes a liturgical law which I must follow. This is why, in the centuries prior to the 1930s (i.e. before TV and radio), catholics did not even have the ABILITY to see the pope, or hear him speak, or engage in any of the modern day "pope worship" that we now consider commonplace, but which is excessive and uncatholic.

And in the last 50 years, post V2, there has been NO command, order, or law passed which requires me to accept heresy or obligates me to sin, issued from the V2 popes. Until they do, I can ignore them, because they haven't told me otherwise. The V2 popes have watered down the catholic religion, but no one is required to follow them, legally. They can jump off the cliff, but I don't have to.

:applause: Well said... thanks Pax Vobis.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #43 on:** August 23, 2017, 10:03:57 AM »

Thank you Meg, the problem I have with Stubborn's idea is one can not submit to a True Pope and an Infiltrator pope at the same time. Either the Pope is Catholic or not.

Yes, I SUBMIT TO THE PAPACY, pledge my allegiance to the Chair of Peter.

Hebrews 13;8 that "Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday and today, yes, and forever."

Jesus Christ is Head of His Church

Vatican II with its conciliar leaders is NOT THE SAME, TODAY!

Vatican II and its LEADER, Francis is not the Pope because he is changing Truth to error. He exaggerates Truth till it is no longer is truth and dares to break Divine Law as the FIRST COMMANDMENT.

Actions have just as much clout as a written word of a pope even more so.

Therefore Vatican II and its "pope" can not be TRUE.

Meg · « **Reply #44 on:** August 23, 2017, 10:04:11 AM »

Quote from: happenby on August 22, 2017, 09:19:17 PM

Ok, I'm on the fence too, but must give some credence to Paul IV. All this is heresy-mongering is unprecedented. I'm no canon lawyer, but if anyone loses his office, he gets an hearing. That's for certain. Does he actually, really, lose his office? I do not know. Paul IV says yes. It's a problem likely in need of an epic scourge to clean up shop.

Yes, I agree. A hearing is essential, for two reasons, that I can see. Firstly, the exact nature of the heresy needs to be defined, and then the presumed heretic must have a chance to recant his heresy.

Author Topic: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal (Read 10009 times)

DZ PLEASE

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal

Pax Vobis

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal

DZ PLEASE

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal

Pax Vobis

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal

DZ PLEASE

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal

Bilbo

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal

MyrnaM

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal

Pax Vobis

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal

Matthew

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal

Meg

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal

MyrnaM

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal

DZ PLEASE

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal

St Ignatius

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal

MyrnaM

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal

Meg

Re: Contra Cekadam - against Sedevacantism by Fr. Chazal