Yes, I wonder too why Fr. Chazel out in the jungle somewhere should concern hmself so much with the intricacies of papal validity obviously excessively exercising the remnant in more civilised climes. I am sure the Asian mind totters on the edge of such finely tuned ecclesiastical procedure engineered in far-off mighty Rome. But then this might not be written for such minds.

So, we have another attempt to keep the laity connected to a Rome that now hates herself. Emperor Bergoglio plays while Rome burns .... and again blames it on the Christians! We have been here before and the lions are getting hungry! The question then is are trads going to be such easy meat while hoping for a better emperor or do they take up the sword and restore the institution lock stock and barrel? I was reading where even conciliar Catholics now think papal elections are fixed, particularly the last one. So why not topple him? God helps those that help themselves!

He is SSPX and will be overly occupied with sedevacantists rather than the Roman hirelings.  Your words however well thought out and logical, will fall upon the deaf ears of those who prefer to be ruled over by a tyrannical heretic while fingering their beads and praying for his intentions.  The institution is lost to us and there too few left who would pick up the sword or carry the banner. The last men of principle are dying off.

Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal - Print version (book)
https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam

AVAILABLE NOW - $10 plus shipping.

He is SSPX and will be overly occupied with sedevacantists rather than the Roman hirelings.  Your words however well thought out and logical, will fall upon the deaf ears of those who prefer to be ruled over by a tyrannical heretic while fingering their beads and praying for his intentions.  The institution is lost to us and there too few left who would pick up the sword or carry the banner. The last men of principle are dying off.

"Curiouser and curiouser! cried Alice..."  What lost in time mysterious island can these Roman Catholics be shipwrecked on?  "The last men of principle are dying off."?  Stranger than any words can express these strange Catholics be.

While an historic Roman Catholic tidal wave is inundating Latin America, Europe and crashing into the doors of the White House, these moping blind men refuse to open their eyes and see.  For them despair at any price, evidently.  But that Catholics would stop hating the holy virtue of hope above all things.  Hope is not the only evil in the entirety of God's Creation.  Cowardly despair is not the only Catholic virtue.

What is to be done?  Well, call the police, you timid creatures.  The Catholics now enjoy total control over the Italian Police and the Italian Police have unrestricted law enforcement powers within the Vatican City State.  Therefore, if we but add 2 + 2 we can arrive at 4.  More or less, since it seems Catholic men are a bit slow in their reasoning abilities:  Order the Carabinieri into Bergoglio's Vatican hostel apartment, break the apostate skull of said Trotskyist ʝʊdɛօ-Bolshevik Bergoglio with their police batons and...  All's well with the world!  That ought not to be so complicated to understand for those Catholics belonging to the male sex of the species.  True enough, the course of events must be a little more complex than this, but Catholic men being Catholic men, not so much more complex than this.

We now enjoy a Roman Catholic Minister of the Interior in Italy.  Let us at least try to at least have some minimum sense of reality here.  Do we really imagine that anyone, anyone at all, in the entirety of the Italian Peninsula -- or European continent -- is going to so much as raise a finger to defend Bergoglio against the all-powerful Roman Catholic Interior Minister who is now for all practical purposes the Absolute Dictator of Italy and the Vatican City State?  Really??  Since when have the loyal Roman Catholic sons of Il Duce been afraid to use force as required?
 
We are still living on planet earth and, as is said, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

The solution to the present Roman Catholic Apocalypse is nothing if not clear.  Our Roman history is a long one and the cure for apostasy has never been difficult to identify.  As the great Pope Innocent III once said concerning the topic:  "Exterminate, exterminate, exterminate!"  Let us indeed listen to and obey legitimate Papal Authority and fulfil the most basic duties of our Roman Catholic manhood.

The Age of Catholic Dictators proceeds accordingly, our apostate enemies are already as good as roadkill and things are decidedly looking up, at least for our side, though one must admit not so much for Our Lord's ʝʊdɛօ-Bolshevik enemies.

Cheer up, good Brothers-in-Christ.  This is not the time for incomparable cowardice.  We have but to look up and the Man on a White Horse will appear.  Such is our incomparable and timely privilege.  

Because:

MARANATHA!




 

Is there a reason why this book has been published on the eve of the SSPX General Chapter?

Isn't there room and talent enough for both?

Many trads already know something's rotten in Rome, that's why they are trads. But for many, sedevacantism is a stronger temptation than returning to the NO. That's why such a book and such effort is needed. Abp Lefebvre was friendly towards sedevacantists and sympathized with their position. However he still was not one himself. With that in mind, it seems perfectly normal for the SSPX and "its spinoffs" to warn against the errors of sedevacantism. Do you not warn constantly of the "errors" of R&R?

Indeed one needs to be warned, within reason of the problems entailed in these two positions, but there are much bigger and more important issues to process than the respective opinions of Bishops and priests about how to respond to the crisis so  called. After 60 years, it is enough!

What if, God forbid, Francis really isn't a valid pope? Then all these efforts aimed at those who believe the seat of St. Peter is empty are all just moral less wastes of time that drives wedges between Catholics. Thou shalt not doubt the papacy of Francis cry the laity of the "Resistants".

That's quite a thought, God forbid.  Have to think about it.   Ok, what if it was the other way around.  That would be just terrible too.  Its a shame opposite polars are just so, hm, opposite. 

I'm rather neutral to the question because it means nothing to the life of grace in you.  Lots of leaders left God for bigger things.  Didn't change those who did not want to be changed.  All this bickering is what the devil wants distracting the larger issue to sanctify yourself.

Centro if you don't mind me asking, I just read the footer in all your posts. 

We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...

You have not identified which religion you mean.  You actually left it open to mean any religion, like buddist monks or devote jews that can be profoundly lived they way they see it.  You left a very subjective standard.  Just saying.

I, for one, would have nothing to blush for -- not even at God's judgment seat -- whether I'm right or wrong about the Pope question. I don't waste much time on it, I am charitable even towards those I disagree with, I don't call the Pope names or disrespect his person. But at the same time I don't let him cost me my Faith -- and all that seems like a safe position to be in!

That's why I like the old SSPX R&R position. It's prudent, it gets all the benefits of sedevacantism (keeping aloof from the Novus Ordo contagion, keeping the Faith) but none of the "excesses" (personally declaring the Pope deposed, which isn't really for laymen to decide, or editing the Pope's name out of the Canon, which is called for in the Roman Missale, or obsessing over the Pope, trying to convert others to sedevacantism, slipping into dogmatic/schismatic sedevacantism, schismatically cutting oneself off from various groups of Catholics, etc.)

I actually agree with you here. I, too, like the old classic SSPX R&R position. I would stick by it as entirely prudent in the face of CMRI or SSPV of whom I sympathize with in their official position. You will notice that the CMRI is classic SSPX up until the pope question where they claim that it follows as a logical conclusion (opinion) that the post-conciliar popes are not popes.

Here is my issue.

Many laity of the Resistance have deformed the classical SSPX position on the crisis and even modified it according to the papal claimant. You see, for many years (especially during the JP2 days) the official SSPX (and also Fr. Hesse) position was that JP2 was probably a valid pope because he was only a material heretic. JP2 said that he was doing things in the name of Tradition, he just had a distorted idea of Tradition. This argument even worked with Ratzinger. He was only a material heretic who believed himself Catholic. Then Bergoglio hits the scene claiming there is no Catholic God and many more obvious formal heresies. Suddenly, the lay arguers of the so-called Resistance in more than one language and more than one country scrap and scoot under the rug the material vs. formal heretic argument of Fr. Hesse and the classical SSPX. You don't hear that any more. Ironically, Bishop Fellay has publicly called into doubt the validity of the papacy of Bergoglio, meanwhile laity of the so-called Resistance have written entire books on why it is possible for obstinate heretics, formal heretics and non-Catholics to be legitimate popes, while claiming to be the true followers of Archbishop Lefebvre. That is disgraceful in many ways, to say the least. It reeks of masonic religious indifferentism, to be honest. I hate to say this cause I believe in the resistance priests original mission but the laity are all over the place with their dogmatic hatred of sede vacantists. The resistance laity are about the only laity these days, EVEN AMONG ECCLESIA DEI CATHOLICS, who do not doubt the papacy of Francis and turn it almost into a dogma that defines Catholics, in fact, they do do that.

I actually agree with you here. I, too, like the old classic SSPX R&R position. I would stick by it as entirely prudent in the face of CMRI or SSPV of whom I sympathize with in their official position. You will notice that the CMRI is classic SSPX up until the pope question where they claim that it follows as a logical conclusion (opinion) that the post-conciliar popes are not popes.

Here is my issue.

Many laity of the Resistance have deformed the classical SSPX position on the crisis and even modified it according to the papal claimant. You see, for many years (especially during the JP2 days) the official SSPX (and also Fr. Hesse) position was that JP2 was probably a valid pope because he was only a material heretic. JP2 said that he was doing things in the name of Tradition, he just had a distorted idea of Tradition. This argument even worked with Ratzinger. He was only a material heretic who believed himself Catholic. Then Bergoglio hits the scene claiming there is no Catholic God and many more obvious formal heresies. Suddenly, the lay arguers of the so-called Resistance in more than one language and more than one country scrap and scoot under the rug the material vs. formal heretic argument of Fr. Hesse and the classical SSPX. You don't hear that any more. Ironically, Bishop Fellay has publicly called into doubt the validity of the papacy of Bergoglio, meanwhile laity of the so-called Resistance have written entire books on why it is possible for obstinate heretics, formal heretics and non-Catholics to be legitimate popes, while claiming to be the true followers of Archbishop Lefebvre. That is disgraceful in many ways, to say the least. It reeks of masonic religious indifferentism, to be honest. I hate to say this cause I believe in the resistance priests original mission but the laity are all over the place with their dogmatic hatred of sede vacantists. The resistance laity are about the only laity these days, EVEN AMONG ECCLESIA DEI CATHOLICS, who do not doubt the papacy of Francis and turn it almost into a dogma that defines Catholics, in fact, they do do that.

You say you believe in the classical sspx.  But aren't you jumping ship when you say you believe it, then judge the pope yourself, and hack at everyone else who don't believe your new non-classical thesis?

I was told the pfeiffer group still keeps the classical sspx and is heavily attacked for it.  Think your right on the laity stuff.  The laity are all over the board.  No Shepherd.