Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on June 05, 2018, 11:43:20 AM
-
https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam
AVAILABLE NOW - $10 plus shipping.
-
I wonder why he singled out Father Cekada by name. There are other high-profile dogmatic sedevacantists out there, like +Sanborn.
-
I wonder why he singled out Father Cekada by name. There are other high-profile dogmatic sedevacantists out there, like +Sanborn.
That is right, in fact why are we not seeing a book titled Contra Francisco? The SSPX and its spinoffs have always spent their efforts attacking the relatively small number of sedevacantists, when the true enemies of the Faith are simply allowed to walk about relatively unmolested.
Sedevacantists did not destroy the Church, The Vatican II criminals have done that and where do they apply their "resistance" efforts?...............right, sedevacantist.
I said this years ago, we need a real counter-revolutionary movement, not a "recognize and resistance" which serves to enable the perverted status quo to continue on in Christ's Church.
That is why I take little interest in the sede R&R debates. They simply aren't that important in the bigger picture. We have languished for over 60 years with the current modes of thought with endless analyses of what went wrong. What are we going to do about it?
If it is our fault that this happened to the Church (I don't believe that to be entirely true at all), then is it not our fault, and even more so, that we have done nothing about it?
-
Sounds good and all, but what exactly do you have in mind? Are we to take page(s) out of the Muslims' handbook? They are quite fervent. They want to kill and blow up their enemies for Allah.
I appreciate your sentiment, but I fail to see what we can actually do that hasn't already been tried and/or accomplished by mainstream (i.e., "thought of it before oh-so-special-you") Traditional Catholics over the past decades.
How do you deal with the problem of the modern world, which is always there, always tempting, always influencing the people who live in it? That is the real problem.
How do you forcefully wake up the majority of Conciliar duped Catholics? They want comfort, acceptance by the world, they live by emotion. If they were plopped in 1930 they would probably "leave" rather than "take" the Faith, because many of them are only there for the inclusivity, multiculturalism, feminism, sappy songs, hand holding, lack of moral demands, etc.
We've had tabloid "Look at what the pope has done NOW! Ugh!" Traditio and Novus Ordo Watch websites for years. That strategy apparently doesn't work.
Are you suggesting that if we all became sedevacantist (stopped being afraid of the label, etc.) and started sharing N.O.W. links with all our friends, eventually people would wake up? I say the opposite needs to happen. More teaching, more converting people to Tradition, more retreats, more books, more good example, more one-on-one with people after Mass -- and less worrying about what the Popes/"popes" are doing. Let the dead bury their dead. Shake the dust off your feet already. N.O.W. can't seem to do that.
Obsession with the abuses of the Novus Ordo is a sign of a NEW convert to Tradition. I suppose that helps some people harden their resolve. But for the more mature Trad, it's time to move beyond such wastes-of-time.
-
I said this years ago, we need a real counter-revolutionary movement, not a "recognize and resistance" which serves to enable the perverted status quo to continue on in Christ's Church.
That is why I take little interest in the sede R&R debates. They simply aren't that important in the bigger picture. We have languished for over 60 years with the current modes of thought with endless analyses of what went wrong. What are we going to do about it?
If it is our fault that this happened to the Church (I don't believe that to be entirely true at all), then is it not our fault, and even more so, that we have done nothing about it?
Many have asked you what your thoughts are specifically and you have not delineated them. Wouldn't you think having a solution to present is better than adding to your list its not working?
-
Many have asked you what your thoughts are specifically and you have not delineated them. Wouldn't you think having a solution to present is better than adding to your list its not working?
JPaul is one of a handful on CathInfo that I playfully dub "the ѕυιcιdє belt" crowd. They throw out various buzzwords like Action, Crusades, Inquisition -- all the while, placing themselves above the whole Traditional Movement, and yet they seem to be sympathetic with everything it stands for. They want the Traditional Movement to succeed (they love the Catholic Faith before Vatican II, and hate the new Conciliar religion), but they give the actual movement, as it exists today with actual people, not just an F, but a "zero" out of 100. They think we're "doing it all wrong" which kind of worries me -- they think we need to be more like the Amish? Muslims? Fascists? some combination of these? or who knows what. What also worries me is that they never elaborate what, precisely, they are advocating!
The fight is all about resisting the Modern World. That much is certain. Even the whole Crisis in the Church is little more than the Catholic Church hierarchy caving in to the various errors and demands of the Modern World.
The Modern World is the elephant in the room. A person (say, Archbishop Lefebvre) could have the ideal position or "strategy" and it could still fail, due to the influence of the Modern World upon the PEOPLE involved in the group, school, college, compound, etc.
Why do you think the SSPX fell? It wasn't because of the position itself. The position is still alive and well in the Resistance, as well as in MANY of the faithful who still attend the SSPX out of necessity. The SSPX compromised because enough of its leaders FELL for various temptations: to be "mainstream", the allure of comfort/money/influence/power, to stop being criticized, to fill the pews with hundreds and thousands, etc. All human motives and failings.
Who or what put forward these temptations? I would blame the World first, then perhaps the Devil and the Flesh in a tie for 2nd.
Like I said a couple weeks ago, we need to squabble less about sedevacantism and peering into the mystery of what happened to the recent Popes, and spend more time worrying about our children, friendships, dealing with non-Trad relatives and friends, morality, modesty, education, economics, keeping our wives out of the work world, how men can earn a living in this pagan world, and hundreds of other topics. All of which would belong in the "Catholics living in the modern world" subforum.
-
Well all valid Catholic Bishops could start a series of regular meetings and conferences and through the Magisterium and the teaching of the Church especially the teaching of the ancient Fathers look for ways to take action against those who continue to teach other than Christ's doctrine. There have been heresies in the past and they have always been met with action not silence.
Consider the possibilities of temporarily suspending certain canons to allow for them to address the assault upon the Faith.
Certain laws of the Church were instituted to assure fidelity and the good order of the Church, not to impede or keep in place elements which deny the Church Her ability to fulfill Her reason for being in a crisis.
In short, the serious delving into the theology, law, and Tradition to find ways to turn back the flood of heresy and error which continues to destroy the Church.
In other words, finding the will and the means to undo that which (through men and the modern world) has been done to the Church and Her Faithful.
Just a few ideas but by no means all possibilities. Of course the best idea could indeed fail, but since when have Catholics who love the Church been ruled or thwarted by the fear of failure? More likely it is the complacency of self interest that prevents most from venturing forth and upsetting their applecart.
In the intervening 60 years, have we seen any sustained movement along these lines?
It is not a matter of "doing it all wrong", it is a matter of ineffectiveness of method. If it is not working, try something different, and then something else again, and have Faith in God. He who gives the command will provide the means to accomplish it.
-
That's already been thought of, by thousands of people before you. It's called "conclavist sedevacantism". In other words, the "He's not pope. Let's elect a new pope and move on already" option.
You can "rectify" the Crisis all you want. The ten million dollar question is How To Bring More Than 2 or 3 Families With You On The Way Out?
-
Consider the possibilities of temporarily suspending certain canons to allow for them to address the assault upon the Faith.
Like perhaps the Canon that forbids violence upon any cleric? Hmmm?
Nevermind, you can keep being vague...we don't want you to get in trouble.
-
My two cents!
Truth of the matter is very as in VERY few of us have any strong desire to become saints. NO surprise there! It's very hard and very disciplined work! Most of us, I'm afraid, keep God quite compartmentalized or allow God to be present to us continually throughout the day, just as long as His presence doesn't become too "overbearing."
A truly strong interior life inevitably leads to Catholic Action which for a hermit can simply be all kinds of heavy duty sacrifices, mortification, watchings, etc. all for the salvation of souls (and the building up of the Church Militant as for example through prayers for good missionaries) starting with the soul of the individual, himself. A truly strong interior life obviously encompassing a very strong prayer life for a man of the world or a non-cloistered priest or religious will invariably push the man to take concrete exterior actions to help save other souls.
A truly holy man (i.e., a saint) will be so involved in trying to save the world (i.e. men's souls) that he probably won't have much time, if any, to discuss/debate ways of saving the world (men's souls).
-
Like perhaps the Canon that forbids violence upon any cleric? Hmmm?
Nevermind, you can keep being vague...we don't want you to get in trouble.
:laugh1: :laugh2: :laugh1:
-
My two cents!
Truth of the matter is very as in VERY few of us have any strong desire to become saints. NO surprise there! It's very hard and very disciplined work! Most of us, I'm afraid, keep God quite compartmentalized or allow God to be present to us continually throughout the day, just as long as His presence doesn't become too "overbearing."
A truly strong interior life inevitably leads to Catholic Action which for a hermit can simply be all kinds of heavy duty sacrifices, mortification, watchings, etc. all for the salvation of souls (and the building up of the Church Militant as for example through prayers for good missionaries) starting with the soul of the individual, himself. A truly strong interior life obviously encompassing a very strong prayer life for a man of the world or a non-cloistered priest or religious will invariably push the man to take concrete exterior actions to help save other souls.
A truly holy man (i.e., a saint) will be so involved in trying to save the world (i.e. men's souls) that he probably won't have much time, if any, to discuss/debate ways of saving the world (men's souls).
This is a very thoughtful response. Lest we forget our true purpose. Well done!
-
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!
-
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.
You do realize Fr. François Chazal is French, not Asian.
-
I say the opposite needs to happen. More teaching, more converting people to Tradition, more retreats, more books, more good example, more one-on-one with people after Mass -- and less worrying about what the Popes/"popes" are doing. Let the dead bury their dead. Shake the dust off your feet already. N.O.W. can't seem to do that.
The issue is it make evangelisation near impossible when even the Pope himself is trying to subvert your efforts. Imagine trying to teach a non-Catholic anything about the faith, you'd get nowhere. Tell them ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is unnatural and wrong for example -> "But Francis said God loves gαys that way" -> "No, no, don't listen to him. Look here at Catholic Dogma." -> "But isn't the Pope the Head of the Church? Why don't you listen to him?" ... you'd go back and forth for hours and they'd just leave thinking the Church was full of loonies and self-contradictory, you'd get nowhere trying to convert someone. You could decide to focus only on the issues where the Pope won't contradict you, and then after they're further along you can explain the rest more easily. But then, where won't the Pope contradict you? Trads and Vatican II can't even agree on the Sacraments, with the Vatican pumping out new more inclusive forms of BOD constantly and offering Communion to divorced Protestants.
It's impossible to just ignore what the Pope is doing. If you're trying to convert someone to Catholicism, of course they'll be very interested in what the leader of the Church is saying and doing. And it's very hard to explain why exactly the Pope is saying all these things without going into huge long histories of Vatican 2 and masonic infiltration, and that's way too high-level even for most Catholics, never mind a non-Catholic.
That's just the thing about the Crisis of the Church - it's causing Catholicism to hemorrhage believers while also making it a colossal feat to try and bring new people in. This is indeed the Great Apostasy.
-
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 (https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam)
AVAILABLE NOW - $10 plus shipping.
-
I ordered the book. I should be an interesting read.
-
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!
-
I suppose the book is topical. So many Catholics, even some non Catholics, really do wonder how Jorge the heretical could be Catholic? One lay Catholic society I know of simply ignore his existence, still with the picture of Benedict XVI in their hall, and other advance on that position by holding the St Gallen conspiracy invalidates any election. Yet Sedevacantism isn't the cause of the present problems, nor a plausible solution except if someone lived near a chapel or along a Mass circuit. The corruption, the tumour of Modernism, which Pope St Pius X expended such effort on fighting, has resulted in millions of even parochial, 'New Mass' going, Conciliar Catholics who might as well be outside the Faith, so little influence does it have on their behaviour. In fact Francis, friend of abortionists, thieving Cardinals and patron/client of paedophile bishops (surely someone could arrest him for something), has surely made many see there is a problem, and it isn't just the Montini-Bugnini liturgy or V2, or those trends which led to it, but Modernism. Writing a book against one dogmatic sede traditional priest running a chapel in Ohio, seems a mis-application of resources.
(https://lifesite-cache.s3.amazonaws.com/images/made/images/remote/https_s3.amazonaws.com/lifesite/Francis-Bonino_810_500_55_s_c1.jpg)(http://<br />https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Flifesite-cache.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fimages%2Fmade%2Fimages%2Fremote%2Fhttps_s3.amazonaws.com%2Flifesite%2FFrancis-Bonino_810_500_55_s_c1.jpg&f=1)
Francis and the woman whom he calls 'one of Italy's forgotten greats,' abortion campaigner Emma Bonino.
-
Is there a reason why this book has been published on the eve of the SSPX General Chapter?
-
That is right, in fact why are we not seeing a book titled Contra Francisco? The SSPX and its spinoffs have always spent their efforts attacking the relatively small number of sedevacantists, when the true enemies of the Faith are simply allowed to walk about relatively unmolested.
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?
-
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".
-
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.
-
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".
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.)
-
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.
-
Centro if you don't mind me asking, I just read the footer in all your posts.
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.
That is a quote from Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange from the "Three Ages of the Interior Life". Read the entire book before commenting on it.
-
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.
-
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.
Centroamerica_
That is a quote from Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange from the "Three Ages of the Interior Life". Read the entire book before commenting on it.
Glad you know it. How about putting the authors name on it. At least it would refer in some way to the catholic religion. Just saying.
-
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.
-
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.
Glad you know it. How about putting the authors name on it. At least it would refer in some way to the catholic religion. Just saying.
Because limited space did not even allow me to finish the quote, much less add the author's name. If you really want to argue semantics, you should choose anther candidate. Religion as says Cicero, comes from the Latin re- ligere meaning to re-align or reconnect oneself with God. There is only one entity which does that and that is the Catholic Church. Therefore, there is only one religion. Since this is a Traditional Catholic forum of which I have been a participating member for nearly a decade now and attended the first consecrations of the Resistance bishops while reporting those events here, even before some knew they would occur, it is not necessary to explicitly state that Religion is Catholic and never anything else. If you're looking for religious indifferentism, look to Bergoglio and not some tag on my profile.
How about going offline and reading a basic Catechism for adults or something productive now. Skidattle.
-
Because limited space did not even allow me to finish the quote, much less add the author's name. If you really want to argue semantics, you should choose anther candidate. Religion as says Cicero, comes from the Latin re- ligere meaning to re-align or reconnect oneself with God. There is only one entity which does that and that is the Catholic Church. Therefore, there is only one religion. Since this is a Traditional Catholic forum of which I have been a participating member for nearly a decade now and attended the first consecrations of the Resistance bishops while reporting those events here, even before some knew they would occur, it is not necessary to explicitly state that Religion is Catholic and never anything else. If you're looking for religious indifferentism, look to Bergoglio and not some tag on my profile.
How about going offline and reading a basic Catechism for adults or something productive now. Skidattle.
Temper temper. Tell that to a visitor on CI. Doesn't go far does it?
-
I am kind of a tradcuмenist. I dislike the de facto schisms there are in the trad world. I try to be sympathetic towards other trads of all kinds. Sometimes I argue with others who are more "dogmatic" as Matthew calls it. Today I was speaking with a sedevacantist at Church about things and I told him that I was very sympathetic to sedevacantism and that if I had to bet my soul on the pope question I would bet that Francis is not the Pope. But I do not think I need to bet my soul on that question and I no longer worry about it. Worrying about it did not help me and I couldn't figure things out even though I worried about it for a long time. And I don't really know the answer. When I first became a trad I was drawn to the conspiarcy theory that Siri was the true Pope because it seemed to make more sense than R&R or sedevacantism. So I was a real nutty tinfoil hatter. But now I call Francis Pope and give him that title when I speak about him and I do not try to argue with everyone about the pope question. I am not a fan of Father Cekada though as some of you might know and I like Father Chazal and used to like watching his youtube videos. But I don't want to read his book because of the topic just as I was not interested in True or False Pope.
-
https://tradidi.com/contra-cekadam
After many years of Fr. Cekada's taunting and ridicule heaped upon the sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, and in response to the constant barrage of sedevacantist propaganda and polemics, Fr. Chazal decided to expose just how shallow rooted and cunningly deceptive their arguments really are. In his book, appropriately entitled 'Contra Cekadam', he goes through the different courses of an exquisite French menu and looks at the issue from many different angles.
The book is a must for anyone wanting to arm themselves against the loud and proud advances of the sedevacantists. It is easy to read, and even has an answer to Fr. Cekada's sense of humor: a witty French course in the Doctors and Theologians of the Church, Canon Law, Popes and Councils, St Thomas Aquinas, Scripture, History and last but not least, good old common sense. Included at the back of this book you will get a beautiful chart illustrating just how weird and wonderful the world of sedevacantism really is.
Even before the book was printed, rumors started going around (I wonder who was behind them?) that Fr. Chazal had embraced sedeprivationism. It won't take the reader long to see that the truth is far from it, and that once again, sedevacantist propaganda is more fiction than fact.
As a little appetizer, we post here below the Table of Contents, the Foreword by His Excellency Richard Williamson and the text from the Back Cover.
Table of Contents
Foreword by Bishop Williamson
Introduction
Part One: Doctors, Theologians
- Middle Ages
- Renaissance
- Closer Era (1789-1962)
Part Two: Canons
- Canon 188.4
- A Pope by Divine Right with No Rights Whatsoever
- cuм Ex and Sedeprivationism
- Universal Peaceful Acceptance
- Notoriety
- In Dubio...
- In Obscuris…
- Presumption of Innocence
Part Three: Popes and Councils
Part Four: St. Thomas
Part Five: Scripture
- Parenthesis: Private Revelations
Part Six: History
Part Seven: Common Sense
Conclusions
- A False, Modern Notion of Authority
- An Opinion, Both False and Dangerous, Raised to the Level of Dogma
- Instant Damnation of the Catholic World
- Confusion Between Infallibility and Impeccability in the Faith
- Anarchical Refusal of the Juridical Order of the Church
- Invisible Apostolic Visibility
- A Portico to Many Other Errors
- Francis Gets Away
Appendix: Chart Of Sedevacantism
Foreword
Great Doctors of the Church have written works named from the author of the errors being refuted by the Doctor, for instance St Augustine's Against Cresconius or St Jerome's Against Jovinianus. Both Cresconius and Jovinianus have today been largely or altogether forgotten, but the works of the Doctors live on because the Doctors lay out good Catholic doctrine in refuting the errors. In the same way Fr Chazal names his refutation of sedevacantism (the See-vacant doctrine that the Popes since Vatican II have not been Popes at all) from Fr Anthony Cekada, a long-standing and outstanding defender of the sedevacantist position. Fr Cekada's arguments and opinions have acted like the grain of sand inside an oyster, which by the irritation which it produces makes the oyster produce a pearl.
Fr Cekada argues as though sedevacantism is not merely one opinion in a difficult and highly disputed question. He presents it as a dogmatic certainty, to refuse which means that one is not Catholic. Fr Chazal has a measure of sympathy for sedevacantists (he prefers them to liberals), and he shows charity towards Fr Cekada, but the great merit of Contra Cekadam is that he proves to any reasonable reader that, at the very least, no Catholic is obliged to accept the sedevacantist position. Fr Cekada writes as though he is a master of theology and of Canon Law, but Fr Chazal has looked up the theologians and the Canons in question and he proves that they are far from proving that the See of Rome has been vacant at any time since Vatican II.
To do this Fr Chazal goes in turn through the Church's theologians, canonists and Popes, St Thomas Aquinas, Scripture and history with a final resort to common sense. Let us here evoke briefly the theologians and the canonists on whom sedevacantists rely heavily.
Their favourite theologian is St Robert Bellarmine who held that any Pope becoming a heretic automatically ceases to be Pope. But Fr Chazal opens the books and finds that this opinion is by no means the common opinion of Church theologians, and that Bellarmine himself requires that the Pope concerned be first given two warnings before he is deposed. For indeed, as many other famous theologians argue, the Pope is not just an individual who can lose the faith personally, but he is also head of a worldwide society which cannot function without a head. Nor does the personal loss of faith necessarily impede his headship of the Church. Therefore they argue, for the sake of the Church as a whole, God preserves the Pope's headship until the highest competent Church authorities can make a public declaration of his heresy (to prevent public chaos in the Church), and then and only then does God depose him. No such declaration has been made since Vatican II.
Sedevacantists also love Canon 188.4 which states that public defection from the faith on the part of a cleric means automatic loss of his office. But many other Canons and the other sections of Canon 188 clearly show that this “public defection” must include the cleric's intent to resign by such acts as, for instance, attempting marriage or joining a sect, and also there must be a warning and official monitions before the cleric loses his office. Common justice calls it the right of self-defence.
In fact Fr Chazal presents a multitude of arguments which prove the human wisdom and patience of Mother Church in dealing with faulty ministers. For the sake of the Church as a whole, it is not only the Pope who does not have his head immediately cut off, as sedevacantists seem to think. The wheels of God may grind exceeding small but they also grind slowly, as the proverb says.
If anybody wishes to learn just how little the position of the sedevacantists is binding on Catholics, by all means let them read this brief and entertaining study by Fr Chazal.
+Richard Williamson, Broadstairs, 20 February, 2018.
Back Cover
Francis is a total disgrace for the office of the Papacy. He is even lacking the good manners of Benedict XVI and the paternal ways of John Paul II, his predecessors in heresy. He is Vatican II's logical conclusion, a new Caiphas.
An important Roman principle remains: "Non Nocere" (do no harm). It was perfectly understood by Archbishop Lefebvre, who retained whatever could be retained of today's Papacy and rejected ever more clearly, especially after 1988, the pestilence of heresy.
The Papacy is of Divine Institution (can. 100.1), it still serves a purpose until the end of times. By reducing it to a cardboard level, or denying it's continuation today, a Pandora's box is being opened.
It will not hurt sedevacantists to hear that if something is left of the authority of Francis, it is in no way to enable him to spread heresy any further. Barriers against heresy were erected by our Fathers: let us use them, even against a reigning Pope.
While we remain convinced he is a heretic, and while he remains a suspect of heresy before the law, much against his will to destroy, his presence guarantees several indispensible things, which Christ, the Head of the Church, has promised to His Spouse until the end of times.
Special Offer
Seeing that a certain seminarian recently approached the owner of a certain forum, asking for a little discount to make the book more affordable, and after seeing the cold response he received there, we decided to try and help those people who would like to read up about the problems with sedevacantism, but who may be struggling to afford the cost of obtaining a copy of Fr. Chazal's book.
Tradidi has teamed up with Mr Akins and is offering 25 gift vouchers, to the same value as the book sells for (10 USD), available at the Catholic Action Resource Center. You will then only need to pay for the shipping. We only ask you to be honest about your genuine need to take up this offer. Simply send us your name and email address through our contact (https://tradidi.com/contact) page and we will email you the gift voucher to be spent purchasing Fr. Chazal's book at Mr Akins' website.
-
Special Offer
Seeing that a certain seminarian recently approached the owner of a certain forum, asking for a little discount to make the book more affordable, and after seeing the cold response he received there, we decided to try and help those people who would like to read up about the problems with sedevacantism, but who may be struggling to afford the cost of obtaining a copy of Fr. Chazal's book.
Since Samuel obviously lurks/reads CathInfo on a daily basis, I will go ahead and respond to him here:
"of a certain forum" -- come on, you would have looked less bitter and angry if you had made a joke out of it, and said something like "the forum that shall not be named".
But why not just say CathInfo? Samuel, Samuel... Everyone already knows about CathInfo, unlike your website. When people only have time to check one website, guess which one they check? I bet that bothers you, doesn't it? It's completely futile to try to "bury" CathInfo. You might as well try to hide the sun.
So once again, despite your protestations to the contrary, you betray your strong emotions in this regard. With "phlegmatics" like you, who needs cholerics? hahaha
You got bent out of shape (angry) arguing with some sedevacantists on CI a month ago (who are probably banned by now, so you are basically tilting at windmills, or fighting a CathInfo that no longer exists, but I digress) and in the heat of anger you decided CathInfo was a "bad guy". Not just a bad idea for you personally, but an agent of evil that all must avoid, and forevermore. Like I said: emotional.
"after seeing the cold response" - yes, I took the time to post an appeal on his behalf, and now 2 copies of the book are on the way to the seminarian. My appeal brought in 2 responses, and I had to update the thread before I got more. I'd call that quite a warm response.
I'm sorry if my personal works of charity don't give you enough emotional warm-fuzzies to merit your personal approval. Again, how emotional are you anyway? I thought phlegmatics weren't that emotional. Oh well -- I guess I can't stop you from judging me. But it just so happens that personally donating money to this particular cause is not in my budget right now. My charity is mostly allocated to raising, homeschooling, sheltering, and feeding 7 young children. And my current job (a contract position) is ending in a few weeks, with nothing lined up or promised after that. Raising a large family is quite difficult these days. Come on, don't you know that?
But don't let the facts, charity ("making excuses for others"), or the benefit of the doubt get in the way of your Matthew and CathInfo-bashing.
-
I don't wish to speak for Samuel but I don't think you realize the good that Samuel does.
By the way, I am not interested in "forum wars" or anything of the sort but I perhaps know Samuel a bit more than you (only online alas).
-
I wouldn't doubt for a second that you know Samuel better than I. I took back a couple things I said.
If Samuel has a family, he sure never talks about them -- or even mentions them. Which boggles my mind, because "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." I'm not saying he should post all kinds of sensitive or private info out on the Internet. But why not mention, from time to time, that you HAVE a wife or HAVE a family?
But regardless, he doesn't have much use for those who blaze their own trails in the Trad wilderness and don't follow him. And based on his post today, he doesn't have much sympathy for those who can't afford to implement his own particular brand or flavor of "Catholic Action". Apparently my Chant CD/Catholic book apostolate, my Traditional Catholic forum, and my local Resistance group/chapel aren't enough "Catholic Action" for him. And did I mention I'm a married man with a large family -- not exactly a single guy with tons of resources or time on my hands. So if Samuel doesn't like it, then I guess I'm just not meant to please Samuel. Too bad for him. I'm glad I only have to please God to get into heaven!
I'm glad you can get along with him; he seems to be a very serious Catholic and has a lot of Catholic thought. Part of me is sad that we can't get along. We apparently just rub each other the wrong way. That's how it is sometimes with two "alpha" males, or two cholerics. It's like having 2 roosters in the same flock -- they don't get along. I wish we could get along though.
But right now, his main friend (on the Internet at least) is Sean Johnson, the dogmatic sedeplenist, who recently came on CathInfo trying to stir up trouble for me (i.e., start an ιnѕυrrєcтισn of some kind -- fortunately he failed miserably) on a day when I was away from my computer super-busy with household duties (which I told him about in a phone call).
I'd like to be friends with both of them, but apparently it's not meant to be. They want to do this "dogmatic sedeplenist" thing, and they both blame me for allowing anyone to the right of that position on CathInfo. Well, I have to go with my conscience. I don't even personally believe as Sean Johnson does! How could I expect the population of CathInfo to hold his position? I most certainly have my doubts about the Pope. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre did. I'm staying with the R&R position because it's the prudent, safe position to be. There are still no practical benefits to adopting sedevacantism, so why "go there"? But that doesn't mean I'm going to be dogmatic about the status of Pope Francis, one way or the other!