Dear Friends-

Given Fr. Ronald Ringrose's recent and public descent into sedevacantism, I thought it apropos to resurrect a short article which restates the doctrines of epikeia and necessity as causes excusing from obedience to superiors (yes, even to Popes), and which have ever served as the doctrinal bases for resistance to conciliar errors.

Please see the attached article, and pass it along to any who may be confused by Fr. Ringrose's new reasonings.

Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson

1 ) We won’t waste time debating over your definition vs. the one of the Wikipedia article — matters not to me; I don’t rely on labels especially those of conflicting definitions. Fr. Ringrose rejects the idea that the election counts for nothing but maintains that it establishes some legal status as pope. Still, it is an obvious and observable fact that the indefectible teaching power promised to Peter is absent. Call it what you you will — except non-Catholic. Unlike R&R which is a heresy. No doubt Fr. Ringrose agrees with Fr. Chazal in one of his recent statements about his new position of his upcoming book: “I really don't care if they call me a sedevacantist...” implying that his NEW position in is based on fidelity to Catholic teaching.
 
2) I reference Fr. Chazal because he has the courage and honesty like Frs. Ringrose, Pinaud, Rioult, Roy, to abandon their previous position in order to a avoid its doctrinal error.  Not because they all agree in their new positions.
 
3) The only embarrassment I carry is my failures in fidelity to the teaching of Christ. Heaven knows I have too many. Just nowhere here. I wish the same could be said for your delusion and pray that it is only due to your ignorance of doctrine and no worse.
 
Peace to you as well.

As two dogmatic positions on the crisis have it out here, allow me to drop in my two cents.

Fr. Chazal has admitted that after studying the "seminary libraries" that both the "loss of office" and "non-loss of office" opinions regarding Popes who become heretics or publicly promote heresy are and have been permitted by the Church. This is important. It means that up until now the Church has not spoken even when there were great theologians and even Doctors of the Church on both sides (such as St. Robert Bellarmine or St. John of God). Fr. Chazal has probably been the most honest and balanced priest I've heard so far to comment publicly on this state of the papacy in this current crisis (I can think of a few others.)

That's why the attacking of positions of other Traditional Catholics' take on the state of the crisis as error is a total moral-less waste of time. It is akin to the Immaculate Conception Dogma before it was solemnly defined. The Dominicans and Franciscans went at it, but at least theirs was a fruitful effort to some extent because there was still a Catholic Pope at the time (something which all sides agree is lacking in our current crisis.)

So for both sides of the sede vacante and sedeplena to call each other's views an error is to arrogate to themselves a power which they simply don't have. St. Robert Bellarmine's view was never condemned as neither were the opposing views! Fr.Chazal has publicly admitted that the sede vacante position is a valid Catholic opinion with theologians and Doctors of the Church which support it. The R and R argument also has its theologians to support it. Neither of these have ever been condemned as error by the Church. They have only been condemned as error by those who wish to carry their opinion in this crisis to that of a dogmatic fact and condemn the opposing view, something which they have no power or authority to do.

And now to close with a little thought...

“On the other hand, it seems to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no errors than it is absolutely certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of his election are all causes from which it may sometimes result that a Pope has never been or is now no longer Pope. In this case, a very exceptional one of course, the Church would be in the situation she experiences after the death of a soveriegn Pontiff. For a grave problem does, after all, confront the conscience and faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate. How can a pope, true successor to St. Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, preside over the destruction of the Church, the deepest and most excessive in Her history, in so short a space of time, what no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? All those enter into schism who cooperate in this realization of this upheaval and adhere to this new Conciliar Church, as His Excellency Bishop Benelli designated it in the letter he addressed to me in the Holy Father’s name last June 25th.” (Archbishop Lefebvre-Declaration of August 2, 1976.)

Based on something he wrote, it sounds like Father Chazal believes that Francis has jurisdiction, but that his use of it is illicit, since he's a heretic.  And he holds that Francis completely lacks all teaching authority due to his heresy.  This is actually a very credible position.  I have held the position that he only materially possesses jurisdiction but that material jurisdiction suffices to make appointments, and that those appointed can actually formally exercise the jurisdiction if in fact they had no impediment to do so.  That's why, for instance, a material pope can appoint material Cardinals who can then elect another material pope who can appoint more material cardinals who can then elect a formal (& material) Pope ... if one of the people they happen to elect isn't a heretic ... even if all the Cardinals would be heretics.  And the same thing applies top down.  Another consequence is that if a material Pope appoints a bishop, who happens NOT to be a heretic, then that Bishop can FORMALLY hold and exercise episcopal jurisdiction.  Let's say there's an Eastern Rite bishop who isn't a heretic and is validly consecrated a bishop.