I invite you, Ladislaus, to read the excerpts from Fr Chazal's conclusion to his book that I have posted in response to CK above. Do I really need to also provide for you the comments of ABL, Bishop Williamson, the Dominicans of Avrille, the Franciscans of Morgon, the Benedictines of Brazil and other traditional SSPX and Resistance sources referring to the dangers of sedevacantism - danger to souls, obviously, and the danger of schism? I don't know why you pretend that this is not the case. Of course sedevacantism is the conviction of many serious Catholics. Do you not believe that "Conciliarism" is also the conviction of many serious Catholics? In fact, most serious Catholics in the world today hold to this "danger", in good faith, albeit that most who hold to this danger of Conciliarism are not serious Catholics.

PV, the only thing that saves you from schism is the fact that Bergoglio is actually not the pope. If he were a true pope, you would be in schism. You display no obedience to him nor do you submit or subject yourself to him. Remember that the Eastern Schismatics and Protestants don’t subject themselves to him either, but they too believe he’s the pope.

PV, the only thing that saves you from schism is the fact that Bergoglio is actually not the pope. If he were a true pope, you would be in schism. You display no obedience to him nor do you submit or subject yourself to him. Remember that the Eastern Schismatics and Protestants don’t subject themselves to him either, but they too believe he’s the pope.

Thanks QV, but forgive me if I prefer ABL and Bishop Williamson for spiritual guides in this matter!

That’s too bad, I prefer Saint Robert Bellarmine and Saint Alphonsus de Liguori as my guides in this matter.

Incidentally, The Archbishop actually knew the principles involved with the “heretic pope question”. He knew that if JPII was, to his mind, a pertinacious heretic, he would have lost his “pontificate”. This is a fact. With Bergoglio on the scene, R&Rers, such as yourself, know that this Catholic doctrine is now provable, so now you needed to switch gears and deny the doctrine.

Sure, QV, we've been through all this before.
What I am demonstrating in this thread is the position of Fr Chazal and the Resistance, against those who seem to want to believe that Fr Chazal and the Resistance don't hold SVism to be an evil and a danger to be avoided.
You have helped me make my point by recognising the excerpts I posted from Fr Chazal's book as being contrary to your SV view. And you are right. What do your friends not see???

CK, I already explained and provided the quote from Titus that the Church bases its "doctrine" on. Your statement suggests that we don't already agree on that. We do agree on that, I think.

To restate more clearly, St. Paul's Epistle to Titus 3:10-11 is the Scriptural basis of the Church doctrine on how to deal with heretics. Aquinas's and Bellarmine's theological principles are based on the Church's interpretation of Titus. The Church's Canon Law summarizes the Church doctrine plus the opinions of the Doctors plus provides additional precision in heretical cases.

Canon Law is based on Church doctrine, where the doctrine is applicable. Regarding the matter of heresy, the Church doctrine is applicable. Canon Law contains precepts of divine law, natural law, and ecclesiastical law. Canon Law is not only, as you seem to suggest, a collection of ecclesiastical laws. I can give examples, but what I have said seems so elementary, I won't waste the time. Read this instead:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm

And your last sentence is directed at a phantom as well. I completely agree with that statement. But Canon Law doesn't even require that the apparent heretic be a "formal" (i.e., pertinacious) heretic in order to be "separated from the Church" and "lose" his office, as you suggest. Canon 188.4 only requires that the heresy be "public" for the loss of office to occur:

The "pertinacity" is investigated and determined later in excommunication steps 2 and 3. But just by "publicly" professing "heresy" (defined in Canon 1325), the person is ipso facto excommunicated (Canon 2314.1). That means he is "separated from the Church," and he will remain "separated" unless he "respects warnings."

You seem to think my position is substantially different from yours. I don't think so. I am just trying to use the precise language used in Canon Law. But we end up practically in the same place: a public heretic is separated (excommunicated level 1) immediately, without need for any declaration by a competent authority. Because of that "ipso facto excommunication," he "loses" his office and, therefore, the office is legally "vacant" (Canon 188.4).

Angelus, we don't seem to agree on my fundamental point and that is this:

The public sin of manifest formal heresy is the efficient cause of changing a member of the Church into a non-member of the Church. 

When the above point is applied to a pope (hypothetically assuming that a pope could become a heretic), this sin itself would make him change from a member to a non-member.  Being a non-member, he cannot have the papal munus.  You were not sure of this.

In your line of reasoning, however, you are not agreeing that the sin itself causes a loss of membership (and loss of the papal munus).  Rather, to you non-membership really occurs when the Church makes the final judgment.  

This is what I understand of the distinction between our two positions.

The sedevacantists not only want to claim Archbishop Lefebvre, now they want to claim Fr Chazal also.

It is incredible, it is utterly bizarre, that a priest can write a book condemning sedevacantism and be held up as a sedevacantist.

FR CHAZAL CONTRA CEKADAM: CONCLUSIONS:

From the above, we can conclude that sedevacantism proceeds from error and generates error:

1. A False Modern Notion of Authority
Authority is for truth... God tolerated defective instruments... One of the unforseen consequences of the dogma of Papal Infallibility... that idea (of absolute authority) is still trapping many people in the Novus Ordo, and is trapping sedevacantists... What is most worrying is the individual twist of sedevacantism: the idea that an INDIVIDUAL's perception of a fact, grave though it may be, leads to the loss of office of a perlate or a magistrate. There is a foul smell of modern democracy here.

2. An Opinion, Both False and Dangerous, Raised to the Level of Dogma
...We are not saying that St Robert Bellarmine's fifth opinion is both false and dangerous, but your interpretation of it. You make it mandatory, necessary, binding in conscience, which is something Bellarmine never did...

3. Instant Damnation of the Catholic World...

4. Confusion Between Infallibility and Impeccability in the Faith
The Monophysisists are to Christ what sedevacantists are to the Papacy...

5. Anarchical Refusal of the Juridical Order of the Church
Mgr Guerard des Laurier should have adhered to the theological distinction held by his Dominican predecessors; PER SE/QUOAD NOS. Things that have happened before God may not have yet happened before men, while something happens immediately when a Pope proffers a heresy. Should a phenomenon happen per se, suapte natura, ex natura, ipso facto, by itself, from the very fact, yet we remain human, social beings, carrying on in a visible society endowed with a public life and a juridical bond. That is the way we are: social beings, Quoad Nos. We stand against the opposite notion which is anarchy... We are Catholics, not Protestants... we wait patiently... until it can be resolved by an instrument established by Our Lord to prevent the fragmentation of the Church...

6. Invisible Apostolic Visibility
Again, unlike you (Fr Cekada) Mgr des Lauriers excludes the total loss of office. My only caveat, worth repeating, is that a purely material succession equates to nothing either in reality or in theological terms, just like a material sin is not a sin (Forma dat esse; materia potius non ens quam ens). In previous pages Bouix explains very well that Faith is not a condition for the power of jurisdiction to hold, and would believe even less in the fiction of the return of this power if Francis were to convert. But what Mgr Guerard understood is that the apostolic succession established by Christ cannot perish the way you say it did...

Like you (Fr Cekada) we retain the notion of what heresy causes "ex natura sua", "per se", and like Guerard, we recognise that not everything has disappeared, mysteriously, but that something sufficient remains of the visible apostolic unity of the Church, not just "materialiter", that's insufficient, but "quoad nos" a quantum remains for the Church to continue its mission.. In the meantime we urge all Catholics unite around, or at least save their skin by, the one principle ingrained in Divine Law: separation from heretics. That principle is both sufficient and necessary...

7. A Portico to Many Other Errors
Sedevacantism is at the origin of many bad fruits, and the presence of unhinged private judgement, what we warn most about sedevacantism, is clearly showing. In this unfortunate process, it also picks up previous errors, if not heresies...
On the issue of schism, I was only able to find eight presently ignominiously reigning popes...
And there are other bizarre branches led by strange bishops: offshoots of Bishop Sanborn...
Tell me if I'm being too harsh, but sedevacantism is a bit like Islam: once you join or submit to it, the perpetual internal fight only begins...
Our duty is to keep the faith, not to enter into new errors...

8. Francis Gets Away
He is not real, he is just a charlatan, guilty of charlatanism. He just stole the show in Rome. Give him a few spanks, take away his clown nose and that's it. In this case, there is no current man responsible for the damnation of millions of souls. On the day of judgment Francis can simply say he was not in charge, just a clown or at worst, a fraud. Burning in hell as Pope is a very different way to burn... our leaders just evaporate... because of the magic of the sin of heresy...
To say he is no pope, to say he is not there despite the obvious fact to the contrary...
Per se, it is much better to be a sedevacantist and separate from heretics than not to be one, and connive with them, even though, quoad aliquos sedevacantistas, there is a risk of schism...

Plenus Venter, I asked Fr. Chazal directly and unequivocally whether he holds Jorge Bergoglio as ontologically pope; he does not.  Whether he is defined as a Sedevacantist or not because of his answer is another question.

The sedevacantists not only want to claim Archbishop Lefebvre, now they want to claim Fr Chazal also.

It is incredible, it is utterly bizarre, that a priest can write a book condemning sedevacantism and be held up as a sedevacantist.

What is this absurdly puerile and stupid allegation of "claiming" +Lefebvre / Chazal?  You guys are the ones claiming that +Lefebvre is some kind of divine oracle and substitute rule of faith (superior to the Magisterium).

I have no problem disagreeing with anyone.  +Lefebvre's (objectively-heretical) misfires on EENS dogma (while effectively upholding Vatican II ecclesiology) have had serious and harmful consequences among Traditional Catholics ... precisely because they hang on his every word as if he were infallible.  He was dead wrong on that.

We're merely pointing out that +Lefebvre and Chazal are not saying what you dogmatic R&Rers claim they say or have said, in an attempt to snap you out of your pertinacious Old Catholics tendencies and attitudes.  This is like claiming that when Catholics engage in apologetics against Protestants by quoting the Bible, that they approve of the Protestant Solar Scriptura position.

It's a fact that +Lefebvre repeatedly stated that SVism is possible and, contrary to your heretical notions, upheld that the Papacy is guided by the Holy Spirit and protected from destroying the Church to the degree that we've seen since Vatican II.

Father Chazal affirms that Jorge is not the pope.  Unlike classic R&R, who claim that Jorge has and exercise legitimate authority that can be "disobeyed" when Stubborn or Plenus or Aunt Helen decide that those teachings contradict Tradition (thereby usurping the very role of the Magisterium), Father Chazal holds that Jorge is not the pope and can (must) be categorically ignored.

Thank you.

Many of the criticisms Father Chazal had of "Cekada" (straight sedevacantism) are the same ones that sedeprivationists have against sedevacantism ... regardless of whatever semantical word games someone wants to play.