Author Topic: Father Chazal Sedeprivationist (Read 13806 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** April 17, 2015, 10:28:59 AM »

In his famous exposition AGAINST Sedevacantism, Father Chazal actually articulated SEDEPRIVATIONISM.

Father repeatedly stated that the V2 Popes have no authority, that anything they attempt to teach MUST be disregarded, that the popes are impounded or quarantined. And yet they remain the visible source of unity for the Church.

By stating that they have NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER, he's saying that they have formally ceased to be popes but that they retain a purely material occupancy of the Holy See.

True R&R Sedeplenism would hold that those actions (teachings, commands, etc.) of the Holy See which are not contrary to Tradition still have force and must be obeyed.

That's NOT what Father Chazal holds; he holds that these actions are ALL invalid and that these Popes have formally ceased to be popes by virtue of their public heresy. He states that these men are clearly public / manifest heretics, and that there can be no doubt about this.

Without being able to ARTICULATE the formal / material distinction, Father Chazal has effectively become a sedeprivationist.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #1 on:** April 17, 2015, 10:36:44 AM »

I think you are right technically, but I am sure it is just a blunder of a lack of accuracy on his part. I assume that his intentions are some where along the lines of "yeah, well he is the pope no matter what without any conditions whatsoever", but I'm not sure. If asked he might even elaborate that he meant to state that he referrd to the actions which only are contrary to the Faith. I think he would.

JPaul · « **Reply #2 on:** April 17, 2015, 10:50:05 AM »

Fathers' Pfeiffer and Chazal have both, at times, been careless with language, actually speaking in a more rhetorical way for effect. However, it really is not acceptable to be careless when speaking on this subject , as that can easily confuse the faithful.

I would guess that they are both dyed in the wool R&Rists. They have learned to live with its contradictions, in the SSPX way.

The popes are not popes for one purpose, but remain popes for the other.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** April 17, 2015, 10:52:37 AM »

I don't think that this was just carelessness.

Father Chazal said over and over again that:

1) these V2 Popes are clearly public heretics.

2) that they have NO AUTHORITY whatsoever and that anything that comes from them MUST be disregarded and considered null and void

3) that these Popes are in "quarantine" or "impounded"

That IS sedeprivationism in a nutshell.

He came to this position by studying John of St. Thomas.

Father Chazal UNMISTAKABLY articulated sedeprivationism.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** April 17, 2015, 10:54:55 AM »

I am not being critical; I actually AGREE with his position and do not see eye to eye with traditional R&R.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #5 on:** April 17, 2015, 11:19:08 AM »

So, Laudislaus, are you saying that you think he may have consciously moved in SP, or it was not something he realized he did?

I'm sorry, I know we were having a serious conversation, but there is a really crazy troll on the other posts and I was sidetracked.

reconquest · « **Reply #6 on:** April 17, 2015, 11:24:29 AM »

Did Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers consider a purely materialiter pope the visible source of unity for the Church? I know he held that Mass celebrated Una cuм such a "pope" was objectively a sacrilege, which runs completely contrary to the position articulated by Fr. Chazal and his associates.

Such things show on what thin ice the hardline R&R position currently stands, though.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** April 17, 2015, 12:55:00 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

So, Laudislaus, are you saying that you think he may have consciously moved in SP, or it was not something he realized he did?

I'm sorry, I know we were having a serious conversation, but there is a really crazy troll on the other posts and I was sidetracked.

Father Chazal opened the long talk by stating that he had never really studied the question in depth. It seems to me that in reading John of St. Thomas and other theologians, he arrived at the position by just following the logic there.

JPaul · « **Reply #8 on:** April 17, 2015, 01:09:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I don't think that this was just carelessness.

Father Chazal said over and over again that:

1) these V2 Popes are clearly public heretics.

2) that they have NO AUTHORITY whatsoever and that anything that comes from them MUST be disregarded and considered null and void

3) that these Popes are in "quarantine" or "impounded"

That IS sedeprivationism in a nutshell.

He came to this position by studying John of St. Thomas.

Father Chazal UNMISTAKABLY articulated sedeprivationism.

True, that he is so insistent upon that point I must conclude that you are right and he has definitely shifted position. Would that not place him with a position which is contrary to Bishop Williamson and Father Pfeiffer?

It seems that Father Chazal has submitted to the reality of this situation and has drawn the logical conclusion from it. Movement forward and away from the R&R position is indeed a good thing.

JPaul · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2015, 01:16:32 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Centroamerica

So, Laudislaus, are you saying that you think he may have consciously moved in SP, or it was not something he realized he did?

I'm sorry, I know we were having a serious conversation, but there is a really crazy troll on the other posts and I was sidetracked.

Father Chazal opened the long talk by stating that he had never really studied the question in depth. It seems to me that in reading John of St. Thomas and other theologians, he arrived at the position by just following the logic there.

Is not this what our good clerics and leaders should all be doing? IMO, they should have done so after the first twenty years or so rather than leading us around within an Orobouros styled R&R non-theological position.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** April 17, 2015, 02:41:01 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Centroamerica

So, Laudislaus, are you saying that you think he may have consciously moved in SP, or it was not something he realized he did?

I'm sorry, I know we were having a serious conversation, but there is a really crazy troll on the other posts and I was sidetracked.

Father Chazal opened the long talk by stating that he had never really studied the question in depth. It seems to me that in reading John of St. Thomas and other theologians, he arrived at the position by just following the logic there.

Is not this what our good clerics and leaders should all be doing? IMO, they should have done so after the first twenty years or so rather than leading us around within an Orobouros styled R&R non-theological position.

I agree, and I was indeed surprised that after SO MANY YEARS Father Chazal just recently decided to study the subject.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 17, 2015, 02:47:16 PM »

Quote from: reconquest

Did Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers consider a purely materialiter pope the visible source of unity for the Church? I know he held that Mass celebrated Una cuм such a "pope" was objectively a sacrilege, which runs completely contrary to the position articulated by Fr. Chazal and his associates.

Such things show on what thin ice the hardline R&R position currently stands, though.

Sure, while there's some disagreement between what the material/formal distinction entails in the practical order, Father Chazal DID in fact articulate that exact distinction. Again, following the distinction, the material occupation of the Holy See could certainly bring about a kind of material unity but not a formal one. With regard to the una cuм, the question again would be the nature of the mention there. Is it a material acknowledgement or a formal one? In the context of the Canon (mentioning him as one of the "cultoribus fidei") might suggest formal, but the Dimond Brothers have cited a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Charlemagne · « **Reply #12 on:** April 17, 2015, 03:12:01 PM »

I toyed with sedeprivationism in the past but never embraced it fully. It's starting to look more attractive to me lately. It's a wacky theory to some, but to me it's no more wacky than having a Pope but denying his authority.

JPaul · « **Reply #13 on:** April 17, 2015, 03:23:05 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: J.Paul
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Centroamerica

So, Laudislaus, are you saying that you think he may have consciously moved in SP, or it was not something he realized he did?

I'm sorry, I know we were having a serious conversation, but there is a really crazy troll on the other posts and I was sidetracked.

Father Chazal opened the long talk by stating that he had never really studied the question in depth. It seems to me that in reading John of St. Thomas and other theologians, he arrived at the position by just following the logic there.

Is not this what our good clerics and leaders should all be doing? IMO, they should have done so after the first twenty years or so rather than leading us around within an Orobouros styled R&R non-theological position.

I agree, and I was indeed surprised that after SO MANY YEARS Father Chazal just recently decided to study the subject.

I am surprised that he did as well, but not that it took so long. A strong component of the R&R position, ( especially in the SSPX model), is to not look into or study the issue beyond simply accepting the R&R contradiction and condemning sedevacantism.

There are answers and conclusions that neither the Archbishop or his followers wanted to find or confront, lest the whole edifice crumble as untenable.

PG · « **Reply #14 on:** April 17, 2015, 03:25:41 PM »

I was a "sedeprivationist" when I huddled up with the R&Rs. And, I didn't even know it. +Williamson has even approved of a privationist approach to the new saint factory by saying that we could/should even reject(certainly in the practical order) even the new saints that appear acceptable. Because, the new rome is dubious, and so as to not give credence to the clearly bad canonizations. That is not R&R, that is much more along the lines of privationism. But, that is what he said in a recorded interview.

There is really nothing to fear about sedeprivationism. Its only problem is Rev. Sanborn running around in a privationist T shirt scaring us all screaming sede vacant.