Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Plenus Venter on December 13, 2023, 06:02:42 AM
-
https://odysee.com/Fr-Chazal-Conference-UK-November-23:1
-
https://odysee.com/Fr-Chazal-Conference-UK-November-23:1
Thanks for the link. Has anyone heard an update regarding Father's book on Heaven? I think it was mentioned in his book Eternal Hell
-
Here are some very interesting things that Fr. Chazal states about Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano in this conference:
1. 1 min. & 10 sec. – Archbishop Vigano’s coming to Tradition is the best news of the year.
2. 14 min. & 50 sec. – Bishop Richard Williamson meets Archbishop Vigano regularly.
3. 25 min. & 45 sec. – Archbishop Vigano is a bishop of the Resistance.
4. 26 min. & 40 sec. – Archbishop Vigano fights the Conciliar Church, he hates the New Mass, and he condemns Vatican II.
5. 27 min. & 40 sec. – Regarding concerns with Archbishop Vigano’s consecration in the New Rite, he has done the necessary; the necessary has been done.
There is finally a clergyman (and a bishop at that) of the Resistance that publicly rejects Jorge Bergoglio as pope!
-
Here are some very interesting things that Fr. Chazal states about Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano in this conference:
1. 1 min. & 10 sec. – Archbishop Vigano’s coming to Tradition is the best news of the year.
2. 14 min. & 50 sec. – Bishop Richard Williamson meets Archbishop Vigano regularly.
3. 25 min. & 45 sec. – Archbishop Vigano is a bishop of the Resistance.
4. 26 min. & 40 sec. – Archbishop Vigano fights the Conciliar Church, he hates the New Mass, and he condemns Vatican II.
5. 27 min. & 40 sec. – Regarding concerns with Archbishop Vigano’s consecration in the New Rite, he has done the necessary; the necessary has been done.
There is finally a clergyman (and a bishop at that) of the Resistance that publicly rejects Jorge Bergoglio as pope!
This phrase hints that he has been conditionally consecrated by Bishop Williamson.
We would presume then that he is intending to ordain priests.
And, once more: why not go public, so people would not think that he is a bogus bishop? Why make conditional ordinations and consecrations a secret?
-
This phrase hints that he has been conditionally consecrated by Bishop Williamson.
We would presume then that he is intending to ordain priests.
And, once more: why not go public, so people would not think that he is a bogus bishop? Why make conditional ordinations and consecrations a secret?
"The neccessary has been done" suggests that they discussed the issue and decided not to consecrate conditionally .
If Mgr Vigano is to be considered a bishop of the "Resistance", then there is no reason to claim that Mgr Huonder isn't a bishop of the SSPX.
-
🙊🙉🙈
+Vigano should understand all the concerns about the reformed rites authored by the infiltration.
-
Thanks for the link. Has anyone heard an update regarding Father's book on Heaven? I think it was mentioned in his book Eternal Hell
He mentions just after the 47min mark that he is half way through it, and that it is tough going...
-
Thanks for the link. Has anyone heard an update regarding Father's book on Heaven? I think it was mentioned in his book Eternal Hell
52:00 - "I think it will take me two years" and will have 700 pages.
-
This phrase hints that he has been conditionally consecrated by Bishop Williamson.
We would presume then that he is intending to ordain priests.
And, once more: why not go public, so people would not think that he is a bogus bishop? Why make conditional ordinations and consecrations a secret?
Yes, why all the secrecy? Why has he gone and continued to go public with his new seminary and not gone public with a conditional consecration (if he has been)?
Furthermore, why aren't more people concerned with this secrecy? If this was anyone other than Vigano, I suspect there would be.
-
"The neccessary has been done" suggests that they discussed the issue and decided not to consecrate conditionally .
If Mgr Vigano is to be considered a bishop of the "Resistance", then there is no reason to claim that Mgr Huonder isn't a bishop of the SSPX.
Sadly, you might be right. :facepalm:
We'll have to stick with Fr. Vigano then.
-
Seems Vigano has been consecrated conditionally by the way this reads. They've done what was needed to be done and now he's looking at ordaining priests.
-
"The neccessary has been done" suggests that they discussed the issue and decided not to consecrate conditionally .
If Mgr Vigano is to be considered a bishop of the "Resistance", then there is no reason to claim that Mgr Huonder isn't a bishop of the SSPX.
Has Hounder ever made a public condemnation of Vatican II, the new mass, ecuмenism, etc...?
-
Has Hounder ever made a public condemnation of Vatican II, the new mass, ecuмenism, etc...?
No he hasn't, but the question is over the validity of both his episcopal consecration and that of Mgr Vigano.
-
"The neccessary has been done" suggests that they discussed the issue and decided not to consecrate conditionally .
If Mgr Vigano is to be considered a bishop of the "Resistance", then there is no reason to claim that Mgr Huonder isn't a bishop of the SSPX.
It is vague language that has been interpreted both ways on this thread- not a good sign. It causes doubt and confusion.
-
"The neccessary has been done" suggests that they discussed the issue and decided not to consecrate conditionally .
If Mgr Vigano is to be considered a bishop of the "Resistance", then there is no reason to claim that Mgr Huonder isn't a bishop of the SSPX.
Time will show whether you are correct. It would explain why Vigano hasn't stated that he was conditionally consecrated.
But taking the question about his consecration out of the equation, how would Vigano be a "Resistance" bishop? He doesn't believe Bergoglio is pope. Since when was that the position of the Resistance?
-
Fr. Chazal says that Vigano agrees with the Resistance on the following essentials (26:10):
1. He believes that "Bergoglio" is a heretic.
2. He believes that a heretic must be fought until he returns to Tradition.
3. He fights the Conciliar Church.
4. He hate the New Mass.
5. He condemns Vatican II.
Fr. Chazal then throws up his hands and says "What else do we want?" He even calls Vigano as a Resistance bishop.
Indeed. And all Sedevacantists agree with these same essential points. So why doesn't the Resistance take the same stance with the Sedevacantists?
Hopefully, they will in the future.
-
Time will show whether you are correct. It would explain why Vigano hasn't stated that he was conditionally consecrated.
But taking the question about his consecration out of the equation, how would Vigano be a "Resistance" bishop? He doesn't believe Bergoglio is pope. Since when was that the position of the Resistance?
Many in the Resistance, unfortunately, incorrectly use Archbishop Lefebvre to defend their position that Jorge Bergoglio is pope because the Archbishop accepted all the conciliar popes as popes until his death. They have made this some kind of universal principle that we must always accept a putative pope as pope. Archbishop Lefebvre, on the other hand, taught that whether a putative pope is pope or not depends on the evidence of heresy. See here (https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Talks_Given_Archbishop_Marcel_Lefebvre_March_30_April_18_1986_The_Angelus_July_1986.pdf).
-
Fr. Chazal says that Vigano agrees with the Resistance on the following essentials (26:10):
1. He believes that "Bergoglio" is a heretic.
2. He believes that a heretic must be fought until he returns to Tradition.
3. He fights the Conciliar Church.
4. He hate the New Mass.
5. He condemns Vatican II.
Fr. Chazal then throws up his hands and says "What else do we want?" He even calls Vigano as a Resistance bishop.
Indeed. And all Sedevacantists agree with these same essential points. So why doesn't the Resistance take the same stance with the Sedevacantists?
Hopefully, they will in the future.
I've seen a bit of a softening towards SVism by some of The Resistance. +Williamson characterized the position as understandable, given the phenomenon of a Jorge Bergoglio and said it's possible that Jorge's not the pope. Avrille also put out a statement that they too could understand why one would adopt that position.
-
"The neccessary has been done" suggests that they discussed the issue and decided not to consecrate conditionally .
If Mgr Vigano is to be considered a bishop of the "Resistance", then there is no reason to claim that Mgr Huonder isn't a bishop of the SSPX.
This is a strange way to interpret what was said, and surely the very opposite of what was implied.
It is known to all that Bishop Williamson has repeatedly criticised the SSPX for allowing the doubtful Bishop Huonder into the sheepfold and casting doubt over SSPX sacraments. Likewise, he has promoted the study of the NREC by Fr Calderon which concludes that the new consecrations are not certainly valid and must be repeated conditionally to guarantee the validity of the sacraments. He has also stated in a past Eleison Comments that if he were Pope he may well require all new rite ordinations to be conditionally repeated.
If Fr Chazal is saying that Bishop Williamson meets regularly with Archbishop Vigano, and is claiming him as a Resistance bishop, and then says 'the necessary has been done', that could only imply that he has indeed been conditionally consecrated.
No doubt there will be reassurance given to the faithful should it become more public that he is indeed cooperating with the Resistance. Patience! This conference of Fr Chazal was before Archbishop Vigano's latest quasi-sedevacantist conference. Are they still on the same page? Can we expect public cooperation now??? Time will tell.
-
This is a strange way to interpret what was said, and surely the very opposite of what was implied.
It is known to all that Bishop Williamson has repeatedly criticised the SSPX for allowing the doubtful Bishop Huonder into the sheepfold and casting doubt over SSPX sacraments. Likewise, he has promoted the study of the NREC by Fr Calderon which concludes that the new consecrations are not certainly valid and must be repeated conditionally to guarantee the validity of the sacraments. He has also stated in a past Eleison Comments that if he were Pope he may well require all new rite ordinations to be conditionally repeated.
If Fr Chazal is saying that Bishop Williamson meets regularly with Archbishop Vigano, and is claiming him as a Resistance bishop, and then says 'the necessary has been done', that could only imply that he has indeed been conditionally consecrated.
No doubt there will be reassurance given to the faithful should it become more public that he is indeed cooperating with the Resistance. Patience! This conference of Fr Chazal was before Archbishop Vigano's latest quasi-sedevacantist conference. Are they still on the same page? Can we expect public cooperation now??? Time will tell.
Definitely see a unifying force in this development. Bishop Williamson recently acknowledged archbishop Thuc's Contribution
To save tradition. It looks like bishop williamson is the man of the hour.
-
Bishop Williamson recently acknowledged archbishop Thuc's Contribution To save tradition.
When did that happen? I must have missed that.
-
So now that Francis is recognized as being so absolutely insane, sedevacantism has graduated to 'that might be acceptable'. Just like the Remnant pointed out in their recent article? Kind of laughable but nice progress and good to see.
-
When did that happen? I must have missed that.
In a newsletters a few months back
-
At one or more point during his talk Fr. C mentions two new priests in Australia. Does anyone know if these are exSSPX or come from the Novus Ordo? Do they need reeducation, conditional ordination, etc., etc.?
-
Thank you for posting the link because this was a very excellent talk. Father Chazal loves idioms and metaphors however he is always straightforward. I believe we can trust what he says is accurate. I for one have had my doubts about +Vigano cleared up in the last couple of weeks.
-
https://odysee.com/Fr-Chazal-Conference-UK-November-23:1
Thanks for posting this. I always enjoy hearing from Fr. Chazal. :cowboy:
-
At one or more point during his talk Fr. C mentions two new priests in Australia. Does anyone know if these are exSSPX or come from the Novus Ordo? Do they need reeducation, conditional ordination, etc., etc.?
They are from the Conciliar Church but trained in Rome (or should I say and - gasp! - trained in Rome...). They appear, though, to have had a more conservative and classical formation. Bishop Williamson has seen to everything... Some discretion is still required for one reason or another.
-
So now that Francis is recognized as being so absolutely insane, sedevacantism has graduated to 'that might be acceptable'. Just like the Remnant pointed out in their recent article? Kind of laughable but nice progress and good to see.
That is not an accurate interpretation of Fr Chazal's presentation. I understand why you would say this, however, given the seeming approach of the Resistance to Archbishop Vigano. However, keep in mind that this conference was given before Archbishop Vigano's statements that are so seemingly sympathetic to the sedevacantist viewpoint.
-
Hey Plenus,
No worries. My comment was actually directed at Gunter's observation eight posts earlier regarding Williamson and Thuc (these discussions can so easily veer off the main heading). Regardless, while it's still the early stages, I think Vigano comes across as one finding his way out of the New Order and is generally a needed breath of fresh air. Only time will tell, of course.
-
That is not an accurate interpretation of Fr Chazal's presentation. I understand why you would say this, however, given the seeming approach of the Resistance to Archbishop Vigano. However, keep in mind that this conference was given before Archbishop Vigano's statements that are so seemingly sympathetic to the sedevacantist viewpoint.
Archbishop Vigano came out stating that he does not hold Jorge Bergoglio as pope due to a defect of consent BEFORE Fr. Chazal's November 2023 conference.
-
This is great news. In the Bible we aren’t supposed to be associated with anyone who rejects the true teachings of Jesus Christ.
-
I’m wondering about my own baptism.
-
Archbishop Vigano came out stating that he does not hold Jorge Bergoglio as pope due to a defect of consent BEFORE Fr. Chazal's November 2023 conference.
Oh, my apologies and thank you for the correction CK. When exactly was that conference? At any rate, his position I think was a bit more ambiguous at that time. He clearly stated at the start of the first conference that he was not proposing the answers, he was only asking the question. In this last conference he is providing the answer quite emphatically!
-
For those in the US who have ordered Fr Chazal's book on Eternal Hell, may I inquire how much was charged for shipping?
The cost for Canada, and international orders for shipping is prohibitively expensive. I have ordered books from Florida - major tomes - and have them shipped for half the price posted on Mr. Akin's site.
Another request for a PDF version I offer heavenwards. Judging by the lack thereof since a forum post was made on this topic, it is something that has not come to pass.
-
Here is what Fr Jenkins has to say about Vigano's announcement of his new seminary. It is interesting that he doesn't even bring up the need for a conditional consecration.
Around the 32:20 mark:
Christmas Appeal • Tradition's "bloody death" • Viganò to open seminary? • More viewer questions (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca3AQjM7zQY&t=1846s)
-
Here is what Fr Jenkins has to say about Vigano's announcement of his new seminary. It is interesting that he doesn't even bring up the need for a conditional consecration.
Around the 32:20 mark:
Christmas Appeal • Tradition's "bloody death" • Viganò to open seminary? • More viewer questions (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca3AQjM7zQY&t=1846s)
Listen at 1.25 speed
-
52:00 - "I think it will take me two years" and will have 700 pages.
Thank you, I haven't had the chance to listen yet. That will be quite the wait, but well worth it. God bless Fr. Chazal!
-
For those in the US who have ordered Fr Chazal's book on Eternal Hell, may I inquire how much was charged for shipping?
The cost for Canada, and international orders for shipping is prohibitively expensive. I have ordered books from Florida - major tomes - and have them shipped for half the price posted on Mr. Akin's site.
Another request for a PDF version I offer heavenwards. Judging by the lack thereof since a forum post was made on this topic, it is something that has not come to pass.
I checked and shipping was about $5 when I ordered it, I live in the US. I did check the website just now and was quoted $35 as the cheapest to ship to Canada. I would try emailing Mr. Akins and seeing if there is a cheaper shipping method he can use, because I've shipped packages larger than a book to Canada before for less than that
-
Sadly, you might be right. :facepalm:
We'll have to stick with Fr. Vigano then.
No. +Vigano has been conditionally consecrated.
IMO, it's long overdue to have Fr. Chazal consecrated a bishop.
-
No. +Vigano has been conditionally consecrated.
Has this been confirmed? Why isn't this public?
-
Has this been confirmed? Why isn't this public?
Yes, it's been confirmed by multiple sources, including some in relatively-public ways. I do not know why it hasn't been widely announced, however. Perhaps +Vigano wanted to lay low a bit since as soon as he aligns himself with the wicked h0Ɩ0cαųst-denier group, he probably looses any influence he may have on the conservative Novus Ordite crowd. But I don't know and am speculating.
Given that +Vigano was directly "consecrated" by Saint Wojtyla the Great, I'm sure there's going to be a huge political blowback. Ironically, +Williamson also conditionally ordained a priest (many years ago), Fr. Carlos Casavantes, who had been "ordained" by Wojtyla.
-
IMO, it's long overdue to have Fr. Chazal consecrated a bishop.
Of course, given that Fr. Chazal was in the UK in November, and +Williamson has done a couple of non-public ones by this time ... it's not impossible that he too has been consecrated. I suspect that Bishop Williamson foresees something very bad coming down the road, even worse than the COVID lockdown, where the clergy will not be able to travel freely. I also feel that there should be an underground network of quietly-ordained priests to serve the faithful when (not if) those lockdowns happen. Neo-SSPX will likely fold like the proverbial accordion.
-
I’m wondering about my own baptism.
Why? Baptism is probably one of the most difficult to mess up. Unless you were dealing with one of the more wild and crazy NO priests, you're probably good ... but I don't see why you couldn't seek a conditional. I was born and baptized in 1968 in the Traditional Rite (new Rite was promulgated in 1969, but I believe the choice was given to priests to use either one through Easter 1970.
-
Oh, my apologies and thank you for the correction CK. When exactly was that conference? At any rate, his position I think was a bit more ambiguous at that time. He clearly stated at the start of the first conference that he was not proposing the answers, he was only asking the question. In this last conference he is providing the answer quite emphatically!
Here is an X post Archbishop Vigano made on Oct. 3, 2023:
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-10-03_194146.png)
-
Here is the first conference where he made it evident that he did not accept Jorge Bergoglio as pope:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12uJT9oFhes
-
Here is the first conference where he made it evident that he did not accept Jorge Bergoglio as pope:
Since his groundbreaking letter of June 9, 2020, he has not once referred to Bergoglio as the Pope, Holy Father, or even Francis (except once when it was sarcastic), and constantly referred to a Bergoglio Church as distinct from the Catholic Church. I think he's been weighing this for a few years now and leaning in this direction until he could come up with a theological explanation for the position.
-
Here is an X post Archbishop Vigano made on Oct. 3, 2023:
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-10-03_194146.png)
Thanks CK. No doubt about it, the first speech was emphatic enough, but he covered himself by saying "I'm just asking the question". But he was clearly doing more than that. But now he has confirmed his position in no uncertain terms. It is not the position of the Resistance, which has clearly always been that not only can we not make the declaration due to lack of authority, but also we cannot make the definitive judgement which is also for the Church. Please don't make this a thread for debating that, I'm just stating the position. It is obvious from the fact that so many sedevacantists are getting excited about AB Vigano that his position is not the Resistance position. So, will they work together? Behind the scenes I think yes, but openly... hmmm... I think there will be another split if that eventuates. What do you all think?????
-
Here is what Fr Jenkins has to say about Vigano's announcement of his new seminary. It is interesting that he doesn't even bring up the need for a conditional consecration.
Around the 32:20 mark:
Christmas Appeal • Tradition's "bloody death" • Viganò to open seminary? • More viewer questions (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca3AQjM7zQY&t=1846s)
Thank you for posting this 2Vermont. At mark 35:42 Fr. Jenkins brings up Vigano's Opus Dei relationships/contacts and the legitimate concerns on the part of people who think Vigano could be leading others down a dead end. He points out Vigano's involvement with the Cancelled Priests movement and its apparent disintegration. Mark 39:39 Fr. Jenkins says if OD is behind Vigano that is reason for serious misgivings about him.
-
Thank you for posting this 2Vermont. At mark 35:42 Fr. Jenkins brings up Vigano's Opus Dei relationships/contacts and the legitimate concerns on the part of people who think Vigano could be leading others down a dead end. He points out Vigano's involvement with the Cancelled Priests movement and its apparent disintegration. Mark 39:39 Fr. Jenkins says if OD is behind Vigano that is reason for serious misgivings about him.
And the haters will keep hating no matter what +Vigano does.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEpqo4JomNk
-
I would hesitate to call +Vigano a "Bishop for the Resistance", except loosely, as Father Chazal laid it out, in terms of what he believes, and the Resistance is a loose term to begin with rather than some kind of formal organization. +Vigano doesn't quite mesh with the Resistance in having publicly stated that Jorge is not the pope.
Father Chazal said that because +Vigano was "late to the fight" he's trying to be "as loud as he can". I'm not sure it's due to lateness, but rather because +Vigano realizes that he has (or, rather, had) a public platform, since he was embraced by Trad, Inc. and the convervative Novus Ordites on account of the McCarrick issue. He even had Trump re-tweet his letter one time. So he's more "famous" than any of the long-time Traditional clergy are (except for the time when +Williamson gained infamy / notoriety over his h0Ɩ0h0αx comments). +Vigano knew that he was in a position to influence the right-leaning Novus Ordites and did his best, but I think he realized that time was over when he broke with Trad, Inc. by blowing up Matt's "unite the clans" meeting. Now that he's finally come out publicly with his conviction that Jorge is no pope, I think his days of fame and notoriety in those quarters is over ... a conviction I believe he's long held, since he's never referred to Bergoglio as anything but Bergoglio for the past 3.5 years (not Pope, not Holy Father, and only once that I recall even Francis, and that was sarcastic). He'll no longer have a voice on all the Trad, Inc outlets but will be relegated to obscurity by them. That's why I think he's decided to move on and try to set up that seminary. In that regard, I think it is due to his regret over having come late to the fight, so he's trying to do what he can now to make up for it as best he can.
-
In any case, what Fr. Chazal "implies" did in fact happen, as confirmed by multiple sources. Since the details were told to me in confidence, I won't share them yet ... but the cat's largely out of the bag, as it were, that it did take place. It's only a matter of time now that the details will become public without my having to put them out there.
I have no information in this regard, and so it's pure speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if Fr. Chazal was also consecrated on his latest trip to the UK. I'm hoping that he was, since he's IMO the best intellect in the Resistance and has come up with the most coherent and Catholic theological approach to the Crisis, once that both R&R and SVs can find to be very solid and Catholic.
Now I just wish that the Trad clergy will start to realize the problem with EENS as related to the Crisis. I think that +Vigano does at least on one level, since he concluded his initial June 30, 2020 rejection of Vatican II with this paragraph:
Last Sunday, the Church celebrated the Most Holy Trinity, and in the Breviary it offers us the recitation of the Symbolum Athanasianum, now outlawed by the conciliar liturgy and already reduced to only two occasions in the liturgical reform of 1962. The first words of that now-disappeared Symbolum remain inscribed in letters of gold: “Quicuмque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam fidem; quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit – Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith; For unless a person shall have kept this faith whole and inviolate, without doubt he shall eternally perish.”
-
"Those" Trad societies that are failing to respond with complete rejection of the novus ordo, are risking becoming like the Jєωs at the time of Our Lord, irrelevant!
The Lord is asking the guests at the lower seat at the table to come and take a higher and more honorable seat.
-
In any case, what Fr. Chazal "implies" did in fact happen, as confirmed by multiple sources. Since the details were told to me in confidence, I won't share them yet ... but the cat's largely out of the bag, as it were, that it did take place. It's only a matter of time now that the details will become public without my having to put them out there.
I have no information in this regard, and so it's pure speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if Fr. Chazal was also consecrated on his latest trip to the UK. I'm hoping that he was, since he's IMO the best intellect in the Resistance and has come up with the most coherent and Catholic theological approach to the Crisis, once that both R&R and SVs can find to be very solid and Catholic.
Now I just wish that the Trad clergy will start to realize the problem with EENS as related to the Crisis. I think that +Vigano does at least on one level, since he concluded his initial June 30, 2020 rejection of Vatican II with this paragraph:
Dear Ladislaus,
I pray that what you say is true! A clear and unambiguous announcement from Bishop Williamson would be greatly appreciated! At that point, the SSPX would be forced to explain or re-evaluate taking in "Huondor the Trojan Horse" and all the novus ordo "priests" serving without conditional ordination. Fr. Stehlen in Poland has stated that it would be a sacrilege to conditionally ordain the novus ordo "priests" pouring into SSPX chapels--who cares about Our Lord and the souls of the faithful who think they are receiving true and valid Sacraments! Fr Chazal's statements regarding Strickland are very true--he is definitely not ready or willing to leave the novus ordo sect.
-
Thanks CK. No doubt about it, the first speech was emphatic enough, but he covered himself by saying "I'm just asking the question". But he was clearly doing more than that. But now he has confirmed his position in no uncertain terms. It is not the position of the Resistance, which has clearly always been that not only can we not make the declaration due to lack of authority, but also we cannot make the definitive judgement which is also for the Church. Please don't make this a thread for debating that, I'm just stating the position. It is obvious from the fact that so many sedevacantists are getting excited about AB Vigano that his position is not the Resistance position. So, will they work together? Behind the scenes I think yes, but openly... hmmm... I think there will be another split if that eventuates. What do you all think?????
You stated the following:
"......not only can we not make the declaration due to lack of authority, but also we cannot make the definitive judgement which is also for the Church."
I do not see these conjunct statements as two different things. They are both related to authority. Whereas it is true that we do not have the authority to make a definitive judgment, we do have in conscience the right to make a private judgment based on the evidence. And the evidence is overwhelming that Jorge Bergoglio is not a Catholic, and therefore cannot be pope.
The Resistance has to come to terms with the fact that Jorge Bergoglio is not the pope. To continue to recognize and resist is not pleasing to God with the abundance of evidence of this fact.
“The very act of submission to the pretended authority of an openly heretical enemy (i.e., Jorge Bergoglio) of the Catholic faith constitutes per se an objectively grave act not only of indiscreet obedience; but done in ignorance, constitutes an act of material schism as well. Thus, while the Recognize and Resist policy of Catholics towards the errant conciliar popes was morally justified from the time of the post-council up to the end of February 2013, when Pope Benedict went into what is increasingly seen to be a coerced retirement; it is no longer morally licit to adhere to it for so long as the heretical intruder (or another like him) remains in power, because it is morally wrong and schismatic to recognize and be subject to a manifestly formal heretic.”
(Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.)
It is difficult to say what will happen in the long term because the next pope could very well be a holy pope and be able to bring all factions together.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEpqo4JomNk&t=25s
Yes, the cat is out of the bag!
-
Thank you for posting this 2Vermont. At mark 35:42 Fr. Jenkins brings up Vigano's Opus Dei relationships/contacts and the legitimate concerns on the part of people who think Vigano could be leading others down a dead end. He points out Vigano's involvement with the Cancelled Priests movement and its apparent disintegration. Mark 39:39 Fr. Jenkins says if OD is behind Vigano that is reason for serious misgivings about him.
Fr. Jenkins provides a good account of both the good things that +Vigano has said, and also of the problems with +Vigano. He doesn't make any judgement of +Vigano, but says that we must wait and see. It's quite balanced, though he didn't bring up the particular issues that I have with +Vigano, but that's okay.
I listened to all of the video after 32:00 minutes. It's very good, but then I expect that from Fr. Jenkins. Though it's a different topic from what has been discussed regarding +Vigano, I liked his explanation of the need for custody of the imagination.
-
Fr. Jenkins provides a good account of both the good things that +Vigano has said, and also of the problems with +Vigano. He doesn't make any judgement of +Vigano, but says that we must wait and see. It's quite balanced, though he didn't bring up the particular issues that I have with +Vigano, but that's okay.
I listened to all of the video after 32:00 minutes. It's very good, but then I expect that from Fr. Jenkins. Though it's a different topic from what has been discussed regarding +Vigano, I liked his explanation of the need for custody of the imagination.
But I thought you were Resistance, and the Resistance have clearly embraced +Vigano with open arms. So you're siding with the "evil sedevacantist" against the Resistance?
I never thought I'd see the day ... :laugh1:
You chimed in multiple times on the "The Nine" thread deriding all of the "wicked Nine", but now Father Jenkins is great and the Resistance is wrong.
-
he didn't bring up the particular issues that I have with +Vigano, but that's okay.
Ah, yes, the "Sol Invictus" and "Mason" nonsense. Well, that's because Father Jenkins is actually rational. Oh, and he doesn't condemn +Vigano's sedevcantism either, "but that's okay".
-
But I thought you were Resistance, and the Resistance have clearly embraced +Vigano with open arms. So you're siding with the "evil sedevacantist" against the Resistance?
I never thought I'd see the day ... :laugh1:
I've always liked Fr. Jenkins. But then, he's not so pushy with the sedevacantism as some SV's, is he. He seems to care more about the Catholic faith and how to remain Catholic in a Crisis. I've said good things about Fr. Jenkins on 2 or 3 separate occasions on this forum, but I don't expect you to know that. Oh, and Fr. Jenkins is honest. That's counts for a lot, IMO.
-
Ah, yes, the "Sol Invictus" and "Mason" nonsense. Well, that's because Father Jenkins is actually rational.
Perhaps you should watch the last half of the video. You could use Fr. Jenkins' good advice regarding the "custody of the imagination."
Just sayin'.
-
Perhaps you should watch the last half of the video. You could use Fr. Jenkins' good advice regarding the "custody of the imagination."
Just sayin'.
What are you babbling about? I wasn't the one promoting that outlandish nonsense. You (and others) were. I was the one denouncing YOUR imaginations running wild with slanderous nonsense.
-
So, Meg, are you rejecting the Resistance's praise and promotion of +Vigano?
-
So, Meg, are you rejecting the Resistance's praise and promotion of +Vigano?
I don't agree with the Resistance' praise and promotion of Vigano.
I suppose that makes me now a hater of not only Vigano, but of the Resistance too, in your eyes? You are so immature, Ladislaus.
-
There are people that go and ask every priest they no their opinion and they keep asking until they hear an opinion that they like. The internet allows one to pick and choose opinions. Fr. Jenkins "one of the evil nine" has a great defender in Meg because it's Saturday.
-
There are people that go and ask every priest they no their opinion and they keep asking until they hear an opinion that they like. The internet allows one to pick and choose opinions. Fr. Jenkins "one of the evil nine" has a great defender in Meg because it's Saturday.
And don't get me wrong, I greatly respect Father Jenkins. Yet, as with others, I disagree with him on a few points ... 1) his/their position on the CMRI and the +Thuc lines, and 2) his/their position on the "Feeney' issue, and 3) their overall use of the Sacraments as weapons to impose their positions on such matters. But Father Jenkins, overall, is an amazing priest, not only in terms of his intellect, but in terms of his pastorship and care for the faithful. But I don't agree with him on some matters.
-
And don't get me wrong, I greatly respect Father Jenkins. Yet, as with others, I disagree with him on a few points ... 1) his/their position on the CMRI and the +Thuc lines, and 2) his/their position on the "Feeney' issue, and 3) their overall use of the Sacraments as weapons to impose their positions on such matters. But Father Jenkins, overall, is an amazing priest, not only in terms of his intellect, but in terms of his pastorship and care for the faithful. But I don't agree with him on some matters.
He is a solid priest just like the other "nine".
-
You chimed in multiple times on the "The Nine" thread deriding all of the "wicked Nine", but now Father Jenkins is great and the Resistance is wrong.
:laugh1:
There are people that go and ask every priest they no their opinion and they keep asking until they hear an opinion that they like. The internet allows one to pick and choose opinions. Fr. Jenkins "one of the evil nine" has a great defender in Meg because it's Saturday.
:laugh1:
Meg is really providing a lot of laughs lately.
-
I would hesitate to call +Vigano a "Bishop for the Resistance", except loosely, as Father Chazal laid it out, in terms of what he believes, and the Resistance is a loose term to begin with rather than some kind of formal organization.
My first reaction to hearing Fr Chazal (a frenchman) say that +Vigano (an Italian) is part of the Resistance is because I think +Williamson (an englishman) realizes that they need an Italian cleric. The resistance has most of the other countries covered. (i'm joking).
-
There are people that go and ask every priest they no their opinion and they keep asking until they hear an opinion that they like. The internet allows one to pick and choose opinions. Fr. Jenkins "one of the evil nine" has a great defender in Meg because it's Saturday.
What is your opinion on what Fr. Jenkins said about Vigano? Did you listen to it at all?
You want to make this about me, as is often the case with SV's who want to distract away from the subject at hand, or belittle the person who makes an unwelcome comment, but it would be good to see what you think about the subject that we were actually discussing.
-
What is your opinion on what Fr. Jenkins said about Vigano? Did you listen to it at all?
You want to make this about me, as is often the case with SV's who want to distract away from the subject at hand, or belittle the person who makes an unwelcome comment, but it would be good to see what you think about the subject that we were actually discussing.
If everything about +Vigano is true, we are witnessing the possible road map for the return to Tradition. Those who have removed themselves from the false religion and at best doubtful sacraments, are not confused about the process. The Holy Ghost is leading many back to His perfect Church which needs no change or alterations.
-
My first reaction to hearing Fr Chazal (a frenchman) say that +Vigano (an Italian) is part of the Resistance is because I think +Williamson (an englishman) realizes that they need an Italian cleric. The resistance has most of the other countries covered. (i'm joking).
Yes, we have to not think of "the Resistance" as some kind of formal organization, but rather a group of Catholic clerics (and faithful) who disagree with "playing footsie" with Bergoglio and making compromises. +Vigano actually called out SSPX for trying to make some arrangement or agreement with Bergoglio.
-
Thank you for posting this 2Vermont. At mark 35:42 Fr. Jenkins brings up Vigano's Opus Dei relationships/contacts and the legitimate concerns on the part of people who think Vigano could be leading others down a dead end. He points out Vigano's involvement with the Cancelled Priests movement and its apparent disintegration. Mark 39:39 Fr. Jenkins says if OD is behind Vigano that is reason for serious misgivings about him.
Fr Jenkins is such a HATER! :laugh1:
-
I have no information in this regard, and so it's pure speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if Fr. Chazal was also consecrated on his latest trip to the UK. I'm hoping that he was, since he's IMO the best intellect in the Resistance and has come up with the most coherent and Catholic theological approach to the Crisis, once that both R&R and SVs can find to be very solid and Catholic.
What? Fr. Chazal's sedeimpoundism in effect denies the Church teaching that the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
But Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church.
Fr. Chazal affirms that Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy as he has repeatedly called him a public heretic. Yet he still holds him as pope. As such, he holds that Jorge Bergoglio is not separated from the Church. Fr. Chazal's position, then, in effect denies the major premise.
-
What? Fr. Chazal's sedeimpoundism in effect denies the Church teaching that the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
But Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church.
Fr. Chazal affirms that Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy as he has repeatedly called him a public heretic. Yet he still holds him as pope. As such, he holds that Jorge Bergoglio is not separated from the Church. Fr. Chazal's position, then, in effect denies the major premise.
"For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis)
https://s3.docuмentcloud.org/docuмents/5983408/Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic.pdf (https://s3.docuмentcloud.org/docuмents/5983408/Open-Letter-to-the-Bishops-of-the-Catholic.pdf)
-
What? Fr. Chazal's sedeimpoundism in effect denies the Church teaching that the public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church.
But Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is separated from the Church.
Fr. Chazal affirms that Jorge Bergoglio has committed the public sin of manifest formal heresy as he has repeatedly called him a public heretic. Yet he still holds him as pope. As such, he holds that Jorge Bergoglio is not separated from the Church. Fr. Chazal's position, then, in effect denies the major premise.
Yep. Just another of the Great Apostle of Indefectibility’s inconsistencies.
I once asked him:
There is a lack of clarity here that just contributes to the confusion.
Father Chazal holds that Francis is the pope. You say he can't be the pope, that if he is the pope, or regarded as the pope, it makes a lie of the Church's indefectibility; it stands on end the traditional teaching regarding the pope's authority and submission to it, etc.
How does Fr. Chazal's "impounding" of the pope, while still recognizing him as pope, not create issues regarding the Church's indefectiblity, the pope's authority and submission to it, etc.
Please educate me.
I never got a response.
-
Yep. Just another of the Great Apostle of Indefectibility’s inconsistencies.
I once asked him:
I never got a response.
To clarify the above: I was responding to a post by Catholic Knight in which he was commenting on Lad’s remarks on Fr. Chazal’s sedeimpoundist position. The referenced “Apostle” was Lad, not Fr. Chazal.
If you want to downthumb with that clarification, fire away.
-
Yep. Just another of the Great Apostle of Indefectibility’s inconsistencies.
I once asked him:
I never got a response.
Ah, nice, turning the Church's Indefectibility into a term of derision. That says much about you, Old Catholic.
Needless to say, I don't read every post of yours.
As for saying someone is the pope and isn't the pope at the same time, that's referred to as a distinction. Look it up. You have repeatedly exposed the fact that you haven't the foggiest notion regarding sedeprivationism/sedeimpoundism, where you attribute various false conclusions to my position that pertain to straight sedevacantism (and even those are invalid), whereas I've repeatedly said that I'm more of a sedeprivationist/sedeimpoundist ... in theory or in principle. In fact, I don't believe either of those apply to the current situation, since I don't believe that the V2 papal claimants were in even material possession of the office due to the Siri Theory, which I hold.
This is the same thing that the absolutely inept John Pontrello made and he too exhibited the same inability to understand the basic concept of a distinction. You should take pause in the fact that you are the Orthodox heretic John Pontrello's favorite and most often cited poster on CathInfo. In fact, I've suspected that you are in fact Pontrello.
-
If everything about +Vigano is true, we are witnessing the possible road map for the return to Tradition. Those who have removed themselves from the false religion and at best doubtful sacraments, are not confused about the process. The Holy Ghost is leading many back to His perfect Church which needs no change or alterations.
I appreciate your reply. Good food for thought.
-
Ah, nice, turning the Church's Indefectibility into a term of derision. That says much about you, Old Catholic.
Needless to say, I don't read every post of yours.
As for saying someone is the pope and isn't the pope at the same time, that's referred to as a distinction. Look it up. You have repeatedly exposed the fact that you haven't the foggiest notion regarding sedeprivationism/sedeimpoundism, where you attribute various false conclusions to my position that pertain to straight sedevacantism (and even those are invalid), whereas I've repeatedly said that I'm more of a sedeprivationist/sedeimpoundist ... in theory or in principle. In fact, I don't believe either of those apply to the current situation, since I don't believe that the V2 papal claimants were in even material possession of the office due to the Siri Theory, which I hold.
This is the same thing that the absolutely inept John Pontrello made and he too exhibited the same inability to understand the basic concept of a distinction. You should take pause in the fact that you are the Orthodox heretic John Pontrello's favorite and most often cited poster on CathInfo. In fact, I've suspected that you are in fact Pontrello.
I think you read my post the first time and didn't respond, because you have no response. Why do I think that? Because this "response" is non-responsive, and you have no response on point.
I asked you about the implications of Father Chazals's view that Francis is pope on the indefectibility of the Church, and the submission owed "popes," of which Fr. Chazal deems Francis one. But your "response" has not a word directed to that inquiry.
I think we both know why: because the inquiry exposes the contradictions that you cannot answer. And all the cover of name calling and mockery of an alleged failure to recognize distinctions fails to hide that fact.
-
"The neccessary has been done" suggests that they discussed the issue and decided not to consecrate conditionally .
.
I have to wonder why Fr. Chazal declined to answer the question of whether Vigano was conditionally re-consecrated. Why would such a thing be secret? And yes, the answer of "the necessary has been done" depends entirely on what Fr. Chazal considers necessary for a Novus Ordo-consecrated bishop, in terms of holy orders.
I think I'll wait for the public announcement before I believe this one. :popcorn:
-
.
I have to wonder why Fr. Chazal declined to answer the question of whether Vigano was conditionally re-consecrated. Why would such a thing be secret? And yes, the answer of "the necessary has been done" depends entirely on what Fr. Chazal considers necessary for a Novus Ordo-consecrated bishop, in terms of holy orders.
I think I'll wait for the public announcement before I believe this one. :popcorn:
That’s understandable, but Ladislaus stated that it has been confirmed.
-
That’s understandable, but Ladislaus stated that it has been confirmed.
Yes, it's understandable, since at this time you'd only have my word for it and Father Chazal's cryptic comment. It's not like there's a huge rush, where we'd be assisting at Mass with +Vigano-ordained priests any time soon.
-
.
I have to wonder why Fr. Chazal declined to answer the question of whether Vigano was conditionally re-consecrated. Why would such a thing be secret? And yes, the answer of "the necessary has been done" depends entirely on what Fr. Chazal considers necessary for a Novus Ordo-consecrated bishop, in terms of holy orders.
I think I'll wait for the public announcement before I believe this one. :popcorn:
Yes, but keep in mind that Bishop Williamson didn't make Bishop Paul Morgan's episcopal consecration public for almost 2 years.
I also find the timing of the announcement off. Why would he announce his new seminary in Italy before the announcement of his conditional consecration? It seems to me that that's backwards. Also, to your point in another thread, why announce his seminary as the "only Traditional Catholic seminary in Italy" when there is already such a seminary in Italy for decades (Mater Boni Consilii)?
-
I guess I’ve been out of the loop. Where can I find info about this seminary in Italy that +Vigano is building?
-
I guess I’ve been out of the loop. Where can I find info about this seminary in Italy that +Vigano is building?
This thread here will lead you to the relevant announcement:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/archbishop-vigano-establishes-the-collegium-traditionis/
-
I guess I’ve been out of the loop. Where can I find info about this seminary in Italy that +Vigano is building?
Yes, the thread PV linked has Vigano's newsletter announcing his new seminary. Here are a couple of excerpts:
The Collegium Traditionis will be the first and only traditional Italian reality destined for a seminary, equipping itself with teachers and spiritual guides of sure orthodoxy and solid spirituality, under my supervision.
....
For this reason, dear Brothers and Friends, I urge you to become ministers of Providence yourselves in this ambitious project, in the awareness that this work of charity of yours – obviously accompanied by a supernatural gaze – will serve Italy first and foremost, indeed the Italian people, given the total absence of a traditional seminary in this region.
But there is this seminary in Turin, Italy since the 1980's:
Who we are – Sodalitium (sodalitiumpianum.com)
(https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/who-we-are/)
-
So now that Francis is recognized as being so absolutely insane, sedevacantism has graduated to 'that might be acceptable'. Just like the Remnant pointed out in their recent article? Kind of laughable but nice progress and good to see.
Why is it laughable? It is only logical that as truth be revealed that new conclusions are derived.
-
Yes, but keep in mind that Bishop Williamson didn't make Bishop Paul Morgan's episcopal consecration public for almost 2 years.
You're a bit confused. Bishop Ballini was consecrated 2 years ago and Bishop Morgan was consecrated a few months ago.
-
You're a bit confused. Bishop Ballini was consecrated 2 years ago and Bishop Morgan was consecrated a few months ago.
No, RM, Bishop Morgan was consecrated early last year, coming up to 2 years now. I posted the sermon of Bishop Williamson's on a thread recently where he announced it, can't find it right now, sorry. The cat was only let out of the bag a few months ago, that's what has you confused.
-
No, RM, Bishop Morgan was consecrated early last year, coming up to 2 years now. I posted the sermon of Bishop Williamson's on a thread recently where he announced it, can't find it right now, sorry. The cat was only let out of the bag a few months ago, that's what has you confused.
Thank you for clearing up the confusion. Here is the video you posted for me about a week ago:
Bishop Paul Morgan giving the reasons for the consecration of Resistance bishops - page 1 - SSPX Resistance en Français - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-en-francais/bishop-paul-morgan-giving-the-reasons-for-the-consecration-of-resistance-bishops/msg917030/#msg917030)
-
Well, I know at least one priest in the SSPX who's rejoicing about Archbishop Vigano. Today at St. Jude Church in Philadelphia, our pastor, Fr. Steven Webber, praised the archbishop from the pulpit and talked about his reaction to Fiducia Supplicans, and said he'll put printouts of it out for people to take. He also called the archbishop a St. John the Baptist who is following in the footsteps of Archbishop Lefebvre.
-
Well, I know at least one priest in the SSPX who's rejoicing about Archbishop Vigano. Today at St. Jude Church in Philadelphia, our pastor, Fr. Steven Webber, praised the archbishop from the pulpit and talked about his reaction to Fiducia Supplicans, and said he'll put printouts of it out for people to take. He also called the archbishop a St. John the Baptist who is following in the footsteps of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Yes, it is surprising the Fr Webber did not join the Resistance. His type are being tolerated by the SSPX authorities and are certainly not in favour of the liberal drift.