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.

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.

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.

.

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.

.

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.

I guess I’ve been out of the loop. Where can I find info about this seminary in Italy that +Vigano is building?

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. 

You're a bit confused. Bishop Ballini was consecrated 2 years ago and Bishop Morgan was consecrated a few months ago.