Author Topic: Fr. Chazal on Frs. Suelo, Elijah, Kramer, Hewko, and Bishop Ambrose Moran (Read 6883 times)

thebloodycoven · « **on:** January 26, 2016, 06:08:47 AM »

After recording the video, Fr. Chazal informed me to post this here, and also to clear some misunderstanding, namely, that his theological difference with Fr. Paul Kramer would be settled finally at the death of Benedict XVI. Right now Fr. Chazal avoids attacking Fr. Kramer's position (though he discussed this with him all too frequent) as it does not constitute any theological obligation that one must believe i.e. Benedict's retention of the Papacy, for one to be a Catholic.

I was also surprised that he has no quarrel (albeit he disagrees with them) with sedevacantists who view the "vacancy" of the See of Peter as a probable position, or opinion, without any dogmatic pretext.

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #1 on:** January 26, 2016, 06:34:37 AM »

Moran told the seminarians at OLMC that they could be Eastern rite and could get married? Wow. That's around minute 18:00.

Don · « **Reply #2 on:** January 26, 2016, 07:37:14 AM »

Quote

was also surprised that he has no quarrel (albeit he disagrees with them) with sedevacantists who view the "vacancy" of the See of Peter as a probable position, or opinion, without any dogmatic pretext.

Why surprised. thats the Catholic position. sedevacantism is a Catholic theological opinion no more no less.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** January 26, 2016, 08:50:02 AM »

Quote from: thebloodycoven

I was also surprised that he has no quarrel (albeit he disagrees with them) with sedevacantists who view the "vacancy" of the See of Peter as a probable position, or opinion, without any dogmatic pretext.

There should be no surprise. Father Chazal is intellectually honest. He has articulated IMO the most Catholic position regarding this crisis, what he called the "quarantined pope" ... a position which I have termed sededoubtism.

Paul FHC · « **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2016, 09:26:19 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: thebloodycoven
I was also surprised that he has no quarrel (albeit he disagrees with them) with sedevacantists who view the "vacancy" of the See of Peter as a probable position, or opinion, without any dogmatic pretext.

There should be no surprise. Father Chazal is intellectually honest. He has articulated IMO the most Catholic position regarding this crisis, what he called the "quarantined pope" ... a position which I have termed sededoubtism.

Indeed. I believe that this position is more in line with the thinking of St. Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, and Suarez. That the Pope may very well have lost his papacy but that, he will not be deposed until some council comes along to depose him.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** January 26, 2016, 10:08:51 AM »

Quote from: Paul FHC

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: thebloodycoven
I was also surprised that he has no quarrel (albeit he disagrees with them) with sedevacantists who view the "vacancy" of the See of Peter as a probable position, or opinion, without any dogmatic pretext.

There should be no surprise. Father Chazal is intellectually honest. He has articulated IMO the most Catholic position regarding this crisis, what he called the "quarantined pope" ... a position which I have termed sededoubtism.

Indeed. I believe that this position is more in line with the thinking of St. Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, and Suarez. That the Pope may very well have lost his papacy but that, he will not be deposed until some council comes along to depose him.

Right, and he doesn't believe that we should be able pick and choose which commands / teachings to obey and which to reject (the old Magisterium-sifting). He says that they have completely lost authority due to heresy. He calls the V2 Popes heretics, says they have lost authority (formal possession of the papacy), but remain materially in the See until disposed of by competent authority. His position is music to my ears ... avoiding the problems with both R&R and SVism.

I consider Father Chazal to be the moral leader of The Resistance. He has not hesitated to call out Father Pfeiffer and is just honestly seeking the truth and to do the will of God.

Paul FHC · « **Reply #6 on:** January 26, 2016, 11:25:35 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Paul FHC
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: thebloodycoven
I was also surprised that he has no quarrel (albeit he disagrees with them) with sedevacantists who view the "vacancy" of the See of Peter as a probable position, or opinion, without any dogmatic pretext.

There should be no surprise. Father Chazal is intellectually honest. He has articulated IMO the most Catholic position regarding this crisis, what he called the "quarantined pope" ... a position which I have termed sededoubtism.

Indeed. I believe that this position is more in line with the thinking of St. Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, and Suarez. That the Pope may very well have lost his papacy but that, he will not be deposed until some council comes along to depose him.

Right, and he doesn't believe that we should be able pick and choose which commands / teachings to obey and which to reject (the old Magisterium-sifting). He says that they have completely lost authority due to heresy. He calls the V2 Popes heretics, says they have lost authority (formal possession of the papacy), but remain materially in the See until disposed of by competent authority. His position is music to my ears ... avoiding the problems with both R&R and SVism.

I consider Father Chazal to be the moral leader of The Resistance. He has not hesitated to call out Father Pfeiffer and is just honestly seeking the truth and to do the will of God.

I do believe this is the first time that I've fully agreed with someone on cathinfo.

Fr. Chazal has done a really good job holding the line of the zealous missionary priest. He hasn't lost his mind in some epileptic fit of "zeal" and done something absurd.

*cough* (kentucky)

Franciscan Solitary · « **Reply #7 on:** January 26, 2016, 12:11:18 PM »

Quote from: Paul FHC

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Paul FHC
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: thebloodycoven
I was also surprised that he has no quarrel (albeit he disagrees with them) with sedevacantists who view the "vacancy" of the See of Peter as a probable position, or opinion, without any dogmatic pretext.

There should be no surprise. Father Chazal is intellectually honest. He has articulated IMO the most Catholic position regarding this crisis, what he called the "quarantined pope" ... a position which I have termed sededoubtism.

Indeed. I believe that this position is more in line with the thinking of St. Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, and Suarez. That the Pope may very well have lost his papacy but that, he will not be deposed until some council comes along to depose him.

Right, and he doesn't believe that we should be able pick and choose which commands / teachings to obey and which to reject (the old Magisterium-sifting). He says that they have completely lost authority due to heresy. He calls the V2 Popes heretics, says they have lost authority (formal possession of the papacy), but remain materially in the See until disposed of by competent authority. His position is music to my ears ... avoiding the problems with both R&R and SVism.

I consider Father Chazal to be the moral leader of The Resistance. He has not hesitated to call out Father Pfeiffer and is just honestly seeking the truth and to do the will of God.

I do believe this is the first time that I've fully agreed with someone on cathinfo.

Fr. Chazal has done a really good job holding the line of the zealous missionary priest. He hasn't lost his mind in some epileptic fit of "zeal" and done something absurd.

*cough* (kentucky)

For once Mr. Ladislaus and this writer are in full-throated agreement. However this does have some broader implications. In particular, then the most principled and serious among the SV bishops would be seen as fully legitimate Roman Catholic bishops. Then Bishop Andrés Morello, Bishop Markus Ramolla and the Canons Regular of Saint Augustine under Bishop Michael Philip French become quite respectable and legitimate representatives of Holy Mother Church. Then the good Fr. Chazal is suddenly no longer nearly so alone as most on Cathinfo are wont to imagine, then Roman Catholicism comes alive even in terms of objective reality and there is then a great deal of hard work to be done.

By us!

But are the bloggers of Cathinfo ready for this? Or must the seductive comforts of living forever safely amid the shadows in shameless unapologetic cowardice prove too strong to resist? One can bravely face objective reality or else find endless gimmicks with which to evade reality and invent any number of plagiaries for the sole purpose of avoiding the responsibilities of Roman Catholic adulthood.

Which must it be?

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #8 on:** January 26, 2016, 02:03:38 PM »

Quote from: Paul FHC

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: thebloodycoven
I was also surprised that he has no quarrel (albeit he disagrees with them) with sedevacantists who view the "vacancy" of the See of Peter as a probable position, or opinion, without any dogmatic pretext.

There should be no surprise. Father Chazal is intellectually honest. He has articulated IMO the most Catholic position regarding this crisis, what he called the "quarantined pope" ... a position which I have termed sededoubtism.

Indeed. I believe that this position is more in line with the thinking of St. Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, and Suarez. That the Pope may very well have lost his papacy but that, he will not be deposed until some council comes along to depose him.

And here is the resistance problem. It is heresy to believe that a council can depose a pope. Period, end of story.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #9 on:** January 26, 2016, 02:50:04 PM »

Quote

the Council of Constance succeeded in terminating the Western Schism, not by declaring which of the three claimants was the rightful one, but by eliminating all of them by forcing their abdication or deposition

thebloodycoven · « **Reply #10 on:** January 26, 2016, 03:10:49 PM »

Quote from: TheRealMcCoy

Moran told the seminarians at OLMC that they could be Eastern rite and could get married? Wow. That's around minute 18:00.

Fr. Chazal and Fr. Hewko immediately sense the absurdity of such a proposal. 3 things here I think. Our conservative/traditional Eastern Catholic brethren would never say anything like that to a Roman Catholic, which would demean the former's view of the priesthood and their diverse but valid custom. An Eastern Catholic will only allow a Roman Catholic to "convert" if the latter only intend to do so out of a profound appreciation and association with the former's spirituality, it's way of life, liturgy, and theology - not because one just wants to become a married and enter the priesthood. More importantly, as what the two priests may have deduced likewise that if Bishop Ambrose is truly a schismatic bishop, then it's but logical that he would drag the seminarians and its priests to the Eastern "Orthodox" schism and heresy, masquerading as an Eastern Catholic rite. This Bishop Ambrose would entice the passions of these seminarians just to recruit and destroy "the little that the Resistance have".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** January 26, 2016, 03:20:36 PM »

Quote from: Recusant Sede

And here is the resistance problem. It is heresy to believe that a council can depose a pope. Period, end of story.

Except that it's a straw man because no one believes that the Council would depose a pope, just would recognize and declare (to end all doubt) that such has happened. Some theologians have called this "ministerial" deposition.

TheRealMcCoy · « **Reply #12 on:** January 26, 2016, 03:26:13 PM »

Quote from: Franciscan Solitary

there is then a great deal of hard work to be done.

Can you explain what you mean? What can be done that isn't already being done?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2016, 04:19:35 PM »

Quote from: Paul FHC

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Paul FHC
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: thebloodycoven
I was also surprised that he has no quarrel (albeit he disagrees with them) with sedevacantists who view the "vacancy" of the See of Peter as a probable position, or opinion, without any dogmatic pretext.

There should be no surprise. Father Chazal is intellectually honest. He has articulated IMO the most Catholic position regarding this crisis, what he called the "quarantined pope" ... a position which I have termed sededoubtism.

Indeed. I believe that this position is more in line with the thinking of St. Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, and Suarez. That the Pope may very well have lost his papacy but that, he will not be deposed until some council comes along to depose him.

Right, and he doesn't believe that we should be able pick and choose which commands / teachings to obey and which to reject (the old Magisterium-sifting). He says that they have completely lost authority due to heresy. He calls the V2 Popes heretics, says they have lost authority (formal possession of the papacy), but remain materially in the See until disposed of by competent authority. His position is music to my ears ... avoiding the problems with both R&R and SVism.

I consider Father Chazal to be the moral leader of The Resistance. He has not hesitated to call out Father Pfeiffer and is just honestly seeking the truth and to do the will of God.

I do believe this is the first time that I've fully agreed with someone on cathinfo.

Fr. Chazal has done a really good job holding the line of the zealous missionary priest. He hasn't lost his mind in some epileptic fit of "zeal" and done something absurd.

*cough* (kentucky)

I think that this is one of the only issues I have ever agreed with Ladislaus on Cath Info also. I was in agreement with his position that touched on this in a thread about Fr. Pfeiffer back in 2014. I think that's about as far as it goes.

I've also been very impressed with Fr. Chazal's work in Asia. He seems to be doing very good. I'll be sure to keep his apostolate in my prayers.

What is confusing in this post is that Fr. Chazal says that he will agree with Fr. Kramer when BXVI passes away. Well, when BXVI dies, all those who believe that BXVI was the true pope will not suddenly say that they accept Francis...so what is he saying with this? If Benedict is the pope, then when he dies it will be a sede vacante. Maybe he didn't see this as the logical conclusion for those who have that position, but how could he miss it? Does he really think that they will accept Francis with the death of Benedict? I'm pretty sure that the benedictus papa est position leads to sede vacantism,transition phase...

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2016, 04:51:48 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Recusant Sede
And here is the resistance problem. It is heresy to believe that a council can depose a pope. Period, end of story.

Except that it's a straw man because no one believes that the Council would depose a pope, just would recognize and declare (to end all doubt) that such has happened. Some theologians have called this "ministerial" deposition.

Ok, I agree that a council will declare these imposters not to be popes so an election can be had and to tie up the loose ends, fair enough.

Now it seems to me that you personally don't believe them to be popes (well, at least Bergoglio), is that correct?