Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8

Author Topic: Is Fr. Chazal Sedeprivationist?  (Read 8605 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Meg

Re: Is Fr. Chazal Sedeprivationist?
« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2018, 12:32:30 PM »
Quote from: Centroamerica on March 16, 2018, 12:31:36 PM
Pretty sure he called him an anti-Christ and said most of the Novus Ordo sacraments are invalid.

That doesn't answer the question. And I don't think that he said that the novus ordo sacraments are invalid. I believe that he said that they are valid but illicit. That's not the same thing. 
Logged

Offline Meg

Re: Is Fr. Chazal Sedeprivationist?
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2018, 12:38:19 PM »

+ABL said toward the end of his life that Rome is in apostasy. But he didn't single out the Pope. For +ABL, the problem with modernism was a systemic problem. Trads nowadays focus mainly on the Pope, as if the current modernist pope invented modernism. But no, modernism has been around for a long time now, and JP2 was every bit a modernist as Francis. 
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Is Fr. Chazal Sedeprivationist?
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2018, 12:59:48 PM »
Quote from: Meg on March 16, 2018, 12:38:19 PM
+ABL said toward the end of his life that Rome is in apostasy. But he didn't single out the Pope. For +ABL, the problem with modernism was a systemic problem. Trads nowadays focus mainly on the Pope, as if the current modernist pope invented modernism. But no, modernism has been around for a long time now, and JP2 was every bit a modernist as Francis.

That's because the Pope is THE problem for Catholics.  NOBODY, no sede-whateverist (as you like to call us), has ever said that these guys are the only modernists or that they invented modernism.  But the problem of how to respond to this crisis hinges upon the status of the Pope.
Logged

Offline Cantarella

Re: Is Fr. Chazal Sedeprivationist?
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2018, 08:59:01 PM »
Quote from: Clemens Maria on March 16, 2018, 08:16:02 PM
I don't think the situation with Caiphas supports the R&R/Resistance position.  Our Lord was tried 4 times.  1. Annas 2. Caiphas 3. Pilate 4. Herod and finally back to Pilate.  He refused to speak anything to Annas and Herod.  Presumably this is because neither of them had any jurisdiction.  But He did answer Caiphas who was the legitimate High Priest at the time.  And He did answer Pilate who was the legitimate Roman governor of the territory.  So if the Conciliar popes have any jurisdiction whatsoever, then we as members of the Church are legally bound to respect and submit to their authority.  So that is a difference between the SP position and Fr. Chazal's position.  SP theory posits that the loss of the formal office causes the total loss of authority.

Recently I read an interview to Mons. Guerard Des Lauries made in May, 1988 and he makes a very good point here (Google Translation from French):

Quote
That there is in the earth a person who is the Vicar of Christ, to whom every faithful of Jesus Christ must submit, is a truth of Faith. Knowing who that person is immediately determines the exercise of the Faith, and consequently constitutes a question with respect to which every faithful is obliged to take a position. It is a divine law.

That there be in the bosom of the militant Church an ordinary universal Magisterium that is infallible, is a truth of Faith. Every faithful must profess it and must denounce the error of those who deny it. It is a divine law.

Basically, knowing WHO the Vicar of Christ is on earth comes with certain obligations to a Catholic. Personal submission to his authority is one of them. The action of knowing who is he, is important. There is a contradiction if as a Roman Catholic, you know who the Pope is, but still refuse personal submission to him, (which by the way is necessary for salvation).
Logged

Offline Centroamerica

Re: Is Fr. Chazal Sedeprivationist?
« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2018, 09:12:16 PM »
Quote from: Meg on March 16, 2018, 12:32:30 PM
That doesn't answer the question. And I don't think that he said that the novus ordo sacraments are invalid. I believe that he said that they are valid but illicit. That's not the same thing.
Sorry, he said they are all doubtful, which pretty much means the same thing because Catholics are prohibited under pain of mortal sin from receiving doubtful sacraments. He did use the word all and did say doubtful. Again, as for reception by the laity, there is no difference between doubtful and invalid. So that’s that. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8
« previous next »