Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Centroamerica on March 10, 2018, 08:32:03 PM
-
Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal - Print version (book)
https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam (https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam)
AVAILABLE NOW - $10 plus shipping.
Does he seem to mention the materialiter argument? Seems to me he doesn't understand the argument the way I did. Sedeprivationists claim the election of '58 et al were valid conclaves and the popes were legally elected, just impeded personally from receiving jurisdiction, which could change if the impediment were removed. He seems to rail off, rightfully so, about how cuм Ex was superseded by the ecclesial laws of an election. This is the same argument Father Hesse made (except Fr. Hesse never made it against the sedeprivationists). I'm sorry, maybe I'm wrong, but he really misrepresents both the arguments of the Sedeprivationists and Fr. Cekada by mixing the two together...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bkikLLcH3Y
-
My impression based on older threads on this was that Fr Chazal was not pure sedeprivationist.
-
This video is from 2015. In the video he made last year, Father admitted that he had never studied the pope question in depth prior to that, and then proceeded to articulate a position very much akin to sedeprivationism.
-
In the video he made last year, Father Chazal unequivocally stated that Francis lacks all authority and that all his acts were "null and void" based on his obvious manifest heresy and that he was "in quarantine" pending a declaration of deposition by the Church. But that he retained a certain legal status as the "visible" head of the Church due to his election. Traditional R&R holds that Francis DOES have authority, but that specific individual acts may be rejected if they contradict Tradition.
Sedeprivationism ... whether he knew it or not.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkoG3rznTwQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkoG3rznTwQ)
-
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/guerard-de-lauriers-call-your-office-fr.html (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/guerard-de-lauriers-call-your-office-fr.html)
Here is my (Dr. Chojnowski) email exchange with Fr. Francois Chazal about the position that he articulates in his new upcoming book about Francis, the Papacy, and Fr. Anthony Cekada.
Father,
By sedeplenist I take it to mean that a man has been elected legitimately to the papacy but cannot exercise his power or take it on because of the obstacle of heresy. Would you say this applies to Francis or not?
Dr. Chojnowski: Fr. Chazal's kind response. And by the way, unlike the arch laymen of Misters Salza and Siscoe, has been a perfect gentleman in this entire back and forth. Here is his response:
Yes, in virtue of canon law. 2264.
That s also the basis for us using supplied jurisdiction (canon 209).
It has been our policy from day one, and the Archbishop was much criticised for it.
It is obvious that the Church does not want Catholics to place themselves under heretics, because they will inevitably drag them towards heresy, or at least compromise. That s also the whole debate since 2012.
I really don't care if they call me a sedevacantist if I hold this principle.
fc+
-
Father Chazal is redefining the term "sedeplenist" in order to avoid the label "sedeprivationist" (which has long been taken as a synonym for sedevacantism). In point of fact, when you have a Pope who has legitimate election but lacks authority due to heresy ... that's what has been known heretofore as sedeprivationism. Run-of-the mill R&R holds that these popes have authority ... when they're teaching the truth, but lack authority when teaching error. Father Chazal has proclaimed that all of their acts are null and void and that they are to be categorically ignored ... rather than having their individual acts "sifted" according to Tradition.
Whatever LABEL one wants to apply to his position, I agree with all the principles which Father Chazal articulated in his now-famous video.
-
I have to say that I sympathize with Fr. Chazal’s position and think it very possible. It could be a logical conclusion of my own opinion.
However, I continue to believe that Fr. Chazal simply has a strange, if not incorrect, understanding of terms like sedeprivationist, sede plenist and others. If he still believes that sedeprivationists hold to the position that the pope is not the pope because of cuм Ex Apostolatus, he is very confused, as also is pointed out by Ladislaus is the case about sedeplenism. He also seems to define sedeplenism as a sort of variant of the Cassiacuм Thesis (sedeprivationism) and makes the claim that the Archbishop held to this position. It should be noted that + de Laurier was removed from his position as professor from Econe by the Archbishop for teaching just that.
Would anyone do Fr. Chazal the favor of explaining these terms so that he doesn’t appear as someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Other than those things, I agree with him and tend to believe he is right on the main issues.
-
I have to say that I sympathize with Fr. Chazal’s position and think it very possible. It could be a logical conclusion of my own opinion.
However, I continue to believe that Fr. Chazal simply has a strange, if not incorrect, understanding of terms like sedeprivationist, sede plenist and others. If he still believes that sedeprivationists hold to the position that the pope is not the pope because of cuм Ex Apostolatus, he is very confused, as also is pointed out by Ladislaus is the case about sedeplenism. He also seems to define sedeplenism as a sort of variant of the Cassiacuм Thesis (sedeprivationism) and makes the claim that the Archbishop held to this position. It should be noted that + de Laurier was removed from his position as professor from Econe by the Archbishop for teaching just that.
Would anyone do Fr. Chazal the favor of explaining these terms so that he doesn’t appear as someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Other than those things, I agree with him and tend to believe he is right on the main issues.
I agree completely.
-
I mean, the Doctor gives a textbook definition of sedeprivationism and Fr. Chazal says yes. But they all call it sedeplenism. It’s kind of frustrating to see this. For crying out loud. Someone should tell him it is the Cassiacuм Thesis !!!!
-
My question is, once Father Chazal finds out that he's been inadvertently promoting sedeprivationism (which he condemned by name in a 2015 video that I think you posted), will he back away from it and change his position or continue with it? His response will speak volumes about his intellectual honesty and integrity.
And perhaps he has already hinted at his response --
I really don't care if they call me a sedevacantist if I hold this principle.
I respect that ... a LOT.
-
UPDATE: Dr. C corrects his mistake:
Father,
By sedeplenist I take it to mean that a man has been elected legitimately to the papacy but cannot exercise his power or take it on because of the obstacle of heresy. Would you say this applies to Francis or not?
No, he doesn’t. What he describes is sedeprivationism and he incorrectly labels it sedeplenism. Not corrected.
-
No, he doesn’t. What he describes is sedeprivationism and he incorrectly labels it sedeplenism. Not corrected.
CORRECTED UPDATE: I do not know why the bracketed statement from Dr. C was not copied in my original update notice, but here it is again, this time I took out the brackets and sued a dash as the quote in the bracket disappeared when I did the "preview":
Father,
By sedeplenist - I meant to say sedeprivationist - I take it to mean that a man has been elected legitimately to the papacy but cannot exercise his power or take it on because of the obstacle of heresy. Would you say this applies to Francis or not?
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/guerard-de-lauriers-call-your-office-fr.html (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/guerard-de-lauriers-call-your-office-fr.html)
-
And perhaps he has already hinted at his response --
I respect that ... a LOT.
Let's try and take a look at this from the perspective of the historic Catholic religion and history. What we would find might be described something like this: A Jesuit by any other name is still a Jesuit. In historic Catholic terms, the Neo-Trotskyist Pope Francis is not a Jesuit at all, but Fr. Chazal could qualify as one just fine. The same diplomatic emphasis, with an opportunism that irritates many but that is nevertheless within the legitimate parameters of normal historic Catholicism. Fr. Chazal is opportunistic and lacks the consistency proper to the more principled side of Catholicism (typified by the Benedictines and Franciscans, among many others). But diplomacy is inherently like that and for Catholic clergy who adopt a diplomatic approach opportuneness that does not violate any Catholic principles is licit and allowed.
So let's not look to Fr. Chazal, or Bishop Williamson and his three episcopal confreres, for very much consistency in some of the details of their rhetoric. They aim to be successful diplomats for Christ, and in their own terms they are doing quite well. Fr. Chazal is very like a French Jesuit is ever there has been such a thing.
Allow this relatively more principled, and therefore much less diplomatic, Franciscan to agree with Ladislaus and also say about Fr. Chazal and his cleverly convoluted Jesuitical logic:
"I respect that ... a LOT."
It seems that a sede-privationism that calls itself sede-plenism is going to have quite a bright future going forward. These are the small beginnings of a great avalanche already rumbling down straight towards Rome.
-
Sede-this, sede-that?
I have only ever known sede to mean sedevecantism.
All these sede-isms make my head spin...
Why can't we just be Catholic?
-
Sede-this, sede-that?
I have only ever known sede to mean sedevecantism.
All these sede-isms make my head spin...
Why can't we just be Catholic?
Even old school priests like Fr. Jenkins uses all these terms. It is the way Catholics in this crisis have termed different positions on the crisis for the purposes of rational thought and discussion. Not really complicated and normal for Catholics fighting for the Faith to do.
-
Sede-this, sede-that?
I have only ever known sede to mean sedevecantism.
All these sede-isms make my head spin...
Why can't we just be Catholic?
Because Catholics need distinctions to explain how heretics and infiltrators have managed to take over most of the Church and change it to a new religion, yet at the same time say the Catholic Church is Visible, Universal, Apostolic and Holy.
-
Because Catholics need distinctions to explain how heretics and infiltrators have managed to take over most of the Church and change it to a new religion, yet at the same time say the Catholic Church is Visible, Universal, Apostolic and Holy.
Yes, that's the problem.
AND ... I might add ... Catholics are trying to understand how they can refuse submission/assent to the teaching of a man who claims to be the Vicar of Christ. No Catholic could EVER lightly break away from the hierarchy.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
-
I reformatted things to make it more clear what is being said by whom.
Dr. Chojnowski:
Here is my email exchange with Fr. Francois Chazal about the position that he articulates in his new upcoming book about Francis, the Papacy, and Fr. Anthony Cekada.
[Note: Fr. Chazal's kind response. And by the way, unlike the arch laymen of Misters Salza and Siscoe, has been a perfect gentleman in this entire back and forth.]
Father,
By sedeplenist [I meant to say sedeprivationist] I take it to mean that a man has been elected legitimately to the papacy but cannot exercise his power or take it on because of the obstacle of heresy. Would you say this applies to Francis or not?
Fr. Chazal's response:
Yes, in virtue of canon law. 2264.
That s also the basis for us using supplied jurisdiction (canon 209).
It has been our policy from day one, and the Archbishop was much criticised for it.
It is obvious that the Church does not want Catholics to place themselves under heretics, because they will inevitably drag them towards heresy, or at least compromise. That s also the whole debate since 2012.
i really dont care if they call me a sedevacantist if i hold this principle.
fc+
My comment: I don't think Fr. Chazal is admitting to be a sedeprivationist nor a sedevacantist. But his formulation does sound like the SP position.
-
Sede-this, sede-that?
I have only ever known sede to mean sedevecantism.
All these sede-isms make my head spin...
Why can't we just be Catholic?
Because unless there are various, erroneous groups, professing their own unique [dogmatic?] beliefs while all claiming to profess the same Catholic truths, except of course for their own unique beliefs, there would be no division. The truth is that sedewhateverism causes division among the faithful.
This has always been the most successful of tactics that comes from the devil, he does it to promote iniquity among the faithful, this tactic is commonly known as "Divide and Conquer".
That's why, even amongst ourselves, we can't just be Catholic.
-
What I am not understanding -- and please bear with me for repeating myself -- is how can the Church Christ founded be in such a state that no formal authority exists anymore. And if that is the case in what way can this formal authority return? It seems it cannot. How can this possibly be the true position that a Catholic must hold? It is far too abstract and yes I have read Fr. Sanborn's explanation of the thesis.
-
http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/resistance-is-best-name-fr-chazal.html (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/resistance-is-best-name-fr-chazal.html) UPDATE
Dear Friends,
Please. I just seek to clarify the theoretical situation to see where we all stand. I used the wrong term -- sedeplenist-- but the actual position that I asked Father to comment on was Sedeprivationism.He had been called a Sedeprivationist on Cathinfo and I wanted so see what he thought of that designation. I did point out on the blog that I made a mistake with the term . I will also put up Father's recent clarification and commentary.
Let me say that I very much admire Father for trying to follow the truth where ever it leads.
I just wonder if sedeimpoundism and Sedeprivationism is a distinction without a difference.
Yours ,
Peter Chojnowski
Now Fr. Chazal's response:
Dear Mr Chojnowski,
Perhaps some sede is trying to drown the fish in the water.
As a sedeimpoundinvirtueofcanon2264ist the side discussion is interesting nevertheless. What they call sedeprivationism, the denial that heretics have a licit, if not valid jurisdiction, isn't what Archbishop Lefebvre taught us. Of course ignorant people are still under the jurisdiction of their diocese, having still valid marriages and confessions, amidst other invalid and sacrilegious ones. Once a person s invincible ignorance is dispelled, the use of novus ordo jurisdiction is at once illicit, i.e., it is an objective mortal sin to use it.
Now let s go back to where we were: What the sedes need to answer, after teaching it for so long, is whether all catholic theologians concurr unanimously on the question of the heretical Pope. Bishop williamson picked up this question in his preface as well.
So we ask the sedevacantists; while they deflect the discussion (in an interesting direction this time); if they can answer the questions:
Resistance is the best term to encase our position, and that term has stuck, while all other labels have never lived very long.
the term sedeplenist is incomplete, just like sedeprivationist, because neither of the terms includes the crucial distinction. Caiphas is neither deprived and neither to be heeded to.
This is because the jurisdiction of a heretic; while it instantly disappears quoad liceitatem; only disappears quoad validitatem after a sentence.
Before then, there is a valid but illicit jurisdiction, of which none of those who are aware of the heresy of the holder of office, can make use of.
Throughout the years dioceses and popes have been abusing their jurisdiction or using it for evil intent.
Those who separated themselves from day one will not be blamed at the end of this crisis, nay they were even granted jurisdiction in a supplied form.
we cannot place under Rome the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Catholics who are aware francis is a heretic and still submit to his jurisdiction are in a state of illegality. Catholics who were in a state of security and return to place themselves under the power of heretics are canonical fools.
fc+
-
Ah, so yet another NEW position: sedeimpoundinvirtueofcanon2264ist
Let's call it sedeimpoundism for short (since Father coined the term) ... or sedequarantinism. I'd leave out the reference to Canon 2264 (or any other Canon), since Popes are not subject to Canon Law.
Father Chazal now clarifies that they have no teaching authority, but still have valid but illicit jurisdiction.
I actually like this. It's not too different than my own spin on sedeprivationism, as I called it, where I believe that jurisdiction can be passed on through material popes and formally exercised by anyone he designates to have it without an impediment to do so.
I may just have been converted to sede-impoundism. [I have never been a PURE sedeprivationist but closer to this anyway.]
-
Catholics who are aware francis is a heretic and still submit to his jurisdiction are in a state of illegality. Catholics who were in a state of security and return to place themselves under the power of heretics are canonical fools.
fc+
Did +ABL ever really state the above? I mean, did he say that Catholics are aware that JP2 (was) a heretic and yet still submit to his jurisdiction were state of illegality?
I know that the SSPX used to maintain that the Novus Ordo mass was valid but illicit, and that it was at least venially sinful to attend it. But I don't recall that +ABL or the SSPX said that the Pope himself is a heretic.
+ABL didn't focus so much on the Pope as he did the entire rotten modernist conciliar church. The modernist popes are just part of the problem.
-
Did +ABL ever really state the above? I mean, did he say that Catholics are aware that JP2 (was) a heretic and yet still submit to his jurisdiction were state of illegality?
I know that the SSPX used to maintain that the Novus Ordo mass was valid but illicit, and that it was at least venially sinful to attend it. But I don't recall that +ABL or the SSPX said that the Pope himself is a heretic.
+ABL didn't focus so much on the Pope as he did the entire rotten modernist conciliar church. The modernist popes are just part of the problem.
Pretty sure he called him an anti-Christ and said most of the Novus Ordo sacraments are invalid.
-
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.
-
+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.
-
+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.
-
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):
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).
-
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.
-
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.
Ecône, 28 oct. 1988
Very dear Mr. Wilson,
thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.
All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.
We are in the time of great apostasy.
We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics. It is necessary everywhere in the world.
Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!
We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.
I pray for you and your lovely family.
Devotly in Jesus and Mary.
Marcel Lefebvre
-
So I'm still not clear on what Fr Chazal's position is. It seems that further clarifications don't actually clarify.
PS. Could we try not to use "SP" as an abbreviation in these discussions? That could stand for sedeplenist or sedeprivationist and as a result only add to the confusion.
-
I read Bishop Sanborn’s explanation and and it was concrete & straightforward enough for me: Bergoglio has an election yet has to convert to receive the the obviously missing infallible power so succinctly explained by Fr. Ringrose. Maybe try reading him — very concrete.
But, respectfully, if you do “not understand” Bishop Sanborn how do you presume to make a response? Especially one that implies he has erred in his position?
In expressing your above thoughts, from the vantage of your understanding obscured by the reading being “far too abstract for” you, are you implying that Formal Authority must exist at all times in order for the Church to continue existing? If so, where does the Church teach the idea that the Perpetuity of the Hierarchy consists in the ACTUAL existence of a pope or otherwise subject of actually holding ordinary jurisdiction? Or is this another R&R imposed concoction?
It seems to me that you would do far better to follow Frs Ringrose and Chazal in first holding to Christ’s teaching that it is impossible for the Teaching Authority to err in its universal teaching. Things will probably be far less obscure for you once you drop the this R&R error.
Thank you for your measured response. Far be it from me to rebut Bp. Sanborn. He has been studying this question for what 40 years now? (But in the process does he become an oracle that has understood the truth and no one else has? I guess it is good that he is so confident!)
I am not being entirely clear because it is a confusing issue. You cannot possibly hold that against me or anyone else for that matter on a matter of theological speculation. What I mean to say is the following (and this is more for my own clarification of thinking):
- Christ instituted a hierarchical Church upon St. Peter
....but according to sedevacantism there is no longer a hierarchy with a Pope or a hierarchy so impotent (acc. to sedeprivationism) -- due to heresy -- that the Church is in a state of suspended animation or at least its Teaching function is in the concrete here and now. I agree that these bishops and Popes who have adhered to Vatican II, the New Mass, ecuмenism etc... have strayed from the truth but to then conclude that they no longer have authority or it is absolutely impotent (waiting to be filled through conversion) is very difficult to understand. The materialiter/formaliter distinction is a basic philosophical principle but unless one goes through the channels of Bp. Sanborn (and his followers if you will) or the Institute of the Mother of Good Counsel in Italy then the simple soul will (at least objectively) be in heresy or grave error.
-
Hint - I am the tall dark handsome one. Remember me now?
What was your previous username? Were you banned?
-
Father Chazal does raise some interesting points with regard to jurisdiction.
Can a Pope who has lost teaching authority still excercize jurisdiction (albeit illicitly)?
Key to sedeprivationism is this notion that a material pope can in fact appoint Cardinals, who can in turn elect another Pope (who could be a full formal pope at that time ... if he doesn't have the impediment to be the Pope). So at the very least the power of designation must remain. And that is a key aspect of jurisdiction.
So, just as these Cardinals appointed by a material Pope can elect a Pope who's a full formal+material Pope, so I hold that a material pope can appoint bishops, who, if they do not have any impediments to the formal exercise of office, can formally exercise the prerogatives of their office. With this the whole "ecclesiavacantist" problem of the straight sedevacantists evaporates. Jurisdiction continues in the Church. This is important, nay, crucial, as straight sedevacantism holds that (non-supplied) jurisdiction has ceased in the Church.
-
Father Chazal does raise some interesting points with regard to jurisdiction.
Can a Pope who has lost teaching authority still excercize jurisdiction (albeit illicitly)?
Key to sedeprivationism is this notion that a material pope can in fact appoint Cardinals, who can in turn elect another Pope (who could be a full formal pope at that time ... if he doesn't have the impediment to be the Pope). So at the very least the power of designation must remain. And that is a key aspect of jurisdiction.
So, just as these Cardinals appointed by a material Pope can elect a Pope who's a full formal+material Pope, so I hold that a material pope can appoint bishops, who, if they do not have any impediments to the formal exercise of office, can formally exercise the prerogatives of their office. With this the whole "ecclesiavacantist" problem of the straight sedevacantists evaporates. Jurisdiction continues in the Church. This is important, nay, crucial, as straight sedevacantism holds that (non-supplied) jurisdiction has ceased in the Church.
First of all, "straight sedevacantists" don't all agree on every point of the theology. You have John Lane and many like-minded SVs who say that there must be at least one ordinary somewhere in the world. Go ahead and try to prove him wrong on that one. That pretty much makes the "ecclesiavacantist" problem evaporate, don't you think? Of course there are SVs who do posit that all the sees are vacant. Fr. Cekada famously made that claim on Ignis Ardens in 2012 in a discussion in which John Lane accused him of being a "doctrinal criminal" (essentially accusing him of being a heretic). But I challenge you to find any pre-Vatican II theologian who makes a claim, express or implied, that it is not possible for all the sees to be vacant. In fact you will find that Fr Fenton speculated about the possible destruction of all the sees except the Roman See which he held to be indefectible based on Church Fathers and eminent theologians. Fr. Van Noort also speculated about the destruction of the whole world by a nuclear disaster but still held that the Roman See would have to be spared if not materially at least spiritually in the diaspora of the Bishop of Rome and his flock. Cardinal Journet speculated about the complete destruction of the College of Cardinals. Fr. E. Sylvester Berry speculated about apocalyptic scenarios as well. And Novus Ordo Watch found a great quote from Fr. O'Reilly warning Catholics not to try to put unwarranted limits on God's plan for the Church. But now when we are living in the midst of these speculations come true, suddenly we are ecclesiavacantist heretics for agreeing with pre-Vatican II theologians. I'm not buying it!
If we reduce the Church just to the Roman See, we see that it is possible for the Pope to be the lone ordinary in the world. And we see that his death would not cause the Church to defect. The Roman clergy would simply need to elect the next pope. Obviously there would have to be at least one living bishop but he would not need to be an ordinary. When the pope is elected, he receives universal, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church directly from Our Lord Jesus Christ. No other ecclesiastical office has that attribute attached to it. So the resolution of this crisis should be crystal clear. The clergy of the Roman Catholic Church must elect a CATHOLIC pope. How we get there is open to debate but let's not accuse each other of being heretics while we work out the details. Charity covers a multitude of sins.
-
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.
I am surprised at the amount of useless chatter and the nonsense you (and many others) keep coming up with.
The status of the Pope has absolutely nothing to do with the salvation of our soul.
1. Bergoglio was elected as pope and was universally accepted by the Church as the pope. That makes him the pope as far as I am concerned.
2. He is obviously speaking and acting like a bad or even heretical pope, which tells me I must avoid him.
3. All else is for God to sort out. He does not expect the impossible from us, and so neither does He expect us to solve this crisis, only to survive it by keeping the Faith.
You do NOT please Him by putting labels on everyone around you. It only leads to more divisions and dissensions, and God hates "sowers of dissensions". (Galatians, chapter 5)
From the Imitation of Christ, by St. Thomas a Kempis:
What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.
-
I am surprised at the amount of useless chatter and the nonsense you (and many others) keep coming up with.
The status of the Pope has absolutely nothing to do with the salvation of our soul.
1. Bergoglio was elected as pope and was universally accepted by the Church as the pope. That makes him the pope as far as I am concerned.
2. He is obviously speaking and acting like a bad or even heretical pope, which tells me I must avoid him.
3. All else is for God to sort out. He does not expect the impossible from us, and so neither does He expect us to solve this crisis, only to survive it by keeping the Faith.
You do NOT please Him by putting labels on everyone around you. It only leads to more divisions and dissensions, and God hates "sowers of dissensions". (Galatians, chapter 5)
From the Imitation of Christ, by St. Thomas a Kempis:
What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.
Save your breath, Samuel: These people want to see what they want to see, and nothing else.
Elsewhere, I mentioned an email response I received from Fr. Chazal explicitly denying he was a sedeprivationist, mentioning that his forthcoming book explicitly refutes that position in Chapter 2, and which mentioned that those who were pretending he was a sedeprivationist were dreamers.
The response?
Well, somehow it did not settle the matter as it ought to have.
Let these tormented souls contemplate their navels for hundreds of thread pages, and spend your considerable talents where someone might profit by them (which is certainly not in any thread having anything to do with sedevacantism or flatheadism on CI).
-
What about the email published on the blog that was posted here where Fr. Chazal said he did adhere to the sedeprivationist theory? If one person receives an email saying this and one another, he's going to start losing a lot of credibility. Personally, I look forward to reading his book. I just hope it isn't another one of those that claim that any non-Catholic can be our next spiritual leader and pope.
-
I am surprised at the amount of useless chatter and the nonsense you (and many others) keep coming up with.
The status of the Pope has absolutely nothing to do with the salvation of our soul.
1. Bergoglio was elected as pope and was universally accepted by the Church as the pope. That makes him the pope as far as I am concerned.
2. He is obviously speaking and acting like a bad or even heretical pope, which tells me I must avoid him.
3. All else is for God to sort out. He does not expect the impossible from us, and so neither does He expect us to solve this crisis, only to survive it by keeping the Faith.
You do NOT please Him by putting labels on everyone around you. It only leads to more divisions and dissensions, and God hates "sowers of dissensions". (Galatians, chapter 5)
From the Imitation of Christ, by St. Thomas a Kempis:
What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.
Exactly. The problem is sedevacantists and sedeprivationists want to have a cookie-cutter answer to resolve the Crisis. The organizational structure of the Church is undermined and even among themselves there is countless arguing.