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

Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter  (Read 37610 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Plenus Venter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1509
  • Reputation: +1235/-97
  • Gender: Male
Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #270 on: January 26, 2023, 05:34:51 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • What a mess the Church is in! (and this thread!)

    True subjection to any authority requires true obedience (vs false obedience).

    The problem with the recent Popes is that they so habitually abuse their authority that it is necessary for us to separate ourselves from them, as Archbishop Lefebvre clearly stated, because they represent such a grave danger to faith and morals. This is not a denial that they possess authority, but rather a recognition that they are not putting that authority at the service of the Faith. In the case of bishops, St Robert says the teaching of the Church is "they are not to be listened to" but not that the faithful depose them which is the role of the Church authority.

    We continue to pray for the Pope every day in the Mass. We offer our daily Rosaries for his conversion and that he will obey Our Lady of Fatima and consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We pray for the Intentions of the Holy Father (which are the same Intentions as all his predecessors) every day to gain Indulgences.

    This is not paying mere lip service to the Pope. It is a thoroughly Catholic attitude in an extraordinary situation in the Church. Many theologians have spoken of the duty to resist the erring Pontiff or the Pontiff destroying the Church. This is not schism, and there is no danger of schism, formal or otherwise.

    If your father goes to live in a brothel, the family doesn't move in with him. When he tells you how to run the household, you tell him respectfully: "Dad, when you come back home and start behaving like a father, and loving our mother, and show us that you have the welfare of our family at heart, then we will start listening to you again". I'm not denying he is my father, nor that he has authority. Nor am I denying perhaps that the authorities should deal with him! Every analogy has limits of course.

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1509
    • Reputation: +1235/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #271 on: January 26, 2023, 05:45:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • How do sedevacantists reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff in principle if, in their opinion, the man who claims to be the Roman Pontiff is not, and does not have authority to submit to?
    Correct. That is not denying the authority of the Roman Pontiff in principle. Clearly most Sedevacantists are not schismatics. The danger of schism that Archbishop Lefebvre and others spoke about relates more to the future. As the Archbishop said, if there is no Pope, no Cardinals, no bishops, where will the next Pope come from, who will tell us who is the Pope? Will those who have gone down the SV track recognise a future successor of St Peter? That is the concern.


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #272 on: January 26, 2023, 06:37:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • As I've repeatedly stated, I have no issues with Archbishop Lefebvre's position.  He unequivocally affirmed that the protection of the Holy Spirit precludes such damage being done to the Church by the exercise of papal authority, but siimply prescinded from adopting a explanation for how this has happened.  In one talk, he went through the possibilities, a drugged pope, a blackmailed pope, etc., dismissing these as very unlikely, but then ended up saying SVism is a possible explanation.  He repeatedly stated that SVism is possible.  But he left open the possibility that there was some other explanation and therefore never asserted SVism.  There's nothing wrong with that stance.  But many modern R&R have lost sight of this distinction, claiming that the protection / guidance of the Holy Spirit over the papal office does ot prevent a Pope from thoroughly corrupting the Magisterium and the Public worship of the Church.  That is NOT the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, who said the complete opposite.

    Ladislaus, if no one posts what Archbishop Lefebvre really believed, then others reading this forum might be in danger of thinking that you are stating the truth about what the Archbishop believed, when you are not.

    Here is what +ABL stated in his book, "Open Letter to Confused Catholics," published in 1986, pg. 176, from the chapter titled, "Neither a Heretic or a Schismatic":

    "I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I. The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within the Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the Church's magisterium. In fact, the limits of papal power at set by the ends for which it was given to Christ's Vicar on earth, ends which Pius IX clearly defined in the constitution Pastor Aeternus of the First Vatican Council. So in saying this I am not expressing a personal theory.

    "Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even a Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known from certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens only in a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by a Pope is infallible."

    "Nevertheless, I am not among those who insist or insinuate that Paul Vl was a heretic and therefore, by that very fact, no longer Pope. John Paul I and John Paul II would then not have been legitimately elected. This is the position of those called "sede-vacantists."
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2037/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #273 on: January 26, 2023, 06:43:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ladislaus, if no one posts what Archbishop Lefebvre really believed, then others reading this forum might be in danger of thinking that you are stating the truth about what the Archbishop believed, when you are not.

    Here is what +ABL stated in his book, "Open Letter to Confused Catholics," published in 1986, pg. 176, from the chapter titled, "Neither a Heretic or a Schismatic":

    "I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I. The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within the Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the Church's magisterium. In fact, the limits of papal power at set by the ends for which it was given to Christ's Vicar on earth, ends which Pius IX clearly defined in the constitution Pastor Aeternus of the First Vatican Council. So in saying this I am not expressing a personal theory.

    "Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even a Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known from certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens only in a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by a Pope is infallible."

    "Nevertheless, I am not among those who insist or insinuate that Paul Vl was a heretic and therefore, by that very fact, no longer Pope. John Paul I and John Paul II would then not have been legitimately elected. This is the position of those called "sede-vacantists."

    Yet, I've heard from several sources that he called these popes anti-Christs.
    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #274 on: January 26, 2023, 06:58:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yet, I've heard from several sources that he called these popes anti-Christs.

    So you believe that they are, or were popes? It seems that you do. Because +ABL certainly did. He was not a sedevacantist, despite the best efforts of sedevacantists on this forum saying otherwise.
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29


    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1509
    • Reputation: +1235/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #275 on: January 26, 2023, 07:03:20 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yet, I've heard from several sources that he called these popes anti-Christs.
    Yes he did, antichrists as you say, not Antichrist.
    They undermined the Faith, and now this Pope even more so is undermining morals. As such, they were doing the work of the devil and gravely abusing their position as Vicar of Christ. Theologians have spoken of Popes even wanting to destroy the Church. That is anti-Christ!
    Interesting question: Could the Antichrist be a true Pope? Will the Antichrist have the Faith?
    Could Pope Francis be a satanist who has the Faith but wants to destroy it because of a diabolical hatred of Christ?

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2037/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #276 on: January 26, 2023, 07:09:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So you believe that they are, or were popes? It seems that you do. Because +ABL certainly did. He was not a sedevacantist, despite the best efforts of sedevacantists on this forum saying otherwise.

    No, I don't believe they were popes because a non Catholic cannot become pope.  They were outside the Church before they were elected.  The consecration would not occur.

    What I'm saying here is that in the quote you posted ABL says:"Nevertheless, I am not among those who insist or insinuate that Paul Vl was a heretic and therefore, by that very fact, no longer Pope. John Paul I and John Paul II would then not have been legitimately elected. This is the position of those called "sede-vacantists."

    And yet he calls them antichrists.

    Can you be an antichrist and not be a heretic?

    Can you be an antichrist and still remain in the Church?

    Can you be an antichrist and be legitimately elected?

    Wouldn't an antichrist be invalid matter so no consecration would take place?
    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #277 on: January 26, 2023, 07:14:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, I don't believe they were popes because a non Catholic cannot become pope.  They were outside the Church before they were elected.  The consecration would not occur.

    What I'm saying here is that in the quote you posted ABL says:"Nevertheless, I am not among those who insist or insinuate that Paul Vl was a heretic and therefore, by that very fact, no longer Pope. John Paul I and John Paul II would then not have been legitimately elected. This is the position of those called "sede-vacantists."

    And yet he calls them antichrists.

    Can you be an antichrist and not be a heretic?

    Can you be an antichrist and still remain in the Church?

    Can you be an antichrist and be legitimately elected?

    And yet he called them antichrists. Yes. Maybe he saw the situation a bit differently than you? After all, he was not a sedevacantist. He must have looked at the situation differently from you and the other sedevacantists here. 
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29


    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1509
    • Reputation: +1235/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #278 on: January 26, 2023, 07:17:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So you believe that they are, or were popes? It seems that you do. Because +ABL certainly did. He was not a sedevacantist, despite the best efforts of sedevacantists on this forum saying otherwise.
    Great posting, Meg, keep up the good work!

    Archbishop Lefebvre was utterly shocked by the antics of some of these popes, so much so that he even publicly asked the question as to whether they could be popes, whether a pope could do such a thing, but he never adopted the theoretical, and certainly not the practical, position of the Sedevacantists. To the contrary. 

    Even on the eve of his death he gave a conference to the Society Sisters at Saint-Michel-en-Brenne on praying for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass, mocking the SVs understanding of this prayer. There is a short YouTube video of this but I can't find it right now.

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2037/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #279 on: January 26, 2023, 07:20:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And yet he called them antichrists. Yes. Maybe he saw the situation a bit differently than you? After all, he was not a sedevacantist. He must have looked at the situation differently from you and the other sedevacantists here.

    From what I've learned, it took a while for the sedevacantist view to become clear.

    Perhaps in time the contradiction of a "non heretic antichrist pope" would have become more clear?

    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #280 on: January 26, 2023, 07:21:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Great posting, Meg, keep up the good work!

    Archbishop Lefebvre was utterly shocked by the antics of some of these popes, so much so that he even publicly asked the question as to whether they could be popes, whether a pope could do such a thing, but he never adopted the theoretical, and certainly not the practical, position of the Sedevacantists. To the contrary.

    Even on the eve of his death he gave a conference to the Society Sisters at Saint-Michel-en-Brenne on praying for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass, mocking the SVs understanding of this prayer. There is a short YouTube video of this but I can't find it right now.

    I didn't know that he gave a conference just before his death on praying for the Pope in the canon of the Mass. I assume that he believed that the Pope should be prayed for? That's something that he would think, of course, given his good Catholic sense.
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29


    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #281 on: January 26, 2023, 07:23:29 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • From what I've learned, it took a while for the sedevacantist view to become clear.

    Perhaps in time the contradiction of a "non heretic antichrist pope" would have become more clear?

    I don't go by "what if's" when it comes to what +ABL believed. He is no longer with us. We only have access to what he actually did say and do, and that suffices for those of us who do not care to re-make the Archbishop into a sedevacantist.
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1509
    • Reputation: +1235/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #282 on: January 26, 2023, 07:30:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I didn't know that he gave a conference just before his death on praying for the Pope in the canon of the Mass. I assume that he believed that the Pope should be prayed for? That's something that he would think, of course, given his good Catholic sense.
    Correction: it was almost 2 years before his death.

    I found the text, the good old Avrille Dominicans usually come up with the goods:


    Archbishop Lefebvre and the sedevacantists - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us)

    Archbishop Lefebvre and the sedevacantists
    (a little known docuмent)
    Concerning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the “non una cuм” sedevacantist position, after the Episcopal consecrations of 1988; here is an excerpt from a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre during a retreat preached to the sisters of Saint-Michel en Brenne 1, France, on April 1st, 1989 (AUDIO excerpt attached).
    « … And then, he (Dom Guillou O.S.B. 2) goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una cuм.., una cuм of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cuм? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel-en-Brenne). You say una cuм in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you’re not Catholic; you’re not this; you’re not that; you’re not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cuм summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer.
    Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed :
    “We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope.”
    It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have …, nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!
    Then he (Dom Guillou) had a note about that to clarify a little:
    “In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Botte O.S.B. 3, the UNA cuм or “in union with” of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction “and ” reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic Tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.
    Let us collect the good grain, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be “kept in the holy religion” the “holy orders” and the “Apostolic Lord” himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLIcuм AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES IN SANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS.”
    It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that… well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possibleWe have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said “There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility”. So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.
    Then we must not keep this idea which is FALSE! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, people no longer understand anything, they are completely desperate, they do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it. »
    Archbishop Lefebvre, retreat at Saint-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2037/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #283 on: January 26, 2023, 07:34:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't go by "what if's" when it comes to what +ABL believed. He is no longer with us. We only have access to what he actually did say and do, and that suffices for those of us who do not care to re-make the Archbishop into a sedevacantist.


    I understand.  It's important to go by docuмented statements.

    How did he explain that an antichrist is not a heretic?

    Do you have any quotes for that?


    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
    « Reply #284 on: January 26, 2023, 07:40:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • I understand.  It's important to go by docuмented statements.

    How did he explain that an antichrist is not a heretic?

    Do you have any quotes for that?

    No I don't have an explanation or quotes. Why do you need an explanation? Is it only so that you can try to prove that +ABL was really a sedevacantist?
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29