Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Resistance bishops fight against sedevacantism  (Read 1186 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John XYZ

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Reputation: +35/-0
  • Gender: Male
Resistance bishops fight against sedevacantism
« on: June 09, 2018, 03:19:25 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal - Print version (book)
    https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam

    AVAILABLE NOW - $10 plus shipping.



    According to recent news from the Resistance in France, Bishop Faure and Bishop Williamson cancelled the traditional pilgrimage of the Resistance to the Shrine of Our Lady of Le Puy on May 4th 2018 (Puy-en-Velay, France) because the ‘non una cum’ priests (Father Pinaud and Father Rioult) wanted to join the pilgrimage.

     

    Recently, Bishop Williamson and Bishop Zendejas also refused to administer the sacrament of Confirmation in Father Roy's chapel because he is ‘non una cum’ at the Canon of the Mass. May God bless this courageous decision of our bishops.

     

    Archbishop Lefebvre : ‘Neither sedevacantist, nor modernist’

    Offline ignatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 59
    • Reputation: +80/-207
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Resistance bishops fight against sedevacantism
    « Reply #1 on: June 09, 2018, 03:53:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Can you provide some proof?  In june of 2018 they are still joined together.  And Bishop Williamson just provided the forward for Fr. Chazal's new book claiming the outcome of sedeprivationism.  Not the same conclusion as sedevacantism removing the pope completely.  But certainly removing the pope from his authority.  Effectively, there is no difference.

    https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/contra-cekadam-by-fr-francois-chazal-buy-the-book-here!/


    Offline BixB

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 3
    • Reputation: +8/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Resistance bishops fight against sedevacantism
    « Reply #2 on: June 09, 2018, 05:20:44 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, is this truth? Or just idle gossip?

    It would be a shame if true. Sedevacantists are problematic when they try to make a dogma out of an opinion and thus creates divisions, but these priests are not dogmatic sedevecantists nor are they divisive.

    Offline John XYZ

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 29
    • Reputation: +35/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Resistance bishops fight against sedevacantism
    « Reply #3 on: June 11, 2018, 09:39:19 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's Father Rioult who revealed the news I mentionned in my post above. Concerning Father Chazal, he is not sedeprivationnist. Here is what he wrote recently in one of his email (translated from French) :

     
    Dear Sir,
     
     One cannot say that the public life of the Church, the apostolic and visible continuity of the Church is something purely material. No, it is something formal, that is to say very real. Pope Francis is a suspect awaiting conviction and deposition.

     

    So, to answer your questions:
     

    1. No, I am not sedeprivationist.
     2. The difference between Cassisiacum and Archbishop Lefebvre is that we are content to separate ourselves from the conciliar Church and leave to God the resolution of the question of loss of office.

     

    fc +

     
    He also condemned sedeprivationnism in his recent book (Contra Cekadam) against sedevacantism :

     
    * Canon 160, against sedeprivationnism. "The election of a Sovereign Pontiff is guided solely by "Vacante Sede Apostolica" of Pope Pius X", which constitution, on #29 not only exclude canonical or juridical censures, but also any reason whatsoever to bar a Cardinal from active or passive voice in a Conclave. More on this later.

     
    * Hence it is impossible to find any trace of your sedeprivationism in the legislation of the Church, and Cum Ex has fallen out of use, if it were ever used to bar a Cardinal to the Papacy. Fr GREGORY HESSE explained that Cum Ex was not used, save for its principle (that the holding of an office is incompatible with heresy), because of the regrettable tendency of Paul IV to imprison clerics without trial.

     
    The last big problem of sedeprivationnism, is that Cardinals are no Popes, so, even in the theory of sedevacantism, they don’t enjoy immunity; they must be judged. We were told by them that special rules, dispensing from a juridical sentence, apply only for the Pope. With sedeprivationnism that is no longer the case, and therefore all ecclesiastical offices are in doubt the minute an individual Catholic deems the holder to be a heretic. Indeed, many sedes say that Cardinals are non Cardinals, bishops fake bishops, priests false priests. It is the proof that much more is at risk than the sole office of a Pope, but all offices in the Church.
     

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16