Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal  (Read 1990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GottmitunsAlex

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 390
  • Reputation: +434/-33
  • Gender: Male
    • Youtube
Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
« on: August 22, 2017, 11:53:55 AM »
  • 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.


    A brief response to “Contra Cekadam”…
    Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal


    Fr. Francois Chazal is a priest who holds the recognize-and-resist position of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre: Recognize as valid the “Popes” since Vatican II while resisting anything they teach or legislate that appears to conflict with Church teaching or practice before Vatican II. At this point, Fr. Chazal is a part of the so-called “Marian Corps” or “Strict Observance” faction of the Lefebvrist Society of St. Pius X, which broke away from the “official” SSPX in response to Bp. Fellay’s conciliatory course with regard to the Vatican Modernists.
    Unlike Sedevacantism, the recognize-and-resist position is extremely popular among traditionalists because it offers a best-of-both-worlds approach to the Vatican II Sect: You get to resist and refuse everything that is Modernist or otherwise objectionable, even to the point of having a de facto parallel church on the side; while at the same time you don’t have to deal with any of the pesky problems that arise from Sedevacantism. Plus, you get to retain anything from the Novus Ordo Church that you may need or desire in your personal life (validity of certain sacraments and annulments, certain canonized saints, permissibility to attend the “New Mass”, etc.).
    The only problem with this rather convenient position is that it is not at all reconcilable with Catholic teaching on the Papacy, the Magisterium, and the Church, as we have demonstrated on this web sitetime and again, including in a direct response to Fr. Chazal a few years ago. This is ironic because it means that people like Fr. Chazal effectively believe that they can uphold and defend traditional Catholic teaching by denying the same — which makes about as much sense as trying to borrow one’s way out of debt.
    Recently, Fr. Chazal came out with a lengthy monograph entitled Contra Cekadam, which is meant to rebut a number of arguments for Sedevacantism put forth by Fr. Anthony Cekada in his widely-circulated booklet Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope (2nd ed., 2006). The first part of Contra Cekadam has been published online in French here.
    Responding to an inquiry by a third party, Fr. Cekada has provided a succinct rejoinder to Fr. Chazal, which we are happy to publish below. Readers interested in a more in-depth discussion of the topic are encouraged to check our topical page on Sedevacantism here.
    "As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise: The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people." -Pope St. Pius X

    "No Jew adores God! Who say so?  The Son of God say so."

    Offline GottmitunsAlex

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 390
    • Reputation: +434/-33
    • Gender: Male
      • Youtube
    Re: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
    « Reply #1 on: August 22, 2017, 11:57:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Response to Contra Cekadam
    by Fr. Anthony Cekada
    Thanks for sending along the Chazal document. It is hardly, as Fr. Chazal seems to think, a point-by-point refutation of my argument in Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope.
    Fr. Chazal’s Contra Cekadam doesn’t even state the argument of the “Cekadam” in question, still less refute it. Here, for the record, is the argument I made in the booklet:
    1.    Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
    2.   Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
    3.   It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
    4.   Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
    5.    Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.
    6.   Canonists and theologians also teach that a public heretic, by divine law, is incapable of being validly elected pope or obtaining papal authority.
    7.    Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. In 1559 Pope Paul IV decreed that the election of a heretic to the papacy would be invalid, and that the man elected would lack all authority.
    8.   Since the Church cannot defect, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we repeatedly encounter is that they proceed from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, publicly defected from the faith, and therefore do not objectively possess canonical authority.
    If Fr. Chazal agrees with the statements in points 1 (the changes are evil) and 2 (and the Church, by Christ’s promise, cannot give evil/error), but he nevertheless still insists the Vatican II popes are true popes possessing authority from Christ, he maintains in effect that the Church of Christ has defected and that Christ’s promises are void.
    As for the rest, Fr. Chazal simply:
    1.    recycles opinions on a heretical pope that were eventually abandoned after St. Robert Bellarmine,
    2.   attempts to apply criteria pertaining to ecclesiastical crimes when sedevacantists maintain that the public sin of heresy, not the crime, is what prevents a heretical pope from obtaining or retaining the papacy,
    3.   refloats the phony Adrian VI quote,
    4.   repeats the Paul-vs-Peter canard [see Appendix at end of post here] on fraternal correction for a moral fault, which does not solve the problem of the Church defecting wholesale by promulgating theological errors and evil universal laws,
    5.    in his treatment of Scripture as a “refutation” of sedevacantism, ignores St. Paul’s own assertion that he could in fact, “preach another Gospel,” for which even he himself would become “anathema.”
    6.   recycles supposed incidents from history to demonstrate that there have been heretic popes before, but which incidents (a) are part of the standard arguments of protestants who reject papal infallibility, and (b) have been repeatedly refuted by Catholic dogmatic theologians.
    Fr. Chazal’s arguments on each of these points still does not get him out of the theological pickle that points 1 and 2 of my original argument put him in — the Chazalian equation that works out to:
    • Evil changes + true popes = defected Church.

    Good luck getting out of that one, Father Chazal!
    "As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise: The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people." -Pope St. Pius X

    "No Jew adores God! Who say so?  The Son of God say so."


    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2943
    • Reputation: +1449/-2279
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
    « Reply #2 on: August 22, 2017, 12:17:59 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1

  • by Fr. Anthony Cekada


    5.    Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.
    6.   Canonists and theologians also teach that a public heretic, by divine law, is incapable of being validly elected pope or obtaining papal authority.



    SOME canonists and theologians taught the points above. Certainly there are theologians who have taught the opposite. So in this sense, the two points above are not entirely truthful, because they leave out this important aspect. The Church does not have a definitive teaching on what happens in the case of a heretical Pope. We can try to go by what canonists and theologians have said, but they are not at all in agreement. 

    Offline Nooseph Polten

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 154
    • Reputation: +68/-54
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
    « Reply #3 on: August 22, 2017, 05:02:16 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • A brief response to “Contra Cekadam”…
    Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal


    Fr. Francois Chazal is a priest who holds the recognize-and-resist position of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre
    Hmmm, that's funny..
    I thought Fr. Cekada claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist. ::)
    +Truth and Justice for all+
                  JMJ

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +739/-780
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
    « Reply #4 on: August 22, 2017, 05:10:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • While not a "fan", that is a distortion of a, somewhat tongue in cheek, reference to the statements of Abp. L that can be taken as being either Sedevacantist amenable or at least not dismissive of the position.
    Hmmm, that's funny..
    I thought Fr. Cekada claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist. ::)
    "Lord, have mercy".


    Offline Nooseph Polten

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 154
    • Reputation: +68/-54
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
    « Reply #5 on: August 22, 2017, 07:56:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • While not a "fan", that is a distortion of a, somewhat tongue in cheek, reference to the statements of Abp. L that can be taken as being either Sedevacantist amenable or at least not dismissive of the position.
    +Truth and Justice for all+
                  JMJ

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +739/-780
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
    « Reply #6 on: August 22, 2017, 08:05:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not to be cheeky but, what's your point?

    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline Nooseph Polten

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 154
    • Reputation: +68/-54
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
    « Reply #7 on: August 22, 2017, 09:55:03 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!2
  • Not to be cheeky but, what's your point?
    My point is that Cekada claimed Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist, but now states that he was the one to adopt the "recognize-and-resist position". Therefore, Fr. Cekada is an obnoxious hypocrite. 
    +Truth and Justice for all+
                  JMJ


    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +739/-780
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
    « Reply #8 on: August 22, 2017, 10:24:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Maybe its a new video. I can't watch it. If Cekada is NOW  making such an unqualified claim that would be …"unusual" to say the least. The last time I checked, Cekada wasn't saying that save in the manner as I prev. stated to you. You should probably avoid his other more comical expressions like "cardboard pope" or "Frankenchurch" until you've made sure you aren't just being obtuse.
    My point is that Cekada claimed Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist, but now states that he was the one to adopt the "recognize-and-resist position". Therefore, Fr. Cekada is an obnoxious hypocrite.
    "Lord, have mercy".

    Offline Nooseph Polten

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 154
    • Reputation: +68/-54
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
    « Reply #9 on: August 25, 2017, 04:09:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Maybe its a new video. I can't watch it. If Cekada is NOW  making such an unqualified claim that would be …"unusual" to say the least. The last time I checked, Cekada wasn't saying that save in the manner as I prev. stated to you. You should probably avoid his other more comical expressions like "cardboard pope" or "Frankenchurch" until you've made sure you aren't just being obtuse.
    It was posted more than a year ago.
    +Truth and Justice for all+
                  JMJ

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +739/-780
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
    « Reply #10 on: August 25, 2017, 04:46:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It was posted more than a year ago.
    Thanks. In that case, what's the point of polemic ping-pong? Take care.
    "Lord, have mercy".


    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1311
    • Reputation: +1951/-361
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
    « Reply #11 on: August 27, 2017, 03:35:24 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • My point is that Cekada claimed Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist, but now states that he was the one to adopt the "recognize-and-resist position". Therefore, Fr. Cekada is an obnoxious hypocrite.
    Why does everything traditional have to be about the archbishop? He came reluctantly to the movement and then only proceeded in a half-hearted way. Those like Fr. Cekada who sought clarity could not endure his management style which still persists today in other hands. I dare say ABL acted like a SV on those days he was not hugging Romans!
     
    R & R is just as much a modern invention as the retirement of so-called popes. Convenience has entered the lives of comfortable people and they tailor solutions to problems that might cause them grief. R & R is that half-way house that justifies disobedience while not disputing the authority that normally expects obedience. You can ask a hundred priests hiding under this umbrella and you will get a hundred different reasons for their stance. Apparently, refusing conciliar popes all recognition is worse than saying Mrs. Obama is a man .....  and one lives in fear of being struck by lightening! But in my case the prospect of R & R in perpetuity would be something that would cause me grief. I will go with Fr. Cekada, happily.   ;) 

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4427
    • Reputation: +2705/-1249
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
    « Reply #12 on: August 27, 2017, 04:09:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wessex,
    I am not opposed to the Sede view; also not opposed to R&R.  You might call me a fence rider; I just say its not my job, nor do I have the authority, to solve the problems of V2.

    However, if I was forced at gunpoint, I would choose R&R (but not the sspx version of R&R) simply because to do so is not disobedient, as you and many others repeatedly contend.  There is NOTHING - no error - which new Rome has commanded any trad to accept or commit, under pain of sin.  So, to disregard their novelties, to ignore their errors, to go right when they go left - this is not "disobedience"!  For they have issued no command for us to follow them!  This is called following Christ and avoiding the spirit of the world.  

    Obviously, you disagree.  So here is my challenge- please tell me ONE error, or ONE heretical/sinful act that new Rome has commanded Catholics to accept/perform, under pain of sin.  

    If you can, I'll leave R&R tomorrow.  If you cannot, then new Rome, and its popes, and V2, etc, etc can be logically recognized as occupiers of the govt seats of the church, while at the same time, recognized as heretics, for their personal loss of faith.  And until they COMMAND that we follow them into error, they can, and must be, ignored.  

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6013
    • Reputation: +3480/-328
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Re: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
    « Reply #13 on: August 27, 2017, 04:49:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    Obviously, you disagree.  So here is my challenge- please tell me ONE error, or ONE heretical/sinful act that new Rome has commanded Catholics to accept/perform, under pain of sin.  
    Don't hold your breath if you are waiting for Rome to say, accept under PAIN OF SIN.  They do not believe in SIN.

    The only sin they accept is sinning against your neighbor, PERIOD!  Which yes, that is a Truth, but they omit any wrong doing against God.  This is their idea of bringing peace to the world, "tolerance" except when it comes to Traditional Catholics.  

    The cult of worship of man, is all they believe.  Speaking of Rome, not the R&R, although I do believe R&R are cowards, since they don't go all the way to defend the Papacy.  Pleasing man, friends, relatives over God.   

    Offline DZ PLEASE

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2928
    • Reputation: +739/-780
    • Gender: Male
    • "Lord, have mercy."
    Re: Resistance vs. Sedevacantism: Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Chazal
    « Reply #14 on: August 27, 2017, 05:00:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Don't hold your breath if you are waiting for Rome to say, accept under PAIN OF SIN.  They do not believe in SIN.

    The only sin they accept is sinning against your neighbor, PERIOD!  Which yes, that is a Truth, but they omit any wrong doing against God.  This is their idea of bringing peace to the world, "tolerance" except when it comes to Traditional Catholics.  

    The cult of worship of man, is all they believe.  Speaking of Rome, not the R&R, although I do believe R&R are cowards, since they don't go all the way to defend the Papacy.  Pleasing man, friends, relatives over God.  
    Entirely missing(?) the point anyway. "Fool me once..." though. False premise. Even when show, it would just be something else, as if you'd never answered at all. 

    It is usually a case of "won't", not "can't". 

    "Without the faith, it impossible to please God."

    It's an excuse. 
    "Lord, have mercy".

     

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