Author Topic: Fr. Chazal Conference: Sedevacantism, part 1 Brisbane 2015-02-08 (Read 1402 times)

OperationSurvival · « **on:** February 14, 2015, 09:12:18 PM »

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/VdgM1R0MH-Q[/youtube]

PG · « **Reply #1 on:** February 14, 2015, 11:39:45 PM »

Fr. Chazal is transparent. You have to give him that. His only mistake seemed to be his claim that st. benedicts center feeneyites are sedevacantists. I understand them to be sedeplenists. I liked his comment that +Pivarunas is the latest antipope in the long line of post v2 antipopes. I haven't heard that one. But, he has a point. From what I understand, Pivarunas does believe he has jurisdiction.

Francisco · « **Reply #2 on:** February 15, 2015, 05:18:28 AM »

Quote from: + PG +

.... I liked his comment that +Pivarunas is the latest antipope in the long line of post v2 antipopes. ......

Are all the post Vatican II popes really anti-popes? When did Bishop Pivaranus become a post Vatican II pope and thereafter an anti-pope?. How many post v2 anti-popes are there in this long line?

Cantarella · « **Reply #3 on:** February 15, 2015, 11:39:22 AM »

Quote from: + PG +

His only mistake seemed to be his claim that st. benedicts center feeneyites are sedevacantists.

You are correct PG. Saint Benedict Center is not sedevacantist. Far from. Sedevacantists are not even accepted in the Third Order either.

PG · « **Reply #4 on:** February 15, 2015, 07:48:37 PM »

francisco - Fr. Chazal believes the v2 claimants do not formally lose their office. So, he is referring to anti popes like cmri's schuckardt, the palmar pope, and bawden. I simply am commenting that he mentioned pivarunas(which is bold), but the cmri deserves to get picked on. Because, it is very bold(more so) to declare the NO claimants and all of the rites invalid(which the cmri does).

Fr. Chazal mentioned how st. pius x and pius xii changed how papal elections would proceed in future pontificates(until changed by a future pope), and that under them, there is nothing that prevents a heretic from being elected. This attacks fr. cekada's favorite argument angle(that the papal heretics "don't lose the office, because they cannot/didn't attain it"). Fr. Chazal should argue from this perspective. I think it is strong, and I want to hear more.