Guerard de Lauriers Call Your Office!: Fr. Chazal States that Sedeprivationism Accurately Explains the Situation in the Catholic Church. Says, "I don't care if they call me a sedevacantist for it." Says, "That's also the whole debate since 2012".
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?
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 dont care if they call me a sedevacantist if i hold this principle.
fc+
I thought Fr. Chazal was against sedeprivationist, as he explained in this conference:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bkikLLcH3Y
What was the evidence that made him change, or did he change and maybe he is giving the term a different meaning.
The. Evidence? Bergoglio!
DeleteThose who hold to the Cassiciacum Thesis of Guerard des Lauriers (aka sedeprivationism) incur the Church's anathema:
ReplyDeletePope Pius IX, Vatican I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: “If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church… let him be anathema.” (Denz. 1831)
A true pope cannot lose the full powers of the papacy. They are inamissible.
No public pertinacious heretic can be true Pope, so that's not a worry.
DeleteTimothy, the cassiciacum thesis states that the occupant of the Vatican is NOT true pope, he is merely “designated” by the conclave but has not power of jurisdiction to govern the church. In other words, he is only “materially” but not “formally” pope. Capisci?
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous:
Delete(1) As Vatican I indicates, there is no such thing as a partial, defective or material pope, for supreme jurisdiction over the Church is an unalienable component of the papacy, and a man is either the Roman Pontiff or he is not.
(2) Almighty God has arranged this world such that matter and form cannot be separated. Our world is essentially hylomorphic. Remove the soul (the substantial form) from the body (its matter) and it will never be reunited in this world - except by miracle. Similarly, a rock that has not the form of a rock is not a material rock, it no rock at all. The Rock of the Church is no exception.
(3) The Cassiciacum Thesis presupposes that the Vatican II antipopes were validly elected. They were not, for they were manifest heretics at the time of their 'election' and the conclaves that elected them were hijacked by enemies of the Church. Therefore, even if this novel thesis were correct (which it is not), it would be irrelevant to the situation today.
It seems to me Timothy Johnson is accurately assessing the papal situation and Church crisis in this thread. For more background information along these lines, see WhiteSmoke1958.com and "Read this first" page at NovusOrdoWatch.org.
Delete-- Also, in regards to the crimes of anti-Pope Francis, don't forget his giving communion to leaders like super-pro-abortionist former VP of the US Joe Biden. Biden supports "legalized" abortion to the 9th month and beyond. And don't forget the warn handshake sessions Francis had with Joe Biden at the Vatican.
Does anyone remember when JP II came into the US to walk arm and arm with Bill Clinton days before his impeachment vote in the US Congress? New World Order criminals like Woytila and Montini and Bergoglio and Ratzinger -- are their to boost their fellow NWO criminals and confuse rank and file Catholics. JP II Woytila refused to see imprisoned pro-life heroine Joan Andrews and refused to see Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan -- but did meet with multiple anti-Christ Rabbies the minute he landed in the USA. Get it? Get it? Joan Andrews to be given a "Papal" Boost for her pro-Life suffering in prison for defending the unborn, and Pat Buchanan to be shunned as Pariah -- while anti-Christ Rabbis boosted with "Papal" recognition.
A true Pope excommunicate "leaders" who hold public office and support abortion-murder, like Joe Biden. Pope Pius XII excommunicated Peron, I believe, in 1955 for supporting a campaign effort to legalize divorce in Argentina. - Jim Condit Jr.
How would you refer to we Catholics who cannot in good conscience follow Pope Francis and his seeming or real heresies, his false spiritual direction, his Progressive and Protestant world view, and his hatred of anything Traditionally Catholic
ReplyDeleteTo Michael Dowd: There is no such person as 'Pope Francis'. No informed Catholic would ever use that term to refer to a manifestly heretical antipope who is clearly working for the spread of Satan's kingdom in this world. All others who call themselves 'Catholic' are in fact apostates.
DeleteThe Church teaches that heretics are automatically expelled from the Church by Divine Law sans canonical trial. If a Catholic is inculpably ignorant of this truth, then he is in very deep error indeed, and his conscience would not just be uninformed, it would be misinformed. For that reason, it could only be called 'good' in regard to the sincere and logical application of false knowledge to particular situations.
I’d refer to them as Catholics.
Delete"AnonymousMarch 15, 2018 at 10:39 AM
DeleteI’d refer to them as Catholics."
Agree, all the technical discussion about Catholic gradations sounds pedantic.
I'm sorry, I can't understand the argument because I don't see what the prize is for the winner. You are proclaimed the smartest guy in the life raft?!
ReplyDeleteLOL! Great.
DeleteSo, Father Chazal is waiting for "all theologians to unanimously decide" that there must be legal action before Divine Action? Really? What would "theology on his knees" Walter Kasper say?
ReplyDeleteYou would think Father Chazal would know better. How can a man of his standing be confused between Divine Law and Canon Law? Bellarmine summarizes the key theologians quite well.
Here it is, and it's infuriatingly simple: God has already judged the public pertinacious heretic.
CHECK.
Multiple warnings have been received proving the above.
CHECK.
Because the public pertinacious heretic has been SEVERED from the church by GOD, he can now be judged by the church. If he were still a pope, he could be judged by no one, but because he has been SEVERED from the church, and being not a member of the body cannot be its head, (DUH), he can now be judged by the church. However,
NO DECLARATION IS NECESSARY, so if there is not a single catholic cardinal left with the catholicity to make such a declaration, it really doesn't matter. God has already severed the man from the church.
Seriously, why is this complicated? Father Chazal, backing off his earlier statement, is clearly covering his fiddleback with pretzel theology. That's okay, Father. We have learned to expect that from the paper tigers of the resistance.
Good for Fr. Chazal. Hopefully he has been cathing up on his theology since to get a better idea of the Cassiciacum thesis. For much has been written on this topic since the 1970's. And most still don't understand it for it is usually explained by those who don't understand it or reject it outright. What certainly needs to be cleared up is terminology and the essence of the thesis. First, there is no such thing as sedeprivationism. It doesn't correspond to the reality of the thesis. It is not the See that is struck with privation but the designee to the papacy. Second, the person designed to be Pope remains "pope" only materially because of the obstacle to his reception of Christ's authority. This obstacle is not heresy but the lack of an objective and habitual intention to procure the common good of the Church which is the glory of God and the salvation of souls. There is no talk of personal heresy in good articles on the thesis. This isn't any part of the argument. The material heresies proferred by the designee to the papacy only converge to the main point: that this designee has no real and efficacious intention to do what he is inteded to do as the Pope. This is an a posteriori proof that he is lacking Christ's authority. Hopefully all the priests that are looking into the Cassiciacum thesis take their time to study it for it is often distorted, even by its adherents. What is also very important is the fact that adherents of the thesis of Bp. Guerard des Lauriers formally agree with the totalist sedevacantism adherents. The "pope" materialiter is not the Pope of the Church. Hence the possible collaboration and so forth...
ReplyDelete