"Resistance is the best term": Fr. Chazal Responds to My Attempt at Clarification. Full Correspondance Below.

Below is my correspondence with Fr. Chazal on the question of his stance on Sedeprivationism.

Dear Friends 
Please. I just seek to clarify the theoretical situation to see where we all stand. I used the wrong term -- sedeplenist-- but the actual position that I asked Father to comment on was Sedeprivationism.He had been called a Sedeprivationist on Cathinfo and I wanted so see what he thought of that designation. I did point out on the blog that I made a mistake with the term . I will also put up Father's recent clarification and commentary. 
Let me say that I very much admire Father for trying to follow the truth where ever it leads. 
I just wonder if sedeimpoundism and Sedeprivationism is a distinction without a difference. 
Yours Peter Chojnowski 

Dear Mr Chojnowski,

Perhaps some sede is trying to drown the fish in the water. 
As a sedeimpoundinvirtueofcanon2264ist the side discussion is interesting nevertheless. What they call sedeprivationism, the denial that heretics have a licit, if not valid jurisdiction, isn't what Archbishop Lefebvre taught us. Of course ignorant people are still under the jurisdiction of their diocese, having still valid marriages and confessions, amidst other invalid and sacrilegious ones. Once a person s invincible ignorance is dispelled, the use of novus ordo jurisdiction is at once illicit, i.e., it is an objective mortal sin to use it.

Now let s go back to where we were: What the sedes need to answer, after teaching it for so long, is whether all catholic theologians concurr unanimously on the question of the heretical Pope. Bishop williamson picked up this question in his preface as well. 

So we ask the sedevacantists; while they deflect the discussion (in an interesting direction this time); if they can answer the questions:

Resistance is the best term to encase our position, and that term has stuck, while all other labels have never lived very long. 
the term sedeplenist is incomplete, just like sedeprivationist, because neither of the terms includes the crucial distinction. Caiphas is neither deprived and neither to be heeded to.

this is because the jurisdiction of a heretic; while it instantly disappears quoad liceitatem; only disappears quoad validitatem after a sentence. 
Before then, there is a valid but illicit jurisdiction, of which none of those who are aware of the heresy of the holder of office, can make use of.

throughout the years dioceses and popes have been abusing their jurisdiction or using it for evil intent.
those who separated themselves from day one will not be blamed at the end of this crisis, nay they were even granted jurisdiction in a supplied form.
we cannot place under Rome the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Catholics who are aware francis is a heretic and still submit to his jurisdiction are in a state of illegality. Catholics who were in a state of security and return to place themselves under the power of heretics are canonical fools.


  1. I'm not sure how helpful it is to a lay person to have all of these extremely fine distinctions laid out. For what part of any of this is within our control? I live in a diocese which is stubbornly modernist in its tendencies and practices, with a bishop who is distant and uninterested in the thoughts of anyone not like minded. I have no options. So whether or not my or anyone else's ignorance is "invincible" seems academic. I live in a virtual catacomb awaiting the triumph of the Immaculate Heart.

    1. That's my position entirely. God help us. I pray daily not to be deceived, that God would grant me the wisdom to discern truth from untruth. It gets evermore complicated. But I trust in the the triumph of Mary's Immaculate Heart. The Rosary, after the Mass*, is our greatest weapon against confusion and evil.
      *The Mass, of course, is the source and summit of my confusion in terms of what is licit and valid.... That is, where does God want me to be at Mass to worship Him as He wills it and to receive the graces that are drawn from it?

  2. When Father Chazal says "Catholics who are aware Francis is a heretic and still submit to his jurisdiction are in a state of illegality" does that mean the opposite is true, if you are not aware that he is a heretic, then you are in a legal state? Also, what degree of "heretic" does one have to see in Francis before one cannot make use of Francis illicit jurisdiction?

    Practical scenario: The SSPX received jurisdiction from Francis for confessions, marriages and ordinations, where does that leave one who thinks Benedict is still the Pope or suspects Francis of being a heretic?

  3. All of this is very confusing ...is Francis a heretic or not ? I had my complete re-version back to the Catholic Church in 2010, left the modern new church ..
    All I know is that I will only embrace the TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH , HER TRADITION , AND DIVINE LITURGY ...THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS ...as Archbishop Lefebvre said Rome has lost the faith !

    1. No judgement is necessary. God does that part. All you have to do is believe your own eyes. https://thewildvoice.org/false-prophet-pope-curse/

    2. Please forgive me! I posted the wrong link earlier! This is the chronology which I meant to post. I hope my comment with the incorrect post is not published! I am sorry!


  4. The resistance continually misrepresents the (admittedly pendulating positions) of The Great Archbishop. When he insisted that Rome was in apostasy, he wasn't talking about the mayor, folks.

    Father Chazal would require that we must submit to an heretic, and with the same pen condemns us for doing so. Such is the impossible position of recognize and resist. If he is the pope, we must submit to him. Doctor C., I wish you would write about Doctor of the Church Saint Robert Bellarmine's treatise on the subject. He makes clear the following:
    1. God, not man, severs a public pertinacious heretic from the church.
    2. No declaration (juridical trial or action) is necessary.
    3. A man who is not part of the body cannot be its head.
    4. A man who is pope, it is impossible to ignore, for one cannot ignore his own head.

    These principles are simple. As for "declaring" Francis a heretic, that is not necessary either. At this point, it is a point of fact, observable by even the simple-minded. God judges, not us. He has already judged Francis, who has severed himself from the church. The cognitive dissonance required by the resistance which insists that this heretic is the Vicar of Christ and yet we must defy and renounce him gives me a headache. My resistance friends say, "Just ignore Francis!" Well, that's totally idiotic.

    As for Bennyvacantism, the idea that BXVl, simply a more subtle and elegant heretic is pope instead because he stated the obvious about the ancient mass -- is equally bizarre. These guys are either the Vicars of Christ, or the Vicars of...someone else.

    The only positions which offer peace of mind and consonance with common sense and dogmatic theology are the Cassiciacum thesis of Guerard de Lauriers, and total sedevacantism. Take your pick. It's OKAY to call a man who blasphemes on a regular basis ANTIPOPE.

    As far as waiting for "unanimity" on the issue from "theologians", I'll take Doctor of the Church Saint Robert Bellarmine's position. The only theologians who would unanimously recognize heresy if it smacked them in the face --- are all dead. Thank God Bellarmine studied this issue and drew his conclusions. I don't know what "automatic" and "no declaration is necessary" means to the foil hat crowd, but I believe what he said. Check out the laundry list of Bergoglio's outrages, then look in the mirror and give it the straight face test. Say to your own head, "This man is the VICAR OF CHRIST." The very statement feels like blasphemy to me. If he is the pope, and if Paul Vl is a saint, Blow up some balloons, make some banners. put on your blue jeans, hold hands, and learn to like it. If he is not, then have the cojones to admit it. The fence gets uncomfortable after a while, does it not?


    1. But what is worse? Resisting while participating in Novus Ordo or Tridentine Masses or being a sedevacantist? If the latter, where does one licitly and validly participate in Mass? I don't want to be damned , nor to cause scandal and damnation to others by my practice/example. What is a Catholic to do who wants to be faithful to the truth?????

    2. I'm unclear on your question. You ask, "What is worse? "

      Certainly participating in the novus ordo, knowing what we know, is a form of insanity. But being a home aloner is even crazier.

      This problem is not your fault or my fault. Find a traditional Latin mass and go there. If there is a sede group near you, go there. The CMRI have a lot of math centers. If there is no sede mass, find another Latin mass and go there. You won't cause any scandal going to mass.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"US-Friendly" Contact Within the Vatican Indicated Right After the Death of Pope Pius XII that US Governmental Authorities Must Use the American Cardinals to Prevent the Election of Cardinals Siri, Ottaviani, or Ruffini. The US Government Clearly Saw the Election of a Real Catholic to the Papal Throne in 1958 to be a Threat. Is there No Logical Connection between THIS Telegram and the Strange events of October 26,27, and 28th 1958 within the Sistine Chapel?

Tragic Disappearance of the Real Sister Lucy dos Santos Foretold to Jacinta, Right Before She Died, by the Blessed Virgin Mary. Contrary to being Safely Stowed in a Convent, Sister Lucy's Life was Always Under Threat.

Sister Lucia assassinated? Hidden? Replaced? Fatima Center Acknowledges the Existence of a Imposter Sister Lucy. Huge Breakthrough for Sister Lucy Truth.