Exclusive: Fr. Chazal's Unanswered Challenge to the Tone and Content of Salzarian/Siscoian Theology. Basically, it seems as if S/S will make any possible excuse for Paul VI, John Paul II, and Ben XVI in order to uphold Francis' claim to the papacy.

After an exchange between Fr. Chazal and Robert Siscoe, here is a response by Fr. Chazal to ideas brought up by Siscoe/Salza in their book, True or False Pope? Needless to say, knowing the haughtiness of the Salza/Siscoe team, the challenge went unanswered. I have included my own commentary on each section in the bolden text. Here we can find some valuable distinctions between the various positions.

Here is Fr. Chazal's letter:

Yet i fear our disputations with sedevacantists are going to be all the more endless if:

1) We deny the emergence of a Newchurch. SVs [Sedevacantists] go too far, et Novus Ordo est "Coetus disgregatus, nova doctrina, novis sacramentis sub nova notione auctoritatis". We cannot say that this newchurch is fully realised like the SV claim, but we cannot deny it is really emerging heterogeneously. [Also] you are afraid of us saying the Catholic Church is a new church, when in reality we can say that within the Official Church, growing parts are morphing into this cancerous newchuch. The crucial mistake of Bishop Fellay is to confuse the hijacked official church with the Catholic Church.

Dr. Chojnowski: Analysis: Here Fr. Chazal is distinguishing his position from the Sedevacantists and Siscoe/Salza and Bishop Fellay's. With regard to "NewChurch": Chazal: NewChurch is like a cancer taking over the body of the Official Church, but no NewChurch yet; Siscoe/Salza: Refuse to say there is a NewChurch; SVs say that a NewChurch is already in. place; SSPX: Official Church is the Catholic Church. 

2)  We are uncomfortable with separating with the new church (p.312). Those who separated with Nestorius did not start a parallel Patriarchate like the SV would have done. They saw the crime, took distance, raised the alarm and obtained Nestorius to be taken down just as we hope Pope Francis will be taken down. SV give up the idea of taking them down because they don't "take them up". Nemo dat quod non habet, nemo aufert quod non adest. What we say to Francis is just that: "You are a disgrace to your office, you will be taken down." It happens all the time in civilian life.

Dr. Chojnowski: I believe that a pope cannot be "taken down" if he is pope. Such, to me, is an example of the Heresy of Conciliarism. I cannot see how this is a "to be hoped for" action. Fr. Chazal seems to say that Siscoe would agree with him on this point. One question, if your work is to "get rid of Francis" why so much effort to show that he is legitimate? 

3) We fail to specify that the N.O. jurisdiction is impounded (not suppressed), "vi haeresi" (p.68). If a heretical bishop awaits the judicial declaration of his crime, it is unwise to heed to his guidance unless we are ignorant of what he is doing, like the vast majority of Filipinos here. What emanates from the Novus Ordo is much more than imprudent acts or practices that don't contradict the Faith directly (p.469-472), but thousand coordinated little cuts that kill just as surely as a battleaxe facial blow. I could concede [very hard, but i' ll try] the cuts are small, but they are not uncoordinated, they don t come in an isolated and innocuous way... millions got deceived, misled away from eternal salvation. The back hand indirect blow sure did the kill. Give the Devil his due, He is the indirect dude.

Dr. Chojnowski: I do not understand the difference between jurisdiction being "impounded" but "not suppressed". 

4) We praise conservative Cardinals "who are valiantly standing up" (p.471), who are in fact still saying the new mass and still have not declared Francis a heretic, something that, as Cardinals, they are qualified to do. Cardinals and Bishops began to assemble against Honorius, Paschal II, and John XXII for much less than we see now. Did they react to Lund in Sweden? to Assisi IV? Why do they reserve some microscopic courage on "moral issues"?

Dr. Chojnowski: It seems that Siscoe is among the Remnant, Neo-Fatima Center, Neo-Catholic Family News people who see the "Great White Hope" as Cardinal Burke. Fr. Chazal is much more critical of the Cardinal. I believe he is a Modernist heretic who is deceiving members of the Church into accepting the Conciliar Church, Vatican II,  and St. John Paul II. Michael Matt just said in an article posted yesterday that getting Papa Burke would take a miracle from God. He must be accepting Francis's view that God is not all-powerful, no?

5) We praise Mgr Gamber (p.498) who denies the link of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the new mass and upholds the new mass still. Anyone who reads the Vatican II decree can see the germs are all planted by the Council, especially the use of the vernacular (#36) and the subcontracting of liturgical demolition to episcopal conferences and "experts" among plenty other timebombs.

6)  We start recognizing some novus ordo canonizations (p. 116 and p. 304 "blessed" Pope Pius IX), especially as we correctly accuse Fr Cekada of picking and choosing his Holy Week, despite the decree of Pius XII.
The new procedure is flawed and cannot be infallible because it does not emanate from the Vatican as you justly point out. We are not going to help SVs if we start agreeing with what we disagree with in the novus ordo, for St Paul VI's sake's!

Dr. Chojnowski: It is not the procedure that makes a claim of infallibility. It is the pronouncement of the pope that the person is a saint that is infallible. When they use the same formula, how can we arbitrarily say that it is not infallible? When they use the same formula for all of their "canonizations" how can we judge yes, no, or maybe? To avoid such guessing is PRECISELY the purpose of canonizations. 

.7 We hold that "Man has a right to religious liberty and freedom of conscience" as a perfectly orthodox term. Provisions, conditions and caveats, won't change the fact that Religious Liberty is a condemned error, and the term designates that specific error condemned in the syllabus, just like Protestantism designates the error of Luther, and Modernism the heresy of the Modernists. As we don't have the liberty to choose a religion, let us not use a terminology that implies that error by the force of repetition and propaganda. These terms do not include of themselves the choice of the truth either, and truth is not an object of will or choice but of intellect. There is a philosophical flaw in the very term of "religious liberty".

Dr. Chojnowski: So its seems here that Siscoe/Salza agree with the heresy of "religious liberty." How can this be possible when you are claiming the mantle of Archbishop Lefebvre? I helped edit the English edition of the Archbishop's Dubia sent to Rome about the Religious Liberty teaching of Vatican II. It was a HUGE thing for him, clearly. From the text here, it seems as if Fr. Chazal agrees with the traditional condemnation of religious liberty. Knowing him, I could not imagine him endorsing something that the SSPX has always condemned.

.8 We say that the nauseating praise for false religions is not a denial of the Catholic Faith as the only true religion. The problem is that Vatican II says other religions are true religions, nay "means of salvation" instead as "gates of Hell" as Our Lord says. Look up "Nostra Aetate" ... Buddhism leads to "perfect liberation" and "supreme illumination". Same with P6, JP2, B16,and F0: they joined acts to words, exactly to tell that indeed other religions are truly true and valid forms of salvation. When did we last hear from them that Hindus, Bhuddists, Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox are lost in their false religions? NEVER.

Dr. Chojnowski: if Salza/Siscoe say that the Modernists praise for false religions is not a denial of the Catholic Faith as the only true religion, you have to question their intellectual honesty and wonder what their agenda is. Fr. Chazal is perfectly correct when he points out that Vatican II and the post-conciliar Modernists teach that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation. I challenge Robert Siscoe to publicly say that putting Buddha on the tabernacle in St. Peter's in Assisi was NOT a public act of apostasy because it was SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED AND FACILITATED BY "St." John Paul II. Excuse me for the harsh tone, this kind of thing really gets me mad.

.9 We say that John Paul II could have meant "all men are saved potentially" in his many "universal salvation" statements (p. 186). The opening paragraphs of "Redemptor Hominis" leave no place for such caveats.

Dr. Chojnowski: Robert Siscoe, read Fr. Johannes Dormann's books on the heresy of Universal Salvation in the writings of John Paul II. AS PUBLISHED BY ANGELUS PRESS. If Siscoe said this, he is being intentionally dense. 

I will leave other items, but you probably got the idea: This is not going to help sedevacantists to get out of the mire and undermines the hard work you have put out otherwise. SVs are naturally appalled at the novusordo church and half measures against it. You are getting nowhere if you are trying to minimize things that can't be minimized.
Let us not fear to call the current Pope a heretic, since, by your own competent observation ours is a private legitimate opinion based on facts, while we lack  to see him judged of the crime of heresy by a declaratory sentence.
If you want someone to be tried for murder, you are entitled to think he is a murderer, and, if you saw his crime, say he is a murderer, all the way until the court declares it as well.

Moreover, how can we help SVs by saying that SVs embrace schism and come under the anathema of Constantinople IV. They don't have a properly working papacy to schismatize from in the first place, and like them we are private individuals upholding our (well founded) private solution. When God restores the situation in Rome, soon, the chips will fall. Right now the SVs are in danger of schism at the most, while only a few of them say that they are the Church. And they do not err by saying that heresy has no place in the Church. Many of them take their faith seriously and have not turned liberal in the meantime. Let us reasonably hope that only a few will fall into schism.

I am afraid of adulation if i fail to let you know this beforehand, and unlike a sedevacantist of the angry type i look forward hearing your rebuttal, because we are all seeking the best solution to the crisis in these dark times.


  1. Novus Ordo heretical cult seems to have taken the Anglican church as it's model. Cranmer saw that the decatholicizing of the English Catholic church could not happen overnight. But he struck a mighty initial blow by changing the liturgy as did Paul 6. For the Modernist Masons they were willing to let Catholicism just ebb away under their new council and masses, as it has, but they have decided it is time to implement the whole hog....to come out of the closet...and heresies are flying left and right...no Hell, no sin, women popes, sodomy, adultery....everything is on the table. Woe be to those who seek a return to the con men modernist who cleverly set the table....JP2 and Benedict 16....and their Masonic defenders like Siscoe and Opus Dei. There is no hope in a return to them, only in the true faith and sacred liturgy and tradition of the apostles. Right now such a restoration appears to be a bleak hope but it is the only sure hope. Every catholic needs to fix one unchanging principle in mind as he deals with this, Modernism is an anti-catholic heresy. To embrace it is to be excommunicated.

  2. "One question, if your work is to "get rid of Francis" why so much effort to show that he is legitimate?" -- Indeed, how could it be that Fr. Chazal is so utterly blind to all of the arguments Fr. Kramer has put forth, which irrefutably demonstrate Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope? The "Resistance" is only hurting themselves by foolishly insisting that this usurper is the legitimate pope.

  3. ...a few additions to your comments:

    Fr. Chazal:
    "Those who separated with Nestorius did not start a parallel Patriarchate like the SV would have done."

    But Sedes have NOT "started a parallel Patriarchate".
    On what basis does Father Chazal reach back in time to make this unfounded claim? If the SV's have started a "parallel patriarchate", then so did ABL, and we all know better. The law of necessity cannot be limited justly to Salza and Sisconians.

    Father Chazal: "They saw the crime, took distance, raised the alarm and obtained Nestorius to be taken down just as we hope Pope Francis will be taken down."

    SV's saw the crime, took distance, and prayed that ONE SINGLE BISHOP or cardinal would stand up to today's Nestorius. We work DAILY for his removal! Unfortunately, NOT ONE bishop or cardinal, and none from the SSPX or SSPV has worked to this end! Instead, to the very last one, they have all gone WITH Nestorius or at least ENABLED and argued for the rights of Nestorius, but for those already deceased.

    Fr. Chazal: "SV give up the idea of taking them down because they don't "take them up".

    What? thousands of us beg God DAILY for Francis to be removed. We sound the alarm bells and educate people about what the church teaches with regards to heresy and the papacy! The problem is, there are more many thousands of enablers in the Society and Resistance who are more interested in fretting about SV's than actually pressuring the "hierarchy" to follow the instructions of Saint Robert Bellarmine, Saint Ambrose, Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Alphonsus Ligouri, Saint Jerome, and Saint Paul. The enablers consider hand-wringing to be virtuous, while they cripple the effort to have Francis removed because they pledge allegiance to him. Neither the SSPX position nor the resistance position makes any sense.

    Father Chazal: " What we say to Francis is just that: "You are a disgrace to your office, you will be taken down." It happens all the time in civilian life."

    WHAT? Did he really just say that?? We don't "TAKE POPES DOWN" as in civilian life, Father Chazal. If he is the pope, he is the pope. If he is not the pope, then we can AND SHOULD most certainly "take him down". What you are advocating, Father Chazal, is some sort of petty dictatorship model of the pope, where occasionally we must operate a coup to toss out ones we don't like. Those of you Society and Resistance people who pretend to defend the pope are destroying the papacy.

    Look, it's not that complicated. Here's what the church teaches, once again:
    1. A public pertinacious heretic is a formal heretic.
    2. P.P. Heretics have SEVERED THEMSELVES from the church. This is an action of their will and of divine law, and has nothing to do with trials or declarations. NOTHING.
    3. One cannot be the head of a body if one is not part of the body.
    4. The fall from office is AUTOMATIC. Come on, now. Even the lily-livered Cardinal Burke has said this out loud.

    Why is this so complicated for SSPX and resistance??

    I submit, Father Chazal, that you and all of the resistance and society who insist on clinging to the destroyer Francis as the "Vicar of Christ" are destroying the papacy and enabling the destroyers.


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.