Reader Challenges Fr. Chazal, Fr. Scott, and RadTrad Thomist: "Heresy Puts You Outside the Church....So, What Happens Next?
Dear RadTrad Thomist,
I have been increasingly disturbed and dismayed by the remarks of the two SSPX priests recently published on this blog. Fr. Chazal seems to be thoroughly confused about Canon Law and the medicinal nature of the censures imposed on those who violate its laws, the purpose and scope of supplied jurisdiction and does not display even the most elementary notion of what constitutes membership in the Church. Now Fr. Scott asserts that he is appalled that the German Episcopal Conference at Ingolstadt has approved the administration of Holy Communion to Protestants who are the spouses of Catholics.
Fr. Scott expresses his shock and outrage that the Blessed Sacrament, the “practical manifestation of our Faith in the Real Presence, in the divinity of Christ” is to be administered to “excommunicated” persons. Fr. Scott is not only an intelligent and experienced priest, he is a former rector of one of the seminaries of SSPX; as such, he exhibits none of the fog of confusion that seeps through Fr. Chazal’s exchanges with Dr. Chojnowski. No, Fr. Scott is quite clear in expressing his outrage at the German Bishops. He cites the all the pertinent sources from the 1983 Code of Canon Law to the “traditional” 1917 Code of Canon Law, the published documents of Popes both pre and post Vatican II, along with selected portions of the Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio.
It has already been established on this blog site that Material Heretics are not members of the Church but Fr. Scott takes exception to the administration of the Holy Eucharist to the Protestant spouses of German Catholics not because these people are not now and, we may assume, never have been members of the Catholic Church, but merely because they are “excommunicated” and are referred to be excommunicates in both the 1917 and 1983 Codes. He mentions with some distaste the vague and permissive statements of the “progressive” members of the “church” and other portions of the 1983 Code which convey the “impression” that with some “discernment” individual non-Catholic Christians can be admitted to the Eucharist! How can we reconcile this seeming contradiction?
Fr. Scott correctly cites pre-Vatican II sources from the Council of Trent, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius XII that completely and clearly deny the Eucharist to non-Catholics…that is, until the catastrophe of Vatican II, this Sacrament was strictly reserved to members of the Church. Now here is where the confusion seeps into Fr. Scott’s argument; he refers to these pre-Vatican II sources as “The Church’s Teaching” but according to the documents of Vatican Council II, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the post-Vatican II encyclicals, liturgical changes and recent ecumenical principles and policies, it is no longer the teaching of the Church; assuming, of course, that the Conciliar Church is the Roman Catholic Church. It is also true that the “indifferentism” that Fr. Scott refers to is no longer considered to be an error but a positive virtue…the Vatican calls it Ecumenism! So why then is Fr. Scott so appalled at the German Bishops and not with the “Popes” who encourage and perpetuate these outrages?
Canon 2314 of the 1917 Code presumed the guilt of material heretics, a point which had been opposed by a significant number of Moral Theologians and a few Canonists at the time. However, the strength and unity of the Church in its faith, sacraments, liturgy, and laws did provide a convincing argument for the presumption of guilt in this case. Could a convincing argument for such a presumption be made in the Church of today? Is it even conceivable? Since Canon 2314 is no longer in effect, Fr. Scott’s narrow and legalistic view of that canon is not only irrelevant, it is also both unnecessary and hypocritical. Unnecessary since Material Heretics are, by definition, not members of the Church and are, or rather should be, ineligible to receive the Sacraments ipso facto. Hypocritical in view of the fact that Fr. Scott feels compelled to express his outrage that those heretics outside the Church could “under some circumstances” be able to receive the Eucharist, but he is loath to recognize the very blatant and well publicized heresies espoused by those within the hierarchy of the Church itself! It appears that Fr. Scott is choking on the veritable gnat while swallowing the heretical camel whole.
I too am appalled at the actions of the German Bishops, but I am even more appalled at the timid reluctance of Fr. Scott and the leadership of the SSPX to draw the obvious conclusions from the travesties of the last fifty years and, showing the courage and faith of our fathers, act upon them.
Yours,
Jim Kozin
April 5, 2018
Fr. Chazal is no longer a member of the SSPX, but I have great respect for him and Mr. Kozin's dismissal of him seems very harsh implying that Fr. does not know what constitutes membership in the Church. It is right and edifying that Fr. Scott, as all of the Society's priests should, condemns the German Episcopal Conference for this latest outrage of approving the giving of the Blessed Sacrament to Protestants. That is a sacrilege that attacks in a most direct manner the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord. Fr. Scott has been a constant critic of the Council, New Code, new Sacraments et al. I am not sure what "conclusions" he wishes the Society to draw from the last fifty years that have not been drawn. Is he critical of the new direction the leadership apparently wishes to take or does he think the Society should declare that we have not had a pope since the Council? I assume Mr. Kozin is a sedevacantist since he puts the word 'popes' in parentheses. The Society is not sede nor has it ever been. For some years it has been moving away from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and that is beyond lamentable and destroys the very purpose of its existence.The fire that the priests of the Society used to have when defending us against the Novus Ordo seems to have become a dying ember and I am assuming that since the superiors shape the inferiors, it is from the leadership that this is coming. Many of us pray for the Society's return to the path that Archbishop Lefebvre trod and placed his followers on. I am including a link to an very interesting talk given by Fr. Chazal in response to statements of Fr. Laisney.
ReplyDeletehttps://tradidi.com/downloads/fr-chazal-wanganui-nz-30-march-2018.mp3
Bravo.
ReplyDeleteThe Society's inability or unwillingness to face reality is disheartening.
Their use of selective quotations by their founder is dishonest.
Their ignoring the explicit instructions of their founder is disgusting.
One thing I would add to the above letter is this: There is in traditional catholics a habit of being shocked at the rolling outrages. Fine. The problem is that rarely are these outrages new. An example is the recent freaking out about Francis and his No Hell statement. He had already said this in 2015 and nobody made a peep. This time, people are going berserk.
Another example is communion for protestants or schismatics. John Paul ll already published on the Vatican website permission for protestants and schismatics to receive the sacraments if they request them. So, why is this new?
There is no new shock or outrage. It was all enshrined in Vatican ll and after the unctuous Montini is "canonized", so will also be the council from hell. Oh, Francis, there IS a hell, and Vatican ll is proof of it.
When considering the administration of the sacraments, remember, the only people on the planet who absolutely cannot be tolerated by the apostates in Rome and their enablers are sedevacantists. Absolutely everyone else is welcome, including pope hating protestants, pope-denying orthodox, adulterers, fornicators, EVERYONE else.
I was recently refused absolution AND communion because I asked the priest in the confessional whether having grave doubts about Francis being a real pope was a sin. Boom! I was ejected from the confessional and refused both absolution and communion. This was at the FSSP.
It's chaos, boys. There is no principle of unity operational. That alone is enough evidence that the see is vacant.
When the only people on the planet who are rejected -- are those who actually believe what the church teaches about the papacy and about the consequences of heresy, we have reached a height of absurdity which is unequalled in the history of the church. SSPX, wake up. FSSP, get real.
This is a reply from James Kozin. I will have to post his reply in multiple comment sections.
ReplyDeleteDear Virginie
You may be believe that my criticisms of Fr. Chazal were “harsh” nonetheless they were and remain quite accurate. I know Fr. Chazal to be a dedicated and hard working missionary priest, unfortunately his Ordination does not guarantee theological competence and the collar no assurance of canonical expertise. I make it a point to actually read the articles I comment upon and had you made the effort to read Fr. Chazal’s confused and confusing remarks that were published most recently on this blog you may have agreed with my evaluation. In the future you might find it most helpful to carefully examine posts before making any criticisms concerning them.
Since you have obviously missed the whole point of my response to Fr. Scott’s article, I’ll try to explain it in a way that you might find more comprehensible. The Church has never administered the sacraments to those who were not Members of the Church…you do, I suppose, remember its policy regarding the catechumens. Manifest heretics (both formal and material) are not Members of the Church and, consequently, the sacraments were always denied to them. Fr. Scott is fully aware of this fact; he must also have been aware that in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 855 distinguishes between “excommunicates” and “those manifestly infamous” i.e. members of heretical sects. I believe that Fr. Scott purposely avoided using the latter, more appropriate, term because had he done so it would have placed him in direct opposition to principles enunciated in the Vatican II Document Unitatis Redintegratio, the Church’s new policy of ecumenism, Josef Ratzinger’s expanded [and heretical, in my opinion] definition of The Church of Christ and its members, and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church which reflects the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The SSPX currently in “negotiations” with the Vatican on its “regularization” could hardly have tolerated one of its members expressing that clear point of ecumenical contradiction now could it?
James Kozin, cont.
DeleteFr. Scott frequently refers to what the Church taught prior to Vatican II and how it differs from the teaching since that time. And you applaud what you consider to be those “criticisms” however, the new laws that Fr. Scott refers to are not slight modifications to the Church’s previously existing laws, they are outright contradictions. In logic a contradiction is a negation; if what the Church had previously taught was true, then its negation is false…necessarily false! Fr. Scott and the SSPX both fail to draw any conclusions from this logically established necessity. Contradictions of established Church doctrine should not be merely criticized but vigorously opposed! His “criticisms” are therefore timid and ineffectual…hardly something to be applauded. Since you are at a loss to discern the conclusions that should be drawn from this logical necessity let me spell it out for you. If the Church is the font of religious truth, guided by the Holy Spirit, and these truths are now contradicted (i.e. negated/falsified) then either the Church has defected or the institution responsible for these contradictions is not the Church. The Society, however, meets these transmogrifications of liturgy, dogma, and practice with either mild protestations or no comment at all! We are now witnessing the piecemeal destruction of the Roman Catholic Church, at least the institutional segment of that Church, while the leaders of the SSPX are implementing a piecemeal destruction of the Society that Archbishop Lefebvre had established…or hadn’t you noticed? Why is there no outcry from the Society’s members…from dedicated, intelligent priests, like Fr. Scott? Or from its supporters…like yourself? Could it be possible that the issues and what is at stake for the faithful have not been clearly identified nor clearly understood? Do you actually believe that “going back to the way it was under Archbishop Lefebvre” is a viable option? The leadership of the Society, in its published remarks, believes that the choice you propose would actually mean schism. The fear of schism (in addition to other more mundane reasons) explains both their timid and ineffectual responses to the current heretic sitting precariously on the Chair of Peter and Bishop Fellay’s feverish compulsion to “make a deal” with Rome.
The indifferentism that Fr. Scott mentions in his article not only contradicts the clear teaching of several Popes that outside the Church there is no salvation, it is also a proposition clearly and forcefully condemned by Pius IX; a proposition, by the way, that is mortally sinful for a Roman Catholic to hold! It is not merely an “error” as Fr. Scott would have us believe and, as the former rector of an SSPX seminary, he must have been fully aware of the clear moral implications of this term when he wrote the article in question. Yet for some reason he chose not to mention this important clarification to his readers…wouldn’t you agree the word “timid” that I used to describe this failure a rather mild characterization considering his office? Do you suppose he informed the members of the German Episcopal Conference of this mortal danger to their souls? Right, neither do I.
James Kozin, cont. 2
ReplyDeleteYou have either failed to notice, or have very conveniently decided not to mention, what I consider to be the most devastating criticism of Fr. Scott’s article…nowhere in this document does Fr. Scott dare to criticize those who have been directly responsible for the adoption of these outrageous anti-Catholic policies. Not a word of criticism about the letters, encyclicals, and ecumenical initiatives taken by any of the men who had been sitting on the Chair of Peter, the individuals who were totally responsible for engineering these despicable policies; policies that the German Episcopal Conference is merely putting into practice. Need I mention an even more glaring failure of Fr. Scott and his confreres…not a single peep about Francis’ Amoris Laetitia which the Argentinian Episcopal Conference is now putting into practice! By the way, I haven’t heard any direct criticism of Francis and his heresies [“there is no Catholic God” and, more recently, “there is no hell”] at all from any SSPX pulpit in the last several years. Have you? I really hate to be the bearer of sad tidings, but the fire you so cherished in the old SSPX and its return that you so ardently yearn for, has been smoldering to ashes for quite some time; which accounts for the departure of so many good and dedicated priests…like Fr. Chazal.
By the way, over the years I have observed that people use sentiment instead of reasoned argumentation when actual thought becomes too difficult and the issues too complex for them to deal with and by applying denigrating labels to those with whom they disagree. Both tactics are a handy substitute for real thought and you manage to use both in your response to my post; admittedly very convenient, but neither productive nor persuasive. Thinking, genuine critical analysis, on the other hand is arduous and time consuming but the rewards are worth the effort…I heartily recommend that you give it a try…at least once.
JEK