Robert Siscoe Fully Identifies Novus Ordo Modernist church as the Catholic Church. Attacks Bishop Tissier's and Archbishop Lefebvre's Distinction between Catholic Church and Conciliar "Church". Obvious Logical Conclusion: Stick with or Join Again the Novus Ordo Sect and Accept the Idea (Heresy) that the Catholic Church Is both the Church of God and the Church of Heresy AT THE SAME TIME.

Here below is an exchange between Robert Siscoe and Fr. Francois Chazal over the question of what has been happening over the course of the last 60 years. From what we read, Mr. Siscoe acts as if the last 110 YEARS HAVE NOT HAPPENED. As if we are in the days of St. Pius X when we could merely say that the institutional Church was being infiltrated by hidden evil men. Such an analysis ---- along with allowing the Catholic Church to be filled with public apostates and heretics, totally ignores the fact that for almost 60 years we have had an endless stream of "official" deviations from the infallible and ancient faith of the Apostles and from (for example, with the new rite of episcopal consecration) even what had been definitively decreed only decades before by Pope Pius XII. 

How many times do I need to put up the video of Archbishop Lefebvre saying that "Rome is in Apostasy"? How can the Church of Christ be the Pure Bride of Christ if MOST ALL  of Her members adhere to heresy and non-Catholic or anti-Catholic rites and practices and laws? 

It would be interesting to ask Mr. Robert Siscoe the question, "Which are the parts of the institutional "Church" that are not corrupted in some way?" But the Church cannot be corrupted AT ALL, at least in Her teachings, practices, canon laws, canonizations, and universal magisterium. If She could be, who can tell us which parts are pure and which parts are not? Siscoe and Salza? This is rank Protestantism or Gallicanism. 

Here is the exchange between Siscoe and Fr. Chazal: 

Dear Father,

I had to leave town again for another business trip, and only recently returned.  I’m sure it’s too late to add any quotations to your book, but I thought I would send them anyway (will send in another e-mail).  Below are my replies to the points of disagreement you mentioned in the previous e-mail.  I’m not sure how much of an actual disagreement there is.  I guess we will find out when you read my replies.  

Fr. Chazal : 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 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. P.59 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.

Reply by Siscoe to Fr. Chazal: How to explain the situation in the Church today is difficult.  Some have gone so far as to compare it to a mystery, but if we consider it in light of the traditional doctrine of the Church, I believe we can arrive at some certain conclusions. Let’s consider the two solutions proposed to explain the crisis.

Solution #1: One explanation is that the visible, institutional Church has become an entirely New Church – a false Church that one can have nothing to do with.  Some maintain that the entire hierarchy of this New Church is false, as is the Pope.  Others (Bishop Tissier) hold that the hierarchy is partly Catholic and partly not, and that the Pope is the head of two different Churches at the same time – the New Church and the Catholic Church.  

Solution # 2: The second solution is that the visible, institutional Church has been infiltrated by her enemies (Freemasons, Communists and Satanists, etc.), who are destroying her from within, but who have not completely done so.  The visible institution itself remains the true Church, but it has been reduced to a state in which it is virtually unrecognizable, but without any of God’s promises being violated.  Just as Christ – the Head of the Church – permitted His enemies to seize Him, torture him and reduce him to a condition in which He was all but unrecognizable, so too has God permitted His enemies to do the same to the Church – at least nearly all of the Western Rite.

Reply to Solution #1:

It is not possible to hold that the visible institution of the Church has become an entirely New Church. That would certainly be incompatible with the Promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail, for as Cardinal Billot and many others teach, “visible Church is the Church to which his promises pertain; promises, namely, that she would be perennial and indefectible…”  If the visible entity – with its hierarchy and membership - had defected by morphing into a New Church, whether gradually or at once, the Promise of Christ would have been violated.   For this reason, the teaching of Fr. Kramer that the “visible entity will apostatize” is extremely problematic, if not heretical.  For just as one cannot separate the infallible Church from the true Church, or the indefectible Church from the true Church, neither can one separate the visible Church from the true Church.   Just as the infallible and indefectible Church is visible, so to the visible Church (the “visible entity”) is both infallible and indefectible. 

I would also note that the visible Church must remain numerically one and the same visible society as that which existed during the days of the Apostles.   Although the members of the society die and are replaced by others, but the moral body remains one, and it is certain that the moral body of the Church today is numerically one with the Church before the Council.

If we maintain that the visible, institutional Church of today is a New Church, we are forced to reject the indefectibility of the Church as it has always been explained, and end with many other difficulties (especially concerning the mark of apostolicity).

Solution #2: Saying the Pope is simultaneously the head of the true Church and a false Church is equally problematic, since the membership and hierarchy of the “two Churches” are one and the same visible society.  

It is clear to me that the correct way to understand the crisis is in solution #2 – namely, that the true Church has been infiltrated by her enemies and is undergoing a Passion similar to what Christ Himself endured.  Our Lord is permitting His enemies to do all they can get away with, without destroying the institution and without any of His Promises being violated.  The good he will bring out of this is the glorification of his Mother, who will crush His enemies and bring about a miraculous restoration of the “visible entity”, with its hierarchy and membership, that will a marvel to behold and usher in an era of peace.

Fr. Chazal: 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.

Reply: In our chapter of Recognize and Resist, we make a distinction between a formal and material separation (p. 634-5).  A formal separation would be a public rejection of the Pope, as such, and the entire Church in union with him.  A material separation would entail avoiding the infectious modernism within the Church, and, to the extent possible, not paying attention to the Pope.  It would certainly seem that a material separation from Pope Francis is justified by the natural law, which gives us a right to defend ourselves (physically and spiritually).  Just as a wife can materially separate from an abusive husband without having to divorcing him (formal separation), so likewise a material separation from the spiritual danger of a bad Pope seems entirely justified.

Regarding the case of Nestorius, I will provide some quotations below from the letters of St. Cyril and Pope Celestine which were written at the time.  One point is that Cyril asked the Pope if it was permitted for him to cut off communion with Nestorius. Cyril refused to do so without the pope giving his judgment on the matter.  Interestingly, even though Nestorius had remained hardened in heresy following two warnings given him by St. Cyril, the Pope said not to cut of communion with him yet, but instead only to warn him that if he persisted, he would be cut off from the Church. In another letter, the pope told the faithful in Constantinople to reject Nestorius’ teaching, while clearly indicating that he had not yet been cut off as “the ruler of Israel” (the Church), which, he said, would only occur if Nestorius persisted.

Fr. Chazal: 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.

Reply: I would make three distinctions:  1) The possession of authority by the prelate.  2) The moral obligation to avoid the prelate (if he is endangering one’s faith by preaching errors and heresy). 3) The legal obligation to avoid a heretical bishop. 

Concerning the possession of jurisdiction, if a bishop is legally appointed to an office to which jurisdiction is attached he acquires the jurisdiction connected to the office.  Even if there were a legal defect that prevented him from obtaining the office - either on the part of the one appointing or the one receiving - the Titulus Coloratus (color of title), combined with common error, would suffice to render all of his acts of jurisdiction valid, per se (either by virtue of habitual or supplied jurisdiction).  All that is required for his acts of jurisdiction to remain valid is that he appears to have been legally appointed, and is considered quoad nos to hold office.

Concerning jurisdiction being impounded, by which I think you mean unable to exercise acts of jurisdiction, I would make several distinctions.

If the act in question did not involve imposing a moral obligation on his subjects, but instead involved appointing someone to an office, or approving a religious order, etc., it would seem to me that even public heresy would in no impound the act.

However, if it involved an act of teaching or commanding his subjects, it would seem that a heretic’s jurisdiction could be impounded in one of two ways: either morally, due to the natural right of the subject to protect himself by not listening to his to his teachings, or by refusing to obey an illicit command (which would equally apply to a non-heretic superior), or legally, which would occur if the subject was legally obliged to avoid him.   

In these cases, the exercise of jurisdiction (not his jurisdiction, as such) would be impounded, due to the fact that the subject’s obligation to listen or obey would not bind him in conscience. 

The legal obligation to avoid a heretic is what John of St. Thomas refers to when he says a heretical pope who has been legally declared vitandusis unable to influence the Church.  The legal obligation results from the vitandus declaration, which commands the faithful to avoid him.  Based on divine law (Titus 3:10), the Church has the right to command that a heretic who has remained hardened in heresy after two warnings must be avoided.  Since the faithful are obliged to obey the licit commands of the Church, if the Church declares a pope vidandus (which it has a right to do), it creates a situation in which he is unable to govern the Church, as a result of the moral obligation imposed on the faithful to avoid him.  The effect is that his exercise of jurisdiction is rendered entirely impotent – and legally so.  

John of St. Thomas says the vindandus declaration induces a disposition into the person of the pope that renders him incapable sustaining the pontificate.  Christ then acts by authoritatively punishing the pope by deposing him. 

Fr. Chazal 4: 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.

Reply: And this shows us why it is morally justified to entirely avoid the Novus Ordo parishes. And since Vatican II also causes a bunch of “little cuts” due to its misleading and ambiguous teachings, it too should be avoided. That being said, I believe it is going too far to say solid priests who are in normal union with Rome must also be avoided.  I know some priests who, believe it or not, are extremely solid who were recently granted permission to found a completely Traditional order by the local bishop.  Time will tell how long it lasts, but so far things are going well and the fruits are exceptional.  So, I would disagree that priests such as these must be avoided simply because they are approved.  (I realize you didn’t say that, but I thought I would mention it).

I would be very interested in your thoughts on what I’ve written, if you have any.  I’ll send the quotations in another e-mail. 

God bless,

Robert Siscoe