"Let's Call this Race: Fr. Chazal is NOT a Sedevacantist," Captain Obvious Reporting! Read his Reasoning Below. Also, My Short Critique of His New Book.

The letter below from Fr. Chazal, exactly confirms the views that he has communicated to me privately. He has lectured widely on his objections to Sedevacantism of any sort and such positions are clearly articulated in his new book, which I have read. I will try to find my email comments to Fr. Chazal which I sent him when he was in the editing stage of producing his book.

Here is his stated position, now posted on Cathinfo.com:
resistance-bishops-fight-against-sedevacantism

Concerning Father Chazal, he is not sedeprivationnist. Here is what he wrote recently in one of his email (translated from French) : 


Dear Sir,

 One cannot say that the public life of the Church, the apostolic and visible continuity of the Church is something purely material. No, it is something formal, that is to say very real. Pope Francis is a suspect awaiting conviction and deposition.



So, to answer your questions:


1. No, I am not sedeprivationist.
 2. The difference between Cassisiacum and Archbishop Lefebvre is that we are content to separate ourselves from the conciliar Church and leave to God the resolution of the question of loss of office.



fc +


He also condemned sedeprivationnism in his recent book (Contra Cekadam) against sedevacantism :


* Canon 160against sedeprivationnism. "The election of a Sovereign Pontiff is guided solely by "Vacante Sede Apostolica" of Pope Pius X", which constitution, on #29 not only exclude canonical or juridical censures, but also any reason whatsoever to bar a Cardinal from active or passive voice in a Conclave. More on this later.


Hence it is impossible to find any trace of your sedeprivationism in the legislation of the Church, and Cum Ex has fallen out of use, if it were ever used to bar a Cardinal to the Papacy. Fr GREGORY HESSE explained that Cum Ex was not used, save for its principle (that the holding of an office is incompatible with heresy), because of the regrettable tendency of Paul IV to imprison clerics without trial.


The last big problem of sedeprivationnism, is that Cardinals are no Popes, so, even in the theory of sedevacantism, they don’t enjoy immunity; they must be judged. We were told by them that special rules, dispensing from a juridical sentence, apply only for the Pope. With sedeprivationnism that is no longer the case, and therefore all ecclesiastical offices are in doubt the minute an individual Catholic deems the holder to be a heretic. Indeed, many sedes say that Cardinals are non Cardinals, bishops fake bishops, priests false priests. It is the proof that much more is at risk than the sole office of a Pope, but all offices in the Church.

End of Fr. Chazal's email.

Here is my (Dr. Chojnowski's) comments on my thoughts concerning the position he articulates in his new book on the current papacy Contra Cekadam. I came to these conclusions after a second reading of the text.

Dear Fr. Chazal,
I have finished reading over your paper for the second time. I don’t think it would be useful to comment on each page. Rather, when I step back and consider where it  all leads, I am gravely concerned especially in light of all of the theological research that has been done by Fr. Kramer. It seems to me that you are creating a theological position which is schismatic no matter which way you cut it. You do everything possible to argue that Francis MUST BE POPE and that no one can legitimately say that he is not and yet you say that we can legitimately say that we need not listen to the man who we consider to be pope —— I cannot see how we do not totally change the office of the papacy, reducing it to a “card board” pope that is there but he is not one that you have to listen to or obey. This is precisely the criticism of Fr. Cekada who makes much hay about this. 
From your own texts in these last pages, it clearly seems as if you accept the Conciliar Church to be the Catholic Church. You criticize the sedevacantists for pointing to the fact that a false and theologically distorted rite is the one created by Paul VI for the creation of bishops and priests. If the priests and bishops are validly ordained and they constitute the real Catholic hierarchy, as Bishop Williamson never ceases to say, why would we have ever gone to the SSPX? Not now but even back then. If the Novus Ordo “bishops” and “priests” — after 50 years of accumulating apostasy — are still the hierarchy of the Catholic Church then God must lead them and they must guide the Church correctly. But you say that they do not. Where is the protection of the Holy Ghost, then, for his Magisterium? If that is the Church now then the Church is one of heresy and apostasy, liturgical evil, denial of the fundamental moral law, and syncretism. The Church your arguments push us towards is more the Harlot of Babylon than the Immaculate Bride of Christ. But the Church is the IMMACULATE Bride of Christ. In its doctrines, worship and practice it is totally pure of any defect. Are you destroying the very nature of the Church in order to save the claims of Francis?
Also, I have read enough of the Archbishop to know that he would never agree with your position which makes a state of “sedevacante” impossible. He often said that he could reach the point in which he would have to declare the Holy See vacant. He never publicly did, however, he was always on the edge of it.
He clearly knows that a pope cannot be a heretic and still be pope. The Archbishop hesitated to call the Vatican II popes to be heretics because he knew that if he did, he would be declaring the pope to have fallen from his office or as being a usurper. 

I also cannot accept the idea that you can be in the Catholic Church without holding the Catholic Faith in its purity. 

Ultimately the equation: 
Public Heresy + true pope = defective Church 

We need to break out of the “box” of the 90s and rethink all this through again. I think your argument has as its consequence a “justification” for the inadequately thought through mentality we had back in the 90s. 

Yours, Peter

Comments

  1. Dr.Chojnowski, I appreciate your speaking openly about this. It has been so difficult to watch all of my favorite Catholic news sources (The Remnant, OnePeterFive etc) beat the man ("Pope" Francis) to a bloody pulp, and then insist that he is a true pope. Michael Matt especially uses all his sarcastic powers as a flamethrower against Jorge, but if you dare politely suggest in his comment box that he should either 1.) obey the pope or 2.) admit that he is not a true pope, he bans you from commenting on his website! (He used his sarcastic charms against me when I very politely made that suggestion. He mocked me, allowed other commenters to call me names, then when I tried to respond (still politely), he marked all my comments as SPAM! I had never even commented at the Remnant before. Just read it quietly and kept my thoughts to myself. I got the feeling he doesn't appreciate constructive criticism:)

    Anyway, I do appreciate you for putting yourself in the line of fire and saying what needs to be said.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peter, You just demolished all Father Chazal's hard work with some basic catechism truths. The Church cannot err in her teachings of faith or morals. Heretics are not members of the Church. A heretic is one who denies or doubts an article of faith. One must profess the faith whole and entire to be a Catholic (not just be baptised which is another VII extend-the-Church doctrine). The Church is indefectable so can never defect from the faith or teach something different. The Pope holds the primacy (not Bp Fellay or Bp Williamson - it is news for some) and he is infallible too which means he cannot make an error. [An error is a mistake. A mistake in doctrine. Isn't it amazing what Almighty God can give us, too amazing for Fr Chazal to believe, so far.] The Holy Ghost guides the Church and keeps her immune from error. Magisterium: Ecumenical Councils, Synods, canon law, etc cannot teach that we worship the same God as the Muslims, that Hinduism and Buddhism lead us Heaven, that it's okay if you commit adultery or sin against the first Commandment - you just stroll right up to Communion. The only ones not in Communion with that evil sect are those who observe sede vacante (or sede infiltrante?) has already taken place. Fr Chazal is working hard for Pope Francis when many good (and perhaps naive) Catholics expected he was rather going to provide them with sacraments and priests. It is clear where his priorities lie. Like Salza and Siscoe the Freemasons, and the rest of Bishop Williamson's bishops and priests. The only hope left is MHT seminary, IMBC in Europe, CMRI and other groups. The hard cold facts are that the Society in her official beliefs has accepted the synthesis of all heresies: Modernism and is dialoguing with the devil like Eve in the Garden. The fruits will be similar for them. I hope and pray that they are all in INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE.

    ReplyDelete
  3. By following the logic of their philosophy, the RR never has to submit to anyone. They are free to interpret tradition privately.

    RR is a new religion, just like the Novus Ordo!

    ReplyDelete
  4. If tomorrow, Francis declared that all Catholics should worship Satan, and published an encyclical arguing this, no Catholic would be right to follow him, and no Catholic, could possibly, regard him as the Pope.

    My question is: Once you strip away the Hammer Horror aspect of this scenario, what substantial difference is there, between this hypothetical case of a Pope denying the requirement of faith and morals that all Catholics should reject Satan and all his works, and what has actually, happened in reality, with the publication of AL and the letter of the Argentinian Bishops?

    In both cases, beliefs that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, have been, explicitly or implicitly, rejected.

    Why is it right to be a sedevacantist, when a putative 'Pope', wants us to be Satanists, and not when he contradicts the words of Our Lord, and the Magisterium for 2000 years, on marriage, sin and adultery, and sacramental discipline?

    How many more red lines do we have to draw and abandon before we face up to reality?

    As Pope Pius XI states in Mortalium Animos, all of the truths denied are revealed with the authority of God revealing, and that one has more shock value than the other, is irrelevant to why both are wrong, because as Pope Pius XI argues, there is no such thing as a hierarchy of Catholic belief.

    I think what lies behind the problem with this entire farce of a 'papacy', is that no one wants to even face up to the possibility, that the Catholic thing to do, is to walk out, because what is celebrated in buildings, that were once Catholic, is not The Mass, and what is preached from the pulpit, is not Catholicism or even anything vaguely consistent from one parish to the next. Deep down, people are being asked to live like the first Christians, and Christ Himself, 'despised and rejected of men', and they are refusing to, unable to leave the comfort of structures and routines, and being acceptable to the world.

    And I don't say this to slander anyone or because I think I'm better than anyone, because this is my dilemma.

    I have a mother who is very ill. How am I going to bury her? The priest she was closest to, told me to my face, that he was 'happy in his modernism', and I don't know any sedevacantist priests who could help me where I live.

    I can't go to Mass. I can't go to Confession. And when the time comes, what on earth am I supposed to do with my mother? Let a self-confessed heretic bury her or what ...?

    All I know, is that this all very cruel.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

The Blessed Emperor and the Tragic Fall of A Catholic Dynasty: Why Nobody Should Be Celebrating the End of World War I.

The "Official" Image: A Perfect Representation of Deception: The Fraud was Intentional and Professional From the Beginning. All with "Ecclesiastical Authority"!

Liars and Fraudsters. How a Secret which, according to Cardinal Ciappi, Deals with Apostasy WITHIN the Church and an Attack on Catholics FROM WITHIN, In 2000 was Spun as an Attack By an OUTSIDE FORCE, Attacking the Apostates Themselves. Go Figure. Get Mad.

Ever Expanding Sister Lucy Truth Investigation Expands to Include the Third Secret. Top Handwriting Analyst Is Examining Writings from Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II, along with the text of the Vatican-released "Third Secret" of 2000. We Still Need Your Help!

Investigating the "Third Secret." We Must Rethink the "Third Secret" "Revealed" in 2000, which Reduced "Sister Lucy" to a Sycophantic Devotee of the Man Who Brought NewChurch into Full-Blown Apostasy, JPII.

Euthanizing the Third Secret: The New Theology Tries to Kill the Secret with Lethal Modernist Gas....What they did not realize is that they accidentally slipped in a canister of Laughing Gas!