"Resistance is the best term": Fr. Chazal Responds to My Attempt at Clarification. Full Correspondance Below.
Dear FriendsPlease. 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 sedeimpoundinvirtueofcanon2264
ist 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.