Fr. Chazal Responds to the Gallican Challenge!: My Question, Are we Trying to Save Traditional Catholicism by Directly Contradicting Traditional Catholicism?
.bmp)
Dear Mr Chojnowski,
As the new Rome sinks to new lows, in this never ending crisis of the Church, sedevacantism is only an added confusion.
All of us agree those in Rome should not be there, but in the lack of courageous prelates to take them on, some say they lose office automatically (sedevacantists), and others, much to the exasperation of the former, leave it to God.
Yet some of the questions you raise are interesting. Are we going to hold indefinitely that there is a Pope over there in Rome? What degree of heretical depravity is it going to take until we finally admit that the pope is no pope?
You are contending that now, with Francis, the measure is full, and while others saw it in John Paul II, others in 1969, others in 1963, others in 1958, etc.
This is one of the big problem of the theory of automated loss of office, which is distinct from the case of implicit resignation. There is no way to ascertainwhen exactly the office was lost, because the assessment is left to our personal estimation of the gravity of the heresies of the accused. Filipinos here don t even know what a heresy is, let alone what Modernism is; whereas if you ask my opinion, i personally believe that Paul VI and John Paul II were heretics. So i should have become sedevacantist before even i was born and Filipinos will join Fr Soliman, our only sedevacantist priest here, in 2100AD.
Of course, if a monkey or the Antichrist himself ascends the throne, i will cease to pray for what s sitting over there at the Canon of the Mass.
As for Fr Kramer, a huge 1000 pages trilogy is coming and i have promised to read his first volume, but i am not completely sure he embraces the same position as Fr Cekada. Is Fr Kramer forcing people to hold his theory as Fr Cekada does, or does he hold it as an opinion still? I don't know. Last time we met he did not cut sacramental ties with us at least.
The doctrinal bloodbath with Mr Salza and Siscoe persuades me to talk directly with him rather than via internet, and i have learned a lot from him even if i can t agree with him on everything. Same with his two arch enemies. Same with you now alas.
***
Then there is the question of authority. The modern notion of it entails that as long as someone is in authority he must be followed, (to the exception of mass murder), more or less.
This false principle has enabled all the reforms of Vatican II to pass. The vast majority of Catholics simply obeyed, because Paul VI said "I am in charge".
This crisis of the Church would never have happened without this positivism, this voluntarism, this rampart for the cowardice of the masses.
Yet the History of the Church shows prelates, popes, even Peter himself who were resisted for their lack of conformity to the truth of the Gospel.
Famously, the Archbishop asked respectfully "Whom should we obey? Pius IX and his Syllabus or Paul VI?". He went to Rome, wrote his "Dubia" etc. Truth settled once and for all, (by a previous instrument), prevails over instruments betraying the truth today.
You are asking me, and quite repetitively, to heed to authority if Francis is the Pope. No, i won t, because authority is not the truth, but only an instrument. The instrument can fail, truth can t. The authority instituted by Christ is only there to declare the truth already there, already revealed, if it goes off track it can safely be not followed.
Perhaps i have not sufficiently expanded that notion in my book. There should be a second revised edition.
It remains also that the instrument Christ instituted should not be discarded prematurely, nay, for the sake of the truth who will use this instrument again, we should leave it to God to fix it, if there are not enough prelates to bring a bad Pope to bay.
***
And if we keep a bad Pope, (aside from the reight relation beteween truth and authority), it is also for the reason of keeping the Church from splintering in many pieces: this does not mean we confuse the conciliar church with the Catholic Church. I dealt with that point in the last part, and captain obvious is on my side. The two churches are very clearly distinguished by yours truly.
If i follow your advice, i would hold to conclavism, because i believe that Peter will have perpetual actual successors until the end of time. The Papacy is of Divine Right and part of the Divine Constitution of the Church, and is the basis for the note of Apostolicity. A big problem indeed. This is what held back the Archbishop, he stated it clearly.
What should it not hold us now? Is there a pope more destructive than Paul VI? Francis is trying hard, but the damage he is doing cannot compare, in proportion with the Robespierrian Montini Pope. Likewise, in my opinion, John Paul II is the best figure of the Antichrist... who shall be loved by all, and anyone who shall not love him shall be deemed a monster.
At the practical level i would have to separate from the four resistance bishops, whom i respect very much today. To which sedevacantist sect or group must i turn then? Can i trust the Thuc line altogether?
Can my faithful here in Asia, weak, scattered and ignorant as they are survive the forseeable infightings and divisions that sedevacantism is famous for? And how can i continue to extract souls from the novus ordo to make them safe if i tell them that there is no pope on earth any more?
Obviously, sedevacantism raises many more questions than answers.
What is necessary and sufficient is to separate the New Rome and all its errors, as they emerged since Vatican II.
You want us now to go beyond this well defined mission and attempt something much more complex, interminably debated, even among sedevacantists.
Therefore, if you could point where the precise arguments of the book are faulty, point by point; or at least refute one of the seven parts of the book, I would begrateful.
I am very sure bthat in the good old days of the Angelus you wrote something on Authority and truth, and that doctrine still stands today.
God bless you and thank you for your frankness and unconvoluted statements.
In Iesu et Maria,
Francois Chazal+
Dear Father Chazal,
First, I congratulate you on your willingness to discuss these questions, because you know that TRUTH is at stake. Let me first begin by stating that I have NEVER advised you to take any position on the question of the pope, whether sedevacantst, resignationist, conclavist, recognize and resist, or recognize and accept, This is a grave question that everyone must wrestle with. I have simply stated that by the arguments you have put forward to justify the papacy of Francis, you are ejecting Catholic dogma on the Church and the Papacy. In other words, you are destroying the very thing you are seeking to uphold.
Which doctrines am I speaking about? First, it is not the opinion of the "sedevacantists" (a term that I heard only began to be used in the 80s) that a public heretic defects from the faith and HENCE leaves the Church by his own accord. This is not any current groups position, it is the position of St. Robert Bellermine --- who says that it is the unanimous position of the Fathers of the Church, and the First Vatican Council and the theologians who followed into the 20th and 21st centuries. Not only is it their "opinion" Father, it is a necessary correlate of the Catholic Faith which says that the Church is a union of the faithful WHO HOLD THE SAME FAITH. Pope Pius XII is very clear that heresy, schism, and apostasy separate you automatically from the Church WITHOUT ANY CENSURE BEING NEEDED. With your position, you have a Church of a mixture of heresy and orthodoxy --- really an ocean of heresy and apostasy and a drop of orthodoxy, such is not the Catholic Church. And no, the First Vatican Council agreed that there had NEVER BEEN A HERETICAL POPE, a man who was pope and who was a public heretic. To say that there has been is to say that the Church has defected, Christ has failed to fulfill his promises, and THE GATES OF HELL HAVE PREVAILED. Haven't the Fathers said that the "gates of hell" means HERESY. Father, I have to make a decision NOW as to where is the Catholic Church, who I need to obey, and what is the way of salvation. There is absolutely no reason why I have to wait until some cleric or someone (perhaps the future editor of the Remnant!) tells me WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL SITUATION WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH IN MY OWN TIME! God has given us brains that we can all use, just as you have used yours in portraying what you say is the situation with regard to Francis. Listen, I was not the one who gave speeches in which I declared Francis to be a formal public heretic --- but you have. I am simply asking you to consider the implications of what you have put out to your own congregations and to the world at large via Youtube. Listen, you say that some highly placed clerics either now or later must judge the popes that have existed since Vatican II --- BUT YOU HAVE ALREADY JUDGED THEM BOTH IN PUBLIC SPEECHES AND WITHIN YOUR VERY NOTE TO ME. You yourself do not take seriously the idea that we have to "wait" to find out what is going on with Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict, and Francis. You have already told us that Francis is "impounded" and we do not have to listen to anything that he says and not concern ourselves at all anything that he does, because he cannot actualize the powers of the office that you yourself maintain he definitely has. Father, this is intellectual chaos. Father, Archbishop Lefebvre would NEVER hold your position. He may have said once that he left it to a future time for the Church to render a judgment on these Vatican II popes, but he CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY held the position that a heretical pope would not be a pope. That is why, to my knowledge reading as much as I have read of his works, he NEVER calls Paul VI or John Paul II a HERETIC --- BECAUSE HE KNEW THE NECESSARY IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH A STATEMENT. He knew that it would mean that he would be declaring the pope not to be pope. He knew that there could b no such thing as a truly heretical pope. He called them "liberals," "antichrists," etc. but he never used the "h" word --- unlike you --- because he knew the implications of such a statement.
Perhaps, even more seriously, you DEFINITELY state that a true. Vicar of Jesus Christ, Roman Pontiff who has the plenitude of jurisdiction CAN BE JUDGED BY UNDERLINGS. This is not only wrong but it is heretical. By "judge" I do not just mean that his doctrine can be constantly questions and rejected, but that you say that he can be DEPOSED, removed from office, BY SOME KIND OF GROUP OF BISHOPS OR CARDINALS -- in this you agree with the writers at the Remnant. This is the Conciliarist heresy or a modern variation of it. How can you always pull a Deus ex Machina by saying "Let God decide" and not the individual, when you actually teach the opposite. You say that the POPE CAN AND SHOULD BE JUDGED. AND DEPOSED. This is not God who is deciding but men.
With regard to the practical level, I have a question for you. Why should your flock in the Philippines or elsewhere FOLLOW YOU AT ALL IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE FACT THAT THEY FIND ONLY HERESY AND NON-CATHOLIC MEN CLAIMING TO BE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS OF THE Catholic Church? In fact Father, if these people were NOT guilty of public heresy and apostasy, you would have the moral obligation to tell your flock to go away and return to their orthodox and legitimate pastors. There is not such thing as "brands" of Catholicism, nor is there such thing as "grades" and "degrees" of heresy. They come to you because they see heresy around them and its fruits. Surely you are not just portraying yourself as a "normal Catholic priest" who just happens to be a Frenchman, educated in the United States, who just happens to be building a seminary in the Philippines, contrary to the wishes of Francis, his local modernist bishop, and even the religious fraternity that you were ordained by. You cannot base your mission on the "confusion" of the faithful. Give them a break. I have rarely met a Philippino who was "confused".
As for the 4 Resistance bishops, I would challenge them to state EXACTLY what they hold with regard to the Church, membership in the Church, and the Papacy. Such a clear teaching must be the basis of their actions; if we are only faced with "confusion," how can they justify their ministry? Also, the million dollar question, how can you "excommunicate" those who refuse to recognize Francis as pope and, yet, state you will not submit to the pope or follow him until he conforms to their teaching and traditions. Pure Gallicanism.
Yours, Peter
Dear Father Chazal,
First, I congratulate you on your willingness to discuss these questions, because you know that TRUTH is at stake. Let me first begin by stating that I have NEVER advised you to take any position on the question of the pope, whether sedevacantst, resignationist, conclavist, recognize and resist, or recognize and accept, This is a grave question that everyone must wrestle with. I have simply stated that by the arguments you have put forward to justify the papacy of Francis, you are ejecting Catholic dogma on the Church and the Papacy. In other words, you are destroying the very thing you are seeking to uphold.
Which doctrines am I speaking about? First, it is not the opinion of the "sedevacantists" (a term that I heard only began to be used in the 80s) that a public heretic defects from the faith and HENCE leaves the Church by his own accord. This is not any current groups position, it is the position of St. Robert Bellermine --- who says that it is the unanimous position of the Fathers of the Church, and the First Vatican Council and the theologians who followed into the 20th and 21st centuries. Not only is it their "opinion" Father, it is a necessary correlate of the Catholic Faith which says that the Church is a union of the faithful WHO HOLD THE SAME FAITH. Pope Pius XII is very clear that heresy, schism, and apostasy separate you automatically from the Church WITHOUT ANY CENSURE BEING NEEDED. With your position, you have a Church of a mixture of heresy and orthodoxy --- really an ocean of heresy and apostasy and a drop of orthodoxy, such is not the Catholic Church. And no, the First Vatican Council agreed that there had NEVER BEEN A HERETICAL POPE, a man who was pope and who was a public heretic. To say that there has been is to say that the Church has defected, Christ has failed to fulfill his promises, and THE GATES OF HELL HAVE PREVAILED. Haven't the Fathers said that the "gates of hell" means HERESY. Father, I have to make a decision NOW as to where is the Catholic Church, who I need to obey, and what is the way of salvation. There is absolutely no reason why I have to wait until some cleric or someone (perhaps the future editor of the Remnant!) tells me WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL SITUATION WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH IN MY OWN TIME! God has given us brains that we can all use, just as you have used yours in portraying what you say is the situation with regard to Francis. Listen, I was not the one who gave speeches in which I declared Francis to be a formal public heretic --- but you have. I am simply asking you to consider the implications of what you have put out to your own congregations and to the world at large via Youtube. Listen, you say that some highly placed clerics either now or later must judge the popes that have existed since Vatican II --- BUT YOU HAVE ALREADY JUDGED THEM BOTH IN PUBLIC SPEECHES AND WITHIN YOUR VERY NOTE TO ME. You yourself do not take seriously the idea that we have to "wait" to find out what is going on with Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict, and Francis. You have already told us that Francis is "impounded" and we do not have to listen to anything that he says and not concern ourselves at all anything that he does, because he cannot actualize the powers of the office that you yourself maintain he definitely has. Father, this is intellectual chaos. Father, Archbishop Lefebvre would NEVER hold your position. He may have said once that he left it to a future time for the Church to render a judgment on these Vatican II popes, but he CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY held the position that a heretical pope would not be a pope. That is why, to my knowledge reading as much as I have read of his works, he NEVER calls Paul VI or John Paul II a HERETIC --- BECAUSE HE KNEW THE NECESSARY IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH A STATEMENT. He knew that it would mean that he would be declaring the pope not to be pope. He knew that there could b no such thing as a truly heretical pope. He called them "liberals," "antichrists," etc. but he never used the "h" word --- unlike you --- because he knew the implications of such a statement.
Perhaps, even more seriously, you DEFINITELY state that a true. Vicar of Jesus Christ, Roman Pontiff who has the plenitude of jurisdiction CAN BE JUDGED BY UNDERLINGS. This is not only wrong but it is heretical. By "judge" I do not just mean that his doctrine can be constantly questions and rejected, but that you say that he can be DEPOSED, removed from office, BY SOME KIND OF GROUP OF BISHOPS OR CARDINALS -- in this you agree with the writers at the Remnant. This is the Conciliarist heresy or a modern variation of it. How can you always pull a Deus ex Machina by saying "Let God decide" and not the individual, when you actually teach the opposite. You say that the POPE CAN AND SHOULD BE JUDGED. AND DEPOSED. This is not God who is deciding but men.
With regard to the practical level, I have a question for you. Why should your flock in the Philippines or elsewhere FOLLOW YOU AT ALL IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE FACT THAT THEY FIND ONLY HERESY AND NON-CATHOLIC MEN CLAIMING TO BE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS OF THE Catholic Church? In fact Father, if these people were NOT guilty of public heresy and apostasy, you would have the moral obligation to tell your flock to go away and return to their orthodox and legitimate pastors. There is not such thing as "brands" of Catholicism, nor is there such thing as "grades" and "degrees" of heresy. They come to you because they see heresy around them and its fruits. Surely you are not just portraying yourself as a "normal Catholic priest" who just happens to be a Frenchman, educated in the United States, who just happens to be building a seminary in the Philippines, contrary to the wishes of Francis, his local modernist bishop, and even the religious fraternity that you were ordained by. You cannot base your mission on the "confusion" of the faithful. Give them a break. I have rarely met a Philippino who was "confused".
As for the 4 Resistance bishops, I would challenge them to state EXACTLY what they hold with regard to the Church, membership in the Church, and the Papacy. Such a clear teaching must be the basis of their actions; if we are only faced with "confusion," how can they justify their ministry? Also, the million dollar question, how can you "excommunicate" those who refuse to recognize Francis as pope and, yet, state you will not submit to the pope or follow him until he conforms to their teaching and traditions. Pure Gallicanism.
Yours, Peter
Fr. Chazal says, "There is no way to ascertain when exactly the office was lost, because the assessment is left to our personal estimation of the gravity of the heresies of the accused. Filipinos here don t even know what a heresy is..." Fr. Chazal is implying that the standard we Catholics use to ascertain truth is purely subjective. He apparently shares a major flaw of the atheistic skeptics: We can't know anything with certainty, we can't know that our senses are valid, and matters of faith and morals only exist as opinions in our useless minds... It seems the R+R are focused on winning a debate and don't care so much about truth.
ReplyDeleteIt was the 1962 AD (28 Feb. 1962 AD) - Roncalli who was validly elected to the Papacy as John XXIII changed the Episcopal Consecration Rite, he makes the 3 bishops take turns in imposing their hands and saying Accipe Spiritum Sanctum (which is the essential form - Session 23, Council of Trent, Canon 4), but this is not what the Church does, as the bishops have to do this together and say the formula together, NOT IN TURN (as that Sacrament cannot be repeated - indelible character cannot be asked for from God again - this is as saying that the first imposition of hands was not true...it is a sacrilege to do this in turn), and so when Roncalli signed the Decree changing this, he contradicted this Canon 4 of Session 23 on Holy Orders, and also Session 7, Council of Trent, Canon 13, which Canons are both under ANATHEMA, and thus Roncalli became public heretic and ceased to be valid Pope. Montini, who was after him, was therefore not elected validly, as they who elected him ALL without any exception were also heretics, as they by their silence gave consent to what Roncalli changed in the Episcopal Consecration ceremony. So God Himself had to intervene and protect His Church, as sedevacantism is a heresy, and heretics cannot assemble and elect valid Pope (as they loose IPSO FACTO their clerical office upon defection from the Catholic Faith, without ANY DECLARATION - Canon 188, #4), and the infallible perpetual Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of Pope Paul IV (1559 AD, point #6) clearly states that election of a heretic to the Papacy, or appointment of a heretic to Cardinalate, Episcopal Office etc. is null and utterly worthless...it cannot obtain validity.
DeleteThis is the 3rd Secret of Fatima in life...and God is punishing heretics who wouldn't defend His Church and who have given consent to heretical lies of the Novus Ordo Sect and SSPX etc. and the sedevacantist lies as well (Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, Pius IX - Perpetual Primacy). Seek the truth in sincerity, you shall find the true Pope...but those who will not, they will most likely be lost. Both Roncalli and Montini, and for that matter Wojtyla and Ratzinger and now Bergoglio have ties with the communists...
"There is no way to ascertainwhen exactly the office was lost, because the assessment is left to our personal estimation of the gravity of the heresies of the accused."
ReplyDeleteFr. Chazal knows he has the right to withdraw obedience from the pope and he knows he got that right on the 2nd week of August 1962 when pope John XXIII signed the Pact with Moscow in which he himself became guilty of refusing to condemn error. Further Fr. Chazal knows that because of the heresy in Vatican II, no pope since has ended the right of the faithful to withdraw obedience from the pope of Rome. So if jurisdiction was lost by a pope, it was lost at the same time the right to withdraw obedience was granted! Simple, problem solved?!?
Those who withdraw obedience from a prelate are already acting as though the prelate has lost jurisdiction. This is the problem with the traditional movement, the right that was granted in 1962 to withdraw obedience, was not acted upon till 1988 when Archbishop Lefebvre had his back up against a wall, with know other way out. This is a problem because traditionalists who exercise the right to withdraw obedience should not be doing the one hour Communion fast, nor should they be using the 1962 missal. They should be following the jurisdiction of the last pope who never gave them a right to withdraw obedience from himself in the 1st place. They should not be granting the pope they have a right to withdraw obedience from, partial jurisdiction, and partial obedience. (If a priest tells you to kill his bishop, you cannot obey him in that command, but must obey him in other commands. If a priest tells you that you can kill the bishop and not be guilty of a mortal sin (heresy) you can withdraw from obedience to that priest in all things.) Their obedience is owed to the last pope who never gave them a right to withdraw obedience from himself.
Does it really matter if we know or don’t know if pope John XXIII had jurisdiction in the strictest sense? If he had jurisdiction, he still gave us a right to act as though he didn’t have jurisdiction. If he didn’t have jurisdiction, those who broke the 3 hour fast but kept the 1 hour fast are not guilty of mortal sin because the conditions for mortal sin are not being met, that is, full knowledge. If pope John XXIII had no jurisdiction because of what he did on August 2nd 1962, most Catholics we’re mistaken, big deal!
On another note, would the breaking of Quo Primum constitute a right to withdraw obedience? If so, then perhaps we should go back to the jurisdiction of Pope Pius XI and the pre-1939 missal of his jurisdiction! That would get Catholics back to where they need to be as far as liturgy and a few other things are concerned. 100% of us Catholics would then be mistaken, so being mistaken could not have a "phycological complex" issue!
While it’s true that God has given us brains and He expects us to use them. God does sometime withhold knowledge from us and allow us to be in the dark on certain things for long periods of times. Even if the conciliar popes had jurisdiction, a good future pope is going to nullify their jurisdiction anyway. We have what we need to withdraw obedience now and we don’t really need to know the official status of the conciliar popes jurisdiction. If a prophecy talkes about a pope, does that particular pope have to have jurisdiction? If so why? If a prophecy talks about 2 popes, can one not be an anti-pope? How can one not be an anti-pope, how can you have 2 popes?
The Bergoglio heresies are unlimited....and the seeds of them can be found in Vatican 2 and the conciliar popes. Just been reviewing the funeral of JPll. The immense outpouring of grief, as if we had lost a god, born on a solar eclipse and buried on one....how strange...but the mourning and adulation was all about a man...what did he do to further the glorification of Christ and the Holy Trinity? I think he was very much about the glorification of man.
ReplyDelete