Fr. Ringrose - Accepts Sedevacantism

Just as the SSPX has been embracing conciliar Rome, in that they have been reconciling with Rome "by littles,".... the Resistance has begun to embrace sedevacantism "by littles."

It was bound to happen, I suppose.

Authority is an attribute of the Church primarily and only secondarily and accidentally an attribute of the pope. Those who make the pope the rule of faith have a problem when he is a heretic with the exercise of authority. Those who make dogma the rule of faith can deal with the corruption of authority.

Sedeprivationists destroy the papal office by dissolving the unity of its form and matter.  Sedevacantists destroy the papal office by permanently getting rid of it.  R&R recognizes the authority but its obedience is directed by the virtue of Religion.  For this, like the man born blind, we have been excommunicated from the Novus Ordo.  No surprise here.  So you can argue about the “practicality” of R&R but it does not lead to an intellectual vacuum or a doctrinal and moral dead end that is incompatible with revealed truth.

Sedeprivationism is intellectually absurd. Sedevacantism is doctrinally and morally a dead end. Recognize and resist is the only sound position at this time that is easily defended in spite of the mocking insults delivered by posters on this forum.

Caiaphas was a heretic. He denied the bodily resurrection and rejected Jesus as the Christ. He did not thereby loose his office. Even the apostles after Pentecost did not suggest that he lost his office because of heresy. St. Paul recognized and respected the office when he appeared before the high priest in Jerusalem. “And they that stood by said: Dost thou revile the high priest of God? And Paul said: I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest. For it is written: Thou shalt not speak evil of the prince of thy people” Acts 23:4-5. “Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not” Matt. 23:1-3. This direction can be accurately described as “recognize and resist.” What God has established, only God can overthrow. Every commentary on the parable of the tares (Matt 13:24) the including Rev. George Haydock Commentary, Rev. Cornelius a Lapide’s Great Commentary, and St. Thomas’ Catena Aurea quoting the Church Fathers without exception say the tares refer to heretics. Those who demand that heresy precludes anyone from the office want to make themselves the “Lord of the Harvest.” Heresy precludes only be canonical laws, not by the nature of heresy itself. It is a question of law. It is ironic indeed that those making themselves the “Lord of the Harvest” end up with the tares.

No Catholic is required to do more with a heretical pope than the man born blind, and if he keeps dogma as his proximate rule of faith, a whole host of problems can be avoided. Those who deny dogma as the proximate rule of faith make the person of the pope their rule of faith and what follows is a host of irreconcilable problems.

The sedeprivationists offend the first principles of the understanding. The conciliarist popes are either popes or they are not. They cannot be, and not be, at the same time. If they stand in any way in potential to the office, then they are not popes. To divide the office between degrees of material and formal possession is to destroy the papacy. Separation of form and matter always constitutes a substantial change by definition. It is a dogma of faith that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was founded upon Peter. It is further a dogma of faith that the office will have perpetual successors. The faith is the primary sign and cause of unity in the Church. The pope is only accidentally and secondarily the sign and cause of unity and, since he is not the proximate rule of faith, he is just as much subject to the faith as every baptized Catholic. He does not possess the authority to command obedience to anything in violation of the virtue of Religion which is the virtue under Justice that directly governs obedience. Any act of obedience to any human authority that offends the virtue of Religion is a sin. Just as the man born blind in John 9 professed the true faith to the Pharisees every faithful Catholic is called upon to do the same today. It did not require him to deny that authority of the Pharisees because of heresy. When the pope becomes a heretical Judaizer like St. Peter did, when in his “dissimulation… (he) walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel,” he must be “withstood to his face” Gal 2:13-14.

Sedevacantism is intellectually, morally and doctrinally a dead-end. They have arrived at a Church that is not just defective in an essential attribute but it has no capacity to ever correct the defect therefore it cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ. How do faithful Catholics end up in a position that is manifestly erroneous? Those Catholics that do not accept dogma as the proximate rule of faith necessarily make the pope their rule of faith. They make him the source of revelation as the revealer of mere ecclesiastical faith and they impose an understanding to the attribute of Indefectibility to mean that the pope possess a personal never failing faith and cannot possible teach error or promulgate unjust laws. They cannot recognize a heretical pope without feeling personally contaminated by his sin. But none of this is so. None of this has been dogmatically defined. These are nothing but theological presuppositions; speculative opinions expressed from men who could not imagine the current crisis of the Church. These opinions in our current situation appear daily more and more implausible.

Until the Pope uses his office to engage the attribute of Infallibility that Jesus Christ endowed His Church to bind doctrinal error and immorality upon the Catholic faithful, and sedevacantists produce their own papal claimant, there is no argument against the recognize and resist that does not lead to doctrinal and intellectual error. Our obligation is only to remain doctrinally and morally sound in the faith. No Catholic is obligated to provide an answer every question but he does have an obligation to avoid obvious errors. “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof” Matt 6:34.

Drew

www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/is-father-ringrose-dumping-the-r-r-crowd/105/

Dr. Chojnowski posted a video recently of Archbishop Lefebvre stating unequivocally the position that sedevacantists hold with precision and clarity. This video dates from 1976 and it expounds the Church’s teaching and clearly justifies the sedevacantist position.

The Recognize and Resist (R&R) faction, particularly manifested in the SSPX and the spin-off “Resistance” group has condemned and pulverized publicly and calumniously, the sedevacantist positions as twisted, schismatic and contrary to Catholic teaching when in reality Archbishop Lefebvre’s own words (in this video) present and align precisely with the Catholic doctrines which demand and justify the SV position. Owing to his caution of the days of the 1980’s he attempted desperately to assign the pronouncements of the Novus Ordo Church to confusion, ambiguity and papal malfeasance or confusion in hopes of avoiding the harsh and thorny conclusion. By 1988 he wrote to his future Bishops: “The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by antichrists...” (http://fsspx.org/en/letter-future-bishops). With the benefit of thirty later and Bergoglio, the gift that keeps on giving, the conclusion is inescapable. Dogma is clear that if the Novus Ordo Popes have imposed heresy, then they certainly cannot be Popes.

In a recent Eleison Comment #560 Bishop Williamson endeavors to refute a nominal anti-Lefebvrist writer who points out the heresy of R&R but therein he proves himself as to be the real “anti-Lefebvrist” and more importantly anti-Catholic Dogma as he argues blatantly that the Magisterium has contradicted itself. A statement contrary to the teachings of the Church. His comments are not random and they follow some dramatic events.

One of the biggest hosts of the Resistance priests and R&R position have been the priests at St. Athanasius church which has been referred to by some as a Resistance church. Recently it has emphatically condemned R&R, publicly dropped the name Francis from the Mass and removed from the Sunday announcements the prayer request for the Pope and finally removed the name of Francis from the Church’s missalettes. In addition a three-part series promoting sedeprivationism and DOGMATICALLY condemning R&R was published over three consecutive Sundays in January 2018.

Independently and concomitantly Fr. Chazal published a book with his version of sedeprivationism albeit with a different name. This was reported on Chojnowski’s radtradthomist website in March 2018. It is significant because it is predicated on a dogmatic rejection of the R&R principle heresy: that the Magisterium has imposed doctrinal error and evil practices on the universal church.

Three other R&R priests (Pinaud, Rinoult and Roy) have dropped the name of Francis from the Masses over the last few years but similar to Father Ringrose they reject the totalist version of the sedevacantist position for a third option, akin to Sedeprivationism. Hence these priests are shamefully treated and shunned from their Resistance brother clergy.

Quietly Father Ortiz continues his support and assistance for the Pastor of St Athanasius Father Ringrose. It is significant because less than a year ago he asserted that one could not attend sedevacantist masses wherein the name of Francis is publicly excluded. He has always considered them schismatic. Previously Father Ortiz participated in the expulsion of Father Pinaud while now giving his silent cooperation to Fr Ringrose. Silence gives consent. If he has in truth retracted his past position let him do so publicly and offer his apologies to Fr Pinaud. If not, why does he stay in hypocrisy?

The years of SSPX R&R harangue has taken a toll on the minds of their people in that many are left in a rabid like state in rejection of this jewel of Catholic doctrine and this masterpiece of the Holy Ghost’s work: the Indefectibility and Infallibility of the Church. Their ignorance of the Church’s teaching on these matters is deplorable but their fanaticism is frightening.

These events should be brought to light as the Resistance clergy seek to bury these matters. Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comment #560 is likely intended for those who adhere to the courageous stance of Father Ringrose, Roy, Rinoult, and Pinaud for exposing the heresy of R&R. Yet he is very careful to avoid this news.

If you would like to help END the tyranny that has held the minds of Catholics for decades publish this dramatic turn of the conversion of these priests from R&R and their courageous stance.

Dr. Chojnowski: Here is the video being referred to (from a speech of Archbishop Lefebvre 1976)





Source is from a sede-privationist website, Dr. Chojnowski:   radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/04/radtrad-thomist-mentioned-in-st.html

Pre-1986 Quotes:

“As long as I don’t have evidence that the Pope is not the Pope, well then the presumption is for him, the presumption is for the Pope. I am not saying that there can be no arguments that can put a doubt in certain cases, but there has to be evidence that is not only a valid doubt. And amongst people who defend these ideas and who have these ideas, they change arguments, first it is one argument, and then it is another; this argument is not sufficiently valid, we take another argument. If the argument was not valid, then it was doubtful. And if it is doubtful, we do not have the right to draw enormous consequences, considerable consequences...” (Archbishop Lefebvre, January 16, 1979)


Post-1986 quotes:

Q. - Implicitly, it seems that you are “sedevacantist”?

A. - No, it's not because I say that the Pope is unfaithful to his task, that I say there isn’t a Pope anymore, or that I say he is a formal heretic. I think that it is necessary to judge the men of current Rome and those who are under their influence the same way the bishops, Pope Pius IX and St. Pius X considered liberals and modernists.

Q. – How did they consider them ?

A. - Pope Pius IX condemned liberal Catholics. He even said this terrible sentence: "Liberal Catholics are the worst enemies of the Church.” What more could he say? However, he did not say: all liberal Catholics are excommunicated, are outside the Church and must be denied Communion. No, he considered these men as "the worst enemies of the Church," and yet, he did not excommunicate them.

The holy pope, Pius X, in his encyclical Pascendi, also dealt as severe a judgment on modernism, calling it the "synthesis of all heresies." I do not know if it is possible to bring a more severe judgment to condemn a movement! But he did not say that all modernists would from now on be excommunicated, outside the Church, and that they had to be refused Communion. He condemned some.

Also, I think that, like these two popes, we must judge them severely, but not necessarily considering them as being outside the Church. That is why I do not want to follow the “sedevacantists” who say: they are modernists; modernism is the crossroads of heresies; so modernists are heretics; so they are no longer in communion with the Church; so there isn’t a Pope anymore...

We cannot make a judgment with such implacable logic. There is, in this way of judging, passion and a little pride. Let us judge these men and their errors in the same way as the popes themselves did.

The pope is modernist, that’s certain, like Cardinal Ratzinger and many men of his entourage. But let us judge them like Pope Pius IX and St. Pius X judged them. And so this is why we continue to pray for the Pope and to ask God to give him the graces he needs to accomplish his task. (Interview given to Pacte, 1987)


-"So what is our attitude? It is clear that all those who are leaving us or who have left us for sedevacantism or because they want to be submitted to the present hierarchy of the Church all the while hoping to keep Tradition, we cannot have relations with them anymore. It is not possible.

Us, we say that we cannot be submitted to the ecclesiastical authority and keep Tradition. They say the opposite. They are deceiving the faithful. Despite the esteem we may have for them, there is of course no question of insulting them, but we do not want to engage in polemics and we prefer not to deal with them anymore. It is a sacrifice we have to make. But it did not start today, it has been going on for twenty years.

All those who separate from us, we are very affected by it, but we really cannot make another choice if we want to keep Tradition. We must be free from compromise as much with regard to sedevacantists as with regard to those who absolutely want to be submitted to the ecclesiastical authority.” (Conference, Flavigny, December 1988; Fideliter, March/April 1989)

-"Unlike sedevacantists, we act vis-a-vis the Pope as vis-a-vis the Successor of Peter. We address ourselves to him as such, and we pray as such. The majority of faithful and traditional priests also feel that it is the prudential and wise solution: to recognize that there is a successor on the throne of Peter, and that it is necessary to strongly oppose him, because of the errors he spreads." ("Apres les ralliements sonnera l’heure de vérité," Fideliter 68, March 1989, p. 13).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-“I think, nevertheless, that we need a link with Rome. It is still there in Rome where we find the succession of Peter, the succession of the apostles, of the apostle Peter, of the primacy of Peter and of the Church. If we cut this link, we are really like a boat which is cast off to the mercy of the waves, without knowing anymore to which place we are attached and to whom we are attached. I think it is possible to see in the person who succeeds all the preceding popes, since if he occupies the see, he was accepted as Bishop of Rome at Saint John Lateran. Now it is the Bishop of Rome who is the successor of Peter; he is recognized as the successor of Peter by all the bishops of the world. Good! What you want? We can think that he is really the successor of Peter, and in this sense, we attach ourselves to him and through him to all his predecessors, ontologically so to speak. And then, his actions, what he does, what he thinks and the ideas he spreads; that is another thing, of course. It is a great sorrow for the Catholic Church, for us, that we are forced to witness such a thing. But I think that this is the solution that corresponds to the reality.

The solution of sedevacantism is not a solution: it poses a lot of problems, because if since Pope Paul VI there were no popes, then all the cardinals that were made by these popes are invalidly made; so the votes they made as cardinals, members of the Conclave, are void; and who will then re-establish the link with John XXIII?; and even if we think that John XXIII wasn’t pope either, then we have to go back to Pius XII. Who is going to re-establish the tie? Because if these cardinals were invalidly-made cardinals, they cannot elect the future Pope. Who is going to designate the new pope? We are completely lost! It is not surprising that in these circles there have been groups that have made a pope. It is logical. Let us keep a little the solution of common sense and the solution that the faithful inspire in us.

Every time that there were stories of sedevacantism that caused a little trouble in the Society, I must say, well, on the whole, we can say that the faithful did not follow. These faithful followed us, followed the solution of the Society, And I think that if one day we all of a sudden took the decision - the authorities of the Society, the majority of priests – and said “it is clear now, we affirm that there is no Pope,” the faithful would not follow us. Most of the faithful would not follow us! With good reason. Look at Bordeaux for example, when Fr. Guepin left with Father Belmont, well they thought that they were going take two-thirds of the parish with them. They had two or three families, that’s all. No, no! The faithful have the sense of the faith. See how they reacted to the episcopal consecrations. The faithful have the sense of the faith. They have good sense and the sense of the faith. We can rely on the judgment of our good Christians, our good faithful.”( Conference, priests’ retreat, 1989)

____________________________________________________________


-“And then, he [Dom Guillo] goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous…you know, this famous una cum.., una cum of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cum? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel en Brenne). You say una cum in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cum summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer. Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed. "We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope."

It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!

Then he [Dom Guillou] had a note about that to clarify a little: "In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Batte, the UNA CUM or "in union with" of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction "and " reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.

Let us collect the chaff, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be "kept in the holy religion" the "holy orders" and "Apostolic Lord" himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLICUM AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES INSANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS."

It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? We ask to keep the Pope in the true religion.. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said "There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility". So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.

Then we must not keep this idea which is false which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, we no longer understand anything, we are completely desperate, we do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it. (Retreat at St. Michel en Brenne, April 1, 1989)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-“The issue concerning the Pope is obviously a great mystery. It is probably something that you think about often and that cannot be eliminated. It is a serious problem, perhaps the most serious of the current situation of the Church. So, the declarations of the Pope, his acts, the ecumenical acts that he did and that he redoes many times during his travels and during his receptions at the Vatican, his statements, everything throw us into anguish. Then, a certain number of traditionalists believe that they have to conclude that: “the Pope is not the Pope. This is not possible. He is heretical. He is schismatic. He cannot be the Pope, so there is no more Pope.” They consider the seat as vacant. This logic may be too simple, too mathematical. The complexity of things in reality is often much greater than we think.

See for yourselves, in the reading that we are making you do on the semi-rationalists, semi-liberals. We are dealing with people who mix up truth and error, who live in a continual contradiction. If you read the book on liberalism of cardinal Billot, you see that the cardinal defines precisely what a liberal is: a man who is in contradiction all the time, a man who constantly contradicts himself and who lives in contradiction. He is always two-faced. And so, they are dangerous people. This is what Pope Pius IX said. Pope Pius IX considers them as the greatest danger in the church because they mislead the faithful. Sometimes, we believe that they are traditional and that they conform to the truth of the Church, and then, all of a sudden, they fall into error and lead people into error. It is very, very dangerous. They scandalize and lead millions of faithful into error.

So, personally, I believed, during all these years, for twenty years, in having to act as if the Pope was Pope, in not asking myself deeper questions, in having to act, in practice, as if the Pope was the Pope. I would say: "I recognize the Pope as the Pope of the Holy Catholic Church.” This is why I have never refused to go to Rome when I was summoned there. The books edited by Madiran on The savage condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre and Archbishop Lefebvre and the Holy Office well prove that [...] I have considered the authority of the Pope as if he was the Pope. And then, I often appealed to him, I wrote I do not know how many times to Pope Paul VI and to Pope John Paul II, and then to the offices and to the congregations and to the presidents of the congregations in charge of fixing these problems. I think that this is the wisest attitude and the most consistent with the spirit of the Church.” (Easter Retreat, Econe, April 11, 1990)

____________________________________________________________


-“I have always warned the faithful vis-à -vis the sedevacantists, for example. There, also, people say: “The Mass is fine, so we go to it.”

Yes, there is the Mass. That’s fine, but there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations, contacts before and after, which make you little by little, change your ideas. It is therefore a danger and that’s why in general, I think it constitutes part of a whole. One does not merely go to Mass, one frequents a milieu.” (Fideliter No. 79, January/February 1991)