Fr. Chazal vs Fr. Cekada - sedeprivationist vs sedevacantist

At CI, they're discussing how Fr. Chazal is a sedeprivationist. Who wants to read a book written by a sedeprivationist? Sedeprivationism is just another form of sedevacantism.


from a post at CI:

"Yes, people routinely misconstrue Father Chazal's position as being anti-sedevacantist. He lashed out only against DOGMATIC sedevacantism, but was theologically sympathetic towards the general arguments behind it, conceding right out of the gate that the V2 popes are indeed manifest heretics. Yet he pointed out the problems with straight sedevacantism, and at the same time took some jabs at traditional R&R ... coming to rest at what can be described as something akin to sedeprivationism."

So no one takes BW's above comments to say he is "against" sedevacantism.  To the contrary; that is NOT what he said.  He only said that, "...no Catholic is, at the very least, obliged to accept the sedevacantist position."  Which means, you can privately accept sedevacantism.

BW is clear you can go to sedevacantism masses, join in their beliefs even though it is "dangerous" (sic), listen to their catechisms, commune with their [erroneous] company...because it is subjective.  Do what you want, he says.


But his followers and cheerleaders only see that he said it is "dangerous" while dismissing he said in the SAME sentence you can do the opposite of conscience and go with the liberal freedoms also, as in some yoga meaning, BW is orthodox.  Kumbya.

In these sad developments with Fr. Chazal, though predicted following the independent relationship of Bishop Williamson, he has been morphing more on his own independent mind drawn out here Is Fr. Chazal really a Vagabond?.

Here in a Sept. 2017 conference, Fr. Chazal says that the "novus ordo people are NOT formally in schism and have the Catholic faith" (@minute 10:40)

 

When black and white become gray for the false resistance, they can appease the quantity of folks they are looking for.

However, Archbishop Lefebvre said differently, the novus ordo IS a schismatic church -- plain and simple!  Anything contrary from God is a false religion that has NOT GRACE.


Then one month later, Oct. 2017, Fr. Chazal stated two times [pope] Francis is an outright heretic no longer supporting him as a pope.



There is reported another video by Fr. Chazal made last year...he is a defined "sedeprivationist".


That comment is on the heels of Fr. Ringrose coming out in his bulletin he is a "sedeprivationist"; which is no different than a practical sedevacantist - they both claim to judge the pope.  thecatacombs.org/thread/542/fr-ringrose-accepts-sedevacantism?page=1&scrollTo=1015

What does all this mean for the false trad-ecumenist resistance?  One of them said, they are happy to know they now have four bishops who support their views.  True, they should be, Trad-ecumenism never had a bishop until Bishop Williamson gave them four over the last six years.

To those who mock God cannot end well, says our Lord.

If Fr. Chazal is a sedeprivationist, that means his seminary in the Philippines is sedevacantist too.  So who else in the false camp are hidden sedes?  A CI poster said there are more priests (hidden sedes) who do not tell their people who and what they are.  Very grave.

*Just a note: In the above letter on the website it came from, after the words "By sedeplenist" it says something else, but it doesn't appear in the above post at all, even if I try to edit it, and I can't even get the words to appear in this post. It blocks for some reason. So go check the original letter for a complete version.

*Second note: I was able to correct the above quote by taking away the brackets and adding dashes. The sentence now correctly reads: "By sedeplenist - I meant to say sedeprivationist - I take it to mean that a man has been elected legitimately to the papacy but cannot exercise his power or take it on because of the obstacle of heresy. Would you say this applies to Francis or not?

Appears you are right jonathan, Fr. Chazal just confirmed he is a sedeprivationist, and, a sedevacantist!  Which does mean his seminary is a sedevacantist-seminary JUST LIKE bishop faure's seminary; endorsed by the other false bishops.

Fr. Chazal said, knowing the full implications:

Bishop Williamson knowingly endorsed his book explaining sedeprivationism being the "true" position to be on.

Bishop Faure, Bishop Zendejas, and Bishop Aquinas all support sedevacantists on their altars as a "valid" position before God -- and on His altar.

The greater damage in the Church is the hidden deception of these bishops and Fr. Chazal playing a game with souls.  But that is what false shepherds are about...their true tail comes out for everyone to see. 

Thanks be to God for showing us these deceits.

For Fr. Chazal to drag Archbishop Lefebvre, like a mascot, into his "new" thinking is so disingenuous, to say the least.  ABL was clear and explicit on the sedevacantist position.

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

Source


9)  Archbishop Lefebvre on Sedevacantism

(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)



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)