Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2018 23:45:41 GMT
I think what is important here and needs to be discussed is motive. Modus operandi (mode of operation) has always been a part of our human make-up. It is the beginning part of our cause and effect relationship. It is the first investigative process of forensic - cui bono - who benefits.
For the sedevacantist bishops who were consecrated as sedevacantist bishops, their raison d'etre nexus is sedevacantism. In other words, they live, breath, and exist on sedevacantism. Even when approached with the most commonsenseical deduction the pope is only secondary to the faith, it becomes obfuscated to the universe.
It will take a huge leap of humility and faith for them to retreat from the position that gives them an identity. Human respect is always the blocking agent; for everyone.
The same goes for the other false resistance bishops (Faure, Aquinas, Zendejas) not being forthright in front of Bishop Williamson like St. Paul was moved by grace to do for Peter.
Any bishop, including Bishop Fellay, not standing up to pope Francis, like ABL had done in example, just to provide for their only material and sociological comforts.
When grace is the motivator in our raison d'etre to live for God than ourselves, our nexus is the same to live standing for the faith -- putting away the silly juvenile human respect that only pulls us down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 1:39:38 GMT
If fr. chazal doesn't care to be called sedevacantist, how can he challenge bp. sanborn or fr. cekada anymore? What is the point of his book against fr. cekada if he shares the same moniker? Crazy they are fighting over which coconut is bigger.....dropping from the same sede-tree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2018 19:07:53 GMT
Interesting reply countering the fallacy of sedeprivationism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2018 12:56:57 GMT
Fr. Chazal condemns himself in this video.: "... and the Roman see is judged by no one."
At 6:42, he says:
“It is not the Cardinals who make a Pope. They designate him and it’s obvious he’s bestowed by Christ and he has a tremendous amount of power and he is the foundation of the Catholic Church. It’s the rock upon which the Catholic Church is founded and the Roman See is judged by no one. So it’s a big issue for any Catholic: what do we do when we have a Pope who is a manifest heretic? Because we do grant - what the SSPX now is not granting anymore -but we do grant that this Pope is a manifest and public heretic. He is.”
and back at 2:10, in the same video, we hear:
"The actions of Pope Francis are more and more scandalous. Pope Francis is showing himself to be like his predecessors, but in a very clear way, as a public, notorious heretic. He's an open and public heretic."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2018 17:26:43 GMT
Here is Fr. Chazal's most recent explanation of his "unique" position: radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/resistance-is-best-name-fr-chazal.html
Below is my correspondence with Fr. Chazal on the question of his stance on Sedeprivationism.
Dear Friends
Please. 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 sedeimpoundinvirtueofcanon2264ist 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. fc+ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2018 18:40:32 GMT
Here is Fr. Chazal's most recent explanation of his "unique" position: radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2018/03/resistance-is-best-name-fr-chazal.html
Below is my correspondence with Fr. Chazal on the question of his stance on Sedeprivationism.
Dear Friends
Please. 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 sedeimpoundinvirtueofcanon2264ist 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. fc+ Sorry for saying this but what a bunch of gobbeldy-gook! Incoherent at best |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 3:11:04 GMT
So, looking at the different flavors of sedevacantism, this is what we see:
1) sedevacantists – they judge the Pope, say he’s a heretic, and say that the See is vacant
.
2) non unacumists – they judge the Pope, say he’s a heretic, and don’t say his name in the Mass
.
3) unacum petrists – they judge the Pope, say he’s a heretic, and substitute the generic name of “petro” for the name of the Pope.
4) "sedeimpoundinvirtueofcanon2264ists" (Fr. Chazal) – they judge the Pope (Fr. Chazal: “… this Pope is a manifest and public heretic” and “… Pope Francis is showing himself to be … a public, notorious heretic. He's an open and public heretic” and “Catholics who are aware francis is a heretic …”), say he’s a heretic, but say his name in the Mass.
So, what’s the common trait of all these groups? They all judge the Pope.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 3:26:43 GMT
4) "sedeimpoundinvirtueofcanon2264ists" (Fr. Chazal) – they judge the Pope ( Fr. Chazal: “… this Pope is a manifest and public heretic” and “… Pope Francis is showing himself to be … a public, notorious heretic. He's an open and public heretic” and “Catholics who are aware francis is a heretic …”), say he’s a heretic, but say his name in the Mass. So are we dealing with a new sede-line ? - Unacum Francisco hereticum ? It's certainly not the line of Archbishop Lefebvre. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 3:29:01 GMT
"Sedeimpound", really Fr. Chazal? When will the sede-camp ever stop making up words to appease their false conscience?
Shows the evolving nature of these new words is a reflection of how people try to run away from the Gospel and "validate" their false position with coin words. That's how revolutions work. The Catholic faith is one and has one name -catholic- not needing sub-names. It proves these catholic-evolutionists foster an independent mindset...always to hide in the confusion they sow with ambiguous meanings.
This comment from Peter Chojnowski is striking in the sense of encouraging a catholic priest to make up his own theology - (being a Sedeimpound and sedeprivationism).
As pointed out above, Mr. Chojnowski shares the SAME opinion as Fr. Chazal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 3:40:02 GMT
Fr.Chazal said,
"What they call sedeprivationism...ISN'T what Archbishop Lefebvre taught us."
Correct! So Fr. Chazal is on his own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 3:46:48 GMT
So, looking at the different flavors of sedevacantism, this is what we see: 1) sedevacantists – they judge the Pope, say he’s a heretic, and say that the See is vacant. 2) non unacumists – they judge the Pope, say he’s a heretic, and don’t say his name in the Mass. 3) unacum petrists – they judge the Pope, say he’s a heretic, and substitute the generic name of “petro” for the name of the Pope. 4) "sedeimpoundinvirtueofcanon2264ists" (Fr. Chazal) – they judge the Pope ( Fr. Chazal: “… this Pope is a manifest and public heretic” and “… Pope Francis is showing himself to be … a public, notorious heretic. He's an open and public heretic” and “Catholics who are aware francis is a heretic …”), say he’s a heretic, but say his name in the Mass. So, what’s the common trait of all these groups? They all judge the Pope.
Yup, they all throw egg at one another, when the carton is empty, they all judge the pope. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 2:01:01 GMT
What a smoke screen!
Fr. Chazal said:
Then what is a "resistance" for him? Is it to be catholic and Recognize the pope's office and complete faculty as divinely instituted by Christ the Church teaches, and, Resist any and all errors the Church teaches us regardless if it is a bad pope or bad other bishops?
Fr. Chazal said no, his meaning of "resistance" is to resist but NOT to recognize (ie, sedevacantism).
For he said:
Fr. Chazal just burnt any bridge to go back to recognize the pope in the true R&R position. In addition, Fr. Chazal just condemned any door to do so...being "canonical fools".
As much as Fr. Chazal wants to hide between words, and confuse both honest sedevacantists and R&R, Fr. Chazal is only putting more lip stick and more helium in the sede-balloon going out to no man's land.
It is worth mentioning again, Bishop Williamson endorses this sede-mentality granting an informed preface to Fr. Chazal's new book making this radical view. Therefore, "Resistance" for Bishop Williamson and the other false bishops and priests in the faux pas resistance, are stating they too are sede-impound/sede-privationists/sede-judge the pope catholics = sede-convoluted-vacantists with lip stick.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Mar 21, 2018 18:21:13 GMT
Publish with Father Chazal's permission (translated from French)
Dear Father Chazal,
[...] Some use an email exchange that you had with Dr. Chojnowski to assert that you approve the thesis of "sedeprivationism" or Cassissiacum thesis. So, I write to you to know what is really your position on this thesis. My questions are:
1. Are you for "sedeprivationist"?
2. What is the difference between Archbishop Lefebvre's position and the sedevacantist thesis of "sedeprivationism"?
I thank you in advance, dear Father, for your answers.
Mr X
Father Chazal's answer :
Dear Sir,
We 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 filing.
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 the loss of office.
fc +
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2018 19:29:13 GMT
Publish with Father Chazal's permission (translated from French)
Dear Father Chazal,
[...] Some use an email exchange that you had with Dr. Chojnowski to assert that you approve the thesis of "sedeprivationism" or Cassissiacum thesis. So, I write to you to know what is really your position on this thesis. My questions are:
1. Are you for "sedeprivationist"?
2. What is the difference between Archbishop Lefebvre's position and the sedevacantist thesis of "sedeprivationism"?
I thank you in advance, dear Father, for your answers.
Mr X
Father Chazal's answer :
Dear Sir,
We 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 filing.
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 the loss of office.
fc +
Thanks for the response john. Fr. Chazal's response, like Bishop Williamson, leaves you, and the world, with the same contradiction. They both are duplicit in what they say and yet practice the result of another made-up variant of practical sedevacantism. No way around it. As you know, when a person does this, they are purposely ambiguous and conflationists. If fact, the response you received pins Fr. Chazal against Fr. Chazal the more. Just another square peg round hole. So john, what they leave you, and tbe world, is further double-speak in view of their practical sedevacantism. Easy to decide where they are at if the premise is wanting to remain catholic and faithful to God. Or deciding to accept these distractions and contradictions remaing in a web of human drama full of conflations that only serve mamon in a temporary consceince. Thus far john, you have provided only one public side of their position, while providence has provided the rest of their other public half. Its what one does that has value, say Holy Scripture, not what one says. I would believe you know this. To give you the benefit of doubt, I couldn't believe you would be comfortable with their duplicity. Neither are we. Neither should we be happy to do less and ask for less as caholics. I would ask you also john to be fair in your questions to them and present the contradictions in their own words, as we are, thus it would not give them an easy way out, but a way to be honest. Instead, it leaves the erronious problems still on low hanging limbs for others to wrongly eat. Unless that is the object and hide the rest (?). Just saying, this is another observation consistent in the false resistance. We ask for clarity and get back confusion. An observation those bishops and priests complain about when we are able to ask them these direct questions. Why is that? Such is the dark duplicity of bad prelates causing the crisis in the church? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2018 20:01:40 GMT
The pope says he is not a modernist but lives like a practical modernist.
So what's the point again with bp. W and fr. chazal?
Words are cheap.
|
|
