Fr. Chazal vs Fr. Cekada - sedeprivationist vs sedevacantist

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 [ED. i.e. "loss of authority"] until he conforms to their teaching and traditions. Pure Gallicanism.

Yours, Peter