The comedy is on! The
current usurpation of official Catholic offices and buildings has elicited many
types of responses many of which are hardly Catholic!
The most well know
answer to the fact that a new religion in at the Vatican posing as the Catholic
Church is the Society of St. Pius X known generally as SSPX.
SSPX keeps all things
Catholic but then accepts the false religion at the Vatican as being Catholic!
This is the most absurd dimensions of the current crisis!
They believe that
apostates like John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI
were popes! Francis is also a pope! They mention him in their masses which are
valid Masses but which has a flavor of Protestantism! They also deny many basic
catholic principles leading to them to believe that Novus Ordo sacraments,
including their bastard mass, are valid and its priesthood valid!
This is tantamount to
eating back one’s vomit.
SSPX has been seen as
reengage because it does not take orders from the Vatican and yet it recognizes
the Vatican as legitimate! Talk of illogicality! However, despite this, SSPX
and the Vatican have been engaging in ‘dialogue’! The SSPX wants the Vatican to
recognize it as Catholic! But right now those talks have collapsed! The Vatican
wants the SSPX to accept everything they believe in. SSPX have refused!
Imagine that! A group
claiming to be Catholic wants a non-Catholic group to recognize them. Talk of
absurdity 101.
Now many within the
SSPX resist this stance of the superiors of SSPX. These resistance groups
garnered many lay people who support them and they departed from the SSPX
calling themselves many things like: The Resistance, SSPX-Marian Corp, SSPX-SO
(SO here means strict observance)
The most important
thing to note is that the resistance is still in the same illogical and un-Catholic
positions of the SSPX as explained above but the only difference is that The Resistance
does not speak to the Vatican for any reason! But they recognize the Vatican as
being catholic and then refuse it obedience! Absurdity 101!
Now the SSPX in Nigeria
has been shooting itself in the leg promoting the absurd to a heroic degree and
causing rancor between them and many faithful.
Now those faithful have
now invited the Resistance to take the place of SSPX in Nigeria and this will
work!
This will divide the
SSPX in half!
But The Resistance is
still wrong and un-Catholic! The people inviting the resistance are simply
doing so because they fear one thing:
SEDEVACANTISM!
Sedevacantism as the
ONLY proper Catholic response to the apostasy in the Vatican has been in Nigeria
for years and have converted hundreds of faithful in 8 cities across Nigeria!
Many of these faithful are formerly SSPX people who saw the folly of the SSPX
and joined Catholics holding the sedevacantist position.
But many have refused
Sedevacantism out of fear and sentiments! These fears and sentiments arise due
to lack of knowledge of catholic teachings. IF one were to properly understand
the Church, one will hold the sedevacantist position in the era of apostasy.
One of the kingpins of
The Resistance in the world is Fr. François Chazal!
We have to look at Fr.
Chazal’s non-Catholic response to the Vatican to see what the Resistance will
be bringing to Nigeria! Fr. Chazal’s thinking is illogical, funny and reeks of
bad theology! I wonder why these faithful think that SSPX-Marian Corp or
whatever is the solution to the other monstrosity called SSPX! It just beats
the imagination. But I blame lack of true catechesis in the lay people who went
this length to bring Chazal’s group!
The will be bringing
another SSPX but which are not talking to Rome!
At the end of November
2013, the well-known traditionalist Novus Ordo invalid priest Rev. Paul Kramer,
editor of the popular book The Devil’s Final Battle, declared publicly that Francis
could not possibly be the Pope of the Catholic Church and that the Holy See was
vacant.
As Kramer had hitherto
been loosely affiliated with the Fatima Center, The Remnant, and Catholic
Family News and had joined their well-known opposition to sedevacantism,
this announcement came as quite a surprise to many. Shortly thereafter,
however, Kramer began to say that even though Francis was not a true Pope, he
was convinced that Benedict XVI’s resignation on Feb. 28, 2013, was invalid and
that Benedict was still reigning as the true Pope. (We gave this novel position
the label “Resignationism.”) You can read about the reports on the Rev. Kramer
conversion here:
On Dec. 8, 2013, Fr.
Francois Chazal , formerly of the Society of St. Pius X, now with the
newly-founded so-called “Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance”
depending on who you are listening to (abbreviated as “SSPX-SO”), wrote a brief
letter to the Rev. Kramer in which he disagreed with him on his view that
Benedict XVI is still Pope but lauded him for supposedly “dealing a severe blow
to sedevacantism,” as Chazal put it.
He then offered his own
objections to the sedevacantist position to reassure “Fr.” Kramer — and,
presumably, himself — that it is a dead end. But is it really? Does Catholic
teaching even allow for any other position?
It is quite tragic that
after everything that has transpired since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958,
and especially now with the election of Jorge Bergoglio as the latest papal
impostor, there are clergy who are still either unable or unwilling to
recognize that the theological position of Sedevacantism,
despite some admitted difficulties, nevertheless is the only position
that can make sense of the apostasy of the Modernist Vatican II religion
without at the same time contradicting Catholic teaching (see here how sedevacantism compares to the indult and
to the resistance position).
We shall now highlight
the arguments Fr. Chazal uses against sedevacantism and offer a sobering
reality check in response (Fr. Chazal’s entire letter can be read here).
At the outset, Fr.
Chazal cheerfully argues that “Fr.” Kramer’s embracing of the Resignationist
position, i.e. the idea that Benedict XVI is still Pope, discredits
sedevacantism:
Alas I cannot follow
you when you publicly declare that Francis is no pope while Benedict is
instead. Yet I must thank you from the onset because you are dealing a severe
blow to sedevacantism in the process. It confirms that sedevacantism is in
fact a logical Pandora’s box, leading more to confusion than order, since, yet
again, another theory emerges… one among so many species.
It is really not clear
just how Fr. Chazal reasons that the idea that Benedict XVI is still the Pope
and Francis is not somehow deals a “severe blow” to sedevacantism. Obviously,
the Rev. Kramer does not believe that the Holy See is vacant (which
the expression sede vacante signifies), so sedevacantism,
properly speaking, really has nothing to do with Kramer’s position. The only
thing “Fr.” Kramer and sedevacantists agree on is that Jorge Bergoglio
(“Francis”) is not the Pope. If Francis is not the Pope, then there
are two possible scenarios: Either (1) there is no Pope, or (2) someone
else is the Pope. Kramer has decided on option (2). So just where is the
problem here? Where is the absurdity? Where is the “severe blow”?
Ah, Fr. Chazal says the
problem lies in the fact that now “another theory emerges… one among so many
species.” Yes, Father, it is indeed another theory, but one not held
by sedevacantists (we labeled it, as stated above, “resignationism”). All this
proves is that the Eclipse of the Church we’re in, the terrible crisis that has
come upon us since the passing of Pope Pius XII, has just caused even more
confusion. Imagine that. To pin this on sedevacantism, which is first and
foremost a diagnosis of the situation rather than a remedy, is
entirely unjust. Fr. Chazal seems to be reasoning with his emotions rather than
with his intellect, which, alas, is not uncommon for people who hold to the
“resistance” position of the SSPX or SSPX-SO.
It is not sedevacantism
that is the Pandora’s Box, but the situation we find ourselves in: the
ostensible defection of the Catholic Church after Pope Pius XII. There are
three basic approaches to this problem that people who consider themselves
Catholic Traditionalists have taken:
The Indult Position,
which says there is no real defection, only unfortunate ambiguity, “novel
concepts”, and some exaggerations and non-magisterial errors; this position
seeks to work for change within the Vatican II Church to turn things around and
have the old ways restored;
The SSPX/Resistance
Position, which acknowledges the defection as genuine but refuses to
participate in it and instead “does its own thing” on the side, as a parallel
establishment as it were, essentially ignoring the Pope and the
entire hierarchy and actively opposing them as needed; this position considers
Traditional Catholics, especially the SSPX, the “baby sitter” of the Holy See,
which is acknowledged to have defected; people of this persuasion firmly
believe they can eventually make the Holy See Catholic again;
The Sedevacantist
Position, which acknowledges the defection but, adhering to the Catholic
teaching on the Church’s infallibility and indefectibility, as well as the
nature of papal primacy and the inherent binding authority of the Catholic
Magisterium, concludes that therefore the Church after Pius XII cannot be the
true Catholic Church but must be a false church that has “eclipsed” (to use the
words of Our Lady of La Salette) the True Church, in accordance with (but not
based on) various Catholic prophecies; this position holds that the “Popes”
after Pius XII must have been impostors because they have done things true
Popes cannot do and furthermore have shown themselves to be heretics who reject
Catholic teaching. This is the position of the present author.
Comfortably ensconced
in his resistance position, which presents the most convenient of all the
alternatives because it has the “best of both worlds” (no indult submission to
the Modernist hierarchy — no sedevacantist difficulties about an apparent absence
of the Church), it is easy for Fr. Chazal to take aim at sedevacantism and
accuse it of “leading more to confusion than order.”
It is easy to make the
charge because sedevacantism is messy indeed (more on that in a moment). Yet,
let’s not lose sight of the fact that, despite first appearances, Fr. Chazal is
hardly one who can claim “order” in his church or his resistance position.
Consider these facts:
The institution he
believes to be the Catholic Church and to which he professes allegiance, has no
unity of Faith (one of the marks of the True Church), as it includes people as
far left as Hans Kung, Roger Mahony, and Richard Rohr in it, yet also, on the
other side of the spectrum, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, the
Fraternity of St. Peter, and people like John Vennari and Michael Voris — and a
whole host of individuals in between those two extremes, incl. Fr. Chazal
himself (well, at least he would insist that he is a part of that
church also). Oh, and let’s not forget the Feeneyites! Seriously — is this
order or confusion?
The “order” in his
church is so great that the teachings, laws, sacramental rites, canonizations,
marriage tribunals, and disciplinary sanctions of the (supposed) Pope can be
resisted, contradicted, dispensed with, denounced, and ignored at will — the
final authority is not the Pope in Fr. Chazal’s church but each individual
Catholic’s understanding of “Tradition.” The one-size-fits-all excuse to be
used each time is the panacean “diabolical disorientation”, a phrase coined by a woman
claiming to be Sr. Lucy of Fatima. Is this order or confusion?
Fr. Chazal himself was
just recently expelled from the Society of St. Pius X — so we must ask, Just
who is really traditional here? Is it he or is it the SSPX he left? Who gets to
decide? To be really traditional, that is, authentically Catholic, ought one to
follow the SSPX or Fr. Chazal? (We’ve already learned you can’t follow the
Pope, whom Chazal labels a “heretic”, so this question must be permitted.)
Again, is this order or confusion?
All this “resisting”
the SSPX, SSPX-SO, and other groups and individuals have been doing with regard
to the Novus Ordo hierarchy, just how will it end? Who will say, “OK folks, now
we have a really great Pope again, time to stop the resistance, it’s back to
normal now, back to pre-Vatican II papal submission! From now on, you have to
obey again and can’t do your own thing!”? And what if people disagree? What if
one group thinks the current Pope is traditional and it should be back to
normal, whereas others don’t agree? Then what? Who is the final arbiter? One
more time: Is this order or confusion?
Now keep in mind: All
the chaos described above is true for Fr. Chazal’s church despite the fact
that they have a Pope and a fully functioning hierarchy! If this mayhem can
prevail when there is a Pope and a body of bishops and cardinals and
the Holy See is functioning, then who needs a Pope and a hierarchy?!
Don’t fall for the
illusory argumentation of “disordered” sedevacantism versus the “neat” and
“orderly” resistance position. If there is confusion in sedevacantism, as there
no doubt is, at least our confusion has a very simple cause and also a very
simple remedy: We have no Pope and we need one! Once there is a true Pope, all
problems can be resolved. Yet, with the resistance position advocated by Fr.
Chazal, this is not at all the case. They have a true Pope (so they
insist), and it’s still chaos! What, then, is their solution? There
is none, there can be none, for they have already rejected even the ultimate
solution: the Pope!
We continue with what
Fr. Chazal writes:
Just recently I bumped
into another sedevacantist who told me that Mgr. Guerard des Lauriers is a
traitor. But that Bishop is a founding father of the movement. Among the non
conclavist sedevacantists, it is getting harder and harder just to know what
the different schools think. Such total talmudization I refuse to find myself
embarked on.
For those not familiar
with the bishop mentioned, here is a little background.
Bp. Michel-Louis
Guerard des Lauriers, O.P. (1898-1988), was a highly-gifted Catholic theologian
and mathematician who taught at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome. It
is commonly said that he was one of Pope Pius XII’s theological advisers on the
dogma of the Assumption (defined in 1950). He ghostwrote the famous Ottaviani
Intervention of 1969 and concluded at some point in his life that
the See of Peter was vacant — he became a sedevacantist.
More specifically, he
held the position that the Vatican II “Popes” were Popes “materially” but not
“formally”, which, translated into layman’s terms according to Guerard des
Lauriers’ thesis, means that they were “Pope-elect”, if you will, that is,
someone who would become the true Pope automatically as soon as he
would renounce his heresies and become a Catholic.
This position is known
as the “Material/Formal Thesis”, the “Cassiciacum Thesis”, or also as
“sedeprivationism”. It is held by a number, though probably the minority, of
sedevacantists throughout the world, the most well-known defenders being Bp.
Robert McKenna, O.P., and Bp. Donald
Sanborn. The great advantage of this sedeprivationist position is that it
provides an answer to the pressing question, “How do we get a true Pope back to
restore the Church?”
It answers this
conundrum by arguing that the bogus Novus Ordo “cardinals”, despite their
invalidity, nevertheless possess the power to designate a true Pope,
whether potentially or actually. One may not agree with this stance, but
everyone should be put on notice that it cannot easily be dismissed and has
very strong evidence in its favor, which should not be surprising given that it
originated with the great theological mind of Bp. Guerard des Lauriers. For
those interested in understanding this thesis, we recommend Bp. Sanborn’s
article “The Material Papacy” (click here), which explains it in
detail.
So Fr. Chazal
apparently bumped into a sedevacantist who disagrees with the
Material/Formal Thesis. So what? Most likely, the man in question
didn’t really understand it, because to call Bp. Guerard a “traitor” on account
of his theory is totally unjust. But in any case, whether it be true or
false, the Cassiciacum Thesis is a lot better than Chazal’s
“Popes-can-be-heretics-but-then-we-cannot-submit-to-them” position, which is
theologically indefensible (although quite convenient and emotionally
satisfying, we understand).
Next, Fr. Chazal cedes
at least a little bit of respect to the Guerardian Thesis:
Archbishop Lefebvre was
keen to say that the theory has some serious reasons, but it leads to no
certain conclusions. It looks very clear at the start, yet ends in great
confusion, leading to a dangerous fragmentation of the Remnant of the Faith.
Theologians are split into those who don’t even consider the case and those who
do… and among those who do, there again, their sentences are split.
Ah yes, and of course
Abp. Lefebvre’s theological credentials when compared to those of Bp. Guerard
were….? …Exactly. We didn’t think so.
Novus Ordo Watch does
not endorse the sedeprivationist position but does not reject it either. The
great St. Augustine advised:
“In doubtful things,
liberty.”
It should not be
surprising that, being faced with the most horrible crisis the Catholic Church
has ever gone through in her 2,000-year history, with an apparent disappearance
of the Catholic hierarchy and the Magisterium, and nothing but blatant heretics
claiming the Papal Throne, those few remaining Catholics should perhaps differ
on the exact nature of the problem and therefore also on the means to its
resolution. Only the proudest of the proud could possibly think they have all the
answers in this time of the Passion of the Mystical Body. If anything,
sedevacantism draws people to humility as we realize just how limited
we are in the face of this terrible exile, and how we must beg God without
ceasing to end this most distressing state of affairs if it should so please
Him.
In the above quote, Fr.
Chazal insinuates that we don’t really know if Popes can be heretics; that,
historically, Catholic theologians have been divided over this question and
over what would follow if a Pope were to become a heretic or if a heretic were
to be elected Pope. But this is not quite true. We can simply quote the great
Doctor of the Papacy on the matter, St. Robert Bellarmine:
Therefore, the
true opinion [of the five examined] is the fifth, according to which the
Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the
same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church;
and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is
the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics
immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian…. (St.
Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Ch. 30; underlining added.)
St. Robert is clear
that this position — that a heretic Pope is impossible and any Pope who would
become a heretic would thereby automatically cease to be Pope because he would
no longer be a member of the Church or even a Christian — is true. It is
true and “the opinion of all the ancient Fathers.”
Furthermore, Pope Pius
XII reiterated this teaching in his 1943 encyclical on the
Church, in which he
clarified that to be a member of the Church it is necessary to “profess the
true Faith,” which is something a heretic by definition does not do. Moreover,
His Holiness pointed out that the sin of heresy “of its own nature [severs] a
man from the Body of the Church” (Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici
Corporis, par. 22-23), so the question is really settled.
There is no great
difficulty or mystery here; we simply have to accept it: A heretic is not a
member of the Church and therefore cannot be Pope. Period.
What is so difficult or
hard to swallow about this? For anyone interested in studying this issue in greater
depth, we recommend the well-researched essay “Concerning an
SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism” by Mr. John Lane, which is a response
to an SSPX priest’s objections to the sedevacantist position.
The dreaded
“fragmention of the remnant of the Faith” that Fr. Chazal mentions is no
concern at all if people realize that in unresolved, doubtful matters,
Catholics enjoy the liberty to accept that position which they find most
reasonable, assuming at all times, of course, that no alternative runs afoul of
Church teaching in any way. That in some matters we can currently have no certain conclusions
is irrelevant, since we are not bound to have certainty in every matter, and in
this, Almighty God has obviously not seen fit to give us the desired certainty.
(We are speaking of sedevacantism vs. sedeprivationism here, not sedevacantism
vs. the recognize-and-resist position.)
But even so, is Fr.
Chazal seriously asserting that his position causes no confusion? We
challenge Father and those who agree with his “resistance” stance to tell us
how it squares with the following papal teachings, and how it does not even so
much as cause confusion:
“…religion itself can
never totter and fall while this Chair [of St. Peter] remains intact, the Chair
which rests on the rock which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in
which there is the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” (Pope
Pius IX, Encyclical Inter Multiplices, par. 7)
“If anyone thus speaks,
that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not
the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only
in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to
the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or,
that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of
this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or
over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the
faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.” (First Vatican Council,
Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Chp. 3; Denz. 1831)
“In the Apostolic See,
the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine
celebrated.” (First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor
Aeternus, Chp. 4; Denz. 1833)
“To the shepherds alone
was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed
the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their
judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by
them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute
necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own
pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and
Supreme Pastor.” (Pope Leo XIII, Letter Epistola Tua to Cardinal
Guibert, June 17, 1885; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 263)
“Union with the Roman
See of Peter is … always the public criterion of a Catholic…. ‘You are not to
be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the
faith of Rome is to be held.'” (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis
Cognitum, par. 13)
“…the strong and
effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate.”
(Pope Leo XIII, Allocution of Feb. 20, 1903; excerpted in Papal Teachings: The Church, p. 353)
It is impossible
to apply the above to the Vatican II “Popes” and still maintain the same
Faith the Catholic Church taught from 33 AD to 1958. Yet, this is exactly what
the recognize-and-resisters like Fr. Chazal attempt to do, and the result is a
horrific distortion of sound doctrine they pass off as “traditional
Catholicism.” For a fairly recent example of the absurdity to which this
attempt to square the circle leads, see our post on
John Vennari declaring that he would not allow the “Pope” to teach religion to
his children! Clearly, no confusion in the non-sedevacantist camp, eh?!
Fr. Chazal next
advises:
We should be content
with the principle of Nullam Partem [“no part”] with heretics, not denying the
existence of heresies when they appear in Rome, unlike the XSPX [sic], who
threw us overboard on account of us sticking to that principle.
The problem with
remaining “content” with this principle of having no part with heretics is that
if at the same time you say that one of those heretics is the Pope of the
Catholic Church, you run into a conundrum, because not only does Catholic dogma
require you to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff but also to
submit to him under pain of eternal damnation. This goes to show how serious
the matter is:
Furthermore, we
declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation
that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
(Pope Boniface VIII,
Bull Unam Sanctam [1302]; Denz. 469)
Clearly, we cannot be
content with Fr. Chazal’s position because it is contradictory, that is, it is
in blatant opposition to defined Catholic dogma. On the one hand, we must
refuse to have anything to do with heretics; on the other, we are required to
submit to the Pope. So how could a heretic possibly be Pope, or the Pope a
heretic? Such a scenario would require us to do two mutually exclusive things.
The concepts of “heretic” and “Pope” cannot go together, any more than you can
have a married bachelor. Talk about a position that creates confusion!
We continue with Fr.
Chazal’s letter:
But the Archbishop
[Lefebvre] always refused to tread beyond this point, the overall sterility of
the sedevacantist movement proved him right. Just one look at the city of
Cincinnati is enough to see: the turf wars, the mutual excommunications, the
endless doctrinal hair splitting, the comparatives between the different lines
of bishops and the quarrels around the validity of this or that line… all of it
like the vain genealogies denounced by St. Paul.
For most people, a bit
of background and context will be needed to understand this. Father is here
referring to the U.S. city of Cincinnati, Ohio, one of the most populous areas
of sedevacantists in the world. At present, there are as many as three
sedevacantist parishes in the larger metropolitan area there. But since
sedevacantists deploringly acknowledge the tragic absence of a (known) true
Pope and a (known) true governing hierarchy in the Church, it follows that when
disputes arise, there is no one who can resolve them in an authoritative and
binding manner. This is simply the logical implication of the predicament which
sedevacantism points out: We have no Pope!
Disagreements about
various Church matters is a regrettable but unavoidable truth that comes with
the fact of the vacancy of the Holy See; it is thus not due to a defect or flaw
in the sedevacantist position but is part of its essential thesis. Quarrels and
disputes among the “Pope-less” shows the high importance the papacy plays in
Catholicism as the ultimate unifying principle — quite in contrast to the
“resistance” position, where the papacy is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant,
because the resisters decide on their own when to submit to the Pope and when
not to; they essentially ignore him and do their own thing.
Yet, Fr. Chazal wants
to use our admitted lack of a Pope — which we genuinely lament — against us:
He wants to fault us for recognizing we have no Pope, claiming that instead it
is better not to hold this position. In this he again fails to realize that
sedevacantism is, first and foremost, a diagnosis, not so much a solution.
Before we can even hope for or work towards a genuine solution, we must be sure
that we have the correct diagnosis. What would we think of a doctor who refuses
to diagnose in patients what he does not know how to cure? Would we want a
doctor to tell a cancer patient he has pneumonia instead, simply because he is
perplexed and bewildered by a cancer diagnosis? Is such a doctor actually
serving the patient, regardless of intent? Is he actually concerned about his
physical health? But how much more important is the soul than the body (cf. Mt
10:28)?
Disagreements among sedevacantists
are typically not regarding the Faith, for all hold to the same Faith, nor
about the Sacred Liturgy, for all subject themselves to the same law, but
rather about the application of Faith, morals, and Church law
to specific problems and circumstances. This is completely normal in the
absence or eclipse of the unifying authority which can settle all such disputes
(i.e., the Church hierarchy, esp. the Pope). Some matters are speculative
(e.g., whether the above-mentioned Material/Formal Thesis is correct), others
are practical (e.g., whether a sedevacantist may assist at Masses offered by a
priest who erroneously professes communion with Antipope Francis but really
does not follow him). People disagree over these things, and these
disagreements are legitimate, that is, one does not somehow cease to be a Catholic by taking one side or another in these matters, or even suspending
judgment altogether, because they have not been definitively settled by
rightful Church authority.
It is ironic that Fr. Chazal
brings up questions of sacramental validity. Obviously, those questions
more than any other ones, are going to be prominent in times when no legitimate
Church hierarch with jurisdiction can be approached to resolve such cases
authoritatively. And for this Father scolds sedevacantists? Seriously?
Secondly, does the
Society of St. Pius X not suffer from the same kind of problem, regarding the
validity (or lack thereof) of Novus Ordo ordinations? For example, the official
line of the SSPX is currently that ordinations carried out in the Modernist
rite of Paul VI (1968) are valid, and so they have some “priests” in their
worldwide organization that were “ordained” in Montini’s doubtful rite, or that
were “ordained” in the traditional rite but by a “bishop” who was
consecrated in the invalid rite of the Novus Ordo. Yet, SSPX Bp. Bernard
Tissier de Mallerais is on record stating he does not believe that the
1968 rite of episcopal consecration is valid (source).
What about Fr. Chazal?
Does agree with Bp. Fellay that the Modernist ordination rites are valid? Or
does he agree with Bp. Tissier that they are invalid or at least doubtful? Most
importantly, what do the SSPX lay faithful think about these things?
The SSPX doesn’t exactly advertize who among their priests was “ordained” in
the Novus Ordo rite or by a Novus Ordo “bishop” and who wasn’t. Could that be
because they fear disagreement concerning the validity of these orders?! And
who in the SSPX is the final authority that could settle this, anyway? The
Superior General, Bp. Fellay? If so, why did Fr. Chazal not submit to him and
instead allowed himself to be expelled? Is it the man they recognize as Pope?
If so, why is Fr. Chazal not in communion with him?
For the “resistance”
clergy to accuse sedevacantists of having some disagreements and confusion is simply
the pot calling the kettle black. Whatever problems they may be able to
point to in sedevacantism, these exist equally in their own position, but much
more seriously so.
The difference is that
in sedevacantism, any problem can be resolved in principle by a judgment from a
true Pope, to whom everyone submits; in the “recognize-but-resist” position, no
solution is possible even in principle, for the final authority, the Pope,
is eschewed at will by them, based on people’s subjective ideas about what constitutes
the True Faith and Sacred Tradition. Thus they neutralize, nay castrate, the
Papacy and make the Pope subject to them rather than themselves
subject to him.
But the Pope “is judged
by no one”, as Canon Law legislates (Canon 1556);
and contrary to what the SSPX has been saying, this canon does not mean that
one cannot discern that a particular person’s claim to the papacy is false, but
rather that any judgment made by the Pope is final and admits of no appeal,
revision, disagreement, or “loyal opposition.” That’s how submission and
obedience work in the Catholic Church. Otherwise, you have chaos and you
deprive the Vicar of Christ, the highest authority in the Church, of the power to
settle disputes and rein in wayward sheep. He would then no longer be what he
was constituted by Christ to be, namely, the principle of unity in the Church
(cf. Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis
Cognitum, par. 13). In short, the sheepfold cannot be kept together unless
the shepherd has legitimate power over the sheep, and this power cannot be
contradicted, neutralized, minimized, or taken away by individual
sheep (cf. Jn 10:16). It’s really not that complicated once you know how
to think about it.
As Bp. Sanborn once
pointed out, it is possible that any individual person or group of
people go astray and fall into heresy. This is possible. It is possible that a
heretic invalidly usurp the Papal Throne (hence Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus regarding such a
scenario). It is perhaps even possible that a validly-elected Pope at some point become a
heretic — but then he would necessarily and immediately lose the pontificate.
All this is possible.
But it is not possible
that the Pope lose the Faith and remain Pope, a faithless Pope, a non-Catholic
Pope, a Pope deprived of authority, to whom no submission is allowed to be
given. It is not possible that the Church should cease to be true to
her Founder. It is not possible that the Bride of Christ turn into
the Whore of Babylon. It is not possible that the Church should teach
error. It is not possible that by clinging to the Church in all things, souls
could be led astray. It is not possible that the very Church that
Christ has instituted as our necessary means of salvation should become a means
of damnation. These things are not possible!
And so we choose the
possible over the impossible, the unpleasant and improbable over the
irreconcilable and antithetical. This is why we are sedevacantists: Because the
position is possible, whereas all other alternatives are impossible.
No doubt, there are numerous phony reasons not to embrace
sedevacantism, and only one reason to do so: because it is true. But that
alone suffices for those who love the truth, because Christ is the Truth, and,
as He taught, “the truth shall make you free” (Jn 8:32; cf. Jn 14:6).
Fr. Chazal’s letter
continues, but he makes no further arguments against sedevacantism.
In a nutshell, our
answer to him and all other “recognize-and-resist” priests is this:
If you want to be a
Catholic, then be a Catholic and submit to Catholic teaching, all of
it. This is the Catholic Church, not Burger King — you can’t have it
“your way.”
So the resistance
coming to Nigeria is another jamboree of comedy that has nothing to do with the
Catholic Church! It is another game played with people’s souls! People should
indeed come to their senses!
We thank novusordowatch
for most part of this expose.
Presented by Malachy
Mary Igwilo, 26th July 2017, Feast of St. Anna, Mother of the Blessed Virgin
Mary
