I am hereby retracting the post below this paragraph wherein I accused Fr. Francois Chazal of opposing the Magisterium of Vatican I and Pope Pius XII in regards to his position on the pope and heresy. At that time, I thought that Fr. Chazal accepted Jorge Bergoglio as a true pope, but I learned today that that is not the case. I apologize to Fr. Chazal for misunderstanding his position and to the readers for the confusion I have caused.
The link below is an e-mail conversation I had with Fr. Chazal in which he made me understand that he does not accept Jorge Bergoglio as a true pope. The e-mail addresses have been removed.
https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Fr_Chazal_on_Whether_Jorge_Bergoglio_Is_Pope.pdf
This file cannot be opened because it is a password-protected file.
https://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Fr_Chazal_on_Whether_Jorge_Bergoglio_Is_Pope.pdf
It is not password protected to open. It is only password protected to modify. Others have opened it with success.
Okay sir. I already opened it. I didn’t see Fr. Chazal’s response to your last statement on page 2. Thank you.
Start at the bottom of page 2 and work your up to page 1. That is the sequence of questions and responses.
Thank you, very good of you to retract.
What puzzles me is where he says “the catholic church never said that the pope is impeccable in the faith if he does not engage his infallible power.”
Impaccable? No, of course not, but impaccability is not the issue, infallability is. And not so much ‘in his faith’ as in his Magisterium teaching. The pope is infallible in his Ordinary Universal Magisterium, isn’t he? (Leo xiii, Vat. I, and even Lumen Gentium state that). Of course, not the same infallibility as in solemnly defined ex cathedra definitions (or in conciliar canons), but free of error nevertheless in content, not so much in form. Am I missing something?
Fr. Chazal may be referring to the authentic ordinary magisterium.