Author Topic: Archbishop Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (Read 34193 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** February 17, 2011, 12:02:56 PM »

The fact that he thought it might become necessary to conclude that the See is, in fact, vacant means that he also thought something most who accept the V2 popes do not want to accept:

It is possible for someone below the Supreme Pontiff to conclude such a thing is true within the order of fact -- and to do so before Holy Church has made a decision within the order of law. Otherwise, it was completely meaningless to even say what he said.

Like it or lump it, it is crystal clear that his thinking on that point is completely at variance with the vast majority of those who claim to see things as he did.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2011, 12:06:04 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

IMO, you could only be considered crazy (or, at least, dull) if you did NOT see a notable difference in how the two men see the situation.

Quote
Archbishop Lefebvre clearly didn't like the idea of Sedevacantism, and he wasn't the type to jump to a quick and easy solution. Nevertheless, he allowed of its possibility.

Sadly, some (most?) within the SSPX seem to do the very contrary, saying SVs are schismatic (end of discussion), crazy for thinking the very thing Abp L himself said was a possibility, etc. His spirit on the matter was quite different from the spirit of many who claim to continue his work and legacy.

Agreed. The more I consider the position of the late Archbishop, the more I think that I grasp the strategy that the initial incarnation of the Society employed. He was hesitant to avow formal sedevacantism, either absolute or cassiciacist, because he feared that the scandal to the faith of such an apostasy proceeding to the very claimant of the Seat of Peter would, recognized at large, cause a mass exodus from the faith. His hope, ultimately unfounded as we now see, was the hope that the Society would provide the necessary correction and that ultimately it would lead faithful and derelict hierarchy back to tradition without the necessity of declaring apostasy. When such a return failed to materialize even after twenty years of labor on the part of the Archbishop and the Society, the only foreseeable resolution was compromise or sedevacantism. The rest is history.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2011, 12:06:38 PM »

Quote from: +Lefebvre

I cannot see how it is possible to say that the Pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.

He continued acting in said manner until his death more than fifteen years later.

SJB · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2011, 12:43:07 PM »

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

"It appears to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church over twenty centuries cannot contain error than that there is absolute certainty that the Pope really is the pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and the invalidity of the election are all potential reasons why a Pope was never really the pope or should cease to be the pope. In such a case, clearly a very exceptional one, the Church would find herself in a situation similar to that which she experiences after the decease of a Sovereign Pontiff. For, in a word, a very serious problem presents itself to the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of the papacy of Paul VI. How is that a Pope, the true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, could preside over the destruction of the Church, the most profound and extensive in her history, in such a short space of time, something which no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? To this question there will one day have to be a reply."

Declaration by Mgr Lefebvre to Figaro, reproduced in Monde et Vie no 264, for 27 August 1976. This was shortly after he was suspended a divinis (in July 1976) for ordaining priests contrary to the order of Paul VI.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #9 on:** February 17, 2011, 02:09:38 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Matthew,

In fairness, it would be more apt to say that his Excellency was fearful of what would happen were he and the Society to ultimately accept the reality of a sede vacante. Wasn't one of his quotes on the matter:

In-correct, actually John. ABL at one point almost took the sedevacantist path. He was very sympathetic towards sedes.