1- Are any of the "clergy" of the sspx theologians?

2- Is Fellay a theologian? Is Williamson a theologian? Was Lefebvre a theologian? Is anyone from the sspx a theologian for that matter?

3- Do any of them have more authority than Cekada or Sanborn?

4- What are the errors of Cekada on Apostolic Succession?

5- Finally, what say you to this:

At this point, a question naturally occurs: Why in the world does no one in the Society, especially a reputed brain like Bp. Williamson, ever seem to recognize such seemingly fundamental errors and correct them?

      The reason is the Society of St. Pius X’s party-line mentality. When you join the organization, you are expected to honor the received notions (données) formulated during The Era of the Archbishop.

      So, as I have pointed out elsewhere, a member of the Society must reverently repeat the “positions of the Society” on its nature (society of common life without vows), its suppression (invalid), the New Mass (evil, but illegally promulgated), Vatican II (not binding), resisting a true pope (justified by theologians, the pope is like a “bad dad”), sedevacantism (“schismatic,” non-Catholic), Abp. Lefebvre’s excommunication (“Rome says No!”), etc.

      All theological research and writing is useful and encouraged only insofar as it confirms the party line on each of these points. Independent thought, or loyalty to some principle above the Society (in dogma, canon law, etc.) is proof of “un mauvais ésprit” (a bad spirit) and grounds for the ticket to Mumbai.

      So, as a colleague and former SSPX member pointed out in 1984, the only people who survive long-term in SSPX are those who do not think.

      What the Society treats as particularly toxic is standard ecclesiology — those areas of Catholic dogmatic theology that explain the nature of the Church, the authority of the pope, and the need to be visibly united to both. SSPX seminarians are taught about these topics, I have been told by SSPX members, from “notes” formulated by SSPX seminary professors in Europe, rather than from the pre-Vatican II manuals of dogmatic theology. Too hot to handle, no doubt.

      Seen in this light, the absurd argument Bp. Williamson proposes to excuse Ratzinger’s heresy and thus avoid the inevitable consequences thereof — a sick mind — fits in perfectly. Loyalty to the party line above all!

      So when Bp. Williamson concluded his interview by singing a few lines from the musical Oklahoma — “There is wisdom in opera and even in musicals!” he says — another song came to mind, this one from Gilbert and Sullivan’s HMS Pinafore. Perhaps when he’s in a singing mood, His Excellency should try a few bars from the song sung by Sir Joseph Porter, First Lord of the Admiralty:

      “I always voted at my party’s call,

      “And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.

      “(No, he never thought of thinking for himself at all!)

      “And I thought so little, they rewarded me,

      “By making me the ruler of the Queen’s Na-vee!

      Mentevacantism, ahoy!

(Mentevacantism). My emphasis.

I found the IA thread I mentioned. Here it is.

Its interesting to note, however, that Fr. Gerard Des Lauriers former professor at the SSPX seminary, and later consecrated by Bishop Thuc, was also a Theologian; and he eventually disagreed with ABL, and was a sedevecantist.

Ah. I have never heard that. Thank you for the clarification.

Was it +Des Lauriers who was also confessor to Pius XII?

I know he was the principle author of the Ottaviani Intervention.

Augustine Cardinal Bea was his personal confessor (although he wasn't a Cardinal at the time).

Quote from: s2srea

Its interesting to note, however, that Fr. Gerard Des Lauriers former professor at the SSPX seminary, and later consecrated by Bishop Thuc, was also a Theologian; and he eventually disagreed with ABL, and was a sedevecantist.

I believe he was actually a sedeprivationist, a very complicated theory. (What isn't complicated during these times?)

And the sedeprivationist (Bp. Sanborn) has remained at peace with the absolute sedevacantists (Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada) when their theories are at odds.

Quote from: Charlemagne

Quote from: s2srea

Its interesting to note, however, that Fr. Gerard Des Lauriers former professor at the SSPX seminary, and later consecrated by Bishop Thuc, was also a Theologian; and he eventually disagreed with ABL, and was a sedevecantist.

I believe he was actually a sedeprivationist, a very complicated theory. (What isn't complicated during these times?)

And the sedeprivationist (Bp. Sanborn) has remained at peace with the absolute sedevacantists (Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada) when their theories are at odds.

What's your point?