Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Lover of Truth on November 19, 2012, 02:12:52 PM
-
Here is an article which I believe is pertinent to the SSPX-Rome Agreement as it pertains to those in the SSPX who want to hold fast to the Faith, Mass and Sacraments. It is not anti-SSPX but written by one of their parishoners, John Lane. In fact it seems to be pro-Lefebvre, Williamson, Tissier, and de Gallerata.
An except fom the article is as follows:
In the minority amongst sedevacantists, at least up until the turn of the century, had been those who take a dogmatic stance on the issue, insisting that it is not the faith and the Mass which matters primarily, but rather the fact that Paul VI, John Paul II or Benedict XVI is not truly the pope. For such dogmatic sedevacantists, everything turns upon the pope question. If he is truly pope, he must be obeyed as true popes are obeyed by Catholics at all times. If he is not pope, he must be rejected, under pain of sin or even loss of membership in the Church.
In my opinion, "dogmatic sedevacantist", when taken to mean "one who accepts the Divine Law that teaches that a public heretic cannot be a valid Pope" is a correct meaning. And there would be nothing wrong with being a "dogmatic sedevacantist" or an "accepter of the Divine Law" in this sense.
But the belief that all those, who through no fault of their own, believe either that a public heretic can be Pope or that the conciliar Popes are/were not public heretics, are themselves heretics, is not so much a "dogmatic sedevacantist" but a person, who, once he comes to his conclusion, believes everyone else should be at that conclusion as well.
For certainly, if according to Catholic theology we must obey all that valid Popes bind on the Church, then to teach as much is not to be a "dogmatic sedevacantist" in the negative sense of the meaning but a realist; for we are in fact to obey and accept all that all valid Popes bind on the Church. But what is wrong about the "dogmatic sedevacantist", according to the misapplied definition of the term, is insisting that all who disagree with them are not Catholic, not because it is okay to ignore and disobey all that valid Popes bind on the Church, because it is not okay to do so but perilous to your salvation; but because insisting that all who have not come to the SV conclusion are, by that very fact, outside the Church is to judge their subjective culpability, i.e. in regards to what they know, accept or reject is incorrect due to their own fault. And all this assumes that the SVs are correct in ascertaining that the conciliar leaders are in fact public heretics (as has been proven ad nauseum).
I believe there is a careful distinction that needs to be made. Terms are thrown around quite easily and yet mean different things to different people. For instance:
A "Dogmatic Sedevacantist" is:
1. One who accepts the fact that a public heretic cannot be a valid Pope. (Guilty as charged!)
2. One who insists that it is not the faith and the Mass which matters primarily, but rather the fact that Paul VI, John Paul II or Benedict XVI is not truly the pope.
3. One who believes that if he is truly pope, he must be obeyed as true popes are obeyed by Catholics at all times. If he is not pope, he must be rejected, under pain of sin or even loss of membership in the Church. (Of course. But to insist that those who are staying Catholic by disobeying he who they mistakenly believe to be Pope are not Catholic would not be correct as they are trying to stay Catholic despite what those whom they mistakenly believe to be Pope have bound (and maintain in effect) on the Church. They are acting couragously and take no joy in being put in a position to where they cannot obey or accept what a supposed Pope binds on the Church.)
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (UNAM SANCTAM, Pope Boniface VIII)
4. One who sincerely claims (they truly believe this it seems) that anyone who has not come to the SV conclusion is, by that very fact, not Catholic. (How could that be? Would they really insist that merely because you are a baptized Catholic that you have the capacity to definitively conclude that a public heretic cannot be a valid Pope and that Father Ratzinger is a public heretic? God can judge that, but not me, and not any of the SVs I know and am friends with do this.)
One has to know what is meant by "dogmatic sedevacantist" before they condemn it or put people in that category.
Of course there is nothing wrong with insisting on fact. One fact is that all Catholics are obliged to obey all that a valid Pope binds on the Church. Another fact is that a public heretic that masquerades as a valid Pope must be rejected. The qualifier is that one must know these things before he can act upon them.
To insist that all who do not realize this are outside the Church is "dogmatic" in a false way because you cannot be blamed for what you are not culpable of not knowing. Further to insist that all who do not know or accept this are willfully blind or not Catholic is not proper as we cannot judge the subjective culpability of anyone. But to state the facts plainly is not to be "dogmatic" in any false sense of the word. We are to submit to valid Popes and reject the heretic. John Lane would be the first to admit it.
Personally, the term "Dogmatic Sedevacantist" is relatively new to me, and because of its negative connotations, i.e. a "brother dimond" attitude towards all who disagree, I do not think of myself as a "Dogmatic" sedevacantist as defined by John Lane but rather a [wide-awake] Catholic.
But to distance one-self from being a "Dogmatic Sedevacantist" according to John Lane's definition of the term is not to deny the fact that according to Divine Law a public heretic cannot be a valid Pope or that a valid Pope cannot bind on the Church what the conciliar leaders have bound on the Church. That would be throwing out the baby with the bath-water in order to be agreeable.
Perhaps we should call those who vociferously castigate none-SVs as "none-Catholics" as "Brother Dimond" SVs instead of "Dogmatic" SVs, for there is nothing wrong with being dogmatic about Divine Law; for it is Divine Law that a public heretic cannot be a valid Pope, and I will not deny Divine Law in order to be "peaceable":
http://strobertbellarmine.net/Sedevacantism_Safety_and_Peace.pdf
Sedevacantism, Safety and Peace
The topic of sedevacantism produces deep curiosity in some, violent antipathy in others, and a great deal of confusion in many, even amongst those who say that they maintain this view themselves.
Much of the reason for these reactions and the confusion that surrounds the subject arises from a lack of knowledge of what is really the status of the view that the See of Rome is vacant. By status is meant the epistemological, moral, and legal implications of the notion. The purpose of this article is to delineate some of these points to assist traditional Catholics to take a more informed, dispassionate, view of the matter. In brief, this article aims to undermine the causes of disunity and to foster peace.
There are several questions which feed into the question of the status of the sede vacante opinion.
1. Have these men been true popes?
2. What degree of certitude can be achieved in relation to this question?
3. What obligations are incuмbent on Catholics in relation to this question?
On the hypothesis that the See of Rome is actually vacant, and that this can be known with certitude, a further question arises: Does this objectively certain truth oblige all Catholics equally, as for example any promulgated doctrine or law of the Church obliges all of her members without exception?
It is the conviction of the writer that the post-conciliar popes have not been true popes. And it is his further belief that this truth can be held with moral certitude, which is the kind of certitude proper to such questions. Moral certitude is true certitude. That is, the firm and unwavering assent of the mind to known truth. These points are proved elsewhere. For present purposes they will be taken as true.
To answer properly the question, are all obliged to judge that the Holy See is vacant, some preliminary concepts need to be grasped.
There is a simple distinction between what obliges all without exception, and what obliges those who recognise a reality even before any universally obligatory declaration of fact is made. An insight into this distinction can be gained by reviewing the nature of what is called positive revelation, and how it relates to truths which can be known by the unaided light of reason (i.e. natural revelation).
The dogmatic theologians Wilhelm and Scannell explain:
i. Positive Revelation is not absolutely, categorically, and physically necessary for the knowledge of truths of the natural order bearing upon religion and morals, but it is relatively, hypothetically, and morally necessary. If Positive Revelation were absolutely necessary for the acquisition of natural, moral, and religious truths, then none of these truths could be known by any man in any other way. But this is plainly opposed to the doctrine that God and the moral law may be known by man's unaided reason. Many difficulties, however, impede the acquisition of this knowledge. Very few men have the talent and opportunity to study such a subject, and even under the most favourable circuмstances there will be doubt and error, owing to man's moral degradation and the influences to which he is exposed. Positive Revelation is needed to remedy these defects, but the necessity is only relative, because it exists merely in relation to a portion of mankind, a part of the moral law, and in different degrees under different circuмstances; the necessity is moral, because there is no physical impossibility but only great difficulty; and hypothetical, because it exists only in the hypothesis that God has provided no other means of surmounting the difficulties.
In the present circuмstances, there is objectively a great deal of confusion over the status of the post-conciliar popes. Difficulties abound, especially those connected with the truths of ecclesiology. For example, it is impossible for the Church to offer false worship to God or to make laws which conduce to the harm of the faithful; it is equally necessary that the Church hierarchical continues to exist, that is, the bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, and it is a fact that all of the bishops with jurisdiction have continued to recognise the Conciliar claimants as popes. The fact of these difficulties, the fact that there exists an objectively confusing situation, is analogous to the situation with respect to natural revelation prior to the intervention of positive revelation.
The difference between the status of divine revelation and the means by which it is brought to men, and the current situation with respect to the status of the conciliar popes, is precisely in that last phrase of Wilhelm and Scannell, viz. “[the necessity of positive revelation] exists only in the hypothesis that God has provided no other means of surmounting the difficulties.” God has provided a sure way for all men to achieve certitude regarding natural revelation; they can sit at the feet of the Church and learn it, in simple language, from an infallible teacher. In the case of the post-conciliar popes, the infallible teacher has not promulgated the answer. Catholics must reason their way to the truth from general principles, but not all Catholics are equipped to do so in a way which assures certitude. The necessity of a public judgement is not, in this case, hypothetical; it is actual. The necessity of a public judgement is relative and moral, but it is not hypothetical. It is real.
God has permitted this situation, and we are obliged to bow humbly before His divine wisdom. We know that He permits it for a greater good, as He permits all evil.
The fact that there is an unmet (relative and moral) need for a judgement by the Church on the question of the post-conciliar popes, has implications in law, both divine and ecclesiastical.
All are aware of the principle that ignorance of the law is no defence. But what is the natural law basis for this principle? Why is it just? The answer is because a law is not a law until it is promulgated, which means “published” to all of those whom it obliges. The obligation arises from the law; it is a correlative of the law; it is the other side of the same coin, so to speak. Once promulgated, all are presumed to know the law, and all are obliged to obey it.
This principle applies both to divine law and to human law. But some law is general, and some specific. For example, all men without exception are obliged by divine law to worship God, especially by praying to Him. Positive revelation specifies this further, and lays upon all men the obligation of worshipping Him particularly on Sunday. Ecclesiastical law specifies this even further, by mandating assistance at Holy Mass every Sunday and Holy Day, and by establishing various other additional commandments, such as that which commands the Easter duty.
Divine law lays down the general obligation to avoid heretics. St. Paul teaches, "A heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid."1 [1 Tit. 3, 10-11.] This is incuмbent upon all Christians without exception. But it is not specified concerning individuals. Each Christian is required to apply it as necessary, and that is why we are told to admonish the heretic.
The Church occasionally condemns particular heretics and adds her own mandate to the divine law, or more properly, applies divine law to specific cases. She will condemn a heretic, excommunicate him, and declare him vitandus (i.e. “to be avoided”). From this arises an obligation in ecclesiastical law, incuмbent upon all Christians, to avoid that particular culprit. The law in such a case is no longer merely general, to be applied by each Christian; it is specific, and no room remains for individual judgement. We can properly think of this as the promulgation of a particular law concerning an individual person. Once such a law is promulgated, it obliges all without exception.
But it should be clear that the absence of such a particular law doesn't mean that there is no law at all in relation to a specific heretic, because the general divine law still applies. The theologian Ballerini, addressing the pope-heretic thesis, explains the principles involved with simplicity and clarity.
A peril for the faith so imminent and among all the most grave, as this of a Pontiff who, even only privately, defended heresy, would not be able to be supported for long. Why, then, expect the remedy to come from a General Council, whose convocation is not easy? Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger for the faith, any subjects can by fraternal correction warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counsellors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: “Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment” (Tit. 3, 10-11). "That is to say, he who has been corrected once or twice and does not change his mind, but is pertinacious in an opinion opposed to a manifest or defined dogma: by this public pertinacity of his, he not only cannot by any means be excused from heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity; but also openly declares himself a heretic, that is, he declares that he has departed from the Catholic Faith, and from the Church, by his own will, so that no declaration or sentence of anyone is necessary to cut him off from the body of the Church. In this matter the argument given by Saint Jerome in connection with the cited words of Saint Paul is very clear: “Therefore it is said that the heretic has condemned himself: for the fornicator, the adulterer, the homicide and the other sinners are expelled from the Church by the priests; but the heretics pronounce sentence against themselves, excluding themselves from the Church spontaneously: this exclusion which is their condemnation by their own conscience.2 [2 Ballerini, Pietro. De potestate ecclesiastica Summorum Pontificuм et conciliorum generalium liber. Una cuм vindiciis auctoritatis pontificiae contra opus Justini Febronii. Augustae Vindelicorum [Augsburg]: Veith, 1770. (translation of title: Book of the ecclesiastical power of the Supreme Pontiffs and of the general councils. Together with vindications of the pontifical authority against the work of Justinus Febronius). Chapter 9, sec. 2, p. 128. Translated by James Larrabee.]
As Ballerini points out, all are under the general obligation to avoid heretics, by divine law. But this obligation arises only in relation to heretics known as such. In very simple terms, if I realise that a given individual is a heretic, then I am strictly obliged to avoid him. But if my neighbour does not realise that the man is a heretic, he is not obliged to avoid the culprit.
In the case of a putative Roman Pontiff, especially one recognised as such, at least verbally, by all of the ordinaries and most of the clergy, the application of the law by individuals is as delicate as it is urgent and necessary. Catholics cannot be indifferent to the pope.
If Benedict XVI is a public heretic, he isn't pope.3 [3 This is the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine, which for the purposes of this article is taken as true.] The obligation exists to avoid all heretics, but it is only applicable to that individual in each case in which the recognition of him as a heretic occurs. In the absence of a public judgement, each Catholic is obliged to form his own judgement and act upon it.
When members of the hierarchy have done their duty and formed a judgement on this question, they can proceed to call an imperfect general council and declare the fact. Such a declaration would not be a formal judgement of the pope, but merely the recognition and authoritative promulgation of the fact already existing, which is that the main claiming to be pope is not so. Indeed, there could be no possibility of such a declaration unless members of the sacred college, or the episcopate, were already convinced that the claimant was a heretic and no pope. This is because if he were pope, then nobody would be his superior, and therefore there could be no lawful trial or formal judgement.4 [4 It is illogical to argue that for this reason only a successor could judge such a case. This is because one pope is not another’s superior, but rather his equal. If a successor can judge, then so can inferiors, for neither is the superior of a true pope, but both categories of men are superiors to a heretic who is not and cannot be pope.] But once such a declaration was made, it would constitute a safe norm for all Catholics, and would create a universal obligation incuмbent upon all to avoid such a false pope. Any Catholic who persisted in recognising such a heretic as pope could only do so lawfully by way of exception; anybody who refused to assent to such a declaration would sin by rashness, absent some extraordinary knowledge which might justify such a singular view.
It might, at this juncture, be objected that pending such a public declaration it would be rash to conclude that the current claimant is not pope. In other circuмstances, this would be so, but not in these. And the reason is that for anybody who is familiar with the doctrine of the Church regarding her own prerogatives and perfections, it is impossible to accept that the Conciliar sect is actually the true Church. Likewise it is not possible to believe, without prejudice to the faith, that the docuмents and reforms of Vatican II came from the Church. Nor is it possible to believe that the body of men who express recognition of Benedict XVI constitute the true Church, for such a body, including as it does traditional Catholics and Modernists, is essentially disunited in faith, worship, and discipline. For these and other reasons there is no possibility of a peaceful acceptance of Benedict’s claim. His claim can only be accepted provisionally and in a sense violently, by putting aside the intrinsic difficulties which militate against such a judgement.
Now, in the turmoil of the immediate post-conciliar era the question of Paul VI’s status as pope arose naturally amongst faithful and informed Catholics. Some formed the judgement that he could not be pope, and others that such a question was intrinsically unlawful. Others again acknowledged that the question was lawful, but did not see how it could be answered without the intervention of at least some members of the hierarchy. Compounding the essential difficulty of the question, some of those who formed the view that the See of Rome was vacant proceeded to elevate their judgement into the equivalent of a judgement of the Church herself. They treated their view as though it were obligatory upon all, or at least, upon those who were better informed.
The existence of these varying viewpoints explains a great deal of the history of the traditional Catholic reaction to the crisis. And it is only by delineating each view, and keeping them rigorously distinguished in relation to each of the prominent actors, that an accurate understanding of this history can be gained.
For example, Archbishop Lefebvre generally maintained that sedevacantism was a lawful opinion, and was happy to cooperate with sedevacantists, even maintaining many within the Society of St. Pius X, but on condition that they did not regard their opinion as obligatory for all. In other words, as long as they knew it was their own opinion, the Archbishop had no problem with sedevacantists. At least one priest he ordained in the 1980s was given specific permission to omit the name of John Paul II from the Te igitur in the Canon of the Mass. Many others had done so, with the Archbishop’s implicit sanction, for years beforehand.
Likewise, many laymen who held that the See is vacant have peacefully assisted at Holy Mass offered by priests who recognise, verbally at least, the Conciliar claimants as true popes.
The issue upon which traditionalists divided from others was almost exclusively the faith, with the Mass as the great shibboleth. Priests who maintained the true Mass were accepted, so long as they didn’t display other clear signs of heterodoxy. The faithful who maintained the true faith were accepted peacefully, no matter what their theory might be about the status of the Conciliar popes.
In the minority amongst sedevacantists, at least up until the turn of the century, had been those who take a dogmatic stance on the issue, insisting that it is not the faith and the Mass which matters primarily, but rather the fact that Paul VI, John Paul II or Benedict XVI is not truly the pope. For such dogmatic sedevacantists, everything turns upon the pope question. If he is truly pope, he must be obeyed as true popes are obeyed by Catholics at all times. If he is not pope, he must be rejected, under pain of sin or even loss of membership in the Church.
The effect of this view, often held by very outspoken individuals, has been to obscure the true status of the sede vacante thesis in the minds of many traditional Catholics. “Sedevacantism” to many means a kind of home-baked dogma, the effect of which is to wreck peace, cause anguish to souls, and distract from the real fight for the faith and the Mass. This is tragic, especially since the raison d’être of the sede vacante thesis is precisely to resolve contradictions, restore peace of soul, and render men safe from the depredations of wolves dressed as sheep.
Within the Society of St. Pius X the dogmatic sedevacantist factor, existing as did for a time amongst some of the priests and seminarians, produced a reaction against the thesis on the part of the leadership. Compounding this reaction was the advent of John Paul II in 1978, posing as a conservative who would reverse at least some of the evils of Paul VI. This led Archbishop Lefebvre to decide on a new policy, for public consumption only, yet not without profound effects on the thinking of traditional Catholics, that sedevacantism was intolerable within the Society. Adding further to this factor was the appointment of the ex-sedevacantist Fr. Franz Schmidberger as Superior General in 1982. Fr. Schmidberger appears to have a digital mind – either something is true and obligatory for all without exception, or it is untrue and must be ruthlessly suppressed. Archbishop Lefebvre was soon disabused of any illusions regarding John Paul II, which meant that from around 1983 one could observe the curious phenomenon of anti-sedevacantist rhetoric and texts being published by SSPX organs, along with pro-sedevacantist sermons, articles, interviews and public statements by Archbishop Lefebvre himself.5 [5 The Archbishop’s views on this subject are explored in the articles, Archbishop Lefebvre and the Sedevacantist Thesis, and Archbishop Lefebvre and the Conciliar Popes, both by the present writer.]
One of the many lamentable effects of anti-sedevacantist propaganda has been to create the impression that sedevacantism is essentially dogmatic. Another has been to harden some sedevacantists into a dogmatic sedevacantist mentality, on the principle that if non-sedevacantists are determined to misrepresent our view, then they are in bad faith; further, their bad faith towards us is evidence that non-sedevacantism is evil.
Those traditionalists who understand the true status of the sede vacante thesis are in a very strong position. Those who know that the See is vacant are entirely safe from potentially invalid sacraments and from any danger of believing errors preached by Modernists dressed as Catholic bishops. Those who have not formed the judgement that the See is vacant yet recognise that is a lawful opinion with a degree of theological probability, are at least largely safe from the depredations of the Modernists, for their recognition of Benedict XVI and his entourage is essentially provisional, not absolute.
Bishops Tissier, de Galarreta, and Williamson, are each perfectly relaxed with the notion that Benedict XVI might not be truly pope. None of the three is dogmatically anti-sedevacantist, even though none of them shows any sign of forming that view himself. Yet they feel no inordinate desire to enter into dangerous relations with the Vatican.
In contrast with both of these categories of traditional Catholics are the anti-sedevacantists, those who refuse to acknowledge what Archbishop Lefebvre himself so clearly stated, and therefore make of the status of Benedict XVI a kind of newly minted dogma. These men endanger themselves and those who follow them. This is most clear in the various Ecclesia Dei communities, which rashly accept the validity of the new sacramental rites and which desire to make their verbal subjection to the Modernists as real as possible without abandoning the faith. Such an outlook is obviously dangerous, and many deplorable results have already followed from it, including disunity with other traditional Catholics, and the compromise by priests offering the New Mass at least occasionally.
The same factor, but less mature and therefore yet to produce the worst of its fruits, is seen in Bishop Fellay and the majority of the leadership of the Society of St. Pius X. Convinced as they are that there is no possibility that the See of Rome is vacant, such men are at the mercy of the subtle stratagems of experienced Modernists.
John Lane
Feast of St. Rita, 2012
-
Excellent article! I hope it clears up some misunderstandings. Actually, the resistence priests are really on the same side as the sedevacanttists priests but cant understand it....yet.
I pray that someday soon they unite to fight the battle against the modernist church of the beast.......together.
-
Excellent article! I hope it clears up some misunderstandings. Actually, the resistence priests are really on the same side as the sedevacanttists priests but cant understand it....yet.
I pray that someday soon they unite to fight the battle against the modernist church of the beast.......together.
The truth is... SV Priests (and faithful) have been part of the resistance all along.
Those recently exiled from the NSSPX (laymen and clerics alike) must focus not so much on resisting modernist Menzigen, but rather focus on resisting the Heresy of Modernism.
It is comforting to know that the "Resistance" is not merely a handful of clerics.
-
The truth is... SV Priests (and faithful) have been part of the resistance all along.
So right, Ferdinand. By grace, all faithful Catholics have to understand the scope of the battle, and stop wasting precious time in divisions. We have to move forward, the fight the battle and keep the faith!
-
Archbishop Lefebvre would not have said that he was on the same side as the sedevacantists.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre would not have said that he was on the same side as the sedevacantists.
But he did say this:
I do not say at this time that the Pope is not Pope, but I also do not say that one cannot say the Pope is not Pope.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre would not have said that he was on the same side as the sedevacantists.
He may have changed his mind by now :)
-
Archbishop Lefebvre would not have said that he was on the same side as the sedevacantists.
But he did say this:
I do not say at this time that the Pope is not Pope, but I also do not say that one cannot say the Pope is not Pope.
Yes, and in other quotes he called them schismatics.
But the present issue is not whether Archbishop Lefebvre considered sedevacantism a permissible theological position for Catholics to hold.
The issue is whether the SSPX-SO and the sedevacantists consider themselves allies.
The answer is clearly no, according to both the recent statement of Fr Chazal, and the post-1983 position of Menzingen (as witnessed by countless lawsuits, books, and official teachings by both sides, pointing out the theological errors of sedevacantism, and alleged errors of the SSPX camp).
No.
Archbishop certainly did not consider sedevacantists his allies.
He was not a tradcuмenist.
-
Yes, and in other quotes he called them schismatics.
Could you please cite those quotes?
-
Personally... I liked the Archbishop, but I never confused his personal opinions (sometimes to and fro) with the Faith, nor did he.
One thing for sure... he has a better grasp of the situation than when he was alive.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
-
Remember... ABL thought young Bernard Fellay was worth his salt.
-
The last time we had this conversation, the thread went 26 pages, to no real conclusion.
Anyone interested in taking it further can save themselves a lot of time, and simply re-visit it.
I am checking out of this one.
-
The last time we had this conversation, the thread went 26 pages, to no real conclusion.
Anyone interested in taking it further can save themselves a lot of time, and simply re-visit it.
I am checking out of this one.
So I take it you can't cite those quotes.
In the future, if you're going to make a claim such as that, you should at least cite some sources and/or quotes rather than beating around the bush.
-
The last time we had this conversation, the thread went 26 pages, to no real conclusion.
Anyone interested in taking it further can save themselves a lot of time, and simply re-visit it.
I am checking out of this one.
So I take it you can't cite those quotes.
In the future, if you're going to make a claim such as that, you should at least cite some sources and/or quotes rather than beating around the bush.
Before having a debate with yourself, and then declaring victory, you should at least peruse the post you pretend to have refuted.
The thread I mentioned contains information on English language sermons of Archbishop Lefebvre explicitly declaring sedevacantists are schismatics.
Like last time, I invite you to spend the $5, and order it from St Thomas Aquinas Seminary.
If you refuse to do that, I leave it to the readers to determine who has refuted who.
And though I have no doubt the OCD-infected sedes will drag this thread out another 25 pages like Feenyites (covering the same old ground, to the same old indeterminate result), you will do it without me.
-
John Lane wrote a good study recently of Archbishop Lefebvre and sedevacantism:
http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf
This may answer many readers questions on this point. I hope this helps in the search for the truth.
-
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=720
Those who claim that the Holy See is vacant are known as "sedevacantists" (from the Latin sede vacante, "vacant see"). Archbishop Lefebvre has always repudiated this theory. I met him in Texas early in May, 1982, and was pleased to hear him do so again. Here is a translation of his exact words, which I have on tape, in French:
I have always refused to say that there is no Pope, and that, since Pope Pius XII, the Church has had no Pope. I have even asked some of my priests to leave us rather than profess that opinion. For I do not wish that the Fraternity, our Society, would lead the faithful into an impasse, which, besides, is what is happening at this moment to those people who claim that there is no longer a Pope. They will soon be disposed to choose a "pope" from among themselves, which demonstrates that logically this position leads to schism.
-
Excerpt from "Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre" refuting the assertion from Lane's forum that ABL did not really have an issue with sedes in the SSPX:
"Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid. Certainly, we suffer from this continual incoherence which consists in praising all the Liberal orientations of Vatican II and at the same time straining to mitigate its effects. But all of this must incite us to prayer and to the firm maintenance of Tradition rather than to the affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm
So much for the myth that ABL had no real problem with sedes in the early days.
This excerpt is from 1979.
-
One basic and first rule in studying history is a timeline. This is especially true in regards to this crisis.
I have known people who at different points in their lives say:
1. The Society of Saint Pius X is schismatic.
2. Archbishop Lefebvre was a schismatic.
3. John Paul is a good pope, he is just surrounded by modernists.
4. John Paul is a heretic.
5. Archbishop Lefebvre was a hero and defender of the Faith, the SSPX is an organization dedicated to defending the Faith and is not schismatic.
6. John Paul was not a pope.
I could go on and on, but how can one person say all of these apparent contradictions? Is it schizophrenia, or can it be explained by realizing that Catholics, even great ones like the Archbishop have deepened their understanding of the crisis as more information and evidence become available. The reason is that many Catholics go in stages as they develop a deeper understanding of the crisis. Some move on in their studying of the matters involved, others get stunted.
Archbishop Lefebvre clearly developed his thinking on the matter and refined it as time went on. I think John Lane did a great job breaking it down and using supporting docuмentation to prove his case. The link to the study again in case anyone missed my last post: http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf
This is the only position that makes sense, is that the Archbishop's words must be attached to a timeline, which shows his development of thought about how Catholics react to the crisis. The alternative and those used by some who paint the Archbishop as anti-sedevacantist use his older thinking and refuse to acknowledge that his thinking progressed on the matter, as more evidence became available about the apostasy of the Vatican II popes, and more research was being done on the concept of a heretical pope and how to react to it.
His thinking became very clear by 1986, as he described his most direct and explicit thinking about the Vatican II popes and sedevcacantism:
http://strobertbellarmine.net/angeluslefebvre.html
-
First of all, Seraphim, the second quote doesn't mention schism anywhere. As for the first quote, as Ambrose said, the Archbishop's position progressed on the sede thesis progressed over time. Stephen Heiner and John Lane have both written articles that show what his eventual position on sedevacantism was.
Before having a debate with yourself, and then declaring victory, you should at least peruse the post you pretend to have refuted.
Actually, I only asked you to back up your claim.
-
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=720
Those who claim that the Holy See is vacant are known as "sedevacantists" (from the Latin sede vacante, "vacant see"). Archbishop Lefebvre has always repudiated this theory. I met him in Texas early in May, 1982, and was pleased to hear him do so again. Here is a translation of his exact words, which I have on tape, in French:
I have always refused to say that there is no Pope, and that, since Pope Pius XII, the Church has had no Pope. I have even asked some of my priests to leave us rather than profess that opinion. For I do not wish that the Fraternity, our Society, would lead the faithful into an impasse, which, besides, is what is happening at this moment to those people who claim that there is no longer a Pope. They will soon be disposed to choose a "pope" from among themselves, which demonstrates that logically this position leads to schism.
You are giving the thumbs down to Archbishop Lefebvre.
So much for the point of the thread, that ABL and sedevacantists are allies!!!
You made my point for me better than I could.
-
Excerpt from "Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre" refuting the assertion from Lane's forum that ABL did not really have an issue with sedes in the SSPX:
"Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid. Certainly, we suffer from this continual incoherence which consists in praising all the Liberal orientations of Vatican II and at the same time straining to mitigate its effects. But all of this must incite us to prayer and to the firm maintenance of Tradition rather than to the affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm
So much for the myth that ABL had no real problem with sedes in the early days.
This excerpt is from 1979.
Same here!!!
-
First of all, Seraphim, the second quote doesn't mention schism anywhere. As for the first quote, as Ambrose said, the Archbishop's position progressed on the sede thesis progressed over time. Stephen Heiner and John Lane have both written articles that show what his eventual position on sedevacantism was.
Before having a debate with yourself, and then declaring victory, you should at least peruse the post you pretend to have refuted.
Actually, I only asked you to back up your claim.
And I referred you to the source.
-
True Restoration Stephen Heiner
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Sedevacantism: Not Required for Salvation, Part I: Archbishop Lefebvre and Sedevacantism, by John Daly
There are a number of things that Our Lord requires one to accept in order to be saved. Being a sedevacantist is not one of them. Sedevacantism is simply an organized by some of us to understand how the current crisis of the Church could have happened. A valid Pope cannot give harmful sacraments, laws, or catechisms. This is not because of his extraordinary infallibility, but rather because the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church cannot give disciplinary norms that are harmful. Therefore, the authority that appeared to give those things was not the authority. The alternative to this explanation, popularly known as "Recognize and Resist," is that the Church can defect and/or it is the duty of every Catholic to "sift" what is Catholic or not from "Modernist" "Rome." Such at attitude is, at best, dangerous. At worst, it is heresy.
The vast majority of SSPX faithful have never touched either Bishop Tissier de Mallerais' masterful and humble biography of the Archbishop or Dr. David Allen White's excellent shorter work. If they had, they would understand that the Archbishop was a very learned man, but he was anything but certain about what the Church would eventually say about the post-Vatican II claimants.
I am reprinting, with John Daly's permission, his outstanding work on the Archbishop and sedevacantism. It was first given at a conference in 2006 and first appeared in print in The Four Marks in 2008. Apart from homeschooling his 9 - soon to be 10 - children and working as a professional translator, John sells out-of-print Catholic books. To get a list of his titles, or ask him to find a book for you, please email him at john.daly at wanadoo.fr.
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND SEDEVACANTISM
So far as we know, Archbishop Lefebvre never formed a definite judgment that John-Paul II was not a true pope. So if we divide the ecclesiastical spectrum into two categories, those for whom the see is legally vacant and those for whom it is legally occupied, Archbishop Lefebvre will be in the non-sedevacantist camp.
But such divisions are not always helpful. If we divide the animal kingdom between bipeds and the rest we shall find ourselves misleadingly close to the turkeys. Other criteria of evaluation exist. Did Archbishop Lefebvre admit that sedevacantists might well be right? Did he consider them to be upright members of the Church? Did he avow that his persevering recognition of John-Paul II was due more to heroically cautious hesitation than to any solid conviction? Did he envisage declaring the vacancy of the Holy See if the situation continued unchanged? Did he insist that settling the question of whether the Vatican II “popes” were truly popes or not was an important duty, not to be evaded? Did he hold that Vatican II was unequivocally schismatic? Did he hold that Vatican II was unequivocally heretical? Did he believe it impossible to interpret Vatican II in an orthodox sense? Did he reject outright all the conciliar reforms? Did he declare that Vatican II had founded a new, false and schismatic religion? Did he deny that the members of the new Vatican II Church were Catholics? Did he doubt the validity of the new rites of Mass, ordination and episcopal consecration? Did he hold that John-Paul II and his henchmen were already excommunicated? Did he rejoice to be separated from the Church of John-Paul II? Did he consciously employ sedevacantist seminary professors at Ecône, ordain and assign ministries to sedevacantist clergy, and send his seminarians to gain pastoral experience with a sedevacantist priest?
You may find it surprising, even bewildering, but the answer to all the above questions is “yes”, as we shall shortly see. But it should first be emphasized that we are not studying Archbishop Lefebvre’s convictions in order to accept them as necessarily sound and judicious in every respect. Nor do we deny that other apparently contradictory texts may be cited from him on many of these points. The interest of the late prelate’s attitude to the Conciliar Church lies elsewhere. We shall come back to that subject after having shown that the Archbishop did indeed express the views we attribute to him. To do this we shall repeat the above questions, allowing the Archbishop’s own words and deeds to answer them.
Did Archbishop Lefebvre admit that sedevacantists might well be right?
1. “You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
Did he frequently and respectfully allude to the sedevacantist explanation of the crisis?
1. “To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
2. “Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
3. “…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jєωs, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case 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.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
4. “It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)
5. “If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)
Did he consider sedevacantists to be upright members of the Church?
Undoubtedly. He rebuked certain over-zealous Society priests who refused the sacraments to sedevacantists. He collaborated with Bishop de Castro-Mayer after the Brazilian prelate had made his sedevacantism quite clear. He accepted numerous seminarians from sedevacantist families, parishes or groups. He patronised the Le Trévoux “Ordo” with its guide to traditional places of worship throughout the world, which has always included (and still does) certain known sedevacantist Mass centres. He was at all times well aware of the presence of sedevacantists among the Society’s priests.
Did he avow that his persevering recognition of Paul VI and John-Paul II was due more to heroically cautious hesitation than to any solid conviction?
1. “While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
2. “It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)
3. “I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.”
(Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
Did he envisage declaring the legal vacancy of the Holy See if the situation continued unchanged?
1. “That is why I beseech Your Eminence to …do everything in your power to get us a Pope, a true Pope, successor of Peter, in line with his predecessors, the firm and watchful guardian of the deposit of faith. The…eighty-year-old cardinals have a strict right to present themselves at the Conclave, and their enforced absence will necessarily raise the question of the validity of the election” (Letter to an unnamed cardinal, August 8, 1978.)
2. “It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)
Did he insist that settling the question of whether the Vatican II “popes” were truly popes or not was an important duty, not to be evaded?
1. “…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
2. “Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)
Did he hold that Vatican II was unequivocally schismatic?
“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
Did he hold that Vatican II was unequivocally heretical?
In an interview with Mr Tom Chapman’s Catholic Crusader in 1984 the Archbishop expressly characterized the decree on Ecuмenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) as “heretical”.
Did he believe it impossible to interpret Vatican II in an orthodox sense?
“Do you agree to accept the Council as a whole? Reply: Ah, not religious liberty – it isn’t possible!” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône. The Archbishop’s words imagine the kind of interrogation his seminarians would have been submitted to if he had accepted the terms of agreement John-Paul II was offering him, entailing a Cardinal-Visitor entitled to grant or refuse the ordination of seminarians. The reply is the reply he assumes his seminarians would have to make and he goes on to explain that such a reply would have enabled the Cardinal-Visitor to refuse the seminarian’s ordination – his reason for refusing the deal.)
Did he reject outright all the conciliar reforms?
“We consider as null…all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety.” (Joint Declaration with Bishop de Castro Mayer following Assisi, December 2, 1986)
Did he say that Vatican II and its “popes” had founded a new, false and schismatic religion?
1. “It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000 – these words appear in the original un-corrected version of the sermon as recorded and reported in the press)
2. “Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)
3. John Paul II “now continually diffuses the principles of a false religion, which has for its result a general apostasy.” (Preface to Giulio Tam’s Osservatore Romano 1990, contributed by the Archbishop just three weeks before his death)
Was he forthright in stating that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church?
1. “This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church which they call the Conciliar Church.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
2. “The Church which affirms such errors is both schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)
Did he deny that the members of the new Vatican II Church were Catholics?
1. “To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)
2. “To be publicly associated with the sanction [of excommunication] would be a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful, who have a strict right to know that the priests they approach are not in communion with a counterfeit Church…” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988, signed by 24 SSPX superiors, doubtless with Archbishop Lefebvre’s approval)
Did he question the validity of the new rites of Mass, ordination and episcopal consecration?
1. “This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union – adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (…) The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000.)
2. “If we think that this reformed liturgy is heretical and invalid, whether because of modifications made in the matter and form or because of the reformers’ intention inscribed in the new rite in opposition to the intention of the catholic Church, evidently we cannot participate in these reformed rites because we should be taking part in a sacrilegious act. This opinion is founded on serious reasons…” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
3. “The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite. Who better than the Reverend Father Guérard des Lauriers to make an informed contribution to resolving this problem…?” (Foreword contributed to a book in favor of the thesis of invalidity by Fr Guérard des Lauriers. Écône, February 2, 1977)
4. Moreover Archbishop Lefebvre personally conditionally re-ordained many priests who had been ordained in the 1968 rite and re-confirmed those purportedly confirmed in the new rite or by the new bishops.
Did he hold that John-Paul II and his henchmen were excommunicated “antichrists”?
1. “So we are [to be] excommunicated by Modernists, by people who have been condemned by previous popes. So what can that really do? We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned…” (Press conference, Ecône, June 15 1988)
2. Post-consecration statement (Summer 1988), SSPX school Bitsche, Alsace-Lorraine: “the archbishop stated, going even beyond even his 15th June press conference, that those who had excommunicated him had themselves long been excommunicated.” (Summary in the Counter-Reformation Association’s, News and Views, Candlemas 1996)
3. “The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below (…) This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the antichrists.” (Letter to the future bishops, 29 August 1987)
Did he rejoice to be separated from the Church of John-Paul II?
1. “We have been suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and from the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong.” (July 29 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)
2. “…we do not belong to this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We belong to the old religion, the Catholic religion, not to this universal religion as it is called today. It is no longer the Catholic religion…” (Sermon, June 29, 1976)
3. “I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this Conciliar Church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (Interview July 30 1976, published in Minute, no. 747)
4. “We have never wished to belong to this system that calls itself the Conciliar Church. To be excommunicated by a decree of your eminence…would be the irrefutable proof that we do not. We ask for nothing better than to be declared ex communione…excluded from impious communion with infidels.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988, signed by 24 leading SSPX priests, doubtless with Archbishop Lefebvre’s approval)
Did he consciously employ a sedevacantist seminary professor at Ecône, ordain and assign ministries to sedevacantist clergy, and send his seminarians to gain pastoral experience with a sedevacantist priest at his month-long summer camp each year?
He did indeed. We shall not run the risk of setting the poursuivants on the heels of those involved by naming persons who in many cases are still sedevacantist and still members of the SSPX or in collaboration with it. Any priest who was at Ecône in the days of the Archbishop will confirm our answer.
**********************************************************
The above quotations and facts point to a hard-line Lefebvre, very close to sedevacantism, rejecting outright Vatican II, the new sacraments and doctrines and communion with the leaders of the new pseudo-Catholic religion. But it is only honest to grant that that is only half of the story. Other words and deeds of the Archbishop would give a strikingly different impression.
It would be idle to debate which was the real Archbishop Lefebvre. The plain fact is that the Archbishop wavered. Unswerving on the fact that a new and false religion has been founded, he hesitates as to whether the pope of the new religion can also be head of the Catholic Church. Particular outrages provoke a strong reaction on his part: the suspension of 1976, the 1985 Synod, the 1986 Assisi jamboree of false religions, the 1988 excommunication - all bring him to the very brink of the explicit statement that those responsible cannot be popes. Close contact with men such as Fr. Guérard des Lauriers and Bishop de Castro Mayer, and with books such as that of Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira, encourage him towards such a declaration. Poised to plunge, he hesitates…and retreats.
We cannot justly force the facts in order to make Archbishop Lefebvre into a sedevacantist, for he was not one, but we can justly and respectfully draw several interesting conclusions from our texts and others too lengthy to quote in this article.
1. From 1975-8, and from 1985 until his death, Archbishop Lefebvre was not hostile to sedevacantism as such and seems to have accorded it the status of what theologians would call a “probable opinion”. He often came close to sharing this opinion, never pretended to be able to refute it outright, and he recognized that it might well one day become sufficiently clear for him to accept it firmly.
2. Not even the Archbishop’s most fervent admirers could claim that his statements bearing on recent papal claimants were always clear, firm and consistent or that they displayed detailed knowledge of the relevant theology and Canon Law.
3. Though aware of the classic “heretical pope” controversy among theologians, the Archbishop does not seem at any stage to have made a serious study of the nature of heresy, its effects and its recognition. He even thought that the extreme liberalism of Paul VI and John-Paul II was in some sense a defense against the charge of heresy. He meant that their minds were too full of heretical ideas for them to be insincere in believing these ideas to be orthodox. It does not seem to have occurred to him that such a “defense” would have been equally available to the likes of Lammenais and Loisy.
4. He was confident of his competence to recognize and denounce the heresies of Modernism and Liberalism, but he was conscious of lacking the theological formation necessary to be able to evaluate the status of the Johns and the Pauls, the difficulty the crisis poses with regard to the Church’s indefectibility and the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
5. His seminary training at the French College in Rome under the celebrated Père le Floch had vaccinated him forever against Liberalism in all its shapes. His ecclesiastical career had prepared him for organization and for diplomacy. But neither had made him a specialist theologian or given him any notion of being one. This is apparent in his rôle of defender of tradition at the Council and afterwards: he organizes and negotiates with skill, but he is uncertain in the theological evaluation of previously unimaginable events. He had relied heavily – and for very good reason – upon his profoundly learned and saintly theological adviser Fr Victor-Alain Berto, responsible for many of the Archbishop’s interventions at Vatican II, but Berto had died in 1968, succuмbing to the anguish of the Vatican II apostasy. Lefebvre was never again to find an adviser he could so fully trust, even when he stood in most need of one.
6. Archbishop Lefebvre’s nominal recognition of Paul VI and his successors was explicitly presented as being a provisional position. Those who have erected it into an immutable dogma are thus unfaithful to the Archbishop.
7. Archbishop Lefebvre was highly optimistic in the early years of John-Paul II and it was in those years that he was most trenchant in his anti-sedevacantist words and deeds. Yet even then he never expelled any priest from his Society for private sedevacantism and only twice for even public sedevacantism in the absence of other issues. His general policy was to persuade sedevacantist priests to remain. And with the 1985 Synod and Assisi in 1986 he was disabused of his illusion that “Pole” could be made to rhyme with “Pope”.
8. No one can be sure that, if Archbishop Lefebvre were alive today, he would not be a sedevacantist. No one can be sure that he would be one either. But one thing that seems highly improbable is that he would have adopted the anodyne style of Bishop Fellay and the ruling left-wing of the Society for whom in our days expressions such as “excommunicated antichrists” is more likely to be an allusion to sedevacantists than to the apparent occupant of the Roman See. And another equally improbable notion is that he would have been deceived into taking Josef Ratzinger, whom he cordially detested, for a sincere friend of traditional Catholicism.
9. It is possible to sympathize with the Archbishop’s plight as he contemplated, alone, the very grave ecclesiological aspect of the crisis – the aspect which he felt unable to make up his mind about; indeed it would be heartless not to sympathize. Defend the faith, assure the continuity of the priesthood and the availability of the sacraments to the faithful, but leave “on hold” the difficult question of the status of the soul-murderers in the Vatican: however much we may regret it, that is at least a comprehensible policy. Certain glib young sedevacantists of our days, with no gift of hindsight and quick to attribute blame, clearly cannot imagine the weight of responsibility felt by the Archbishop as he contemplated, trembling, the enormity of what sedevacantism implied.
10. What seems much harder to countenance is the consequent policy of pragmatism by which a position the Archbishop himself was not sure of became officially obligatory in the Society in order to maintain unity and streamline the Society’s apostolate. Like all men, priests need to be able to converse freely with their peers about their concerns and their doubts, without fear of denunciation for “thought-crime” and possible sanctions. The Archbishop failed to provide this facility and it still does not exist in the SSPX. One consequence is the weakness of character of many SSPX priests – inevitable outcome of a sectarian training. Another is the massive defection rate from the Society: some have become sedevacantists, some have accepted the indult, some have gone independent, some have gone off to “marry” and some have succuмbed to nervous breakdowns – all bear witness to the Society’s internal stress problem.
We have seen that there is no truth in the mythology according to which Archbishop Lefebvre had a firm and consistent policy of recognizing the Vatican II popes, sternly and consistently rejecting sedevacantism as a solidly refuted error. On the contrary, the Archbishop often expressed views so hard-line that today no SSPX priest or seminarian would dare say anything similar for fear of expulsion! The mythology is due to the fact that the Archbishop fluctuated and hesitated, leaving on the record words and acts enabling him to be invoked both by the liberal and by the hard-line camps. Indeed his fluctuations and hesitations were on a scale such as to be tolerated only because of the great personal veneration which the mass of traditional Catholic faithful felt for the Archbishop himself. And today the Society no longer has any prominent member whose personality or ecclesiastical status are comparable to those of the Archbishop. Thus the Society’s need for credibility requires it to show more consistency than the Archbishop himself did, while continuing to invoke his authority for decisions that no one can feel any confidence he would have endorsed.
Let us be candid about the origins of this situation. The SSPX’s independent traditionalist apostolate was originally intended only as a provisional succor for a temporary need. Understandably no one foresaw the length of the crisis. Emergency measures sometimes have to be undertaken before there is time for a full theological evaluation of the need that calls for them. But there can be no lasting and effective apostolate which is not firmly founded on theology. This does not mean merely that effective apostles must have an adequate formation in theology, though that is true. It means that the basis, nature, actions and aims of their apostolate itself must also be theologically determined. This is not and never has been the case of the SSPX, because the Archbishop’s legacy to the Society he founded did not include any ecclesiology of the Conciliar Church’s relation to the Catholic Church. The SSPX malaise will continue until this omission is fully rectified, if that is possible.
And that malaise cannot be denied. A quarter of a century ago, the SSPX was swamped with vocations, had a high level of priestly loyalty and was in a position to contrast its success with the manifestly miserable state of the Modernist seminaries and clergy. Everyone knows that the gloating has stopped. Fewer vocations, very high drop-out and expulsion rates in the seminaries, numerous priestly defections in every direction, scant sign of a theological élite among the Society’s clergy, the toleration of priests infected with the innovative itch, high second-generation lay lapsation rates even among those schooled in the Society’s own schools – the sad tale is undeniable and things are not getting any better. Meanwhile, the Society is losing the theological debate not only with sedevacantism but also with the indult groups, who have shown a remarkable drawing power and a surprising ability to produce a learned and thoughtful clergy.
For the SSPX publicly and formally to declare the vacancy of the Holy See would require a miracle and doing so would not suffice to cure the malaise we have pointed to.
But it is perhaps not completely unrealistic to wonder whether the Society’s authorities might not one day explicitly avow that sedevacantism is at least a theologically probable opinion and encourage polite and open debate about the sedevacantist thesis among priests and faithful within the Society and outside. It would not perhaps be incurably optimistic to hope that the Society’s sedevacantist priests and collaborators might be allowed to be frank about their convictions. A statement might be made pointing out that in any discussions with occupied Rome, Benedict XVI can place nothing worth having on his side of the negotiating table except the remote prospect of his own conversion to the Catholic Faith which he has spent the greater part of his life destroying. While we are daydreaming, we could imagine collaboration between SSPX priests and such sedevacantist priests as might be appropriate and willing. We could add the expulsion of the Society’s ultra-liberal fifth column – beginning with Fr. Grégoire Célier – and what about publicly disowning Fr. Boulet’s absurdly ignorant anti-sedevacantist pamphlet which finds it necessary to quote falsified history and theology from a book on the Index of Forbidden Books in order to defend what its author believes to be the party line? Nor could anyone reasonably object to the formal study of Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice on the dogmatic theology syllabus.
It cannot seriously be doubted that such measures would be sound in theology, a relief to many of the Society’s priests and faithful and would strengthen the Society’s ability to answer the objections made to it from Conciliar quarters. Nor would there be any difficulty in invoking Archbishop Lefebvre’s authority in favour of such initiatives. Above all, there should be the consideration that truth is more important than pragmatism and that its courageous profession earns the blessing of God.
© John Daly 2006
“Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. They have left the Church. This is sure, sure, sure.”
“The Church which affirms such errors is both schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic.”
“The faithful have a strict right to know that the priests they approach are not in communion with a counterfeit Church.”
“The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome are occupied by antichrists.”
“I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this Conciliar Church."
by Stephen Heiner
-
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=720
Those who claim that the Holy See is vacant are known as "sedevacantists" (from the Latin sede vacante, "vacant see"). Archbishop Lefebvre has always repudiated this theory. I met him in Texas early in May, 1982, and was pleased to hear him do so again. Here is a translation of his exact words, which I have on tape, in French:
I have always refused to say that there is no Pope, and that, since Pope Pius XII, the Church has had no Pope. I have even asked some of my priests to leave us rather than profess that opinion. For I do not wish that the Fraternity, our Society, would lead the faithful into an impasse, which, besides, is what is happening at this moment to those people who claim that there is no longer a Pope. They will soon be disposed to choose a "pope" from among themselves, which demonstrates that logically this position leads to schism.
You are giving the thumbs down to Archbishop Lefebvre.
So much for the point of the thread, that ABL and sedevacantists are allies!!!
You made my point for me better than I could.
My guess is that people are down thumbing you because you are not quoting in context. This does not mean you are not quoting accurately, but you are ignoring the context which has been presented to you on here.
If a famous person who was quoted frequently once praised the Novus Ordo, then saw the truth of it, and despised it, would it be good to keep quoting him on his former position, without mentioning that his position changed?
Catholics do not like revisionist history, and that includes the people and events of this crisis.
-
John Lane wrote a good study recently of Archbishop Lefebvre and sedevacantism:
http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf
This may answer many readers questions on this point. I hope this helps in the search for the truth.
Yes. We have to remember the search for truth is not "a battle of wits" or "one-up-manship" but "a search for truth".
Many peopele had to courage to lose their head rather than "save face". Saints John the Baptist and John Fisher come to mind. When the exchange is charitable the idea that the debate is between two good Catholics of good will is easier to swallow. This, of course, does not deny the fact that good-willed Catholics can get emotional over issues they care deeply about [while truly believing they are correct AND being open to accepting legitimate correction].
-
One basic and first rule in studying history is a timeline. This is especially true in regards to this crisis.
I have known people who at different points in their lives say:
1. The Society of Saint Pius X is schismatic.
2. Archbishop Lefebvre was a schismatic.
3. John Paul is a good pope, he is just surrounded by modernists.
4. John Paul is a heretic.
5. Archbishop Lefebvre was a hero and defender of the Faith, the SSPX is an organization dedicated to defending the Faith and is not schismatic.
6. John Paul was not a pope.
I could go on and on, but how can one person say all of these apparent contradictions? Is it schizophrenia, or can it be explained by realizing that Catholics, even great ones like the Archbishop have deepened their understanding of the crisis as more information and evidence become available. The reason is that many Catholics go in stages as they develop a deeper understanding of the crisis. Some move on in their studying of the matters involved, others get stunted.
Archbishop Lefebvre clearly developed his thinking on the matter and refined it as time went on. I think John Lane did a great job breaking it down and using supporting docuмentation to prove his case. The link to the study again in case anyone missed my last post: http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Sedevacantist_Thesis.pdf
This is the only position that makes sense, is that the Archbishop's words must be attached to a timeline, which shows his development of thought about how Catholics react to the crisis. The alternative and those used by some who paint the Archbishop as anti-sedevacantist use his older thinking and refuse to acknowledge that his thinking progressed on the matter, as more evidence became available about the apostasy of the Vatican II popes, and more research was being done on the concept of a heretical pope and how to react to it.
His thinking became very clear by 1986, as he described his most direct and explicit thinking about the Vatican II popes and sedevcacantism:
http://strobertbellarmine.net/angeluslefebvre.html
Nice post!
-
Lover of Truth,
I think the problem in the SSPX for so many years after the Archbishop's death has been the belief in a myth that the Archbishop was against sedevacantism. This myth grew into a hostility to the position among many.
I can remember in the mid 1990's when I attended a Society chapel, there was a gentlemen who used to attend with his family. I used to talk to him after mass during coffee hour. I was warned by others not to talk to him because he was a "sedevacantist."
In my mind, I could not understand the hostility at the time. Was he not a brother in the pew in the same Church worshiping God along with us. If he was a heretic or a schismatic, why wasn't the priest kicking him out?
The reason was, and I would find out much later is that the position of sedevacantism is a Catholic position, and one which the Archbishop believed we may have to adopt at some point.
It is unfortunate that the Society has been stuck for so long after Lefebvre's death in this idea, "we must accept the position of the Archbishop at the time of his death," while ignoring the position the Archbishop made clear in 1986. Yes, he recognized the John Paul until his death, but that must be kept consistent with his position in 1986, that he was considering that Catholics may adopt sedevacantism.
-
John Lane is a good writer, but clearly not beyond stretching some matters to support a theory.
It seems to me that the facts are more simple, Archbishop Lefebvre never, not even after 1988, when from a human point of view he would have had every reason to do so, nor until his death accepted the sede vacante idea because he believed the theory involved overwhelming difficulties (jurisdiction, apostolicity, visiblity, teaching of theologians regarding universal consent to an election etc etc). John Lane is well aware of these difficulties, well aware that the Archbishop was aware of them, but writes this article as if they do not exist or as if it was not precisely this that prevented Archbishop Lefebvre from embracing the thesis.
The second point of contention is even more strained, in my opinion - it is the idea that sedevacantism, or at least not a "dogmatic non-sedevacantism", is some sort of panacea when it comes to the problem of Rome - that no one who is a sedevacantist would or could ever consider accepting the Vatican authorities. John Lane claims this is a primary reason the other three do not wish reconciliation.
But this can be disproved in two ways, first by reading, say, what Bishop Williamson has written about sedevacantism. This is particularly illuminating since it is well known Bishop Williamson was among the closest to the Archbishop identified by him as such.
But it can also be disproved in another way, and that is by considering the actions of another Archbishop who actually was sedevacantist - Archbishop Thuc - in his own relations on and off with the Vatican, as summarized by the SSPX website (http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm).
In 1976, he consecrated Bishop Clemente Dominguez y Gomez, the founder of the sect of Palmar de Troya, Spain. Bishop Thuc was then excommunicated by the Vatican for such consecration, but was 'reconciled' by Paul VI in the course of the same year. In 1977, the following year, he consecrated Bishop Laborie, the founder of the sect called Eglise Latine de Toulouse. Then, in 1981-1982, he consecrated Bishop Guérard des Lauriers and 3 other bishops in different ceremonies held in secret in his private apartment, in Toulon, France. In 1982, he made a statement, called the Munich Declaration, by which he declared Vacancy of the See of Peter, in other words that John-Paul II lost his office. Last but not least, Bishop Thuc was finally 'reconciled' by the Vatican shortly before his death, in 1984. So, from 1976 till his death, Bishop Thuc had been oscillating between Sedevacantism and reconciliation with the Vatican.
This shows that being a sedevacantist is not at all a guarantor of what John Lane would like to claim it is, that it prevents any possibility of such an agreement, or that anyone "who understand the 'true status' of the sede vacante thesis are in a very strong position" as he says. Archbishop Lefebvre was more prudent than Archbishop Thuc and was right never to embrace sedevacantism.
-
John Lane is a good writer, but clearly not beyond stretching some matters to support a theory.
It seems to me that the facts are more simple, Archbishop Lefebvre never, not even after 1988, when from a human point of view he would have had every reason to do so, nor until his death accepted the sede vacante idea because he believed the theory involved overwhelming difficulties (jurisdiction, apostolicity, visiblity, teaching of theologians regarding universal consent to an election etc etc). John Lane is well aware of these difficulties, well aware that the Archbishop was aware of them, but writes this article as if they do not exist or as if it was not precisely this that prevented Archbishop Lefebvre from embracing the thesis.
The second point of contention is even more strained, in my opinion - it is the idea that sedevacantism, or at least not a "dogmatic non-sedevacantism", is some sort of panacea when it comes to the problem of Rome - that no one who is a sedevacantist would or could ever consider accepting the Vatican authorities. John Lane claims this is a primary reason the other three do not wish reconciliation.
But this can be disproved in two ways, first by reading, say, what Bishop Williamson has written about sedevacantism. This is particularly illuminating since it is well known Bishop Williamson was among the closest to the Archbishop identified by him as such.
But it can also be disproved in another way, and that is by considering the actions of another Archbishop who actually was sedevacantist - Archbishop Thuc - in his own relations on and off with the Vatican, as summarized by the SSPX website (http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Dec2004/Is_That_Chair_Vacant.htm).
In 1976, he consecrated Bishop Clemente Dominguez y Gomez, the founder of the sect of Palmar de Troya, Spain. Bishop Thuc was then excommunicated by the Vatican for such consecration, but was 'reconciled' by Paul VI in the course of the same year. In 1977, the following year, he consecrated Bishop Laborie, the founder of the sect called Eglise Latine de Toulouse. Then, in 1981-1982, he consecrated Bishop Guérard des Lauriers and 3 other bishops in different ceremonies held in secret in his private apartment, in Toulon, France. In 1982, he made a statement, called the Munich Declaration, by which he declared Vacancy of the See of Peter, in other words that John-Paul II lost his office. Last but not least, Bishop Thuc was finally 'reconciled' by the Vatican shortly before his death, in 1984. So, from 1976 till his death, Bishop Thuc had been oscillating between Sedevacantism and reconciliation with the Vatican.
This shows that being a sedevacantist is not at all a guarantor of what John Lane would like to claim it is, that it prevents any possibility of such an agreement, or that anyone "who understand the 'true status' of the sede vacante thesis are in a very strong position" as he says. Archbishop Lefebvre was more prudent than Archbishop Thuc and was right never to embrace sedevacantism.
Nishant,
If you believe John Lane would stretch the truth to support a position, then you do not know him at all. Mr. Lane is one who applies great rigor to his thinking and would never cross the line, just to try to bolster a view.
If John Lane would act in such a way, surely there would be a track record that we could spot other examples of his "stretching" an argument. I have read everything the man has ever written publicly, in articles and on his forum, and I have never seen anything close to one who would stretch the truth.
The accepting of sedevcantism, if held consistently is a protection from falling prey to modernist Rome. Archbishop Thuc was not consistent. He wavered back and forth. These are complicated times, and even Archbishops may have great difficulty being certain about these matters.
There are Catholic answers to the questions you bring up about sedevacantism: jurisdiction, apostolicity, visiblity, teaching of theologians regarding universal consent to an election. Yes, these are complex issues, that require careful research and thought, but they are not insurmountable.
What is insurmountable is to hold that a heretical line of popes could have taught heresy and error to the Church for decades, governed the flock towards Hell, and instead of sanctifying the faithful, have given them an evil "mass" that is a sacrilege, doubtful consecration rite of a bishop,and the binding of Catholics to ecuмenism.
While you may attack sedevcacantism for the lack of visibility of the Church, the position you hold attacks the holiness of the Church. The Church cannot give evil. The sacraments of the Church can only be good, holy, and valid. The Church cannot give a law which can cause sin, see can. 844.
If you wish, I would be happy to discuss how sedevcantism does not contradict the visibility and apostolicity of the Church.
-
Ah. Ambrose, you seem to have misunderstood what I said, perhaps I was not clear, but I did not mean my response to be some sort of personal attack on John Lane or to imply that he deliberately distorts truth, not at all. You've misconstrued what was only a reply to his argument, which I thought was incorrect, as such. When I said he sometimes stretches matters, I mean he makes somewhat unwarranted inferences from facts or non sequiturs, that is all. I've said often I respect him, I think he writes good well-thought out articles, even when I disagree with their conclusion, and credited him for that as such.
Sure, we can discuss these matters ourselves here if you like. But my point above was that given that Archbishop Lefebvre often mentioned these same reasons, and mentioned how it was because of this that he did not go so far as saying that the Pope had ceased to be Pope, I think the reason Archbishop Lefebvre never became sedevacantist at least is quite clear, whether one is a sedevacantist or not. Arguably, this was exactly the line St.Athanasius followed with Pope Liberius or St.Maximus with Pope Honorius - simply to hold onto what pertains to the Faith and which is unchangeable without wavering and not to dabble in speculative matters and personal judgments which might be relatively uncertain, the latter Saint specifically refusing to make such a judgment - and which is still the position of the vast majority of non-sedevacantist SSPX Catholics at the present day.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre would not have said that he was on the same side as the sedevacantists.
No. He wouldn't have. On the other hand, we would not have denied the statement, at least, when it came to those sedevacantists who did not make sedevacantism an article of the Faith.
Based on all that I have read (I really didn't know anything about him until well after his death) it seems to me that he was neither a dogmatic sedevacantist nor dogmatic concerning occupancy of the chair of Peter. He allowed for disagreements on anything that was not absolutely certain and, at the time, the sedevacantist thesis was clearly not certain. (I am not saying that it is certain even today.)
I do wonder, however, if there is any papal action that, in theory, could cause the whole of the traditional community to declare the See of Peter vacant? Remembering that saints, doctors of the Church, and theologians have theorized on this and considered the possibility even though they were in essential agreement that such an event would never happen, I would like to know if there is any act that would cause today's SSPX faithful to change their minds.
Would official approval of women's ordination do it? How about officially extending the sacrament of matrimony to sodomites and Lesbians? An official reversal concerning the immorality of artificial means of birth control or abortion (in certain circuмstances, of course)? How about an explicit denial of the need for baptism in order for an infant to be saved? Well, no, because that line was already crossed.
Frankly, I don't think most anti-sedevacantists would change their minds if the pope converted St. Peter's Bascilica into a mosque and declared that, "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." Some would, but many would tell us about the political situation and say the pope is under extreme pressure and only a prisoner of the Vatican.
-
Would official approval of women's ordination do it? How about officially extending the sacrament of matrimony to sodomites and Lesbians? An official reversal concerning the immorality of artificial means of birth control or abortion (in certain circuмstances, of course)?
I've already heard the excuses made. The excuse is that they wouldn't be valid actions. "The Pope doesn't have the power to do that." And try arguing then that he's a heretic: they would say exactly the same things they say now to make excuses for heretical statements.
So no, because "he's only infallible except when he isn't" - they can make any excuse, no matter how shabby.
Such a position seriously undermines the Faith, it makes the Church helpless and is really just a few steps away from the positivism of the neo-Catholics. Which is where the SSPX is headed, into blind subjection to a Bishop without jurisdiction.
If someone says: I'll choose another religion rather than be sede - that to me is a sign of a loss of Faith.
No, it was not considered certain that a Pope could never lose the Faith, and moreover, invalid election is certainly possible.
-
Okay, Ambrose, if you want to discuss things like universal consent to an election being a certain sign of its validity, a teaching of theologians about the faith, and its application today, since I think it might be off-topic in this thread, I just created another topic for the same.
-
Sadly, I've read news articles (probably here on CathInfo) that cardinals in the Conciliar church have championed each and every one of the potential papal actions that I mentioned above that should cause one to seriously contemplate that the pope is not truly the pope.
-
Ah. Ambrose, you seem to have misunderstood what I said, perhaps I was not clear, but I did not mean my response to be some sort of personal attack on John Lane or to imply that he deliberately distorts truth, not at all. You've misconstrued what was only a reply to his argument, which I thought was incorrect, as such. When I said he sometimes stretches matters, I mean he makes somewhat unwarranted inferences from facts or non sequiturs, that is all. I've said often I respect him, I think he writes good well-thought out articles, even when I disagree with their conclusion, and credited him for that as such.
Sure, we can discuss these matters ourselves here if you like. But my point above was that given that Archbishop Lefebvre often mentioned these same reasons, and mentioned how it was because of this that he did not go so far as saying that the Pope had ceased to be Pope, I think the reason Archbishop Lefebvre never became sedevacantist at least is quite clear, whether one is a sedevacantist or not. Arguably, this was exactly the line St.Athanasius followed with Pope Liberius or St.Maximus with Pope Honorius - simply to hold onto what pertains to the Faith and which is unchangeable without wavering and not to dabble in speculative matters and personal judgments which might be relatively uncertain, the latter Saint specifically refusing to make such a judgment - and which is still the position of the vast majority of non-sedevacantist SSPX Catholics at the present day.
Thank you for further clarifying further about John Lane.
To you other point, I believe most non-sedevacantist priests have not seriously examined the issue on their own. It seems to me that the Society is stuck, as the old debunked arguments seem to get endlessly recycled, and no progress has ever been made in seriously examining the position.
The latest book put out by the SSPX against "sedevacantism," titled "Sedevacantism, A False Solution to a Real Problem," is not even against sedevcantism, it is against the teachings of Fr. Guerard des Lauriers.
This coupled with some amateurish articles in the Angelus, shows that they have not as a group given the matter serious study or attention.
So, what do I mean by serious study and attention from the SSPX: First, answer the existing arguments of the sedevacantists, and stop ignoring us. Second, stop seeing sedevacantists as "bad" or "schismatic." We are Catholics who are trying to get through this crisis, and we are not the enemy. Third, stop saying stupid comment like "sedevacantism is another type of liberalism," and offering no proof about how we are liberal. Fourth, work together with us in studying the Popes, Doctors, theologians and canonists, and let us put our collective Catholic minds together to correctly identify the crisis, and the work on a solution to end it.
-
This coupled with some amateurish articles in the Angelus, shows that they have not as a group given the matter serious study or attention.
Is that what it is or is that the best response against it they can come up with so far. IMO they simply are allowed to defend one position and they would come up with a better defense if such was possible. They have had 50 years to do it. They are the main resisters and they do have good seminary training so why can they not come up with anything substantial?
I believe the answer is clear.
-
If someone says: I'll choose another religion rather than be sede - that to me is a sign of a loss of Faith.
I hear this so many times from a specific Novus Ordo "friend" of mine, it is quite disheartening.
Good observation there, Tele. I think you are right on the mark with this.
-
If someone says: I'll choose another religion rather than be sede - that to me is a sign of a loss of Faith.
I hear this so many times from a specific Novus Ordo "friend" of mine, it is quite disheartening.
Good observation there, Tele. I think you are right on the mark with this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sedevacantism is not a religion nor a doctrine. It is only a response to the crisis.
-
This coupled with some amateurish articles in the Angelus, shows that they have not as a group given the matter serious study or attention.
Is that what it is or is that the best response against it they can come up with so far. IMO they simply are allowed to defend one position and they would come up with a better defense if such was possible. They have had 50 years to do it. They are the main resisters and they do have good seminary training so why can they not come up with anything substantial?
I believe the answer is clear.
LoT,
It is my belief that the Society, if they would study sedevacantism, without a biased starting point, could produce some excellent research on this. The trouble, as I see it is that they are too focused on attacking the position and that has led to low quality work. I could cite countless examples of the SSPX creating a false caricature of sedevacantism, and then attacking the falsehood, rather than even addressing what the reputable sedevcacantists hold.
Here is an example quality research from the Society, and the excellent product they have the ability to produce if they put their minds to it:
http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/the_problem_of_the_liturgical_reform/the_problem_of_the_liturgical_reform.pdf
-
Well, Ambrose, the SSPX authorities would only reply that it must be at least a two way street. The reason the Society is sometimes harsh on sedevacantism is probably the practical reason, that sometimes those who once frequented their chapels and now become sedevacantists start condemning and attacking the Society for it's positions in an unjust manner. It's probably safe to say that if, say, someone or some group holding to an idea did the same to CMRI or say, Bp.Pivarunas, the response would be about the same.
But with regard to the more reasonable sedevacantists, who I agree should not be blamed on this account, and who are no less convinced of the truth of their position but who do not attack the Society in the same way, there is a clear difference. Witness John Lane's relationship with Bishop Fellay or Stephen Heiner's with Bishop Williamson. There are even priests, let alone several lay attendees, in the Society and its chapels who are more or less openly sedevacantist, if I remember correctly, it includes at least one District superior.
So, you can see the Society is not closed to the idea of working with sedevacantists or speaking to them respectfully as fellow Catholics as such entirely, but if as the Society genuinely believes, sedevacantism is only an erroneous theological opinion, and not at all the correct answer nor a helpful solution to the crisis, then it is within their rights not to hold it officially, and to say that it is a false opinion which they do not agree with. You may not agree with them, but there it is.
-
Nishant,
I understand and agree with your assessment on that. I agree that many sedevcantists maintain including priests maintain themselves within the SSPX or if they are not with the SSPX at least towards them. This is good and the way it should be. All of us Catholcis are in the same boat, whether we recognize it or not.
My point though goes a little beyond this. Whether one is holding the current SSPX position or sedevacantism, we both agree that there is currently no authority teaching and governing Catholics at the moment. In this crisis, we are on our own, and the only place we can find the answers to how Catholics can correctly react to the problem of a heretical pope, is in the writings of the Popes, Doctors, theologians, canonists, and Church historians of the past.
In my opinion, the society has created a position which confuses the idea of how to resist a "bad" pope with how to resist a heretical pope. Secondly, I do not believe they have fully grasped how the Church could give evil universal laws, evil sacraments, i.e. the Novus Ordo, and heretical teachings, and how these can be reconciled with the indefectibility of the Church, and the holiness of the Church.
There are other grave points that they have not addressed as well, but I am sure you get the point. This does not mean that I do not appreciate the Society and the work they have done over the years or bringing the Faith and the sacraments to countless souls around the world, but, this is more a plea to them, if they are reading this, to study the crisis, deal with the hard issues, and form a correct Catholic response.