[Stubborn]

No, he didn't give his answer re: sedevacantism then because he did not expel them from his Society for sedevacantism.  Here is the Letter of the Nine to ABL that precipitated the expulsion:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=48

Note that of the issues presented, sedevacantism wasn't even mentioned.  In addition, not all of the Nine even held the position at the time (although eventually ended up doing so).

When they were expelled, they all immediately started either their own or joint sede chapels. We all know that the sedes, for whatever reason, try to say their expulsion was due to something other than sedeism, but that is not so because sedeism was the root cause of their disobedience, which disobedience to their superior is the official reason they were expelled. Ask any current SSPX priest who was around in those days, they will all tell you the same thing - that the nine were expelled on account of sedevacantism. They wholly rejected the most fundamental of all Catholic principles, same as all dogmatic sedes still do and always will. 

Snip:

So what does St. Thomas Aquinas say about the authority in the Church? When can we refuse something from the authority of the Church?

Principle: Only when the Faith is in question.
Only in this case. Not in other cases... only when the Faith is in question... and that is found in the Summa Theologica (II II Q.33, a.4, ad 2m): St. Thomas' answer is that we cannot resist to the authority; we must obey:

• "Sciendum tamen est quod ubi immineret periculum fidei." Periculum fidei, i.e., the danger to our faith...
• "etiam publice essent praelate a subditis arguendi.", i.e., the subject can be opposed to the authority if the Faith is in question ("periculum fidei");
• "Unde et Paulus, qui erat subditus Petro, propter imminens periculum scandali circa fidem, Petrum publice arguit," i.e., St. Paul opposed St. Peter because it was a danger for the Faith (cf. Galatians 2:11).

That is the principle (of St. Thomas), and I cannot harbor another motive to resist the pope… it is very serious to be opposed to the pope, and to the Church. It is very serious, and if we think that we must do that, we must do it (resist the Holy Father) only to preserve our Faith, and not for any other motive.

We must now do an application of the principle. For me I think that the liturgical reform of Pope John XXIII has nothing against the Faith. You can take the Pontificale, the Rituale, the Breviary, the Roman Missal, and… what is in these books of Pope John XXIII that is against the Faith? Nothing! And so [in an urgent tone]: ...I cannot refuse this book (of Pope John), because he is the pope, and the pope gave me this book (and I must obey).

It is quite another thing with the reform of Pope Paul VI… in this book of reform of Pope Paul VI is a very grave danger to my Faith... it is precisely Periculum Fidei. So I refuse it, because ecuмenism is the idea and motive of this reform… and this ecuмenism... they say themselves, Pope Paul VI, Bugnini, etc., all say the motive of their reform is ecuмenism, and this ecuмenism takes away all (Catholic) things which are displeasing to the Protestant......

[2Vermont]

Your link makes it clear that the disobedience and expulsion had to do with the 1962 missal:

On April 24, 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre gave a conference to the seminarians at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield, Connecticut. The background was the opposition of nine priests (one just ordained) and a few seminarians who had disobeyed His Excellency’s instruction to follow the 1962 liturgical books.

Despite their disobedience to his directive, the Archbishop attempted to remonstrate with them, but eventually was compelled to expel them from the Society of St. Pius X for obstinate refusal to obey their superior. 

Due to your extreme anti-sede bias, you are making the jump that it was because of sedevacantism when it wasn't even mentioned in the link you provided.

Is there a letter FROM ABL that explains the expulsion?  That would be interesting to read.  I would expect that HE would make it clear that sedevacantism was the reason (or even "a" reason) for the expulsion if that was indeed what it was.  Only HIS explanation would answer that question...not how a bunch of anti-sedes would answer it.  

[2Vermont]

Stubborn,

I was wrong.  I now see that there is a letter from ABL in an embedded link and it is very interesting to read it.  Sedevacantism is not mentioned per se, but it is evident that he disagreed with any thoughts or behaviors that gave the impression that there was no pope.  I'll post the link here, so others can read it:

http://sspx.org/en/why-sspx-uses-1962-missal-archbishop-lefebvre

I still wonder what his position would be at this point of time.  No one here can ever know that for sure.

[Stubborn]

The best thing the sedes can do is to quote only from other sede popes and saints, but since even they admit that avenue is impossible, they should confine all of their quotes promoting sedeism to their own authorities and leave the Catholic popes, saints and authorities completely out of the equation.  

I do not understand why the sedes never quote from their own sources, I mean, what better way to sway the masses then to quote inspirational quotes from people like the great Francis Schuckardt, he was after all, the father of sedeism in America no? Or how about the great sede bishop consecrator +Ngo Dinh Thuc, certainly the sedes can find quotes attributed to these great sedes - what need is there to quote anything from popes , saints and other Catholic hero's when you have hero's of your own?

How about quoting teachings of the popes of the Palmarian Church, or Pope Pulvermacher (Pius XIII), or perhaps even the teachings of Pope Bawden (pope Michael) to name a few. The sedes also have excellent resources of their own in Rama Coomaraswamy, Richard Ibranyi and "The Nine" themselves, sede sources like these are the only sources that sedes should ever reference to support their sedeism and I didn't even scratch the surface.

The question is, why don't the sedes EVER quote any of their own sede champions?  

[Stubborn]

Stubborn,

I was wrong.  I now see that there is a letter from ABL in an embedded link and it is very interesting to read it.  Sedevacantism is not mentioned per se, but it is evident that he disagreed with any thoughts or behaviors that gave the impression that there was no pope.  I'll post the link here, so others can read it:

http://sspx.org/en/why-sspx-uses-1962-missal-archbishop-lefebvre

I still wonder what his position would be at this point of time.  No one here can ever know that for sure.

He dealt directly with this crisis face to face with both Popes Paul VI and JP2 - if anyone on earth could be trusted to decide the status of the popes, he was it. He never went sede because he stuck with the most fundamental of all Catholic principles and expelled those who wouldn't. 

As I said, ask any current SSPX priest who was around in those days, they will all tell you the same thing - that the nine were expelled on account of sedevacantism.

[MyrnaM]

Yes, I understand it that way AES.  Doesn't it make sense also that those who believe the current false claimant is a heretic yet he being a heretic is still Christ representative on earth prove they believe the Church has defected?

[Stubborn]

If there were a heretic who was the center and unity of faith, the visible leader of the Catholic Church (i.e. Pope), that would mean the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church, thereby defecting.

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/being-subject-to-the-gates-of-hell/

Did you learn that from teachings of the popes of the Palmarian church, or Pope Pulvermacher, or from where? Please post your source when you make such sedesaturated statements as that.


The link you provided from Catholic saints and Fathers in no way says what you claim, so not sure why you even posted it, surely you must have procured such vital information from one of the many sede sources. Please post quotes only from your sede sources from here on out and let's see how well that works out for you. In this link, I provided for you a few sede sources to let you know what sources you need to restrict yourself to from now on.

[Ladislaus]

And yet she doesn't mind when you call me a heretic for believing that Francis has jurisdiction.

No, I call you a heretic for denying the indefectibility of the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline.  But you can't seem to keep any of this straight.  It should have been obvious by now that I also believe Francis is in material possession of jurisdiction.

[Centroamerica]

When the distinction between material and formal heretic was scrapped in order to resist by all means necessary "sede vacantism", this opened the door for even the "hardened" Catholics to accept any non-Catholic as leader of the Church. It serves the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr agenda entirely in its endeavors for a one world religion. 

So then we find Traditional priests who go so far as to say that sedevacantists aren't even Catholics but are willing to accept any atheist, Buddhist or apparently Satanist or communist (you name it) as their universal spiritual leader of the Catholic Church because a bunch of modernists in Rome elected him as such. 

nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr's one world religion can't be too far away. 

[Ladislaus]

If you read Bishop Sanborn's explanation of the CT below he states that both totalists and material-formalists believe that these men are false popes. The latter group believes that they would be "pope-elects", but still not popes.

Both believe that they are false popes formally, whereas straight SVs also believe that they're false/illegitimate materially.  You see and read everything as a binary because you're mind is not capable of dealing with distinctions.

[Ladislaus]

He answered it himself when he expelled "The Nine" some 10 or 12 years later.

Uhm, "The Nine" were not expelled for SVism.  Several of them weren't actually even SVs when they were given the boot.  Prior to that time, +Lefebvre tolerated SVism among the SSPX priests.  After the behavior of The Nine, he became somewhat embittered against the SVs because of their deplorable behavior (trying to make off with SSPX property, etc.)  In fact, there was a famous saying of his among the priests, which sounded funny in French, that he did not say that the pope was the pope and did not say that the pope wasn't the pope.  I personally know several of "The Nine" ... as well as priests closely involved with having them kicked out (+Williamson for instance) ... so I know the complete story.  You on the other hand just shoot from the hip with anything that sounds like it might back your position.

[Ladislaus]

Does he recognize these men as true popes or doesn't he?  I thought priests of the Resistance recognize them as true popes ... completely.

Again, you are absolutely obsessed with a binary "true or false" answer to every question.  He recognizes the papal claimants as popes materially but not formally.  Even in the straight SSPX there were a large group who questioned their legitimacy but felt that they were legally to be given the benefit of the doubt.  There was never any single monolithic "SSPX Position" ... and much less so among "The Resistance" ... which is more of a movement than any kind of formal entity.

[Ladislaus]

Let me just clarify, you are saying that sedeprivationism is the only position that maintains the indefectability of the Holy Roman Church?

That (or some flavor of it) or else straight-out acceptance of the Conciliar Church and their Magisterium/Universal Disicpline.

[Ladislaus]

No, he didn't give his answer re: sedevacantism then because he did not expel them from his Society for sedevacantism.  Here is the Letter of the Nine to ABL that precipitated the expulsion:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=48

Note that of the issues presented, sedevacantism wasn't even mentioned.  In addition, not all of the Nine even held the position at the time (although eventually ended up doing so).

Sorry, I responded before I read this reply of yours.  Catching up on the thread.

[Jaynek]

Both believe that they are false popes formally, whereas straight SVs also believe that they're false/illegitimate materially.  

Could you please explain how that works again?  I'm pretty sure you already did, but it is difficult to find among so many posts.  What exactly is the distinction between being formally and materially a false pope?  I would like to understand this better.