Author Topic: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism (Read 31471 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #60 on:** October 07, 2019, 11:05:03 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on October 07, 2019, 10:50:29 AM

Sean, every last one of those quotes supports my assertion, namely:

+ABL rejected and expelled sedevacantists for purely practical reasons.

Yes, there's a range of disagreements that could be had politely within an organization, but when it became a question of people whose consciences were so diametrically opposed that they would rip the SSPX apart, he had to make a stand one way or the other. There's no way The Nine were ever going to co-exist with the rest of the SSPX.

People who know the Archbishop say that even after The Nine incident, +Lefebvre tolerated sedevacantists ... provided that they kept their beliefs to themselves.

Now, it's not unlike how you run this board, Matthew. You tolerate a broad range of opinions on various subjects, but if people cross the line where they cannot co-exist with other CI members and start anathematizing and excommunicating them, that's when you'll ban them. I think that +Lefebvre and +Williamson are the same way. Someone objected to +Williamson performing confirmations at the chapel of a Feeneyite priest.

Father Pfeiffer is no sedevacantist, but there too was a case of someone who just couldn't get along with anyone else, and he became disruptive and therefore was marginalized by the Resistance.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #61 on:** October 07, 2019, 11:07:18 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on October 07, 2019, 10:50:29 AM

Sean, every last one of those quotes supports my assertion, namely:

+ABL rejected and expelled sedevacantists for purely practical reasons.

That is, he couldn't have the within his organization, since it went against the official SSPX stance on the Pope question. He never said they are his lost children, lost sheep, on the road to perdition, etc. He only criticized their prudence, and preached against the SSPX position.

Just like I do here on CI.

For example, "we cannot have relations with them anymore. It is not possible."
That is a practical matter, not a dogmatic one. It's common knowledge that you can't have 2 opposing views inside your organization. Even something as innocuous as Green Bay Packers vs the Chicago Bears. If there were a Green Bay Packers fan club, they would expel any Bears fans, because it's incompatible with the views and goals of the organization. Not saying all the Bears fans are "bad people" necessarily. So in this case, we need to look no further.

(Logically, you have to assume the innocuous and simpler explanation. For example, if a person walks away empty handed from a store, one has to assume he didn't want to buy anything, or he doesn't have the money -- not that he intends to rob the place later, unless you have clear evidence for such a conclusion)

To assert he was dogmatic against them, you'd need to have something more clear, less ambiguous.

Oops...I see we were posting past each other...

I understand your argument (ie., Lefebvre only opposed sedevacantism for practical reasons).

Presuming that were true, then those practical considerations would still be in effect today, and he would be no closer to allowing it today than when he died.

But I am pretty sure that if I did a search, I would also find plenty of doctrinal objections to sedevacantism by Lefebvre (visibility of the Church; indefectibility; impossibility of recovery; etc.).

Matthew · « **Reply #62 on:** October 07, 2019, 11:08:19 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 07, 2019, 10:56:41 AM

Obviously, all that has been said thus far demonstrates that Archbishop Lefebvre had no tolerance for sedevacantism.

Ps: I tried to attribute the previous post/link.

1. Yes, he opposed the position, but I don't see that he was ever dogmatic against it. He never expressed any authority or finality in his arguments against it. One must interpret it as practical opposition only. Especially when you factor in his own "internal musing" at times, playing with adopting the position himself. There is no way he thought "Sedevacantism = mortal sin" or he wouldn't have even considered it. Not even for a short time. :)

2. Noted.

Matthew · « **Reply #63 on:** October 07, 2019, 11:12:06 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 07, 2019, 11:07:18 AM

I understand your argument (ie., Lefebvre only opposed sedevacantism for practical reasons).

Presuming that were true, then those practical considerations would still be in effect today, and he would be no closer to allowing it today than when he died.

But I am pretty sure that if I did a search, I would also find plenty of doctrinal objections to sedevacantism by Lefebvre (visibility of the Church; indefectibility; impossibility of recovery; etc.).

Yes, but again, I offer those same arguments against Sedevacantism today, and all the time here on CI.

However, I will tell you explicitly I'm not casting a formal judgment on Sedevacantists, nor do I claim my position is dogma. It is only my prudent opinion. I do not attempt to bind the conscience of others to my position, though I would do everything to CONVINCE them to my prudential course.

Many people think that trying to bind/force the conscience of others, and having a real/strong belief, are the same thing. NO THEY MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT!

Are there good, rational arguments against Sedevacantism? Heck yeah! Or else, why did +ABL choose prudently to reject that position for his organization in the first place? Because his opposition to Sedevacantism was all emotional? Certainly not. So of course he had good (rational) reasons for his opposition!

But that doesn't mean he was dogmatically against it. He never presumed to judge them, or put his salvation on the line by calling them children of the devil, etc.

Matthew · « **Reply #64 on:** October 07, 2019, 11:16:28 AM »

For the Most Holy Family Monastery set, if you're not willing to condemn others to hell who disagree with you, you don't hold any real beliefs. You are wishy-washy.

BULLCRAP.

I can have strong, rational basis for my opposition to Sedevacantism AND at the same time refrain from condemning Sedevacantists personally, realizing that my prudential opinions carry no authority or binding force to compel others.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #65 on:** October 07, 2019, 11:34:23 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on October 07, 2019, 10:40:23 AM

I didn't mention sedeprivationism one way or another. I completely passed it over on purpose. The discussion is about sedevacantism, which has a precise meaning. I can only properly address one topic at a time.

I didn't mention object-oriented programming, astrophysics, multimeter burden voltage, or gestational diabetes either. I'm trying to keep this thread on topic :)

I've always thought of Sedeprivationism as a type or "flavor" of Sedevacantism, but maybe not everyone thinks of it that way. That's where I was coming from there.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #66 on:** October 07, 2019, 01:43:00 PM »

SJ:

Quote

Obviously, all that has been said thus far demonstrates that Archbishop Lefebvre had no tolerance for sedevacantism.

I thought I had commented on this remark earlier and posted it. But apparently not. I forgot to press the post button.
In any case, all that has been said demonstrates no such thing. All that has been said demonstrates that ABL had more than tolerance for SVism. He all but embraced the position himself. If his reasons for rejecting it were purely "practical," then I have to wonder why he shoved aside a growing awareness that these popes were not genuine, simply in the interests of practicality. Practical considerations must give way to conviction, and I am convinced that ABL knew exactly what these (anti)popes were. If he took a stand against SVism, merely because it might have interfered or upset the harmony of his organizational structure, then I have to wonder.

Matthew · « **Reply #67 on:** October 07, 2019, 01:52:01 PM »

"practical reasons" does not mean he was afraid to upset the apple cart, was compromising his beliefs, etc.

I believe he was firmly convinced that R&R (as opposed to Sedevacantism) was the way to go.

That doesn't mean he can just be a jerk like the Dimond Brothers and condemn everyone else to hell. It doesn't work that way. +ABL knew that. He knew his bounds. He knew he was only one bishop, and even his wise, educated, well-reasoned, well-informed PRUDENTIAL opinion is still just that -- his opinion. It is insufficient to bind the conscience of others.

Telling others they are going to hell unless you agree with me? That is called attempting to bind (or force) the conscience of others.

+ABL seemed to appreciate the mystery of the Crisis.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #68 on:** October 07, 2019, 02:27:53 PM »

Quote

then I have to wonder why he shoved aside a growing awareness that these popes were not genuine, simply in the interests of practicality. Practical considerations must give way to conviction, and I am convinced that ABL knew exactly what these (anti)popes were.

Hollingsworth, you are missing the point that sedevacantism is a THEORY. So is R&R. So is sedeprivationism, etc, etc. None of these theories can be proven, with a certainty of faith. None of these views HAVE to be accepted by any catholic. The only authority that can force any catholic to accept a view on our current crisis is THE CHURCH, who, by Divine Providence and through God's Almighty wisdom, has allowed Her to be currently in eclipse...until such time as She will resurrect and return to glory and give us all guidance.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #69 on:** October 07, 2019, 03:03:41 PM »

I think that the Archbishop went back and forth. If you look, most of his pro-sedevacantist quotes came either in 1976-77 ... right after Paul VI had suspended the SSPX ... and then in 1986, right around the time of the Assisi abomination.

Conversely, he was most disinclined to sedevacantism in 1983 after The Nine incident and right after Wojtyla was elected as John Paul II. Initially John Paul II put out positive signals to +Lefebvre, and he became optimistic.

At the end of the day, Archbishop Lefebvre was a human being, and he struggled with this crisis like everybody else caught in this thing.

He considered a vacancy to be a possible/probable opinion, and when things were bad, he considered it more probable, and when thing were moving in a better direction, less probable.

Meg · « **Reply #70 on:** October 07, 2019, 05:10:08 PM »

In chapter XXI of his book called "Open letter to confused Catholics," (published in 1986) Archbishop Lefebvre wrote:

"I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I. The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within the Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the Church's magisterium. In fact, the limits of papal power are set by the ends by which it was given to Christ's Vicar on earth, ends which Pius IX clearly defined in the Constitution 'Pastor Aeternus.' of the First Vatican Council. So in saying this, I am not expressing a personal theory.

"Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility from having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even if the Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known with certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when the papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens only in a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by the Pope is infallible.

"Nevertheless, I am not among those who insist or insinuate that Paul VI was a heretic and therefore, by that very fact, no longer Pope. John Paul I and John Paul II would not have been legitimately elected. This is the position of the so-called "sede-vacantists."

------

Archbishop Lefebvre lived another five years after the book was published. It's obvious that he was NOT a sedevacantist.

Meg · « **Reply #71 on:** October 07, 2019, 05:18:45 PM »

A little further in the chapter, Archbishop Lefebvre writes, on page 177:

"The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. The visibility of the Church is too necessary for its existence for it to be possible that God would allow it to disappear for decades. Who would be able to tell us where the future Pope is? How can he be elected if there are no more Cardinals? We detect a schismatic spirit behind these reasonings, and our Society utterly refuses to follow them. While rejecting Paul VI's liberalism, we wish to remain attached to Rome and the successor of St. Peter out of fidelity to his predecessors."

hollingsworth · « **Reply #72 on:** October 07, 2019, 06:01:17 PM »

Quote

Hollingsworth, you are missing the point that sedevacantism is a THEORY. So is R&R. So is sedeprivationism, etc, etc. None of these theories can be proven, with a certainty of faith.

I disagree. Facts on the ground prove to me that Francis is a heretic, an anti-Christ, and an apostate from the faith. ABL said as much about JP2 and Paul VI. Francis passes the eye test and the ear test. His own utterances, both written and spoken prove to my satisfaction that Peter’s Chair is empty. The man occupying it today is an impostor- an anti-Pope.

Black holes are a theory. Evolution is a theory. Dark matter is a theory. Reasons posited for climate change are all theories. General Relativity is a theory. That Francis’ behavior is contrary to Catholic dogma and teaching is not a theory. It hangs out there for all to see and observe, and to make definite conclusions about.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #73 on:** October 07, 2019, 08:17:17 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth on October 07, 2019, 06:01:17 PM

I disagree. Facts on the ground prove to me that Francis is a heretic, an anti-Christ, and an apostate from the faith. ABL said as much about JP2 and Paul VI. Francis passes the eye test and the ear test. His own utterances, both written and spoken prove to my satisfaction that Peter’s Chair is empty. The man occupying it today is an impostor- an anti-Pope.
Black holes are a theory. Evolution is a theory. Dark matter is a theory. Reasons posited for climate change are all theories. General Relativity is a theory. That Francis’ behavior is contrary to Catholic dogma and teaching is not a theory. It hangs out there for all to see and observe, and to make definite conclusions about.

You can perhaps observe what he does, but knowing his heart is a different issue

Quo vadis Domine · « **Reply #74 on:** October 07, 2019, 08:36:05 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 07, 2019, 08:17:17 PM

You can perhaps observe what he does, but knowing his heart is a different issue

We aren’t judging the internal forum, we are making a judgement solely from external words and deeds.

Author Topic: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism (Read 31471 times)

Ladislaus

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

SeanJohnson

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Matthew

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Matthew

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Matthew

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

ByzCat3000

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

hollingsworth

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Matthew

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Pax Vobis

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Ladislaus

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Meg

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Meg

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

hollingsworth

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

ByzCat3000

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism

Quo vadis Domine

Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism