Archbishop Thuc.

ARCHBISHOP THUC (ourladyoftheholyrosarychapel.com)

Unlike ABL, Archbishop Thuc had a papal mandate

Whenever someone mentions Archbishop Thuc someone else will jump in and say he was crazy. Was it dementia toward the end of his life or something else?

More to the point as to why, in my opinion, +Lefebvre didn't go 'full sede' is because 90% of those following him would've disappeared into the weeds.  People are still having trouble getting rid of an idiot usurper like Bergoglio with all the harm he's done - and that's a ton.  If +Lefebvre had carried through with all the statements he made to that effect, in those early days, people simply wouldn't have been able to handle it and 'tradition' would be a mere fraction of what it is today.

See, this is what I find remarkable to a certain extent have a hard time comprehending. Although I am using your post Miracle, it's only because the same ideas are so often repeated, especially lately.

It seems obvious that sedes never consider the other side of this issue. As I said earlier, back in his day, we all understood that it was with good reason that +ABL never said we MUST proclaim sede vacante.

But suppose he went 'full sede', he could not and would not have stopped there because the idea does not stop there.

With him proclaiming 'full sede' he would have misnamed this new de fide doctrine sedevacantism and insist that we must build our entire faith around it, being ever watchful not to impede in any way on this new doctrine. +ABL would have said we had to split up, divide out, and consecrate whoever wants to get consecrated as sede bishops, and insist that they get away from all other trad Catholics who will not accept that the pope is not the pope. And on and on.

Ever consider the above might be some of the reasons that he never went full sede? He knew all the implications, not just the minuscule few above because there's a whole lot more to sedeism than a chair, and he knew it. 

I'm nearly 40, and am a lifelong sede. In full transparency, I admit that it is a difficult position to live with, since it is a theological opinion that merely provides a diagnosis/prognosis without providing a possible duration or cure. Only Almighty God in his providence can fix this crisis and restore apostasized Rome. I say this as a preface to explain that Sede Vacantism as not a position that I accepted purely based on my upbringing, but one that I struggled with and embraced anyway. I spent several years of my adult life questioning whether I believed this through my own intellect, or because it was what my parents believed. Like most sedes, I have aunts/uncles/cousins that are good and faithful SSPXers. I read many articles from the Angelus, open-mindedly read many forum posts, and ultimately came to my present personal conclusions over time, study and prayer. And no, I do not condemn those who do not agree with me or adhere to some dogmatic form of sedeism.

Having said all of that, I have enormous respect for Archbishop Lefebvre, and faithful SSPX-aligned Catholics. At the end of the day, we're living through the great apostasy and all trying to do our best to remain faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and save our souls. I pray regularly for unity among the faithful remnant in the world that the devil seeks to divide and to devour. 

As to who we sedes got, I would say that Bp Pivarunas is a tremendous leader in this crisis. Unlike others, who although had admirable qualities and writings, tended to take their theological opinions so seriously that they bind the consciences of the faithful to their positions, Bp Pivarunas has maintained a very neutral, but very Catholic stance over the years. Although he and his clergy hold that the see is vacant, and do not say mass "una cuм", he does not claim that those who do include Bergolio's (or any of the other usurpers) name in the canon invalidates the sacrament, or that you are forbidden to attend their mass. Although he fully understands how bad and dangerous Bugnini was, and likely doesn't like the 1955 holy week changes, he and the CMRI maintain them. Not because they think they are necessarily good, but because they recognize Pius XII as a valid pope. And as such, are bound to follow what he put into place or signed off on, until such time as we have another valid and Catholic Pope who would change that. I personally don't agree with the opinion of others, that we can pope-sift and do away with things based on our own theological opinions or preferences. I believe we are to preserve and maintain tradition, not to modify and rebrand it as we see fit.

Bp Pivarunas helped to take the CMRI from a group of sincere laity led astray by a charismatic cult leader, to a well organized, sincere, and scandal free group that has grown and flourished under his leadership. They now have over 100 mass centers, over a dozen schools, a major and minor seminary, etc. They have countless hours of outstanding content available on YouTube from their annual Fatima Conference. And most importantly to me, they have managed to stay out of much of the backbiting and controversies that have plagued many other traditional groups, while charitably keeping a position that does not condemn or mud sling. I find that very edifying.

Finally, I'll note that I find it an interesting coincidence that His Excellency Archbishop Levebvre passed away in 1991, the same year that Bishop Pivarunas was elevated to the episcopacy. Deo Gratias

I'm nearly 40, and am a lifelong sede. In full transparency, I admit that it is a difficult position to live with, since it is a theological opinion that merely provides a diagnosis/prognosis without providing a possible duration or cure. Only Almighty God in his providence can fix this crisis and restore apostasized Rome. I say this as a preface to explain that Sede Vacantism as not a position that I accepted purely based on my upbringing, but one that I struggled with and embraced anyway. I spent several years of my adult life questioning whether I believed this through my own intellect, or because it was what my parents believed. Like most sedes, I have aunts/uncles/cousins that are good and faithful SSPXers. I read many articles from the Angelus, open-mindedly read many forum posts, and ultimately came to my present personal conclusions over time, study and prayer. And no, I do not condemn those who do not agree with me or adhere to some dogmatic form of sedeism.

Having said all of that, I have enormous respect for Archbishop Lefebvre, and faithful SSPX-aligned Catholics. At the end of the day, we're living through the great apostasy and all trying to do our best to remain faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and save our souls. I pray regularly for unity among the faithful remnant in the world that the devil seeks to divide and to devour.

As to who we sedes got, I would say that Bp Pivarunas is a tremendous leader in this crisis. Unlike others, who although had admirable qualities and writings, tended to take their theological opinions so seriously that they bind the consciences of the faithful to their positions, Bp Pivarunas has maintained a very neutral, but very Catholic stance over the years. Although he and his clergy hold that the see is vacant, and do not say mass "una cuм", he does not claim that those who do include Bergolio's (or any of the other usurpers) name in the canon invalidates the sacrament, or that you are forbidden to attend their mass. Although he fully understands how bad and dangerous Bugnini was, and likely doesn't like the 1955 holy week changes, he and the CMRI maintain them. Not because they think they are necessarily good, but because they recognize Pius XII as a valid pope. And as such, are bound to follow what he put into place or signed off on, until such time as we have another valid and Catholic Pope who would change that. I personally don't agree with the opinion of others, that we can pope-sift and do away with things based on our own theological opinions or preferences. I believe we are to preserve and maintain tradition, not to modify and rebrand it as we see fit.

Bp Pivarunas helped to take the CMRI from a group of sincere laity led astray by a charismatic cult leader, to a well organized, sincere, and scandal free group that has grown and flourished under his leadership. They now have over 100 mass centers, over a dozen schools, a major and minor seminary, etc. They have countless hours of outstanding content available on YouTube from their annual Fatima Conference. And most importantly to me, they have managed to stay out of much of the backbiting and controversies that have plagued many other traditional groups, while charitably keeping a position that does not condemn or mud sling. I find that very edifying.

Finally, I'll note that I find it an interesting coincidence that His Excellency Archbishop Levebvre passed away in 1991, the same year that Bishop Pivarunas was elevated to the episcopacy. Deo Gratias

Hear hear

Indeed! He had infused prudence to a heroic degree.

Well, that's a stretch, "infused" prudence?  Apart from an infused gift at Confirmation, prudence is typically acquired and increased more actively by virtue of combining knowledge with wisdom and experience.  Archbishop Lefebvre made some mistakes (particularly in judgment of character, e.g. +Fellay, Schmidberger, others ...)

Well, that's a stretch, "infused" prudence?

Antonio Royo Marín, O.P., Theology of Christian Perfection pp. 369-70:

Prudence is a special virtue, distinct from the others. Whether acquired or infused, it resides in the practical intellect, because it is concerned with particular concrete human actions. But infused and acquired prudence are distinguished by reason of their origin, by reason of their extension, and by reason of their formal motive. By reason of origin, acquired prudence is attained through the repetition of acts; infused prudence is given by God with sanctifying grace. By reason of extension or application, acquired prudence governs the natural order, while infused prudence governs the supernatural order. By reason of the formal motive, acquired prudence operates according to simple synderesis (the first law of natural morality: “Do good and avoid evil”) and the natural appetite for the moral good, while infused prudence operates under reason enlightened by faith and informed with charity.¹ Hence, whereas natural acquired prudence is concerned with the particular action in view of man’s natural happiness and perfection, infused prudence will operate in view of man’s supernatural goal of sanctity and salvation.

Antonio Royo Marín, O.P., Theology of Christian Perfection pp. 369-70:

I know what infused prudence is, and, as your link explains, it governs the supernatural order, and is therefore generally knowable only in the internal forum.  Your assertion that he had much "infused" prudence is nonsensical ... not that he lacked it, but that you have no knowledge of his infused prudence or the degree to which he possessed it.  You're conflating the acquired and the infused prudence.

I realize I started this thread (2nd one) but I'm going to chime in with:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/response-to-all-the-sede-threads/