It is unquestionable that recognize and resist is as Mr. Vere comments is internally inconsistent. Upon an objective analysis of the Archbishop, I believe there is strong evidence that he acted in an inconsistent manner in certain areas.

That's because he was trying to ride to shore the biggest kahuna in Church history.

Watch an expert surf - he does not stand erect and rigid, but crouches and retains flexibility.

It is not until the motion of the wave ceases that his body comes to rest.

ABL died surfing; wherefore, his thinking did not come to rest.

Why are we all converging around this issue now? Perhaps because the wave has finally broken upon the Rock, which is Christ. Perhaps because we are all beginning to realize that we are once again standing on terra firma - meaning that we now can proclaim with certitude and unshakable moral conviction that these men are not Catholics and not, therefore, sent by God.

We must break with them completely, and this means not only physically, but intellectually and morally.

We must go out from them in toto - mind, body, soul, and spirit - and set about the work of preparing the Church for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart.

Anything short of that is a return to the most galling and acrid vomit.

The Archbishop openly considered a premature regularization (probably at the behest of his more liberal followers) but ultimately rejected that path when he realized it would lead to compromise. He also may have entertained sedevacantism. Bp. Fellay has tried to use Lefebvre's pre-rejection dalliance with regularization as a smokescreen to justify his own compromises.

The Archbishop's strategy helped to preserve tradition but admittedly has not restored it. Do you have suggestions for a refinement in strategy?

I do believe that there is a very informal convergence - yet ever growing in impetus - now taking place among laymen such as ourselves, within which such refinements are being floated, discussed, and analyzed.

I dare say that I think that's why you are now here. You belong in this conversation. I'm happy that you are back.

I agree with you, Machabees. Excellent posts.

Anyway, as to what is being discussed in this thread, two texts, one from St. John Eudes showing us that just as a Saintly Pope is a gift from the Most High come to give us mercies, graces and favors in superabundance from above, so in the evil Vicar of Christ the eyes of faith recognize in terror a Vindictive Judge come to punish His unfaithful people. And one that the Church by Her very monarchical constitution has no human recourse for such a Pope but only the supernatural aid of prayer, which cannot fail to be efficacious.

"The most evident mark of God's anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than charity and affection of devoted shepherds ...

"When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, 'Return O ye revolting children ... and I will give you pastors according to My own heart'. (Jer. 3:14,15)

Likewise, Prof. Journet, whom Archbishop Lefebvre called "a deep thinker and a great theologian" writes,

D. THE SOLE REMEDY FOR A BAD POPE: A TEXT OF CAJETAN'S ON PRAYER

The Church has no power to change the form of her government, nor to control the destiny of him who, once validly elected, is no vicar of hers but Vicar of Christ. Consequently she has no power to punish or depose her head. She is born to obey.

This truth may seem hard, but the best theologians have never attenuated it; rather, they have accentuated it. To make us aware of all that we ought to be ready to suffer for the Church, of how much heroism she can ask of us, they have proposed extreme cases.

They have supposed a Pope who shall scandalise the Church by the gravest sins; they have supposed him to be incorrigible; and then they ask whether the Church can depose him. Their answer is, no. For no one on earth can touch the Pope.

In his Summa de Ecclesia (lib. II, cap. cvi) Cardinal Turrecremata pointed out several remedies for such a calamity: respectful admonitions, direct resistance to bad acts, and so forth. All these could, of course, prove useless. There remains a supreme resource, never useless, terrible sometimes as death, as secret as love. This is prayer, the resource of the saints. " See that I do not have to complain of you to Jesus crucified, " wrote Catherine of Siena to Pope Gregory XI; "there is none other to whom I can appeal, since you have no superiors on earth. " And again, a little earlier in the same letter: " Take care, as you value your life, that you commit no negligence. "

To the bad theologians who thought that the Church would be defenceless if not allowed to depose a vicious Pope, Cardinal Cajetan, who had seen the reign of Alexander VI, had but one answer: he reminded them of the power of prayer. For never has it such power as in such crises. We must always have recourse to prayer, as one of the purest weapons a Christian can use. But here it is not only a "common" means, i. e. one to be used along with others, it is the "proper" means, the proper instrument for the use of the Church in distress.

For the promises relating to the highest and most efficacious of second causes are held to be of nothing worth. They say that we must depose a bad Pope by human means; that one cannot be content with resort to prayer and to divine providence alone! But why do they say that, if not because they prefer human means to the efficacy of prayer, because the animal man does not perceive the things of God, because they have learnt to trust in man, not in the Lord, and to put their hope in the flesh? So, if a Pope hardened in evil ways appears, his subordinates, without leaving their own vices, content themselves with daily murmurings against the evil regime; they do not seek to avail themselves, save perhaps in a dream and without faith, of the remedy of prayer; so that what Scripture predicts comes about by their fault, namely that it is due to the sins of the people that a hypocrite reigns over them, holy in respect of his office, but a devil at heart. . . We have become blind to the point of refusing to pray as we ought, while yet desiring the fruit of prayer; of refusing to sow, while still wanting to reap. Let us not call ourselves Christians any longer! Or if we do, let us turn to Christ; and the Pope, were he frantic, furious, tyrannical, a render, dilapidator and corrupter of the Church, would be overcome. But if we do not know how to overcome ourselves, what right have we to complain of being unable to break through the evils that surround us by prayers that not only fail to rise through our roofs, but do not even mount as far as our heads?

Thus, even though his private life should be grievously sinful, the Pope cannot be deposed. Immense scandal might be given, but his doctrinal infallibility would be unaffected. And it remains true that no temptation is superhuman. God, who is faithful, will suffer none who seeks Him to be tempted beyond his strength, and to each He offers inwardly the help that will enable him to overcome (cf. I Cor. x. 13).

Just look at +F's last letter to friends and benefactors. I could not get through more that three lines and a skim.

Where is the Catholic teaching on the facts of this pontificate? Why will not the SSPX alert the faithful to the mortal danger now unleashed upon the whole world?

The SSPX is like a lighthouse dragged ten miles inland.  

It is only unquestionable to you.

And Pete Vere.

And anyone else who has not the ability or disposition to read the article on the doctrine of necessity.

Sean:

Being of the Ecclesia Dei (now Summa P) persuasion, I am quite reluctant to argue the sedevacantist position - even if strictly only for the sake of the argument. The major reason being my attempts to do so in the past have often had unintended consequences (ie with the Dimond brothers, Gerry Matatics and Mario Derksen when each was still espousing the R&R position).

But since you've invited me into this debate, the major weakness I see in the  "state of necessity" argument when employed against sedevacantism is as follows: Sedevacantism is not a rejection of the "state of necessity" argument as an attempt to explain and justify a perceived "state of necessity". That is, at the root of their argument, sedes believe that a "state of necessity" exists within the Church precisely because of potential or actual sedevacante.

To me personally this makes much more sense than R&R. This is because traditionally a state of necessity's existence presumes that the competent Church of authority is inaccessible. The R&R position presumes that the competent Church authority is accessible physically, but not morally. However this raises questions about who is competent to judge the competent Church authority morally inaccessible.

Whereas, sedevacantism provides a clear rationale as to why a state of necessity exists and one is required to act. That is, sedevacantism argues that the compentent authority is neither truly competent nor a true authority.

Clemens Maria, I've shown you in the past the innumerable sources and traditional authorities that contradict your viewpoint, what would be the point of indefinitely multiplying them over again?

The power of jurisdiction is legislative, judicial and coercive. This habitual governing authority presupposes a perpetual relation between ruler and ruled, between those who govern and those who obey. This is absolutely necessary for acting as judges or making a judicial determination. Bishops without ordinary jurisdiction and clerics without a mission, who rely only on supplied jurisdiction for individual sacramental acts, cannot make such a judicially binding determination.

Also, the thesis that there are no more Roman clergy, i.e. clerics incardinated into the diocese of Rome by a former Roman Pontiff who are not heretics is heterodox and directly contradictory to defined Catholic doctrine. St. Robert Bellarmine taught this plainly and Pope Sixtus IV formally defined the same, the Roman Church as a particular Church is indefectible.

The view that all the Ordinaries of the universal Church have fallen into heresy is also by itself heretical, because it is opposed to the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church.

The only competent authorities to judge in the matter are the Ordinaries of the Church, the bishops appointed by a former Pope who have not fallen into heresy, and the Roman clergy, those incardinated into the local diocese by a former Pope.

If you hold a future judgment may be possible, that is not heretical although it gets progressively unlikelier the longer the alleged vacancy is prolonged..
 
But when you reject the only possible authorities, the Pope or those whom he in the past has appointed in one of the above ways, then you only unfortunately fall into only perpetual confusion. I can't convince you, Clemens Maria, only the Holy Ghost can do that. I can cite authorities, hope you correct yourself and pray for you, that's it. Beyond that, we can only agree to disagree.

Conclavism is a dead end and most second generation conclavists unhappily lose the faith and return to the world.

Machabees said:

To judge that the Pope is a "heretic" and cannot hold the Chair that God put him in, is unjust without having tribunal evidence at your disposal and being a Pope yourself to judge another Pope; it then remains only a personal interpretation of things you heard and read.  Therefore, such a position cannot dispose of God's anointed.  Even if we like it or not.

I would say it is not unjust to do so. Let me give you an example: I was at an RCIA meeting once when another sponsor started arguing in front of three priests that women could be priests. In this I can discern that this person is a heretic without having an official interpretation.

Atheists do not go to heaven because Jesus said they don't.  The choice is clear, Jesus is a heretic or Pope Francis is. Pick one or the other.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

It is only unquestionable to you.

And Pete Vere.

And anyone else who has not the ability or disposition to read the article on the doctrine of necessity.

Sean:

Being of the Ecclesia Dei (now Summa P) persuasion, I am quite reluctant to argue the sedevacantist position - even if strictly only for the sake of the argument. The major reason being my attempts to do so in the past have often had unintended consequences (ie with the Dimond brothers, Gerry Matatics and Mario Derksen when each was still espousing the R&R position).

But since you've invited me into this debate, the major weakness I see in the  "state of necessity" argument when employed against sedevacantism is as follows: Sedevacantism is not a rejection of the "state of necessity" argument as an attempt to explain and justify a perceived "state of necessity". That is, at the root of their argument, sedes believe that a "state of necessity" exists within the Church precisely because of potential or actual sedevacante.

To me personally this makes much more sense than R&R. This is because traditionally a state of necessity's existence presumes that the competent Church of authority is inaccessible. The R&R position presumes that the competent Church authority is accessible physically, but not morally. However this raises questions about who is competent to judge the competent Church authority morally inaccessible.

Whereas, sedevacantism provides a clear rationale as to why a state of necessity exists and one is required to act. That is, sedevacantism argues that the compentent authority is neither truly competent nor a true authority.

Pete-

It seems to me, based on the reasons you adduce, that your real problem is that you cannot accept causes excusing from obedience to superiors (e.g., epikeia; necessity).

For some reason, you think it necessary to judge the superior before refusing to comply with an evil order.

Where does that come from?

The judgment is upon the order given, not the superior giving it.

-Sean