The following is a verbatim excerpt from an Archbishop Lefebvre English-language confirmation sermon (Date/venue unknown; possibly IHM in St. Paul, Mn).

In this sermon he plainly rejects sedevacantism as schismatic.

Since it is easily anticipated that I will be be accused of quoting out of context, etc., I invite those from IHM chapel in St. Paul to listen to the sermon with me tomorrow after High Mass.

Then there will be no possibility of calling into question context, transcription, etc:





Archbishop Lefebvre:

"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.

"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.

"We are the Catholic Church.

"I don't say that.

"I don't accept that.

"That is schism.

"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?

"Where?

"Where is the authority of the Church?

"Where is our leader in the Church?

"We can't know where we are going.

"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.

"We must pray for this pope.

"But don't say that he is not the pope."


There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.

I believe you, Sean.  It would be interesting to know when the sermon was given.

After many years of attending SSPX chapels and meeting many sedevacantes that go sometimes and don't go at all to SSPX chapels:

The problem I see with sedevacantes and SSPXers is that they have mutually labeled each other a lepers. I use to think that it was the sedes that did this, but now since the Resistance started, the Neo- SSPXers are using the SV leper label to scare the Resistance people into submission.

It looks like Bp. Williamson sees this clearly, and is trying to mend the bridges between the sedevacantes and the Resistance SSPXers.

Quote

Number CCCXXXV (335)
     
 14 December 2013
 FATHER RIOULT II
 
...."In the months to come I may be setting up a broad kind of association based on friendship with other Catholics in the Resistance, whether or not they are sedevacantists, sedevacantism being for me an opinion. But the situation is not ripe here and now for such an association. In any case whatever is Catholic is ours. So any Catholics ready to operate as Catholics and to resist the modernism reigning supreme within the Church, we will work with. Therefore yes, to a broad kind of association sharing the same common good: the Faith and worship of the Catholic Church, the defense of the Faith. Having this same common good can create friendship amongst all our groups....

I have seen "supposedly" good friends completely discard their acquaintance because of the SV position. I find this ridiculous. In truth, it is a sign that they were never friends, or are not well upstairs. Sadly, it is rare to find someone who continuous a friendship once the opposition to SSPX or sede is discovered.

I don't and never have considered the SV's as anything but Trads and Catholics, just like me, though I am not a sede. On the other hand, I consider the Indult groups, and now the Neo-SSPX, to be people who have decided to stick their heads in the sand. The sedes are just reacting to what is CLEARLY there for anyone to see. The Indulters and Neo-SSPXers are in denial.

Then you should have no problem with Bishop Fellay trying to mend fences with the Romans either.

See the point?

Let's not let a little thing like doctrine separate us!

Tradcuмenism is the stealthy infiltration of ecuмenism into the traditional movement.

Quote from: bowler

After many years of attending SSPX chapels and meeting many sedevacantes that go sometimes and don't go at all to SSPX chapels:

The problem I see with sedevacantes and SSPXers is that they have mutually labeled each other a lepers. I use to think that it was the sedes that did this, but now since the Resistance started, the Neo- SSPXers are using the SV leper label to scare the Resistance people into submission.

It looks like Bp. Williamson sees this clearly, and is trying to mend the bridges between the sedevacantes and the Resistance SSPXers.

Quote

Number CCCXXXV (335)
     
 14 December 2013
 FATHER RIOULT II
 
...."In the months to come I may be setting up a broad kind of association based on friendship with other Catholics in the Resistance, whether or not they are sedevacantists, sedevacantism being for me an opinion. But the situation is not ripe here and now for such an association. In any case whatever is Catholic is ours. So any Catholics ready to operate as Catholics and to resist the modernism reigning supreme within the Church, we will work with. Therefore yes, to a broad kind of association sharing the same common good: the Faith and worship of the Catholic Church, the defense of the Faith. Having this same common good can create friendship amongst all our groups....

I have seen "supposedly" good friends completely discard their acquaintance because of the SV position. I find this ridiculous. In truth, it is a sign that they were never friends, or are not well upstairs. Sadly, it is rare to find someone who continuous a friendship once the opposition to SSPX or sede is discovered.

I don't and never have considered the SV's as anything but Trads and Catholics, just like me, though I am not a sede. On the other hand, I consider the Indult groups, and now the Neo-SSPX, to be people who have decided to stick their heads in the sand. The sedes are just reacting to what is CLEARLY there for anyone to see. The Indulters and Neo-SSPXers are in denial.

Then you should have no problem with Bishop Fellay trying to mend fences with the Romans either.

See the point?

Let's not let a little thing like doctrine separate us!

Tradcuмenism is the stealthy infiltration of ecuмenism into the traditional movement.

It's difficult for me to see how the difference between sedevacantism and sedeplenism in our day is a doctrinal issue.  Who the pope is, and whether or not there is a pope is a matter of fact.  

Archbishop Lefebvre,

"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?

"Where?

"Where is the authority of the Church?

"Where is our leader in the Church?

"We can't know where we are going.

We have not abandoned Rome or the pope and yet.....

"Where?

"Where is the authority of the Church?

"Where is our leader in the Church?

"We still don't know where we are going.

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: SeanJohnson

.....as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.

This point is important.  Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic, but the condemnation never stated that he was not a true pope.

Pope Honorius was not a heretic, he gave the appearance of favoring heresy in a private non-authoritative letter.  It was not public, and did not even come to light until after his death.  

In our present case, we have men that are public heretics teaching heresy from official acts and promulgating evil laws.  

The case of Pope Honorius cannot be equated with our present dilemma.  

The fact remains that he was condemned as a heretic and was not subsequently claimed to be an anti-pope.

So what about the Archbishop? The archbishop had many positions throughout the years. Some statements you can argue were borderline sedevacantist. The bottom is his excellency lived in confusing times. I think after so many of these Vatican "pontiffs" it's tough to regard them as pope as certainly the joker occupying the chair right now wants to be called Jorge and thinks some vestments are for a circus.

For me the R&R position seems quite schismatic after supporting this position for 8 years. You recognize the pope and the local sodomite bishop (here in Orlando I half kid that the cathedral should be moved to the Parliament House --- a sodomite bar) in prayer, etc. but in practical terms your reject a lot of what he/they say (and rightfully so, don't get me wrong) --- it's a position of contradiction.

Please read up on the doctrine of necessity.

Sedes fear that doctrine like vampires fear garlic.

I believe you, Sean.  It would be interesting to know when the sermon was given.

I think this is important and it is interesting that the OP states that the date and venue is unknown.  What is the source for this sermon?