Even though Archbishop Lefebvre died accepting John Paul II as pope, this does NOT mean that he would have accepted Jorge Bergoglio as pope if he were alive today. As per his 1986 talk published in the Angelus Magazine, his position was that the evidence determines whether a claimant is pope or not.
Evidence like kissing the Koran and Assisi meetings? Read 'Peter Lovest Thou Me'.
Conference to seminarians in Flavigny 1988:
We could have adopted many different attitudes, and particularly that of radical opposition: “the Pope confesses to liberal ideas, therefore he is a heretic, therefore there is no pope anymore.” That is sedevacantism. “It is over, we do not look towards Rome.” “The cardinals promulgated by the Pope are not cardinals, all the decisions he makes are null.”
It is an option with Pere Guérard des Lauriers and a few other priests who left us have taken: there is no longer a Pope.
Personally, I have always seen it as too simple a logic. Reality is not so simple. One cannot accuse anyone of being a formal heretic so easily. That is why I have seen it right to remain on the side of underestimation and to maintain some contact with Rome, to think that there is a successor of Peter in Rome. A bad successor admittedly, that we must not follow because of his liberal and modernist ideas. But he is there, and in so far as he could convert, as St Thomas Aquinas said, we have the right to oppose the authorities, publicly, when they proclaim and profess errors.
That is what we are doing. Who knows if the grace of God might ever touch him? I am sometimes being told: “It is utopic! You will never manage to convert him!” I do not hold many illusions, but it is not me who can convert him, it is God. So everything is possible” (Fideliter No. 68, pages 12-13).
Topic: Bishop Zendejas' Advice on 1962 Liturgy (Read 5919 times)