The difference is that Jorge Bergoglio has shown himself to be pertinacious.

And how was JP2 not pertinacious in his heresies? 

Nope. Bishop Thomas Aquinas gives the reason Archbishop Lefebvre rejected (even a 20-30 year) vacancy in the Papacy, which applies with even greater force to a 60-70 year one. Did you read it. Let me quote it: "His arguments are simple. What becomes of the Church if the Popes from John XXIII to Francis were never Popes? Were the Cardinals appointed by them not valid Cardinals? Who will elect the next Pope? How can we ever have a Pope again? Sedevacantism would seem to imperil the very existence of the Church."

Bishop Tomas assumes that if you reject Francis as Pope then you must reject all pope going back to John XXIII, but that is not true. There are many who believe that Francis is not Pope and yet recognize all the other ones, so it is wrong to say the same argument against a 20-30 year vacancy still applies, when it does not; as it has been less than 3 years since Pope Benedict died.  Plus, there are other theories as Ladislaus brought up, so it is wrong to say there are only two positions and you have to be one or the other.

Also, Archbishop Lefebvre stated that the evidence was not yet there to say JPII lost the papacy, which implies that if the evidence was there, he saw no problem to say the Pope lost the papacy. So, it is wrong to say that he would never do this or that if he were alive today. No one knows what he would do, it is all guessing and opinions. God wants us to live in the present and use the intelligence and reason he gave us to make the choices we need at this time.

I agree. Has +W forgotten about that?

Is this what he thinks though (that he is a sedevacantist or even leans sedevacantist)?  Remember these two EC's back in January (around the time of Vigano's reported conditional consecration).  At this point he did not think Vigano was making a definitive official conclusion on Bergoglio's papacy:


VIGANO SEDEVACANTIST – I ? – St. Marcel Initiative (stmarcelinitiative.org)

VIGANO SEDEVACANTIST – II ? – St. Marcel Initiative (stmarcelinitiative.org)


Here is the merest skeleton of the Archbishop’s rich argument – do see the original to let him speak for himself – but it is enough to indicate that he is hanging back from public “sedevacantism.” After building up his case against the one he calls “Bergoglio” for the large part of his discourse (1–4), just as he arrives at the climactic point where he will propose his own solution (5), he may well himself share the conviction of many serious Catholics that this or that Conciliar Pope, anywhere from John XXIII to Francis inclusive, has not been a true Pope, but that conviction, shared by however many of them, can never amount to an official Church declaration, and any such declaration will have to wait until Mother Church has recovered from her present deadly attack of modernism, a barely curable mental disease.

In the meantime this apparent stop of Archbishop Vigano on the road to sedevacantism is highly reasonable, because it safeguards in a Catholic mind and heart a measure of respect for Catholic Authority which might otherwise go completely by the board. Woe to Catholic Tradition, or to its “Resistance,” that would lose all respect for Catholic Authority, because that Authority is divine, and it must and will come back, in full force, one day, just like the sun after an eclipse, and before world’s end.

In other words: people probably take his thought on so high esteem because he was able to institutionalize his ideas into a religious congregation.

Very, very true.

It just occurred to me:

If Abp. Lefebvre had not founded the SSPX, but only published his thoughts and positions like Abp. Viganò does these days, would people have the same attachment to his ideas?

It seems to me that people only take his position as almost infallible because of the relative success that the SSPX has had during these fifty years.

In other words: people probably take his thought on so high esteem because he was able to institutionalize his ideas into a religious congregation.

Rather, those who see with the eyes of faith see in Archbishop Lefebvre a great prelate raised up by Almighty God to lead us in the crisis. Our Lord gave us the criterion: "By their fruits you shall know them".

Yes, well said Meg and Robert S. It all comes down to this: "a position as uncertain as it is dangerous, by stating more than Church teaching allows one to state... Let us rather wait for the Church to give official judgment on the question one day, so as to resolve it once and for all". Theologians are divided, and the ultimate judgement of the Archbishop was that it was not his place, nor ours, to apply an infallible judgement when the Church has not.

Fr Chazal put it very nicely in Contra Cekadam:"The practical behaviour of Catholics does not depend in any way on an opinion. What you say as a private person is not a dogma... and before Vatican II no dogma on this intricate, controversial and until then academic question had ever been formulated. On the contrary, with the exception of the time of Gratian, the constant unanimity was that there is no unanimity on this question".

Pere Jean (OFM Cap, Morgon) also put it nicely writing in 2016: “It is understandable that some Traditional Catholics... be deeply troubled by the scandals of Pope Francis, who seems to have surpassed his predecessors'. The sedevacantist solution may appear to them as the simplest, most logical, and best. In fact, the fundamental problem remains the same since the '70s, and the prudent attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre, in considering the risk of excessive and rash judgement, with the attendant danger of schism, should not be abandoned. In 2001, the “Small Catechism on Sedevacantism” published by Le Sel de la Terre concluded: “This is a position that has not been proven at the speculative level, and it is imprudent to hold it at a practical level, an imprudence that can bear very serious consequences.” (No. 36, p. 117) This conclusion holds as much for pope Francis as for pope John-Paul II who had kissed the Quran".

Well said. We are expected to believe that +ABL would be a sedevacantist today, due to a few things he said regarding sedevacantism and JP2. We are also expected to completely discount everything he said regarding why sedevacantism is not a good thing, which he spoke about A LOT more than the few things he said positively about sedevacantism. It's a sort of relativistic thinking.

You mention above that the conclusion of Pere Jean, OFM, Morgon, holds as much for Francis as for John-Paul II who kissed the Quran. Well, JP2 did a lot more than kiss the Quran. He instituted the inter-religious meetings at the Basilica in Assisi, a Basilica dedicated to St. Francis, and there, various religions prayed together. Even the east Timorean skull-ticklers were invited, who proceeded to slaughter a chicken on St. Clare's altar. They didn't have permission to so this, but they just assumed it would be okay.

JP2 held heretical beliefs regarding ecuмenism, which is a false ecuмenism. We are expected to forget about these serious problems with JP2, and only focus on the problems of Francis. For +ABL, JP2's actions at Assisi were shocking and disturbing, but still, he did not adopt the sedevacantist position. 

JP2 held heretical beliefs regarding ecuмenism, which is a false ecuмenism. We are expected to forget about these serious problems with JP2, and only focus on the problems of Francis. For +ABL, JP2's actions at Assisi were shocking and disturbing, but still, he did not adopt the sedevacantist position.

Bishop Thomas previously released the notes of his conversations with Archbishop Lefebvre in 1986. In them he noted that the Archbishop said that many Catholics were more scandalised by Pope JPII dancing, in stole, to rock music with immodestly clad females than they were by his ecuмenism. The Archbishop said that this was a lack of faith. It is the same with Pope Francis. It is his moral aberrations that have woken up many Catholics to problems in the Church, but many still do not understand the deeper issues touching on the Faith, while others have concluded that he cannot be a true Pope... As Bishop Thomas says, the crisis is essentially unchanged and the Archbishop's position remains as valid today as it was then.

Bergolio was promoted by John Paul II.  

When there was clergy that was practicing or promoting sodomy, they should have been excommunicated instead of the victims.  

Ski trips with the wealthy was very worldly and not very Christ like.