CathInfo.com

Well, that's really your opinion because, as this crisis has proven, God has allowed evil that is beyond everyone's comprehension. 


In the practical order (i.e. what we can see, hear and feel), the non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted.

Theoretically, R&R and Sedes argue away the practical corruption, and come to the same conclusion, from different angles.
R&R - The non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted but what matters is the infallible Magisterium which is still intact.
Sedes - The non-infallible Magisterium is corrupted but it was done by people who didn't have authority so it doesn't change anything.

Both sides explain away the practical evils, since there's no way to avoid them.  The reality is, the practical evils remain, just as the novus ordo/V2 church remains. 
1.  R&R minimize the evils by saying the Infallible Magisterium is more important (which is true).
2.  Sedes minimize the evils by saying the corrupted non-infallible Magisterium is illegal, null and void (which is true).

Either way, both agree that the infallible Magisterium is still pure, holy and unchanging.  Either way, the corrupted, fallible Magisterium is still a problem and still causing spiritual destruction.  Either way, both theories fail to fix the practical problems in the world.

The only practical solution to the crisis is the Consecration of Russia.  But how will people have the motivation to ask the pope for it, if they are tricked into believing we don't even have a pope?  The Devil has many such strategies to delay the Consecration.

I don't think R&R sees it in quite the way you describe above. 

There are many flavors of R&R, just like the many flavors of Sedeism.

Archbishop Lefebvre never described in your way. He believed that the Church is occupied. By Modernists. That's not the same thing as having a corrupt magisterium.

If you're talking about people, then you mean the 'hierarchy'.  The non-infallible magisterium is the collection of V2 writings, prayers, liturgy, practices, etc...not people.

True, there are many flavors, but I'm speaking of the most common flavor.

I'm referring the +ABL's take on the situation, which no one is required to accept. But still, he did not view the situation the way you do. That's all I'm saying.

Well, the problem I have is with some modern R&R distorting and misrepresenting Archbishop Lefebvre's position, which I have no issues with.

He affirms the Catholic truth that the Papacy is guided by the Holy Spirit that that this degree of destruction caused by the Pope is not possible.  He says to sedevacantists in one speech, "I agree with you there."  He then states that SVism is one possible answer.  He's never ruled out SVism as a possibility, but simply felt he didn't have the degree of certainty required to formally come out as an SV.

So Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the MAJOR of the SV position.  He simply felt that there could be some unknown factor that could account for what's going on.  He went through some possibilities, such as that the V2 papal claimants were being blackmailed, or drugged, or whatever.  He said that those were not very likely, but he didn't have the certainty of faith to rule them out and conclude they weren't legitimate popes.

Modern R&R, however, claim that legitimate Popes can corrupt the Church ... and then try to pretend that +Lefebvre supported their position. He did not, except possibly for a span of time between 1980 - 1984 or so.  But before then and after then, he remained very open to SVism being correct, but just wanted to defer to the Church's authority to definitely resolve the question.