Author Topic: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983) (Read 1366 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** January 19, 2020, 08:32:34 PM »

YouTube audio recording in English (April 24, 1983 - SSPX Seminary in Ridgefield, CT):

The audio in the YouTube link above is transcribed in the original notes below, beginning on p.10:

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/28/items/LefebvreRidgefield8283A/Lefebvre%20Ridgefield%2082%2083%20a_text.pdf

Apparently the notes in the link above for pp.1-9 are from April, 1982 (while the rest from p.10 on are from 1983).

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2020, 08:48:11 PM »

From pp.1-2 of the transcription above:

THE OTHER EXTREME
"There is also another tendency. . .some young priests and seminarians, they think that it is necessary to do the Ritual without recogni z ing the pope, cardinals, bishops, etc.. .i.e., no more Catholic Church now... it is finished. .. and so we must abandon all these people and do a new Church, i.e., a Catholic Church but outside of Rome, far from Rome. And so some young priests, 3 years ago, left the Fraternity because I said that that (their proposition) is impossible. I cannot say that Rome does not exist now... no Rome, no cardinals, no bishops, ... etc. It is impossible that Jesus Christ would abandon His Church into such a situation. It is impossible! n (2) "Where are we going if we have no more pope, bishops, cardinals, or Church?? If no more visible Church? Where is the Church if this is so?" "And so we can see that these priests found another Church. No more Catholic Church. Now some priests receive consecration as bishops. They are having some meeting with Fr. McKenna and 6 other priests and some bishop (i.e., bishop Thuc) and he ordains other bishops. They had a meeting and perhaps in some weeks or months ahead they will choose another pope. That is a logical conclusion of this tendency. It is very very dangerousl " "Fr, G , a dominican priest, was a friend of Ec&ie. . .he gave good spiritual conferences and spiritual exercises at Ec0ne.. But always he saidt M No Pope... he does not exist." I aaidi "That is not true. You cannot say that." And so now he... is with Palmar de Troya in Spain. . .because he thinks perhaps the true pope is in Palmar de Troya... yes, yes i A great theologian thinks this! He is a very intelligent man... very extraordinary..." "Your place is not in the Fraternity" "The consequence of this tendency is schism with Rome, saying Rome is finished. That is absolutely impossible. I do not accept that!

And a bit later on p.3:

"Also, 5 or 6 new priests abandoned the Fraternity in France (because they do not believe in the pope) and I said to themi "You do a schism, you have no more Church... it is finished! For you there is no Church. . .who represents the Church? Nobody. It is finishedl" "

And on p.11:

"You know that there are other priests in the world, in France, in America, in Mexico, in Dult ch-land , Germany, . . • there are some priests who follow the same dangerous way. They sayi 'No more pope; no more. . ;all sacraments are invalid, etc. ' But now they are going, slowly, slowly, into SCHISM."

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2020, 09:04:15 PM »

On the other hand (p.20):

"To say with certainty, metaphysically, that the pope is pope ...I do 'not know for sure... I think he is... but I do not know. I have no metaphysical certitude that the pope is pope. I think it is a very great (i.e.-, very good) presumption that the pope is pope. So we must pray for him and have relations with him, as pope. That is why I cannot ' accept that in some priorates or houses that they refuse to pray for the pope."

CatholicInAmerica · « **Reply #3 on:** January 20, 2020, 01:26:41 AM »

This is the biggest problem I have with Lefebvre. He says it is 100% schismatic to say there is no pope but it is perfectly fine to say “I’m not sure”. If you aren’t sure then both sides, there being a pope and there not being a pope, have weight to them. You can’t be in the middle of an issue and condemn the far left extreme and the far right extreme when you yourself believe both have some truths. If you didn’t believe that both had some truth to them then you wouldn’t be unsure.

I just find it ridiculous to say “it’s schismatic to say there is no pope but to say that there might not be a pope is 100% ok”

I myself agree with lefebvre when he says he doesn’t to know if the pope is the pope, because I am confused as well. But I don’t condemn people who say there is no pope and I also don’t condemn people who say there is because I do not know.

CatholicInAmerica · « **Reply #4 on:** January 20, 2020, 01:40:27 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on January 19, 2020, 08:48:11 PM

From pp.1-2 of the transcription above:

THE OTHER EXTREME
"There is also another tendency. . .some young priests and seminarians, they think that it is necessary to do the Ritual without recogni z ing the pope, cardinals, bishops, etc.. .i.e., no more Catholic Church now... it is finished. .. and so we must abandon all these people and do a new Church, i.e., a Catholic Church but outside of Rome, far from Rome. And so some young priests, 3 years ago, left the Fraternity because I said that that (their proposition) is impossible. I cannot say that Rome does not exist now... no Rome, no cardinals, no bishops, ... etc. It is impossible that Jesus Christ would abandon His Church into such a situation. It is impossible!

Just as easily as you could say this you could also say “A pope celebrating and promulgating a non Catholic mass? Every bishop at Vatican II signing heretical docuмents? The Vicar of Christ professing a non Catholic religion? Canonizations not being infallible? Doubting a bishops intention during holy orders? It is impossible!”

Stubborn · « **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2020, 05:26:33 AM »

Quote from: CatholicInAmerica on January 20, 2020, 01:26:41 AM

This is the biggest problem I have with Lefebvre. He says it is 100% schismatic to say there is no pope but it is perfectly fine to say “I’m not sure”. If you aren’t sure then both sides, there being a pope and there not being a pope, have weight to them. You can’t be in the middle of an issue and condemn the far left extreme and the far right extreme when you yourself believe both have some truths. If you didn’t believe that both had some truth to them then you wouldn’t be unsure.

I just find it ridiculous to say “it’s schismatic to say there is no pope but to say that there might not be a pope is 100% ok”

I myself agree with lefebvre when he says he doesn’t to know if the pope is the pope, because I am confused as well. But I don’t condemn people who say there is no pope and I also don’t condemn people who say there is because I do not know.

The one thing that most people never take into account when quoting +ABL is the chaos and confusion of those times, which imo, was much, much worse than today. By the 80s, nearly all those he could have gone to to talk with or maybe get advise about anything really, had already gone crazy with liberalism 10 earlier and were of no use to him whatsoever.

While he saw through all the confusion much clearer than most, he was not immune from it - which is why his primary 'counselor' so to speak, the thing that he always fell back on and relied upon, was tradition. He may have had his doubts, but he understood that there is no sedeism in tradition, which told him that path was a path he could not take - so he stayed off of that path and wanted nothing to do with it himself, or in his SSPX.

As for him saying it is 100% schismatic to say there is no pope, that is in tradition.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2020, 07:27:20 AM »

Quote from: CatholicInAmerica on January 20, 2020, 01:26:41 AM

This is the biggest problem I have with Lefebvre. He says it is 100% schismatic to say there is no pope but it is perfectly fine to say “I’m not sure”.

We've gone through this many times. +Lefebvre didn't hold these positions at the same time. He was closest to SVism in 1977 and 1986-88, and most negative about it in 1980-3 (hopeful about Wojtyla and negative about The Nine). Of course, The Nine broke away as a direct result of his cozying up to Wojtyla in the early 1980s. During the early 1980s, +Lefebvre's attitude was not unlike that of +Fellay today. So we have +Fellay quoting the early-1980s +Lefebvre to demonstrate that he's being true to the Archbishop, and the Resistance quoting +Lefebvre from other times.

I grow weary of the battling +Lefebvre quotes; truth of the matter is that both sides are right and both sides are wrong ... since neither wants to give the full picture.

Nishant Xavier · « **Reply #7 on:** January 20, 2020, 08:55:59 AM »

Archbishop Lefebvre around 98% of the time combatted sedevacantism very well. But the dreadful influence of sedevacantism, nonetheless, misled even him at times; though in the end he rightly decided against upholding it. His earlier positions are correct, including,

Statement 1: "the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians."

Statement 2: "The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no Cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others. Our Fraternity absolutely refuses to enter into such reasonings."

Statement 3: I have no reservation whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and validity of your election, and consequently I cannot tolerate there not being addressed to God the prayers prescribed by Holy Church for Your Holiness.

Statement 4: I am fully in agreement with the judgment that Your Holiness gave on the Second Vatican Council, on 6 November 1978, at a meeting of the Sacred College: "that the Council must be understood in the light of the whole of holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.

Statement 5: As for the Novus Ordo Mass, despite the reservations, which must be shown in its respect, I have never affirmed that it is in itself invalid or heretical.

At the conclusion of such a declaration, +ABL asked the Pope to recognize the Society for the good of the Church saying "I would be grateful to God and to Your Holiness if these clear declarations could hasten the free use of the traditional liturgy, and the recognition of the Society of St. Pius X by the Church, and likewise of all those who, subscribing to these declarations, have striven to save the Church by perpetuating its Tradition.

I beg Your Holiness to accept my profound and filial respect in Christo et Maria.
+ Marcel Lefebvre". These are not the actions of a sedevacantist.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 20, 2020, 09:02:03 AM »

Quote from: XavierSem on January 20, 2020, 08:55:59 AM

Archbishop Lefebvre around 98% of the time combatted sedevacantism very well.

Absolute lie. If anything the opposite is true. For the vast majority of the time, he was indeed very tolerant of it, if not at times sympathetic to it. There was only a very small period during which he was hostile to it. 98% my foot. You'are a liar, XavierSem.

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** January 20, 2020, 10:01:22 AM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei on January 20, 2020, 08:40:42 AM

Taken from Bishop Tissier De Mallerais’ book – The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre

Archbishop Lefebvre

Meeting with Cardinal Ratzinger, July 14, 1987
“Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy.” Page 548

Sermon, Aug. 29, 1987
“The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of our Lord is being rapidly carried out… This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs.” Page 549, 625

Speaking of the leaders of the new church
“We cannot follow these people. They’re in apostasy...” Page 549

At the end of the day, it's obvious that the good Archbishop was highly conflicted, and rightly so.

I agree, Stubborn. If anyone ever had a reason to be conflicted (maybe that's not the right word?), it was Archbishop Lefebvre. The man had the weight of the world on his shoulders as the whole traditional world was looking to him for answers.

He was conflicted at what the pope and the rest of the bishops and priests were doing, heck, many people today still don't believe their own eyes, but as you quoted him, everything that he said above is certain truth, known and even obvious to Catholics when he said those things. But he stopped short of deciding to conclude that which we cannot know.

For +ABL, sedeism was what it was and still is - namely, as great a break with tradition as what the pope and hierarchy were doing albeit in different ways, which is why at the end of the day, he never went along with it.

No one should reference +ABL as being tolerant or sympathetic toward the idea, he never was, not ever. He was sad and maybe sympathetic as a father would be towards his son, that of all people, his priests were caught up in it, but he was not sympathetic to the idea - no way.

I was there in the 80s when the SHTF over this, had to leave the SSPX for a few years till the perps were removed and it got cleaned up, so I have no qualms whatsoever saying he never wanted anything to do with sedeism and that referencing him as in some way leaning toward sedeism, does him a great disservice.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** January 20, 2020, 10:22:49 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn on January 20, 2020, 10:01:22 AM

He was conflicted at what the pope and the rest of the bishops and priests were doing, ...

Anyone who isn't conflicted and confused by this nonsense probably just isn't intellectually honest. I consider that a positive in favor of Archbishop Lefebvre.

sedevacantist3 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2020, 01:22:48 PM »

so the anti sedes to be consistent must believe that Jєωgorglio is not publicly and formally heretical. ....correct

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2020, 02:11:57 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei on January 20, 2020, 10:55:53 AM

I've never thought that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Catholic who believed that the conciliar popes were not true popes.

However, he planted that idea into the heads of many traditional Catholics...

The bold, underlined portion of the quote is nearly identical to the opinion of Saint Robert Bellarmine. The Archbishop may not have publicly stated that he believed in this prolonged period of Sede Vacante, but he certainly stated publicly that he considered it. This was enough for many Catholics to consider it as well.

I'm not suggesting that he started a "movement", as the idea of Sede Vacante after Pope Pius XII goes back to the early 60's. BUT, Archbishop Lefebvre had a much larger platform than that of a couple "rogue" priests back in the day. The quote I posted above got the wheels turning in otherwise reluctant Catholics to consider the idea, and spend more time researching and studying the theological principles behind it.

I don't think it's fair to say he planted it, for the SSPX at large that award goes to Fr. Sanborn, now a bishop, for getting those wheels turning. If you were to ask any SSPX priest who was around in those days, they will tell you the same thing before you can even finish asking the question, it was kept quiet, but it was no secret among SSPX priests in those days. Or you could also ask those who are still alive but were in the SSPX and left to go sede back then, I'd bet they'd also say that +Sanborn was the reason. He certainly could give a sermon I tell you, he really had a way about him, he was a phenomenal speaker imo.

As such, he gave many sermons and was able to convince enough people that "Montini" was not the pope, and he did it right from the pulpit in a public school made into an SSPX chapel. Interestingly enough, at first, no one in the congregation knew who he was talking about, they knew who Pope Paul VI was, but no one knew who this "Montini" fellow he kept harping about was. Yessir, he brought 'em up from pups he did!

I'm sure that no one disagreed with +ABL then or today that it might happen that some future pope may decide that the conciliar popes were not popes, I personally do not believe that will ever happen, but it could, and for +ABL, he was content to leave the matter at that, and his hope was that others would be as well.

2Vermont · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2020, 03:44:53 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 20, 2020, 07:27:20 AM

We've gone through this many times. +Lefebvre didn't hold these positions at the same time. He was closest to SVism in 1977 and 1986-88, and most negative about it in 1980-3 (hopeful about Wojtyla and negative about The Nine). Of course, The Nine broke away as a direct result of his cozying up to Wojtyla in the early 1980s. During the early 1980s, +Lefebvre's attitude was not unlike that of +Fellay today. So we have +Fellay quoting the early-1980s +Lefebvre to demonstrate that he's being true to the Archbishop, and the Resistance quoting +Lefebvre from other times.

I grow weary of the battling +Lefebvre quotes; truth of the matter is that both sides are right and both sides are wrong ... since neither wants to give the full picture.

Actually, based on the Letter of the Nine, I don't believe this was a reason at all (unless I am not remembering it correctly). In addition, they did not break away because of the sedevacantist position because not all of them held the sedevacantist position in 1983.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2020, 11:25:16 PM »

Quote from: CatholicInAmerica on January 20, 2020, 01:26:41 AM

This is the biggest problem I have with Lefebvre. He says it is 100% schismatic to say there is no pope but it is perfectly fine to say “I’m not sure”. If you aren’t sure then both sides, there being a pope and there not being a pope, have weight to them. You can’t be in the middle of an issue and condemn the far left extreme and the far right extreme when you yourself believe both have some truths. If you didn’t believe that both had some truth to them then you wouldn’t be unsure.

I just find it ridiculous to say “it’s schismatic to say there is no pope but to say that there might not be a pope is 100% ok”

I myself agree with lefebvre when he says he doesn’t to know if the pope is the pope, because I am confused as well. But I don’t condemn people who say there is no pope and I also don’t condemn people who say there is because I do not know.

I think you're (not you specifically) at least *risking* schism if you make a definitive statement that there's no pope. Mind you, I don't feel that I have the right to make that call in a definite way, but it doesn't seem safe either.

Saying "I don't know for sure but I'm assuming the hierarchy is the hierarchy" seems a *lot* safer and to show a heart that wants to submit as much as possible, despite difficulty.

Yes, I get that when St Pius X was pope either one would be schismatic, but I don't see why that *has* to mean that today a "100% there is no pope" position has to be just as justifiable as saying there's probably a pope but maybe we'll be wrong.

Its like if you have one guy who affirms all Catholic dogma, but fears he might be incorrect, and another guy who rejects all dogma and is a Protestant, and saying those two are exactly the same position. Not saying Sede is equivalent to that, but I'd see the former guy as a struggling Catholic, and the latter as a Protestant. And similarly (though again, not as extreme) there's a difference between struggling to acknowledge a terrible pope, and flat out being like "nah he's not pope."

Now maybe Sedevacantism is permissible after all. I've said before, if you put a gun to my head, I think God would show mercy, given the difficulty of the situation. But there's no certainty of that, so it is *better* not to go that route, IMO.

Author Topic: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983) (Read 1366 times)

SeanJohnson

Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)

SeanJohnson

Re: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)

SeanJohnson

Re: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)

CatholicInAmerica

Re: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)

CatholicInAmerica

Re: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)

Stubborn

Re: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)

Ladislaus

Re: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)

Nishant Xavier

Re: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)

Ladislaus

Re: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)

Stubborn

Re: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)

Ladislaus

Re: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)

sedevacantist3

Re: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)

Stubborn

Re: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)

2Vermont

Re: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)

ByzCat3000

Re: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (in English - 1982-1983)