As I've repeatedly stated, I have no issues with Archbishop Lefebvre's position. He unequivocally affirmed that the protection of the Holy Spirit precludes such damage being done to the Church by the exercise of papal authority, but siimply prescinded from adopting a explanation for how this has happened. In one talk, he went through the possibilities, a drugged pope, a blackmailed pope, etc., dismissing these as very unlikely, but then ended up saying SVism is a possible explanation. He repeatedly stated that SVism is possible. But he left open the possibility that there was some other explanation and therefore never asserted SVism. There's nothing wrong with that stance. But many modern R&R have lost sight of this distinction, claiming that the protection / guidance of the Holy Spirit over the papal office does ot prevent a Pope from thoroughly corrupting the Magisterium and the Public worship of the Church. That is NOT the position of Archbishop Lefebvre, who said the complete opposite.
Ladislaus, if no one posts what Archbishop Lefebvre really believed, then others reading this forum might be in danger of thinking that you are stating the truth about what the Archbishop believed, when you are not.
Here is what +ABL stated in his book, "Open Letter to Confused Catholics," published in 1986, pg. 176, from the chapter titled, "Neither a Heretic or a Schismatic":
"I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I. The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within the Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the Church's magisterium. In fact, the limits of papal power at set by the ends for which it was given to Christ's Vicar on earth, ends which Pius IX clearly defined in the constitution Pastor Aeternus of the First Vatican Council. So in saying this I am not expressing a personal theory.
"Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even a Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known from certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens only in a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by a Pope is infallible."
"Nevertheless, I am not among those who insist or insinuate that Paul Vl was a heretic and therefore, by that very fact, no longer Pope. John Paul I and John Paul II would then not have been legitimately elected. This is the position of those called "sede-vacantists."
Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter (Read 59544 times)