I see many persons here talking about how Bishop Fellay's desertion of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre will cause them to go to the local sedevacantist chapel.

   I would question, then, whether these were ever truly adherents to the Catholic position taken by Archbishop Lefebvre.

   In my case, should I deem it prudent to leave my SSPX chapel, it will certainly not be for the closest sedevacantist chapel (which Archbishop Lefebvre would have considered schismatic).

   Such a position reveals a mind already infected with the same ecuмenical illness the modernists have spread (i.e., tradcuмenism; a desire to go wherever validly ordained priests can be found, regardless of their doctrinal positions; every variant laying claim to the title "Catholic" is OK so long as it opposes V2; etc).

   But more importantly, such a response shows that they have not understood what Archbishop Lefebvre was about.

   For me, it will be back to garage, hotel, and airport Masses, until we can get a chapel.

   It will be putting former SSPX priests up in our home (permanently, if need be).

   It will be organizing for the resistence.

   It will be clinging to the same arguments the SSPX embraced for the previous 40 years.

   It will not be becomming a schismatic.

Quote from: Seraphim

  I see many persons here talking about how Bishop Fellay's desertion of the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre will cause them to go to the local sedevacantist chapel.

   I would question, then, whether these were ever truly adherents to the Catholic position taken by Archbishop Lefebvre.

Did Archbishop Lefebvre say sedevacantism was impossible?

 

Quote

In my case, should I deem it prudent to leave my SSPX chapel, it will certainly not be for the closest sedevacantist chapel (which Archbishop Lefebvre would have considered schismatic).

What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.

 

Quote

 Such a position reveals a mind already infected with the same ecuмenical illness the modernists have spread (i.e., tradcuмenism; a desire to go wherever validly ordained priests can be found, regardless of their doctrinal positions; every variant laying claim to the title "Catholic" is OK so long as it opposes V2; etc).

No, it doesn't.  Most people don't take the decision to go to a sede chapel lightly.  I'm still not sure about the one's in the area.  If you don't like sedevacantist priests then you have a problem because many priests in the SSPX are closet sedes.

Quote

But more importantly, such a response shows that they have not understood what Archbishop Lefebvre was about.

Did he say it was intolerable to hold the sedevacantist position, or did he acknowledge it was a possibility?

   

Quote

For me, it will be back to garage, hotel, and airport Masses, until we can get a chapel.

   It will be putting former SSPX priests up in our home (permanently, if need be).

No salvation outside the SSPX remnant?

   

Quote

It will be organizing for the resistence.

   It will be clinging to the same arguments the SSPX embraced for the previous 40 years.

   It will not be becomming a schismatic.

You can't really believe that people who do not recognize Benedict XVI because of his modernism are schismatics simply for that reason.

    I am listening to a sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre in which he refers to the sedevacantist position as schismatic.

   There has never been any doubt on this matter.

Quote from: Seraphim

   I am listening to a sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre in which he refers to the sedevacantist position of schismatic.

 There has never been any doubt on this matter.

"On the other hand, if it appears certain to us that the faith which was taught by the Church for twenty centuries cannot contain error, we have much less of an absolute certitude that the Pope be truly Pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, and invalid election are some causes which could make it happen that a Pope never was one or would cease to be one. In this obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which occurs after the death of a sovereign pontiff."

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Interview-with-Archbishop-Lefebvre-in-Le-Figaro-August-4-1976

"I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."

-Archbishop Lefebvre

See previous comment.

Sermon available in English from St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary audio.

   Then it would appear we are at a stalemate.

  Then it would appear we are at a stalemate.

No, unfortunately you've been taught to stonewall by SSPXers.

If he says he does not say you cannot say the pope is not the pope, then he is allowing the possibility of sedevacantism as a legitimate position.

There is no other logical conclusion.

 But what you are suggesting is that Archbishop Lefebvre considered possible that simple clergy and laymen could declare it themselves.

   These he considered schismatic.

   It is clear in the sermon.

You obviously have trouble reading:

"I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."

If it is impossible to cast doubt on the papacy of a supposed Pope without being a schismatic then it would be impossible for any council to declare one has been deposed.

St. Robert Bellarmine said the deposition must be automatic because a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church.

It is schismatic for you to say that sedes are schismatic.  They can be schismatic, but not by virtue of denying the papacy of a manifest heretic.

Quote from: Seraphim

 But what you are suggesting is that Archbishop Lefebvre considered possible that simple clergy and laymen could declare it themselves.

   These he considered schismatic.

   It is clear in the sermon.

You obviously have trouble reading:

"I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."

If it is impossible to cast doubt on the papacy of a reigning Pope without being a schismatic then it would be impossible for any council to declare one has been deposed.

St. Robert Bellarmine said the deposition must be automatic because a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church.

It is schismatic for you to say that sedes are schismatic.  They can be schismatic, but not by virtue of denying the papacy of a manifest heretic.

You obviously have trouble understanding what you read, and lack the ability to put such comments within the greater context of Archbishop Lefebvre's opinion on the subject.

(As a digression, I might add that it is precisely this defect which leads sedevacantists to become sedevacantists in the first place: the narrowness of their view, and inability to think outside of what is contained between the front and back cover of whatever tome they happen to be reading).

If you know anything about Archbishop Lefebvre, and have read/heard his other opinions on the matter, all he is saying in the quote you provide, is that we are allowed to wonder.

Otherwise, he would be contradicting himself in his other works, in which he plainly declares sedevacantists schismatics.

If that is a pill you choose not to swallow, I certainly shant stop you from spitting it out.