Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on January 02, 2022, 07:00:49 PM

Title: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 02, 2022, 07:00:49 PM

Vos estis qui justificatis vos coram hominibus:
Deus autem novit corda vestra:
quia quod hominibus altum est,
abominatio est ante Deum. Lk 16, 15
 
Reading the Responsa ad Dubia recently published by the Congregation for Divine Worship, one wonders to what low levels the Roman curia could have descended, in order to have to humor Bergoglio with such servility, in a cruel and merciless war against the most docile and faithful part of the Church. Never, in the last decades of the most serious crisis in the Church, has ecclesiastical authority shown itself to be so determined and severe: it has not done so with the heretical theologians who infest the pontifical Athenaeums and seminaries; it has not done so with fornicating clerics and prelates; it has not done so in exemplarily punishing the scandals of bishops and cardinals. But against the faithful, priests and religious who ask only to be able to celebrate the Tridentine holy Mass, no mercy, no inclusiveness. Brothers all?
 
Never under this "pontificate" has the abuse of power by authority been [so] perceptible, not even when two thousand years of lex orandi were immolated by Paul VI on the altar of Vatican II, imposing on the Church a rite as equivocal as it is hypocritical. That imposition, to which corresponded the prohibition to celebrate in the ancient rite and the persecution of dissenters, had at least the alibi of the illusion that a change would perhaps have raised the fortunes of Catholicism in the face of an increasingly secularized world. Today, after fifty years of immense disasters and fourteen years of Summorum Pontificuм, that tenuous justification is not only no longer valid, but its inconsistency has been defeated by the evidence of the facts. All that the Council has brought has been harmful; it has emptied churches, seminaries and convents; it has destroyed ecclesiastical and religious vocations; it has drained every spiritual, cultural and civil impulse of Catholics; it has humiliated the Church of Christ and confined it to the margins of society, making it pathetic in its clumsy attempt to please the world. And vice versa, since Benedict XVI had sought to heal that vulnus by recognizing full rights to the traditional liturgy, the communities linked to the Mass of St. Pius V have multiplied, the seminaries of the Ecclesia Dei Institutes have grown, vocations have increased, the frequency of the faithful has increased, and the spiritual life of many young people and families has found an unexpected impetus.
 
What lesson should have been drawn from this "experiment of Tradition" invoked at the time also by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre? The most obvious and at the same time simplest one: what God has given to the Church is destined to succeed, and what man adds to it collapses miserably. A soul not blinded by ideological fury would have admitted the error made, trying to repair the damage and rebuild what had been destroyed in the meantime, to restore what had been abandoned. But this requires humility, a supernatural gaze and trust in God's providential intervention. It also requires an awareness on the part of pastors that they are stewards of the Lord's goods, and not masters: they have no right either to alienate them or to hide them or to replace them with their own inventions; they must limit themselves to safeguarding them and making them available to the faithful, sine glossa, and with the constant thought that they must answer before God for every sheep and every lamb of His flock. The Apostle admonishes: "Hic jam quæritur inter dispensatóres, ut fidélis quis inveniátur" (I Cor 4, 2), "what is required of dispensors is that they be found faithful."
 
The Responsa ad Dubia are consistent with Traditionis custodes, and make explicit the subversive nature of this "pontificate," in which the supreme power of the Church is usurped in order to achieve a purpose diametrically opposed to that for which Our Lord constituted in authority the sacred pastors and His vicar on earth. It is a power that is indocile and rebellious to Him who instituted it and legitimizes it; a power that believes itself to be fide solutus, so to speak, according to a principle that is intrinsically revolutionary and therefore heretical. Let us not forget: the Revolution claims for itself a power that is justified by the mere fact of being revolutionary, subversive, conspiratorial and antithetical to the legitimate power it intends to overthrow; and that as soon as it reaches institutional roles it is exercised with tyrannical authoritarianism, precisely because it is not ratified either by God or by the people.
 
Allow me to underline a parallel between two apparently disconnected situations. Just as in the presence of a pandemic effective cures are denied, with the imposition of a useless, indeed harmful and even lethal "vaccine;" so the Tridentine holy Mass, true medicine for the soul at a time of very serious moral pestilence, is culpably denied to the faithful, substituting the Novus Ordo. The doctors of the body fail in their duty, even in the presence of therapies, and impose an experimental serum on both the sick and the healthy, and insist on administering it despite the evidence of its total ineffectiveness and adverse effects. Similarly, the priests, doctors of the soul, betray their mandate, even in the presence of an infallible drug tested for over two thousand years, and do everything to prevent those who have experienced the effectiveness from using it to heal from sin. In the first case, the body's immune defenses are weakened or cancelled in order to create chronically ill patients at the mercy of pharmaceutical companies; in the second case, the soul's immune defenses are compromised by a worldly mentality and by the cancellation of the supernatural and transcendent dimension, so as to leave souls defenseless before the assaults of the devil. And this is valid as an answer to those who pretend to address the religious crisis without considering in parallel the social and political crisis, because it is precisely this duplicity of attack that makes it so terrible and that only reveals its criminal mind.
 
I do not want to go into the delusions of the Responsa: it is enough to know the ratio legis to reject Traditionis Custodes as an ideological and factious docuмent, drawn up by vindictive and intolerant people, full of velleities and gross canonical errors, with the intention of prohibiting a rite canonized by two thousand years of saints and pontiffs and imposing a spurious one, copied by the Lutherans and refined by the modernists, which in fifty years has caused an immense disaster to the ecclesial body and which, precisely because of this devastating effectiveness, must not know derogation. There is not only guilt: there is also malice and the double betrayal of the divine Lawgiver and of the faithful.
 
Bishops, priests, religious and laity find themselves once again having to make a choice afield: either with the Catholic Church and its bimillenary and immutable doctrine, or with the conciliar and Bergoglian Church, with its errors and its secularized rites. And this happens in a paradoxical situation in which the Catholic Church and its counterfeit coincide in the same hierarchy, which the faithful feel they must obey as an expression of God's authority and simultaneously disobey as a traitor and rebel.
 
Of course, it is not easy to disobey the tyrant: his reactions are ruthless and cruel; but much worse persecutions were those that Catholics had to suffer over the centuries when they had to face Arianism, Iconoclasm, the Lutheran heresy, the Anglican schism, Cromwell's Puritanism, the Masonic secularism of France and Mexico, Soviet communism, Spain, Cambodia, China... How many bishops and priests martyred, imprisoned, exiled. How many religious massacred, how many churches desecrated, how many altars destroyed. And all this because? Because the sacred ministers did not want to give up the most precious treasure that Our Lord has given us: the Holy Mass. The Mass that He taught the Apostles to celebrate, that the Apostles passed on to their Successors, that the Popes have guarded and restored and that has always been at the center of the infernal hatred of the enemies of Christ and the Church. To think that that Holy Mass, for which missionaries sent to Protestant lands or priests imprisoned in the gulags risked their lives, is now prohibited by the Holy See is a cause of pain and scandal, as well as an offense to the martyrs who defended that Mass until their last breath. But these things can be understood only by those who believe, those who love, those who hope. Only those who live by God.
 
Those who limit themselves to expressing reservations or criticism of Traditionis Custodes and the Responsa fall into the trap of the adversary, because they recognize the legitimacy of an illegitimate and invalid law, wanted and promulgated to humiliate the Church and her faithful, to spite the "traditionalists" who dare nothing less than to oppose heterodox doctrines condemned up to Vatican II, made their own by it and today risen to the figure of the Bergoglian pontificate. Traditionis Custodes and Responsa must simply be ignored, rejected [and sent] back to the sender. They should be ignored because the will to punish Catholics who have remained faithful, to disperse them, to make them disappear, is clear.
 
I am dismayed at the servility of so many cardinals and bishops who, in order to please Bergoglio, trample on the rights of God and of the souls entrusted to them, and who make a point of showing their aversion to the "pre-conciliar" liturgy, considering themselves worthy of public praise and Vatican approval. The words of the Lord are addressed to them: "You think yourselves righteous before men, but God knows your hearts: what is exalted among men is detestable before God" (Lk 16:15).
 
The consistent and courageous response to a tyrannical gesture of ecclesiastical authority must be resistance and disobedience to an inadmissible order. Resigning oneself to accepting this umpteenth abuse means adding another precedent to the long series of abuses tolerated thus far, and by one's own servile obedience making oneself responsible for maintaining a power that is an end in itself.
 
It is necessary that the Bishops, Successors of the Apostles, exercise their sacred authority, in obedience and fidelity to the Head of the Mystical Body, to put an end to this ecclesiastical coup d'état that has taken place before our eyes. The honor of the papacy, today exposed to discredit and humiliation by the one who occupies the threshold of Peter, demands it. The good of souls demands it, whose salvation is the supreme lex of the Church. The glory of God demands it, with respect to which no compromise is tolerable.
 
The Polish Archbishop Msgr. Jan Paweł Lenga has said that it is time for a Catholic counterrevolution, if we do not want to see the Church sink under the heresies and vices of mercenaries and traitors. The promise of non prævalebunt does not exclude in the least, indeed it asks and demands a firm and courageous action not only from the bishops and priests, but also from the laity, who are treated as subjects as never before, despite the fatuous appeals to actuosa participatio and to their role in the Church. Let us take note: clericalism has reached its peak under the "pontificate" of those who hypocritically do nothing but stigmatize it.
 
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop


Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: songbird on January 02, 2022, 07:16:05 PM
Why doesn't Vigano make it easy by just saying, when this pope/not pope dies, vote for me.  Other than that, he gives no solutions just woe is us.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Meg on January 02, 2022, 10:38:58 PM
Why doesn't Vigano make it easy by just saying, when this pope/not pope dies, vote for me.  Other than that, he gives no solutions just woe is us.

What type of solution would you yourself suggest? 
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: DecemRationis on January 03, 2022, 04:10:09 AM

Vos estis qui justificatis vos coram hominibus:
Deus autem novit corda vestra:
quia quod hominibus altum est,
abominatio est ante Deum. Lk 16, 15

. . .

 And this happens in a paradoxical situation in which the Catholic Church and its counterfeit coincide in the same hierarchy, which the faithful feel they must obey as an expression of God's authority and simultaneously disobey as a traitor and rebel.


 
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
 
The true Catholic hierarchy has been "taken out of the way," and now we see the "mystery of iniquity" and it's final masterpiece of the "abomination of desolation."

For all the sincerity and seriousness with which Vigano addresses this, to call it a "paradox" is somehow oddly missing it's true reality.  

In reading Vigano on this state of affairs, I sometimes get the sense or feel of the rhetoric that's invoked regarding bad presidents, like communist Obama.As if all we need to do is "kick the bum out" and restore the Republic.

Alas, it's much more than that.

We are on the verge of the end of time.

 

Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Ladislaus on January 03, 2022, 06:06:05 AM
+Vigano is clearly struggling with the implications of this Crisis.  On the one hand he calls the Conciliar Church a counterfeit, refers to the Holy See as occupied by the enemies of the faith, and calls the Papacy disgraced.  But he's afraid to take the necessary first steps toward extirpating these imposters from the Church.

If indeed there were a situation of a heretic Pope, the process has to being with SOMEone calling it out.  SOMEone has to be the first one to come out and declare the See vacant.  SOMEone has to declare Bergoglio illegitimate.  Oh, but he he doesn't have the authority.  Well, then, who does?  He can't unilaterally declare him deposed, but he can begin the process whereby the Universal Church repudiates the imposters, and separates Herself from them.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Ladislaus on January 03, 2022, 06:09:00 AM
What type of solution would you yourself suggest?

+Vigano needs to come out and declare the See vacant.  He's flirting with it by citing Bishop Lenga, who has done precisely that ... albeit from the SedepleneBennyBergogliovacantist angle.  If you denounce Bergoglio for all the evils of V2, how do you absolve his Conciliar predecessors?
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Ladislaus on January 03, 2022, 06:13:52 AM
Why doesn't Vigano make it easy by just saying, when this pope/not pope dies, vote for me.  Other than that, he gives no solutions just woe is us.

No, he needs to say that the Church needs to elect a Pope NOW.  Anyone who has the faith left repudiates Jorge Bergoglio and does not recognize him as a Catholic.  There's clearly a de facto Universal Rejection of Bergoglio as a rule of faith, despite the fact that there are some who give too much weight to the material occupation of the Holy See.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Sefa on January 03, 2022, 08:51:11 AM
+Vigano needs to come out and declare the See vacant.  He's flirting with it by citing Bishop Lenga, who has done precisely that ... albeit from the SedepleneBennyBergogliovacantist angle.  If you denounce Bergoglio for all the evils of V2, how do you absolve his Conciliar predecessors?
What is necessary for a declaration of sede vacante? When bishop de castro meyer did it at econe was that official and being the last roman bishop with ordinary jurisdiction should not all catholics obey his declaration? The fact he was telling anyone and everyone it at econe makes me think he was being muzzled in campos.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: LeDeg on January 03, 2022, 09:28:04 AM
https://youtu.be/9fVF-FAaZDM
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Meg on January 03, 2022, 09:55:16 AM
+Vigano needs to come out and declare the See vacant.  He's flirting with it by citing Bishop Lenga, who has done precisely that ... albeit from the SedepleneBennyBergogliovacantist angle.  If you denounce Bergoglio for all the evils of V2, how do you absolve his Conciliar predecessors?

Okay, I see what you're saying, but how is that a solution? What will it solve? 
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Ladislaus on January 03, 2022, 11:00:36 AM
Okay, I see what you're saying, but how is that a solution? What will it solve?

That's line with SeanJohnson's "fantasy" thread.  This prescinds from the question of sedevacantism, whether the See is vacant now or whether it will be vacant once the entire Church repudiates Bergoglio.  Before the Universal Church can repudiate a false pope, SOMEONE has to start the ball rolling.  And I think that it needs to roll.  Of course, God will intervene, but He usually does so through human agency.  At some point, barring someone doing something, how long do we wait before this hierarchy, which is getting less Catholic by the hour, happens to elect a Traditional pope who has the Catholic faith?  I know that people criticize SVism of over 60 years, but even having a dysfunctional hierarchy for that long is just as much a problem as having none.

There's the prophecy that Sts. Peter and Paul will appear in a conclave to designated the promised "Holy Pope", so perhaps we'll have to wait.

I'm a strong believer in the fact that this unravelling will begin in 2029, exactly 100 years after Our Lady requested the consecration of Russia.  In fact, I'm making my calendar for June 13, 2029.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Ladislaus on January 03, 2022, 11:04:42 AM
What is necessary for a declaration of sede vacante? When bishop de castro meyer did it at econe was that official and being the last roman bishop with ordinary jurisdiction should not all catholics obey his declaration? The fact he was telling anyone and everyone it at econe makes me think he was being muzzled in campos.

No one has the authority of course to bind consciences with such a declaration, but I am a firm believer that if someone of +Vigano's stature started the ball rolling, any Catholic who still has faith left will come to agree after some time has passed.  Then if there's a Universal Consensus that the See is vacant, there could then be an election.  Problem with the Conclavism of the past that brought us the likes of Pope Michael and Pius XIII and Linus II is that such a thing requires a near-universal consensus.  It has to be an act of the entire Church, not David Bawden's mom and ex-girlfriend.  As it is, most Catholics recognize that Bergoglio is not a Catholic pope and not their rule of faith ... but just differ regarding the legalities.  Heck, many of the Modernists who were excommunicated by St. Pius X would themselves excommunicate Bergoglio for heresy.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Meg on January 03, 2022, 11:12:10 AM
That's line with SeanJohnson's "fantasy" thread.  This prescinds from the question of sedevacantism, whether the See is vacant now or whether it will be vacant once the entire Church repudiates Bergoglio.  Before the Universal Church can repudiate a false pope, SOMEONE has to start the ball rolling.  And I think that it needs to roll.  Of course, God will intervene, but He usually does so through human agency.  At some point, barring someone doing something, how long do we wait before this hierarchy, which is getting less Catholic by the hour, happens to elect a Traditional pope who has the Catholic faith?  I know that people criticize SVism of over 60 years, but even having a dysfunctional hierarchy for that long is just as much a problem as having none.

There's the prophecy that Sts. Peter and Paul will appear in a conclave to designated the promised "Holy Pope", so perhaps we'll have to wait.

I'm a strong believer in the fact that this unravelling will begin in 2029, exactly 100 years after Our Lady requested the consecration of Russia.  In fact, I'm making my calendar for June 13, 2029.

I think I understand your perspective, in that it prescinds from an SV POV, but how likely is it that a majority of Catholics, both trad and conciliar, will begin to conclude that the See is vacant, based on what +Vigano says? Yes, +Vigano could come out and say that the See is vacant, but I don't think that that will change anything, even though +Vigano is highly respected by many. 

I hope that you're right, in that God will intervene, but I'm not sure that a human agency is required. It may be. In fact, I hope you're right about June 13, 2029. That's not so far away really. In any case, we just gotta keep on keepin' on, you know?
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Stubborn on January 03, 2022, 11:58:38 AM
No one has the authority of course to bind consciences with such a declaration, but I am a firm believer that if someone of +Vigano's stature started the ball rolling, any Catholic who still has faith left will come to agree after some time has passed.  Then if there's a Universal Consensus that the See is vacant, there could then be an election.  Problem with the Conclavism of the past that brought us the likes of Pope Michael and Pius XIII and Linus II is that such a thing requires a near-universal consensus.  It has to be an act of the entire Church, not David Bawden's mom and ex-girlfriend.  As it is, most Catholics recognize that Bergoglio is not a Catholic pope and not their rule of faith ... but just differ regarding the legalities.  Heck, many of the Modernists who were excommunicated by St. Pius X would themselves excommunicate Bergoglio for heresy.
Declare the seat vacant? Cardinals cannot declare the seat vacant - just remember that the cardinals served their purpose when they elected him. Nor is there even a need to start that ball rolling - by him or by anyone.

What he can, should and is supposed to do is what God expects him to do....

"However, even though the hierarchy cannot take legal action against an heretical pope, all of them together, or any one of them in particular, can condemn his teaching; they can accuse him before God's tribunal, warn him of his sins, and remind him of the divine wrath.

 Should this measure fail to produce any correction, they can denounce him before his subjects, the Catholic faithful, and warn them that they are not to listen to his teaching. Indeed, not only may the prelates of the Church do this, they have a most serious obligation to do it, an obligation which is as grave as the heresies are pernicious and scandalous. And if they fail to do this, they become a party to the  pope's crimes, and will most certainly share in his punishment..." - Fr. Wathen's book, Who Shall Ascend?

This has the chance of bearing good fruit, whereas attempting to "get the ball rolling" achieves nothing good.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Sefa on January 03, 2022, 12:40:47 PM
No one has the authority of course to bind consciences with such a declaration, but I am a firm believer that if someone of +Vigano's stature started the ball rolling, any Catholic who still has faith left will come to agree after some time has passed.  Then if there's a Universal Consensus that the See is vacant, there could then be an election.  Problem with the Conclavism of the past that brought us the likes of Pope Michael and Pius XIII and Linus II is that such a thing requires a near-universal consensus.  It has to be an act of the entire Church, not David Bawden's mom and ex-girlfriend.  As it is, most Catholics recognize that Bergoglio is not a Catholic pope and not their rule of faith ... but just differ regarding the legalities.  Heck, many of the Modernists who were excommunicated by St. Pius X would themselves excommunicate Bergoglio for heresy.
The problem with Bawden et al. is they have no ordinary jurisdiction so cannot declare a conclave. Only ordinary jurisdiction bishops/roman clergy can. If Bishop de Castro Meyer had held a conclave and elected a Pope I would probably accept it. But as he didn't, I think it is right to accept his declaration of sede vacante. But was it ex officio? Can saying it to random laypeople count as an official declaration?
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: 2Vermont on January 03, 2022, 03:07:23 PM
+Vigano needs to come out and declare the See vacant.  He's flirting with it by citing Bishop Lenga, who has done precisely that ... albeit from the SedepleneBennyBergogliovacantist angle.  If you denounce Bergoglio for all the evils of V2, how do you absolve his Conciliar predecessors?
He will do that when Ratzinger and Bergoglio die....if he outlives them.  
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: 2Vermont on January 03, 2022, 03:11:00 PM
No one has the authority of course to bind consciences with such a declaration, but I am a firm believer that if someone of +Vigano's stature started the ball rolling, any Catholic who still has faith left will come to agree after some time has passed.  Then if there's a Universal Consensus that the See is vacant, there could then be an election.  Problem with the Conclavism of the past that brought us the likes of Pope Michael and Pius XIII and Linus II is that such a thing requires a near-universal consensus.  It has to be an act of the entire Church, not David Bawden's mom and ex-girlfriend.  As it is, most Catholics recognize that Bergoglio is not a Catholic pope and not their rule of faith ... but just differ regarding the legalities.  Heck, many of the Modernists who were excommunicated by St. Pius X would themselves excommunicate Bergoglio for heresy.
I think most people who currently hold him in high regard would drop him like a hot potato if he went sede.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Ladislaus on January 03, 2022, 03:22:57 PM
I think most people who currently hold him in high regard would drop him like a hot potato if he went sede.

Initially, but it would build momentum over time.  You'd have the sedevacantists of course joining him, and the possibly bringing in the Resistance, and perhaps large portions of those who currently got to SSPX Masses but are really sedevacantists at heart.  Then, as their numbers grew, more would eventually join the movement.  Bergoglio is so bad that it would just take one person to point out that the emperor has no clothes.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Tradman on January 03, 2022, 03:45:17 PM
No, he needs to say that the Church needs to elect a Pope NOW.  Anyone who has the faith left repudiates Jorge Bergoglio and does not recognize him as a Catholic.  There's clearly a de facto Universal Rejection of Bergoglio as a rule of faith, despite the fact that there are some who give too much weight to the material occupation of the Holy See.
Unless he's called by God, Vigano cannot attempt to do more to oust Bergog. It remains unproven that one man can call a council to depose a pope because he's a heretic.  Unless God calls for it specifically.  It's one thing to see Bergog is spouting heresy, it's another for a person or persons to do something about it.  Who's going to listen to him/them?  A few hundred or thousand trads?  Another problem is the cardinals will elect the same or worse.  What is Vigano going to do? Force good cardinals to vote, and forbid bad cardinals from voting?  Vigano is not in a position to manipulate that many circuмstances in the Church with his level of authority, even for Her betterment. He's humbly calling Catholics to prayer and penance for the remaining chastisement still to come.  Because God allows such things to His greater glory, it won't be just a man or men who fixes this.   
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Meg on January 03, 2022, 03:49:24 PM
Initially, but it would build momentum over time.  You'd have the sedevacantists of course joining him, and the possibly bringing in the Resistance, and perhaps large portions of those who currently got to SSPX Masses but are really sedevacantists at heart.  Then, as their numbers grew, more would eventually join the movement.  Bergoglio is so bad that it would just take one person to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

Yes, but for the Resistance to go sede, Bp. Williamson would have to go sede, and the problem with that is that the SAJM would not likely go along with it. There would be a serious division.

There's always a small possibility the +W will go sede, but he never has in the 30+ years he's been a bishop. He also wrote two articles on sedevacantism five+ years ago. It's possible he's softened his position since then, but I haven't seen evidence of it.

Article 1:
Again, Sedevacantism – I | St. Marcel Initiative (stmarcelinitiative.com) (https://stmarcelinitiative.com/again-sedevacantism-i/)

Article 2:
Sedevacantism Again – II | St. Marcel Initiative (stmarcelinitiative.com) (https://stmarcelinitiative.com/sedevacantism-again-ii/)
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Ladislaus on January 03, 2022, 03:57:24 PM
Yes, but for the Resistance to go sede, Bp. Williamson would have to go sede, and the problem with that is that the SAJM would not likely go along with it. There would be a serious division.

It's not about going sedevacantist per se, but about getting to the point where the Church would repudiate Bergoglio and then even those who hold to the John of St. Thomas and Cajetan positions would have their criteria met.  Bishop Williamson has said that it's possible Bergoglio is not the pope, Avrille that it's not an unreasonable position, and Father Chazal holds Bergoglio to be an impounded heretic with no authority merely awaiting deposition by the Church.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Meg on January 03, 2022, 04:00:46 PM
It's not about going sedevacantist per se, but about getting to the point where the Church would repudiate Bergoglio and then even those who hold to the John of St. Thomas and Cajetan positions would have their criteria met.  Bishop Williamson has said that it's possible Bergoglio is not the pope, Avrille that it's not an unreasonable position, and Father Chazal holds Bergoglio to be an impounded heretic with no authority merely awaiting deposition by the Church.

Okay, but how would a point be gotten to, exactly, where the Church would repudiate Francis? It's just that trads can't really agree on where the Church is exactly, or who belongs to it. A lot of factors would have to line up in order for a repudiation, and I can't see that happening. 
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Meg on January 03, 2022, 04:19:25 PM
Unless he's called by God, Vigano cannot attempt to do more to oust Bergog. It remains unproven that one man can call a council to depose a pope because he's a heretic.  Unless God calls for it specifically.  It's one thing to see Bergog is spouting heresy, it's another for a person or persons to do something about it.  Who's going to listen to him/them?  A few hundred or thousand trads?  Another problem is the cardinals will elect the same or worse.  What is Vigano going to do? Force good cardinals to vote, and forbid bad cardinals from voting?  Vigano is not in a position to manipulate that many circuмstances in the Church with his level of authority, even for Her betterment. He's humbly calling Catholics to prayer and penance for the remaining chastisement still to come.  Because God allows such things to His greater glory, it won't be just a man or men who fixes this. 

Well said. I think that God doesn't want the Crisis to end.

It's probably as you say: He's humbly calling us to prayer and penance for the chastisement still to come. 
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Clemens Maria on January 03, 2022, 05:01:51 PM
I think most people who currently hold him in high regard would drop him like a hot potato if he went sede.
You may be right.  However, he has already come out and said that V2 is not Catholic.  He's not one of those nutty reform of the reform people.  If he hasn't lost them all yet, maybe the NO mover and shakers are ready to shake the filthy dust of V2 from their feet and go sede with Vigano?  I don't know.  I don't have a silver ball.  But I'm with you.  I don't have much hope that there is going to be a sudden turn-around and millions of Novus Ordo people quit the Novus Ordo sect and become true Catholics.  I think we are getting real close to judgement day.  And I'm not a believer in the great monarch thing.  There isn't anything in Sacred Scripture about that.  At least not anything that the Church has clearly confirmed.  Mainly I see that truth is not highly valued by the vast majority of the world's population.  I see that mothers routinely murder their own flesh and blood.  I see that perversion is now institutionalized almost everywhere in the world.  Sodom and Gomorah have nothing on this generation.  We make S&G look like child's play.  I believe that it is clearly divinely revealed in the Apocalypse that the world is going to be burnt in the end.  And it looks like that day is fast approaching.  I'm more worried about keeping myself spiritually prepared for that rather than spending a lot of energy worrying about what Vigano may or may not do.  But I do find the various speculations interesting.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: SeanJohnson on January 03, 2022, 06:25:25 PM
I think most people who currently hold him in high regard would drop him like a hot potato if he went sede.

Disagree, and here's why:

The big "hangup" I and other R&R types have with the current sedes are these:

1) Bellarmine vs JST/Cajetan, et al.
2) We have issues with violating UPA;
3) We have issues with any declarations/depositions which would not come from the hierarchy (similar but distinct from #1).

BUT

My "Fantasy thread" resolved all those "hangups" by either satisfying them or making them moot issues:

To Problem #1: We fear to side with St. Bellarmine, because on the one hand, there is a dispute that he has been properly understood by the sedes, and on the other hand, supposing he was properly translated and interpreted, what if he is wrong?

But supposing somehow that the bishops would follow JST/Cajetan/Suarez's method (i.e., First declaring the fact of Francis's heresy, then in a second declaration, declaring that God has deposed Francis for heresy), then in concreto, the debate over St. Bellarmine vs JST/Cajetan/Suarez becomes both academic and moot, because in fact, there would be no pope:

Universal peaceful asssent that Francis is NOT pope is just as infallible as that same universal assent saying he IS pope.

But even 5% of cardinals and bishops rejecting Francis would destroy UPA, and with it, the obligations we feel to honor the legitimacy of Francis's pontificate.  More on this below...


To Problem #2: Were a quality minority of bishops and cardinals to lobby for a declaration of Francis's heresy (the first step in JST/Cajetan's "method"), then UPA would effectively cease.  5% of the world's bishops and cardinals would suffice to dissolve UNIVERSAL (i.e., moral universality) assent.  At that point, people who were previously non-sede would be at ease of conscience to become sedes, since the UPA argument vanishes into thin air, AND it is the Church which is running the process (Keep in mind: It is not the bishops and cardinals deposing the pope!  It is the Cardinals and bishops declaring the fact of Francis's heresy, and in a second declaration that GOD has deposed him).


To Problem #3: We believe only those with jurisdiction can make this process legitimate.  We know some of the sedes dispute this.  No matter: So long as cardinals and bishops with jurisdiction did in fact begin and conclude this process, there is no reason for sedes to oppose it: They still get what they wanted, while R&R also get what they wanted, and both are happy.  The argument over whether jurisdiction was necessary, as with Problem #1, becomes merely academic and moot.

This is why I think that R&R would support a declaration of sedevacante, so long as the process worked out this way: The process removes the danger of error, which all R&R prudently apprehend.

In my Fantasy Thread, I laid out a scenario which could start this ball rolling.

I chose ++Burke precisely because he has jurisdiction (with +Vigano being the mastermind behind the scenes, and supplying the doctrinal firepower).

Once UPA is destroyed, +Vigano is elected Pope, and we are back to the GWS, with competing claimants, none of which enjoy UPA, but it is necessary to pass through this phase until one side or another gains UPA.

The Fantasy Thread lays out a scenario as to how +Vigano and his successor build momentum which eventually wins for them the UPA needed, and restores the Church from the top down.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: bodeens on January 03, 2022, 06:29:29 PM
Initially, but it would build momentum over time.  You'd have the sedevacantists of course joining him, and the possibly bringing in the Resistance, and perhaps large portions of those who currently got to SSPX Masses but are really sedevacantists at heart.  Then, as their numbers grew, more would eventually join the movement.  Bergoglio is so bad that it would just take one person to point out that the emperor has no clothes.
Resistance is already in practice and belief Privationist so I could see them staying put (what meaningful would change about their position?) but the remaining uncontrolled elements in the SSPX (I think in particular laity with sede options nearby are particularly going to be redpilled, priests few but some) will consider jumping ship as well as Independent chapels like OLHC could easily turn sedesomething.

If anything I think it's easier to redpill NO "priests" rather than Indulter priests. All you have to do is look at priests that went sede in the CMRI, Joseph Pham in particular stands out to me as someone who simply followed things to their logical and uncomfortable conclusions. It did not take him long after realizing there was a Latin Mass to realize that he had the Faith stolen from him. I don't think Indult priests are in a position to make this kind of realization because of their position in the Crisis, the FSSP, Canons (they lost their building and everything so who knows what their position is now but I'm guessing they will cow to Rome) and ICKSP are all organizations born out of extreme obedience rather than any theological coherence. These Indult organizations self-select for priests not able to make key conclusions in this situation.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: DecemRationis on January 03, 2022, 06:32:47 PM
You may be right.  However, he has already come out and said that V2 is not Catholic.  He's not one of those nutty reform of the reform people.  If he hasn't lost them all yet, maybe the NO mover and shakers are ready to shake the filthy dust of V2 from their feet and go sede with Vigano?  I don't know.  I don't have a silver ball.  But I'm with you.  I don't have much hope that there is going to be a sudden turn-around and millions of Novus Ordo people quit the Novus Ordo sect and become true Catholics.  I think we are getting real close to judgement day.  And I'm not a believer in the great monarch thing.  There isn't anything in Sacred Scripture about that.  At least not anything that the Church has clearly confirmed.  Mainly I see that truth is not highly valued by the vast majority of the world's population.  I see that mothers routinely murder their own flesh and blood.  I see that perversion is now institutionalized almost everywhere in the world.  Sodom and Gomorah have nothing on this generation.  We make S&G look like child's play.  I believe that it is clearly divinely revealed in the Apocalypse that the world is going to be burnt in the end.  And it looks like that day is fast approaching.  I'm more worried about keeping myself spiritually prepared for that rather than spending a lot of energy worrying about what Vigano may or may not do.  But I do find the various speculations interesting.


I'm in substantial agreement with this. 
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: songbird on January 03, 2022, 07:21:28 PM
Sede v is a vacant seat, and looking for a true pope.  If there is a true pope, then why do the people have resistance.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: 2Vermont on January 04, 2022, 04:44:45 AM
Disagree, and here's why:

The big "hangup" I and other R&R types have with the current sedes are these:

1) Bellarmine vs JST/Cajetan, et al.
2) We have issues with violating UPA;
3) We have issues with any declarations/depositions which would not come from the hierarchy (similar but distinct from #1).

BUT

My "Fantasy thread" resolved all those "hangups" by either satisfying them or making them moot issues:

To Problem #1: We fear to side with St. Bellarmine, because on the one hand, there is a dispute that he has been properly understood by the sedes, and on the other hand, supposing he was properly translated and interpreted, what if he is wrong?

But supposing somehow that the bishops would follow JST/Cajetan/Suarez's method (i.e., First declaring the fact of Francis's heresy, then in a second declaration, declaring that God has deposed Francis for heresy), then in concreto, the debate over St. Bellarmine vs JST/Cajetan/Suarez becomes both academic and moot, because in fact, there would be no pope:

Universal peaceful asssent that Francis is NOT pope is just as infallible as that same universal assent saying he IS pope.

But even 5% of cardinals and bishops rejecting Francis would destroy UPA, and with it, the obligations we feel to honor the legitimacy of Francis's pontificate.  More on this below...


To Problem #2: Were a quality minority of bishops and cardinals to lobby for a declaration of Francis's heresy (the first step in JST/Cajetan's "method"), then UPA would effectively cease.  5% of the world's bishops and cardinals would suffice to dissolve UNIVERSAL (i.e., moral universality) assent.  At that point, people who were previously non-sede would be at ease of conscience to become sedes, since the UPA argument vanishes into thin air, AND it is the Church which is running the process (Keep in mind: It is not the bishops and cardinals deposing the pope!  It is the Cardinals and bishops declaring the fact of Francis's heresy, and in a second declaration that GOD has deposed him).


To Problem #3: We believe only those with jurisdiction can make this process legitimate.  We know some of the sedes dispute this.  No matter: So long as cardinals and bishops with jurisdiction did in fact begin and conclude this process, there is no reason for sedes to oppose it: They still get what they wanted, while R&R also get what they wanted, and both are happy.  The argument over whether jurisdiction was necessary, as with Problem #1, becomes merely academic and moot.

This is why I think that R&R would support a declaration of sedevacante, so long as the process worked out this way: The process removes the danger of error, which all R&R prudently apprehend.

In my Fantasy Thread, I laid out a scenario which could start this ball rolling.

I chose ++Burke precisely because he has jurisdiction (with +Vigano being the mastermind behind the scenes, and supplying the doctrinal firepower).

Once UPA is destroyed, +Vigano is elected Pope, and we are back to the GWS, with competing claimants, none of which enjoy UPA, but it is necessary to pass through this phase until one side or another gains UPA.

The Fantasy Thread lays out a scenario as to how +Vigano and his successor build momentum which eventually wins for them the UPA needed, and restores the Church from the top down.
What would be the reason why Burke would hypothetically reject Bergoglio? Because of the liturgy?  Because he never responded to his dubia?  I don't recall him ever taking issue with Vatican II for example.  It seems to me that if this repudiation has nothing to do with Vatican II we really aren't where we should be.  And then there's the issue of whether these men are truly bishops in the first place.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: 2Vermont on January 04, 2022, 04:46:42 AM

I'm in substantial agreement with this.

As am I.  I think it's becoming increasingly more evident that we are at the End.  
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: s2srea on January 04, 2022, 06:41:43 AM
I know that people criticize SVism of over 60 years, but even having a dysfunctional hierarchy for that long is just as much a problem as having none.
Having a dysfunctional hierarchy still leaves a possibility for a future conclave, and pope, to judge the the heresiarch who held office. Going the route of some sedevecantist positions (I'm not saying this is you, necessarily) would leave even that route out of the question. Hence your appeal to Sts. Peter and Paul prophecy (reminds me of the BODer appeal to an angel baptizing someone if they truly wanted unity with the Church). I mean, how many of those "hardline" sedevecantists would accept +Vigano's calling out Francis and electing another pope- even if it were done? Not many, I'd guess.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: s2srea on January 04, 2022, 06:44:19 AM
...It's just that trads can't really agree on where the Church is exactly, or who belongs to it....
Bingo
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: s2srea on January 04, 2022, 06:49:21 AM
Sede v is a vacant seat, and looking for a true pope.  If there is a true pope, then why do the people have resistance.
Easy. The pope is human. 

Also, Sede v will never find a true pope. It's a dead end and a detrimental position. Sorry. 
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Clemens Maria on January 04, 2022, 12:37:12 PM
Having a dysfunctional hierarchy still leaves a possibility for a future conclave, and pope, to judge the the heresiarch who held office. Going the route of some sedevecantist positions (I'm not saying this is you, necessarily) would leave even that route out of the question. Hence your appeal to Sts. Peter and Paul prophecy (reminds me of the BODer appeal to an angel baptizing someone if they truly wanted unity with the Church). I mean, how many of those "hardline" sedevecantists would accept +Vigano's calling out Francis and electing another pope- even if it were done? Not many, I'd guess.
Dysfunctional?  Really?  Are you kidding?  A few weeks back I went to a trad gathering on Gaudete Sunday.  There were several people who used to be ardent anti-sedes who recently went over to the Bennyvacantist position (Benedict is the true pope).  I wanted to know what caused them to change positions and I was basically expecting the Pachamama incident to be the last straw.  But no!  It was the Traditiones Custodes thing.  That's right, the pope can worship idols and still be recognized as pope.  But if you cramp Fr Indult's style, the pope has gone too far and needs to be sacked.  That just sums up the utter madness of the R&R position.  Millions of Catholics died rather than do what Bergoglio did with the Pachamama idol.  But no one cares anymore.  It's all about maintaining the comfort of their little Mass center.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad people are finally starting to realize that Bergoglio has no authority.  But I'm not very impressed with the reasons why.  And I also think it is ridiculous to think that somehow Ratzinger or Woytyla or Montini or Roncalli where innocent of the very same crimes that Bergoglio has committed.  If you are Bennyvacantist, you must believe that V2 was a perfectly fine council too.  Because that was the overriding theme of his entire "reign".  Even Vigano has repudiated V2 so how can the Novus Ordo "popes" be legitimate?  Why would you expect a church/sect which is less Catholic than the High Church Anglicans (whose clergy are more likely to be valid than the NO clergy) to produce a Catholic pope?  There's a better chance that Justin Welby is the true Archbishop of Canterbury than that any of the Novus Ordo "popes" were true popes.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Clemens Maria on January 04, 2022, 12:37:47 PM
Joe Rogan is more Catholic than Bergoglio.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Ladislaus on January 04, 2022, 01:23:57 PM
Joe Rogan is more Catholic than Bergoglio.

So was Billy Graham.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Ladislaus on January 04, 2022, 01:30:00 PM
Easy. The pope is human.

Also, Sede v will never find a true pope. It's a dead end and a detrimental position. Sorry.

This, the "pope is human" answer is one of the least Catholic things I've seen here in a while ... in how you're applying it.  We're not talking about pope as human being but the pope as the Rock of the Church, in his Magisterium, which has always been taught to be protected by the Holy Spirit.  Obviously the pope is human, but he's also the Vicar of Christ, and with that come certain promises of Our Lord regarding the indefectibility of the Magisterium.

These stupid "pop" armchair theological maxims do a lot of damage and they're applied in a decidedly un-Catholic manner.  Your "EASY" ends up being heretical in its implications.

Do you even believe in the indefectibility of the Church and the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Church, or do you believe it to be a PURELY human institution that can fail and falter as any human being might.

If Bergoglio and his predecessors were going around worshipping in pachamama temples on their own and Vatican II and the NOM had not happened, most of us would hardly care less; it's not our problem and let the Cardinals and bishops deal with him.  Where it becomes our problem is when they're trying to impose a false Magisterium and blasphemous Rite of Worship on the entire Body of the Church, and we're left in the position of determining whether we can stay subject to them, as there's no salvation without subjection to the Holy Father.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Ladislaus on January 04, 2022, 01:38:14 PM
No, Traditional Catholics agree with where the Church is.  That's nonsense.  We disagree on various legal matters, but Archbishop Lefebvre clears it up.


Quote
To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church—what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. ...

Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church. ... That is no longer the Catholic Church: that is the Conciliar Church with all its unpleasant consequences. ...

This talk about the “visible Church” on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the “visible Church”, meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.

One Year After the Consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre, interview published in Fideliter, July-August, 1989.

Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly stated that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, and that Traditional Catholics are the ones who have them.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: 2Vermont on January 04, 2022, 03:42:16 PM
No, Traditional Catholics agree with where the Church is.  That's nonsense.  We disagree on various legal matters, but Archbishop Lefebvre clears it up.


Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly stated that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, and that Traditional Catholics are the ones who have them.
This talk about the “visible Church” on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the “visible Church”, meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.

How are these two bolded statements not contradictory?  If the traditional Catholics have the marks of the Catholic Church...and I happen to agree with that...., how can he also say they are not the Catholic Church?
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Ladislaus on January 04, 2022, 04:04:36 PM
This talk about the “visible Church” on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the “visible Church”, meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.

How are these two bolded statements not contradictory?  If the traditional Catholics have the marks of the Catholic Church...and I happen to agree with that...., how can he also say they are not the Catholic Church?

He's making a distinction between we "are" the Church, legallly and juridically, and we "represent" the Church, in terms of having the notes of the Church, in so far as we have the notes.  If you look at the world, what's left of the Church can be found and identified in the Traditional movement, but that doesn't make the Traditional movement have the canonical reality of the Church.  Conciliar Church is no longer identifiable as Catholic, but Traditional Catholis are, but that doesn't mean that have the jurisdical reality of being THE Church.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Marion on January 04, 2022, 04:16:41 PM
"We aren't the Church, but we truely represent the Church" sounds odd. 
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: s2srea on January 04, 2022, 09:23:47 PM
This, the "pope is human" answer is one of the least Catholic things I've seen here in a while ... in how you're applying it.  We're not talking about pope as human being but the pope as the Rock of the Church, in his Magisterium, which has always been taught to be protected by the Holy Spirit.  Obviously the pope is human, but he's also the Vicar of Christ, and with that come certain promises of Our Lord regarding the indefectibility of the Magisterium.

These stupid "pop" armchair theological maxims do a lot of damage and they're applied in a decidedly un-Catholic manner.  Your "EASY" ends up being heretical in its implications.

Do you even believe in the indefectibility of the Church and the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Church, or do you believe it to be a PURELY human institution that can fail and falter as any human being might.

If Bergoglio and his predecessors were going around worshipping in pachamama temples on their own and Vatican II and the NOM had not happened, most of us would hardly care less; it's not our problem and let the Cardinals and bishops deal with him.  Where it becomes our problem is when they're trying to impose a false Magisterium and blasphemous Rite of Worship on the entire Body of the Church, and we're left in the position of determining whether we can stay subject to them, as there's no salvation without subjection to the Holy Father.
If my "pop" answer seemed gratuitous , maybe you should circle back to the question. "A gratuitous question deserves...". Something like that. You know the rest.

As far as the idea of "armchair theological maxims", I've noticed sedevecantists on this forum seem to engage in them rabbidly(again see the question in question, please). In the past few days of browsing through here again I've found plenty of examples of this. I imagine no one normally responds in kind so they don't have to engage in the endless polemics sv'ers are so often known for (I.e. Your reply). 

I didn't come here for a full blown debate. I responded to a one liner with a one liner.  And that's okay. Sometimes you have a friend with an especially annoying habit. You normally overlook it because, well, you're friends. It's always good to ask yourself if you're that annoying friend. I find I often am.
Title: Re: +Vigano on the Responsa to Traditionis Custodes
Post by: Meg on January 05, 2022, 10:28:41 AM
No, Traditional Catholics agree with where the Church is.  That's nonsense.  We disagree on various legal matters, but Archbishop Lefebvre clears it up.


Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly stated that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, and that Traditional Catholics are the ones who have them.

Not to mince words, but more often than not, sedes don't care what +ABL said. Though some do. When asked where the Church is, some of the sedes don't have an answer. How do you account for that? And some sedes (certainly not all) believe that there are no Catholics left in the conciliar church. +ABL did not take that stance. He believed that Rome is in apostasy, but he did not mean that the whole Church had apostasized (sp?). He didn't think about the situation like an American would. Americans sometimes have trouble relating to what +ABL believed, since he didn't have the anti-authoritarian mindset that Americans sometimes do. Sedevacantism is mainly an American phenomena. Not that I blame Sedes for believing that Francis isn't a pope. Francis is of course a horrible heretic. But he's also a modernist, and +ABL knew quite a lot about Modernism. 

Even though +ABL believed that the conciliar church lacks the four marks, he did not believe that Rome is not where the Church is. Which may seem odd, but there it is. +ABL admitted that he didn't have all of the answers for the situation of the Crisis in the Church, and in fact he said so, many times. He was humble enough to know that. That's one of the reasons why I adhere to his view of the situation.