notmyfault2020
Platinum Member
- Oct 7, 2022
- 6,542
- 3,210
- 893
- Banned
- #1
I thought I was a sedavacantist, meaning that I once held that the Chair of St Peter at the Vatican is empty because a heretic is there (Francis).
What changed my mind is that I re-read a book I have, written by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre called Open Letter to Confused Catholics and in it (p. 152) he says.. Well, first of all he says this (his words are in italics and mine are in brackets and/or highlighted):
[The] fact is that a grave problem confronted the conscience and the faith of all Catholics during the pontificate of Paul VI. How could a Pope, true successor of Peter, assured of the assitance of the Holy Ghost, preside over the most vast and extensive destruction of the Church in her history within so short a space of time, something that no heresiarch [not even Luther] has ever succeeded in doing? One day this question will have to be answered.
Then he says on 170 that
St Pius V.. canonized this Holy Mass [that was "codified" as "Mass of All Time" but was tossed aside at Vatican II] and a Pope cannot remove such a canonization any more than he can revoke that of a saint.
I'm trying to find the part where he addresses sedavacantism. Here it is on page 177
.. Paul VI has posed a serious problem for the consicences of the faithful. This pontiff has done more harm to the Church than the French Revolution.. [he gives examples].. But it is not a simple problem to know whether a pope can be a heretic.. theologians think he can be as a private teacher but not as a teacher of the universal Church. We have to consider the degree to which the pope intended to involve his infallibility [at Vatican II].
He then goes on to point out that
"[The] visibility of the Church is too necessary for its existence for it to be possible that God would allow it to disappear for decades. Who would be able to tell us where the future pope is? How can he be elected if there are no more Cardinals? While rejecting Paul VI's liberalism, we wish to remain attached to Rome and the Succcessor of St Peter..
So it's as simple as this: If Lefebvre says we cannot be a seda.. I concur. I trust him. I've read a lot of books by him or about him. He knew more about the Catholic Church than I do, presumably.
What changed my mind is that I re-read a book I have, written by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre called Open Letter to Confused Catholics and in it (p. 152) he says.. Well, first of all he says this (his words are in italics and mine are in brackets and/or highlighted):
[The] fact is that a grave problem confronted the conscience and the faith of all Catholics during the pontificate of Paul VI. How could a Pope, true successor of Peter, assured of the assitance of the Holy Ghost, preside over the most vast and extensive destruction of the Church in her history within so short a space of time, something that no heresiarch [not even Luther] has ever succeeded in doing? One day this question will have to be answered.
Then he says on 170 that
St Pius V.. canonized this Holy Mass [that was "codified" as "Mass of All Time" but was tossed aside at Vatican II] and a Pope cannot remove such a canonization any more than he can revoke that of a saint.
I'm trying to find the part where he addresses sedavacantism. Here it is on page 177
.. Paul VI has posed a serious problem for the consicences of the faithful. This pontiff has done more harm to the Church than the French Revolution.. [he gives examples].. But it is not a simple problem to know whether a pope can be a heretic.. theologians think he can be as a private teacher but not as a teacher of the universal Church. We have to consider the degree to which the pope intended to involve his infallibility [at Vatican II].
He then goes on to point out that
"[The] visibility of the Church is too necessary for its existence for it to be possible that God would allow it to disappear for decades. Who would be able to tell us where the future pope is? How can he be elected if there are no more Cardinals? While rejecting Paul VI's liberalism, we wish to remain attached to Rome and the Succcessor of St Peter..
So it's as simple as this: If Lefebvre says we cannot be a seda.. I concur. I trust him. I've read a lot of books by him or about him. He knew more about the Catholic Church than I do, presumably.
Last edited: