4 thoughts on “Denounce and Resist”

  1. Yes, I have seen that both the SSPX and Resistance wanting to keep Archbishop Lefebvre locked in a particular time, whether it is the degree of relations with Rome (make a deal or no deal until they convert), the Mass (Pre-55, 55, 62 or combination), Pope (degree he is or is not the Pope). “The Archbishop did things this way and so shall we, forever”, “After 1988, this is the position and it is ours”, but everyone forgets that the Archbishop was acting at a specific time in history, responding to specific situations with specific knowledge at that specific place. For example, if you were back in the year 2011, what decisions would you have made with the knowledge that you have now knowing what will happen in the SSPX in 2012. What changes would have the Archbishop made had he knew about GREC? If you say, “He would have removed this one and that one from his position, or changed the governing rules of the SSPX, or been more specific on what not to do regarding Rome”, then maybe be the Archbishop would say, “Given the faulty resignation of Pope Benedict, the public heresy’s of Francis, the changing of the Church’s morals, the lack of proper consent to accept the Papacy, the various crimes and collaborations with the Church’s enemy’s, etc. etc. x 1,000. Hmmm, maybe that dude ain’t the Pope!”

      • Thanks, that was very well said. Most people try to consider the situation an “all or nothing” issue. Either all the Conciliar Poper and by extension the hierarchy, are not Catholic and therefore lost their office, OR they are all just bad Catholic and maintain their office. But as the Archbishop briefly states, and Fr. Kramer expands on, the issue is not all or nothing, but it is based on the evidence for the individual case. The Resistance and those who hold the R/R theory, should no longer be afraid to look at the evidence for each case, and if the evidence is there, then the conclusion should be admitted, that either it is “light, vehement, or violent suspicion of heresy to morally certain proof.”

        “On the contrary, the Archbishop makes it clear that he just was not ready to make the judgment at that time that John Paul II was not pope due to heresy. Why? Because the evidence was not yet sufficient to make that judgment. You see, my friends; the Archbishop used evidence as the basis for his position on whether John Paul II was pope, not the universal principle indicated above. And this is precisely my position and the likes of Fr. Paul Kramer. Evidence of formal heresy is the key, or as Fr. Paul Kramer would have it “the indicia (evidence, signs, indications) of heresy”, on whether a putative pope is truly pope, a doubtful pope, or no pope at all. These “indicia” can range from light, vehement, or violent suspicion of heresy to morally certain proof. If the indicia amount to morally certain proof of formal heresy, then a private judgment that the putative pope is not pope would be justified (and as a matter of fact morally obligatory) before any official judgement of a future pope or the Church.”

  2. A non-sedevacantist friend of mine says this about the SSPX’s refusal to consider even the possibility of Francis’s illegitimacy:
    “It’s ridiculous.
    Lefebvre was never such a hard liner. There is no reason to die on this hill.
    The SSPX however has put themselves in a corner a priori and now can’t adjust to the shifting realities. They are no different than the Ecclesia Dei groups.
    Vigano likely knows far more than he has said about the conclave, etc and may drop the bomb soon on F being….., etc.
    He, like Lefebvre, is standing alone , generally speaking, although L had de Castro Mayer and V has, in a sense, Bp W with him.”


Leave a Comment