Former FSSP superior general says Lefebvre was a sedevacantist

The agony and confusion that you write of, has led me to believe that a primary lesson we learn while on this earth, is that we humans are unable to govern ourselves. We need Almighty God as our Governor.
I think it is a complete circle, right back to Adam and Eve's being fooled by satan, that they could be more, than what Almighty God had created them to be.
All the brutal wars throughout the centuries, are a significant example that we humans fail at governing ourselves, we need Christ as King.
Jesus bless us, to live your Holy Teachings. Amen

My first year at the Angelicum was 1986-87. At the beginning of the Spring semester two English ex-seminarians from Econe were in our class who had just left Econe. Cardinal Ratzinger had arranged for a house (and chaplain) for them. One told me that they had decided to leave because Abp LeFebvre had given a homily saying the Chair of Peter was vacant. He added that LeF was surrounded by some hard people (probably, IMHO because of the suspensus a divinis).

Some years ago he was ordained for an English diocese and is fairly well known in his home country. He is also still a friend.

Again, Dr. Bobus this is only hearsay. Did they provide you with a transcript of the homily?

I can equally attest that I personally know 4 SSPX seminarians who have assured me that they are being taught in their SSPX seminary education that Sedevacantism is a heretical position and not Catholic doctrine but is to be condemned.

This is not a court of law. I'm simply telling you what a friend told me. I have no reason to doubt him, and apparently neither did Cardinal Ratzinger.

BTW, I used to teach with Fr Bisig.

@W obronie Tradycji Kościoła
Thank you for going to and sharing source documents.

“The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”

How articulate Pope BXVI:

“This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world’s Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.”

As Ultraviolet pointed out this is mere hearsay! Its just an opinion with no evidence, such as a voice or video recording of an actual conversation. Also, many times theologians like philosophers pose thought experiments and oposing viewpoints to speculate and debate. In the course of such a discussion with bishop A and Father b, just b/c bishop A floats out ideas which are not actually held by bishop A (his true position is evidenced by his public statements and writings) and Father B, who later takes one of the possible speculative points that was discussed by bishop A and then goes to the press or media interviews, after the death of bishop A (in which A cannot give a clarification or rebuttal to the intentional misrepresentation of the dialogue) to give his opinion on some point of speculation x that bishop A made as being his own actual belief is in no way any valid proof that bishop A actually holds position x.

It's as if one takes the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas or Duns Scotus' preliminary formulations of opposing viewpoints that where at times better articulated than the heterodoxes who actually held those positions, then next asserting that Aquinas and Scotus are heretics because they stated the heterox position. What is intentionally left out is the final points made that refute and dismiss the heretical position and dismiss the actual orthodox positions held by Aqinas and Scotus.

This analogy can also be applied to Archbishop Lefebvre. A good recourse for Lefebvre's true positions citing primary source docs is Micheal Davies Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre. The man was a solidly orthodox Catholic to the core!

@Dr. Bobus I suppose it all depends, (like philosophy that has it's own share of sophistry), on the sociologist and their philosophical assumptions about the nature of being, epistemology, and human nature. There is a profound difference between the sociology of the positivist, structuralists, i.e. Comte, Marx, Saussure, Levi Strauss, and Lacan, the post-structuralist, i.e. Barthes, Derrida, and Faucault (most of these guys are in addition to being sociologists also philosophers albeit poor ones), and the social realism of Christopher Dawson, Joseph Pieper (yes, this great Thomist was also a sociologist), and J. Messner (another great German post WW2 Thomist who also was a sociologist concerned with grasping the essence of society). So, I'm in the realist camp, probably no surprise to you.

I did find Fr. Benedict Ratzinger's two books: Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity and Islam, and Values in a Time of Upheaval, plus his dialogues with Habermas to rely and utilize sociological data for his arguments.

You're saying Josef Pieper was a sociologist?

Certainly, man is a social creature because he has rational faculties, and certain aspects of that can be studied. That does not, however, put JP in the same area as Comte, Weber, Marx, et al. The material object (human society) is the same for all, but the formal object (obiectum formale et quod et quo) are different.

Due to the aforementioned, I don't think a Catholic philospher can proceed, beginning with society (or politics).

Ted McCarrick, late of the College of Cardinals, has a PhD in Sociology.

There was interest in Habermas among post WWII Catholic intellectuals because he was, like certain others, moving away from his Marxist roots--IMHO, he never really abandoned them.

I have never heard of a Thomist named J Messmer (my doctorate is in Thomistic Studies). The only two German Thomists I know of are Martin Grabmann and Pieper. Grabmann was a well known, mostly for philosophy. Pieper still is going strong, although his lectures on Hope leave me scratching my head--I don't think they reflect Thomas' thought. It's curious that Germany, with his love and respect for learning, never produced a Thomist the equal of Ramirez or Garrigou LaGrange. Probably their discomfort with analogy is a major factor.

BTW, it's orientEm not orientUm.

@F M Shyanguya don't get too excited my friend with the "ah hah now I got you" sentiment. Your equivacating policy with doctrine. The pastoral policy administration of the Churches outreach to modern man aka ecumenism, collegiality, etc., is only policy not doctrine.

True ecumenism is dialoguing with Muslims and Protestants and neo-pagans charitably with the intended goal of converting them to Christ and His Church. This does not include hand holding, joint prayer services and ice cream socials with no intended goals of bringing them into the one true faith.

There are no lay members in the SSPX priestly order. There are some consecrated religious brothers and nuns associated with their apostolic work. Some lay people do register with one of the orders chapels as supporters. I belong to a diocesan parish that offers the Usus Antiquior mass in addition to the Novus Ordo albeit in the traditional mode - ad Orientum and kneeling on the tongue.

I do also support any Catholic order that is orthodox, does not reject the pope and the universal Magisterium and the Apostolic Deposit of Faith.
That would include the SSPX, the FSSPS, and everywhere that a priest celebrates the Tridentine mass. I do not deny the Mass of Paul VI is valid nor in being in communion with orthodox Catholics who for various reasons attend the Novus Ordo.

Just learned something about the society that I didn’t know. Thank you.

God bless you and yours and his work at your hands.

Wow! Charity for one’s brethren shown right there!

I will!

I will specifically remember the society during this part

V /. Oremus pro unitate apostolatus.

R /. Ut omnes unum sint, sicut tu Pater in me et ego in te: ut sint unum, sicut et nos unum sumus.

V /. Omne regnum divisum contra se, desolábitur.

R /. Et omnis cívitas vel domus divisa contra se non statbit.

when I pray daily:

- Opus Dei Preces

I believe this exchange has borne fruit. Thank you @philosopher.

@philosopher
“That would include the SSPX,”

You can’t be doing that.

@F M Shyanguya Its not that simple, not all excommunications in the history of the Church have been valid or just as arguably in this case, where the defect of motivation being a tool to silence criticism of how the bishops at the time (1988) were implementing the policies of Vatican 2, one could even argue as revenge against or punishment of Lefebvre for not going along with the changes and refusing to celebrate the new mass, and beginning a new traditional seminary; nor does excommunication prevent one from purgatory or heaven by the Grace of their baptism.

It's true, Lefebvre consecrated 4 bishops without permission but he did not do so with the intention of breaking from the Church but out of a belief in a crisis of modernity that was having an effect of the life of the Church, which is allowed under Canon Law. You may disagree as to whether there was or is a state of crisis but there need not be an official crisis declared by the Pope in order for an actual crisis to exist, which is not a requirement under CanonLaw. A crisis can in actuality exist and be ignored by eclessiastics. The main issue is whether Lefebvre believed it and acted for the good of saving souls. If So, this is a benevolent, not a malicious intent and action. We can not read his conscience or judge the man, but can only leave him to wisdom and mercy of God.

For the faithful, until the Church decides.

PS Just finished my PM prayers and I prayed for the Society.

SSPX: How is disobedience a good thing?

With this from their own mouths, everything else is wicked rationalization and explanation.