Pope Francis, Archbishop Lefebvre and Sedevacantism
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Pope Francis, Archbishop Lefebvre and Sedevacantism
Catholic Family News, February 2014
John Salza, J.D.
On December 20, 2013, Pope Francis gave a sermon in which he actually suggested that
Our Lord’s death on the Cross may have taken Our Lady by surprise, and that She may have
even believed God had lied to Her. Here is the relevant portion of the text of the sermon,
reported by the Vatican News Service, which describes Francis’ meditation on Our Lady’s
thoughts while She stood at the foot of the Cross:
“The Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not…She was silent,
but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that
we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have
given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and
now I seen him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to
say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’” (Emphasis added). 1
This is painful to say: These statements are blasphemous against the Mother of God and
denigrate the entire Catholic tradition, which praises Our Lady’s intimate and exalted knowledge
of the Mystery of the Passion as Queen of Prophets and Martyrs and Mother of the Church.
These statements also stink of heresy because they call into question the dogma of the
Immaculate Conception, which holds that Our Lady was preserved from all stain of sin from the
moment of Her conception – original and actual – and thus could have never even entertained the
thought that God was a liar and deceiver (which is a grave sin against the First Commandment).
Pope Francis is on quite a roll. In his brief pontificate, he has already told us that there is
no Catholic God, that atheists go to heaven, that counting prayers is Pelagian, that he doesn’t
judge sodomites, that we shouldn’t obsess about sins against nature, that proselytism is nonsense,
and that the greatest evils afflicting the Church are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the
aged, among other things. But even if these incredibly scandalous statements are not protected by
the Pope’s charism of infallibility, Francis has engaged his authentic Magisterium to teach error
concerning the Jews. 2
1
“Pope: silence guards one’s relationship with God,” Vatican.va, December 20, 2013.
2
This raises the very grave and disturbing question of whether the Magisterium is ever capable of teaching
doctrinal error. Of course, this question is not limited to Francis’ Magisterium, but applies to the Vatican II
Magisterium which teaches, inter alia, that man has a God-given right to religious liberty (Dignitatis Humane (DH),
no. 2); Christ’s revelation was completed at the Crucifixion (DH, no. 11); the Spirit of Christ uses heretical sects as a
means of salvation (Unitatis Redintegratio (UR), no. 3); common worship with heretics is desirable and effective in
petitioning for grace of unity (UR, no. 8); the Church has a high regard for non-Catholic doctrines (Nostra Aetate,
no. 2); Catholics and heretics long for the one, truly visible Church (UR, no. 1); heretics are in communion with the
Catholic Church (UR, no. 3; Lumen Gentium (LG), no. 15)), heretical divisions prevent the Church from realizing its
1In his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (On the Proclamation of the Gospel in
Today’s World), Francis teaches:
“We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God
has never been revoked, for ‘the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable’ (Rom. 11:29).
The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the Sacred Scriptures, looks
upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own
Christian identity (cf. Rom. 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a
foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and
to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes. 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts
in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.”
Suffice it to say that if these teachings are not formally heretical, they certainly approach
heresy. It is a dogma of the Catholic Church that the Jews’ covenant with God, the Mosaic
covenant, has in fact been revoked by Jesus Christ. 3 While Francis does not specify which
covenant he has in mind, there is only one covenant that is historically identified as exclusive to
the Jews, and that is the Mosaic covenant. Moreover, Francis is speaking of today’s non-Catholic
Jews who have not entered into the New Covenant of Christ. Hence, Francis’ present-tense
usage of “their covenant” and “people of the covenant” in reference to today’s faithless Jews
(who have no covenant with God) leaves little room for a non-heretical reading of the text. 4
Does Pope Francis really believe the heresy that both Catholics and Jews are in a saving
covenant with God? Well, in his book, Pope Francis - On Heaven and Earth, Francis writes:
“The Church officially recognizes that the People of Israel continue to be the Chosen People.
Nowhere does it say: ‘You lost the game, now it is our turn.’ It is a recognition of the People of
Israel.” 5 Francis has also confirmed the legitimacy of Judaism by having repeatedly engaged,
prior to his election, in common public worship with Jews, both in synagogues and Cathedrals,
unity (UR, no. 4); the life of grace exists outside the Catholic Church (UR, no. 3); the sacraments can be given to the
Eastern schismatics (Orientalium Ecclesiarum, no. 27); Muslims worship the same God as Catholics (LG), no. 16);
the order of bishops is also subject to the supreme power over the universal Church (LG, no. 22), Christ by His
incarnation has united Himself with every man (Gaudium et spes, no. 22), among other teachings.
3
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Dz. 1348; Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, no. 29. Pope Francis cannot be
referring to the Abrahamic covenant because God created that covenant when Abraham was a Gentile (Gen. 17:7-
8), and that covenant has been subsumed into the New Covenant of Jesus Christ which the Jews reject.
4
It is also erroneous to say that the Church looks upon the Jews’ “faith as one of the sacred roots of her own
Christian identity.” The Church looks upon the supernatural faith of Abraham as a root of her identity, but not
upon the natural faith of the Jews, which rejects Christ and leads them to damnation unless they convert to the
true Faith. Further, the Jews do not accept the “revealed word” of the Old Testament because it points to Christ,
Who told the Jews that they “search the Scriptures” in vain if they don’t accept Him as Messiah (Jn 5:39-40).
Finally, Catholics and Jews do not worship the same God; to hold otherwise is not only to reject Divine revelation,
but also the principle of non-contradiction as well. Frankly, the Conciliar Church’s teaching on the Jews constitutes
the worst form of anti-Semitism possible, for it confirms them in their sin of unbelief and rejection of Jesus Christ.
5
Pope Francis - On Heaven and Earth (Random House, New York: 2013), p. 188.
2without ever telling the Jews they must convert to Christ to save their souls. 6 Francis has also
publicly memorialized these events in his writings.
For example, in his book Pope Francis – Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio, he writes:
“Not long ago I was in a synagogue taking part in a ceremony. I prayed a lot…It gave me much
peace and joy.” 7 In his statement to Rabbi Skorka (his co-author of On Heaven and Earth),
Bergoglio further confirms: “I did not forget how you invited me twice to pray and to speak in
the synagogue.” 8 In fact, joint Catholic-Jewish memorial services and common worship have
been taking place in churches throughout Argentina every year since 1998, thanks to Bergoglio’s
leadership. Bergoglio has also engaged in interreligious worship with heretics, Muslims, Hindis
and Buddhists. 9
Such Catholic participation in non-Catholic worship has always been condemned by the
Church. Always. Canon 1258 of the Code of Canon Law (1917) said it was “forbidden to actively
participate in the worship of non-Catholics,” and Canon 2316 said that anyone who did so was
“suspected of heresy” (and one who pertinaciously persevered in such activity would be deemed
a manifest heretic). But the Church’s prohibition of “communicatio in sacris” is not just a matter
of canon law but of Divine law as well, because worshiping with unbelievers is a sin against God
and a danger to one’s faith. In fact, it is an external denial of the Faith. Hence, Pope Pius XI
declared in Mortaliam Animos: “Thus, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has
never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.” Interreligious worship
leads to the heresy of indifferentism and imperils one’s salvation.
For Archbishop Lefebvre, John Paul II’s persistent common worship with heretics, Jews
and pagans - the very same activity in which Jorge Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) has also
engaged - seemed to him to be the most problematic of the Pope’s many offenses against
Catholic teaching and praxis. In regard to the Pope’s worship with the Jews, Lefebvre expressed
his Catholic astonishment:
6
On April 15, 1998, Bergoglio held an interreligious prayer service to honor deceased Jews who he called
“brothers, because we have the seal of God in our hearts”; in September 2004, he participated in a Jewish service
in a synagogue; on November 9, 2005, he worshiped with Jews and lit a candle commemorating their deceased; in
2007, he attended Rosh Hashanah services at a synagogue in Argentina and called the Jews “my elder brothers”;
on June 7, 2010, he prayed in honor of the Jews at the Jewish Center in Argentina and called the Jews “our elder
brothers” and “the chosen people of God”; on November 12, 2012 he participated in a Jewish worship service in a
cathedral in Buenos Aires, Argentina and jointly lit a candle with a rabbi in the service; and, on December 14, 2012,
he celebrated Hannukah with Jews in Argentina and lit a menorah.
7
Pope Francis – His Life in His Own Words, Conversations with Jorge Bergoglio, (Published by the Penguin Group,
NY: 2013), p. 208.
8
On Heaven and Earth, p. 220.
9
For example, on January 24, 2002, Bergoglio participated in a prayer service with Protestants, Jews, Muslims,
Hindis and Buddhists in a cathedral in Buenos Aires. On May 5, 2006, he prayed with members of the syncretist
Universal Parliament of Religions. It is no surprise why both Italian and Argentinian Freemasonry publicly praised
Bergoglio on his election to the papacy the day after his election.
3“And most recently, the Pope has been into the synagogue of the Jews in Rome. How
can the Pope pray with the enemies of Jesus Christ? These Jews know and say and
believe that they are the successors of the Jews that killed Jesus Christ, and they
continue to fight against Jesus Christ everywhere in the world. At the end of the Pope’s
visit, the Jews sang a ‘hymn’ that included the line ‘I believe with all my heart in the
coming of the Messiah,’ meaning they refuse Jesus as the Messiah, and the Pope had
given permission for this denial of Christ to be sung in his presence, and he listened,
with head bowed!” 10
After explaining why Catholic participation in non-Catholic worship is contrary to both
Divine and canon law (he referred to the above-cited Canons 1258 and 2316), the Archbishop
stated: “In which case, I cannot see how it is possible to say that the Pope is not suspect of
heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.
Now I don’t know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the
sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more Pope,’ but I think that for me it was not yet
the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that
the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds
11
and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious.”
Needless to say, in light of his ongoing participation in non-Catholic worship, the status
of John Paul II’s claim to the papacy and the question of sedevacantism weighed heavily on the
Archbishop’s mind and heart. Note well that the Archbishop made these statements in early
1986, before John Paul II’s scandalous prayer meeting in Assisi later that October (where John
Paul II allowed acts of false worship to desecrate holy churches and yet declared that Catholics
and non-Catholics prayed to “the Lord of history” that day). In fact, when he made these
statements, the Archbishop was concerned that if John Paul II continued with the Assisi meeting,
he would become a manifest heretic. He said:
“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
10
Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, n. 123, pp. 25-29, May-June 1988 (Fideliter, 1988). The Archbishop also grieved
over John Paul II’s participation in pagan rituals in Africa and India: “Also last year, in Togo, the Pope poured out on
the ground a pagan sacrifice to the god of the animists or African spirit-worshipers. Early this year, in India, he let
some Hindu ‘priestess’ mark him on the forehead with the sign of her sect! Incredible! ‘All gods of the pagans are
devils,’ says Scripture (Ps 95:5). How can the Pope receive the sign of the devil? Whatever god is not Jesus Christ is
not the one and only true God.” Ibid.
11
Ibid.
4promised 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 apostatize? So it is possible we may be
obliged to believe this Pope is not the Pope.” 12
Archbishop Lefebvre continued:
“For twenty years, Msgr. De Castro-Meyer and I preferred to wait, we said it was
more prudent and more in conformity with Providence to wait because it is so
important, so tragic, when it is not just a bishop, archbishop or cardinal, but the man in
the chair of Peter. It is so important, so grave, so sad, that we prefer to wait until
Providence gives us such evidence, that it is no longer possible to refuse to say that the
Pope is a heretic. So, to say that I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in
Assisi, if God allows it.” 13
We know that God in His Providence did allow the scandalous Assisi prayer meeting to take
place in 1986, and that Archbishop Lefebvre did not publicly state John Paul II was a manifest
heretic after that assembly. In fact, Lefebvre lived to see John Paul II’s continued and ongoing
participation in pagan worship which took place in Kyoto (1987), Rome (1988), Warsaw (1989),
Bari (1990) and Malta (1990), and still refrained from declaring the Pope a manifest heretic.
Perhaps Archbishop Lefebvre ruminated over the teaching of Bellarmine, who said a
manifest heretic automatically loses his office without a sentence from the Church, and that of
Suarez, who taught that a manifestly heretical Pope does not lose his office until sentenced by
the Church. 14 Further, while Bellarmine did not think a sentence for heresy was necessary for
loss of office, he also did not believe a true Pope could disappear into heresy in the first place,
based on Christ’s prayer that Peter’s faith would not fail (Lk 22:32). Presumably, the Archbishop
had difficulty reconciling the truth that John Paul’s words and actions were objectively heretical,
with the common understanding that “it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally
heretical.” Indeed, this difficulty strikes at the heart of the matter. 15
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
It is interesting to note that Bellarmine (d.1621) and Suarez (d.1617) lived at the same time, and yet both held
that their seemingly inapposite opinions were the teaching of the Church Fathers and Doctors. Bellarmine: “A pope
who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a
Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the
teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. (De Romano
Pontifice. II, 30); Suarez: “I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope would cease to be Pope just when
a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church. This is the common
opinion among the doctors” (De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, nn. 3-10, pg. 316-317).
15
While the Archbishop would not declare John Paul II a manifest heretic, he was willing to say the Pope was “not
Catholic”: “Without entering into consideration of the consequences of an heretical, schismatic or non-existent
Pope, which would lead to interminable theoretical discussions, in conscience could we not and ought we not,
after the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law which clearly affirms the new Church, and after his
5There are many other arguments and opinions that fall on both sides of this question, which
Archbishop Lefebvre surely contemplated. For example, how could Holy Mother Church give
her children erroneous doctrines (the Jews are in covenant with God; the Holy Ghost uses
heretical sects as a means of salvation) and evil practices (prayer in common; a New Mass that is
an incentive to impiety) and still be the true Church? If the Church is infallible not only in her
doctrine, but also in her universal disciplines and liturgy, then how can these novelties come
from the Church?
Are ordinary Catholics now required to sift through Magisterial texts to determine what is
from Tradition and what is not? Can the conciliar Popes use their erroneous understanding of a
“living Tradition” as an affirmative defense to pertinacity? Further, if the Pope is the principle
of unity for the Church, how can the conciliar Popes be responsible for the de facto schism they
have caused between traditional and modern Catholics (e.g., by creating new rites, a new
calendar, etc.), who practically refuse communion with each other? How can true Popes depart
from 1900 years of Catholic tradition (e.g., banning/limiting the Old Mass; punishing traditional
clerics)? 16
At the same time, Archbishop Lefebvre surely recognized the difficult questions that result
from assuming the sedevacantist position. For example, Jesus told us we must ultimately resolve
doctrinal and disciplinary matters by “telling the Church” (cf. Mt 18:17), which presupposes we
know where the Church is (she is always visible). How do we fulfill Christ’s command if nearly
the entire hierarchy has defected? Where to go? And if most of the hierarchy has lost their
jurisdiction through heresy, does this not mean that Christ has deprived His Body of the ordinary
means of salvation, through the sacraments of the Catholic Church? Is this not contrary to the
highest law of the Church which is the salvation of souls?
scandalous declarations concerning Luther, now affirm that Pope John Paul II is not Catholic? We say no more, but
we say no less. We had waited for the measure to become full, and it is so henceforth.” Fideliter, 1988. By his
words, it is unclear whether the Archbishop believed a non-Catholic could still be Pope (which is a minority opinion
held by, for example, Garrigou-Lagrange and Billuart), or whether he was being more colloquial in his speech (e.g.,
the Pope doesn’t act like a Catholic).
16
Archbishop Lefebvre described the state of the crisis in the starkest of terms. He said: `“That Conciliar Church is
a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church, that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its
new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document,
official and definitive…the Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church
is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they
separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” From the famous 1976 Declaration of the SSPX General Chapter.
6While admitting the possibility of the sedevacantist thesis, Archbishop Lefebvre ultimately
preferred to leave the judgment to the Church. 17 Even during the reign of Paul VI, Lefebvre
stated:
“The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the
successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is,
pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the
problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of the
theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the
heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of
supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by
the Church (Emphasis added).” 18
Archbishop Lefebvre’s biographer, Bishop Tissier del Mallerais, also explains that the
Archbishop’s preference was to avoid private judgment, even by those in authority, and defer to
the Church’s authoritative judgment instead: “But the wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre made him
feel, to the contrary, that the premises of this reasoning [sedevacantism] were as shaky as the
authority that formulated it, be it that of a theologian or even a bishop.” Tissier further recounts:
“He [Lefebvre] said more than once about these popes – about Paul VI from 1976, and about
John Paul II, after the prayer meeting of religions at Assisi in 1986 – that he did not exclude the
possibility that these popes were not popes, that one day the Church will have to examine their
situation, that a future pope and his cardinals might have to pronounce the finding that these
men had not been popes” (Emphasis added). 19
Further, it is understood that the Church infallibly receives a newly-elected Pope through the
moral unanimity of a “universal and peaceful acceptance” of his election. 20 The Church’s
acceptance of the papal election is infallible because the Pope is the proximate rule of Faith for
the Church, and hence the faithful must know who the Pope is, under the protection and guidance
of the Holy Ghost. In the case of each of the elections of the conciliar Popes, there was a moral
unanimity of acceptance. Granted, some traditional Catholics immediately questioned the
orthodoxy of these Popes, and some of them even rejected their claims to the papacy.
Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that such people represented a tiny fraction of the Catholic
faithful, and hence a moral unanimity was achieved. Otherwise, the Church, who was Catholic
under Pius XII in 1958, completely defected from the Faith in that same year, when almost all of
the faithful accepted the election of John XXIII. This is not possible.
17
Clearly, the Archbishop knew the distinction between the sin of heresy (under Divine law) and the crime of
heresy (under canon law), and yet preferred to have the Church formulate a definitive judgment of the sin.
18
Archbishop Lefebvre, Econe, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions. This author also believes
that the conciliar Popes could be condemned as manifest heretics by a future Pope.
19
Fideliter, 1988.
20
This doctrine was taught by St. Alphonsus Liguori and is found in many theology manuals (Billot, Journet, Van
Noort, etc).
7Because the universal acceptance of a Pope is an infallible act of the Church, it would seem
that the rejection of said duly elected Pope must also be an act of the Church. In fact, if the
faithful infallibly receive a newly-elected Pope through the moral unanimity of a peaceful
acceptance, then it seems that a similar moral unanimity would be required (as a movement of
the Holy Ghost) for the faithful to withdraw submission from a heretical Pope, assuming there
has been no judgment by the Church. Nevertheless, although there is an increase in those who
question the legitimacy of the conciliar Popes (and those who are becoming sedevacantists), the
potential withdrawal of a moral unanimity of the more than one billion Catholics from Francis or
any other duly elected Pope seems very unlikely (although not impossible). 21 Even if such a
withdrawal were to occur in the future, it seems certain that the Church would issue a subsequent
declaration of heresy to give the faithful certainty of the deposition and to ensure a peaceful
conclave.
The current crisis is unprecedented. While there clearly was chaos in the Church during the
Western Schism (when there were three claimants to the papal throne), there was a validly
reigning Pope during that crisis. 22 Never before in the history of the Church have six successive
papal elections even been questioned to be, much less declared frauds, by a fractional minority of
the faithful. 23 Moreover, it has been 56 years since 1958, which are multiple generations and the
lifespan of some men. It would seem extremely improbable, if not impossible, for the papal
“vacancy” to last a lifespan, for then the vacancy could not have been filled by any man (unless
there is a secret Pope somewhere). And it seems very unlikely for the alleged vacancy to have
lasted nearly twice as long as the longest papal reign in 2,000 years. Hence, the longer the
“vacancy” lasts, the more improbable the sedevacantist thesis would seem to become. Relying
upon private revelations (e.g., La Salette, Catherine Emmerich) or individual exegesis of
Scripture (e.g., Apoc 17) providing for a counterfeit church that will occupy Rome, but which do
not reveal the length of a possible vacancy (if there even is one), generates more questions than
answers.
In closing, I believe any honest Catholic should affirm, with Archbishop Lefebvre, that the
sedevacantist thesis is a possible explanation of the crisis in the Church because the conciliar
Popes have made it so, by their words and actions. Yet, in the words of the Archbishop, this
question of a manifestly heretical Pope “leads to interminable theoretical discussions” which
cannot be resolved with absolute certitude, especially by those with no special competence or
21
To say that most of the faithful are heretics or apostates and hence cannot recognize (and thus will not withdraw
from) a heretical Pope is, of course, “putting the cart before the horse” by assuming something that has not been
proven. As noted, such a judgment of mass apostasy would also have to be applied to the Catholic populace of
1958 who peacefully accepted the election of John XXIII, even though there was no mass apostasy in the Church at
that time. Rather, the Church in 1958 (certainly, a moral unanimity of the faithful) was flourishing in orthodoxy.
22
During the Western Schism, there were two (and eventually three) claimants to the Papal throne of the one
Catholic Church. During the present crisis, there seems to be two churches (the Catholic Church and the Conciliar
church) being governed by one Pope.
23
Most sedevacantists believe the conciliar Popes were manifest heretics at the time of their elections, and that a
true Pope cannot fall into manifest heresy.
8authority (myself, of course, included!) 24 For all of the brilliance, education, holiness and
supernatural virtue of Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier explains that, “But for himself, he
preferred to consider them as popes. This supposes that he did not feel that he possessed
sufficient knowledge of the pertinent facts nor the necessary power for making such a judgment.
This is of critical importance to bear in mind.” 25
Do any of us as individuals truly possess “sufficient knowledge” of the facts (including all
the theology, history and canon law involved), and the “necessary power,” that is, the authority,
to make a definitive public judgment to be acted upon, that the conciliar Popes are manifest
heretics? To ask the question is to answer it. Hence, it seems most prudent to follow the
Archbishop’s counsel and leave the judgment to the Church and Divine Providence. The most
we can do publicly? Bishop Tissier said, “The Archbishop left the theological question open.” 26 I
believe it is permissible for any Catholic to do the same. In the meantime, we must continue to
“pray a great deal for the Holy Father” and for the consecration and conversion of Russia as
revealed at Fatima. Perhaps the conversion of Russia will bring about the conversion of Rome,
and not vice versa. God only knows. While the crisis does seem hopeless, we know that Our
Lady’s Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end – and Her Triumph will include vanquishing all
the heresies and heretics of the modern Church.
24
Fideliter, 1998.
25
Ibid. Because Archbishop Lefebvre preferred to leave the public judgment of sede vacante to the Church, and
because he believed public disagreement over the question could lead to schism, he suppressed those within the
Society who publicly promoted the sedevacantist position. For example, in 1977 Lefebvre expelled Fr. Guerard des
Lauriers as professor at Econe for publicly teaching the “material/formal pope” thesis (which assumes there is no
true Pope). In 1979 Lefebvre dismissed Fr. Bernard Lucien from the Society for his open promotion of
sedevacantism. Lefebvre also refused to ordain members of Fr. Olivier De Blignieres’ (a former SSPX priest)
religious community who were openly sedevacantist.
26
Ibid.
9You can also read
