At a priests' retreat, a few months after the 1988 episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made important comments which might alarm some today.
I agree the past has been broken with, perhaps broken is not the right but Rome has consciously rejected its own Apostolic Succession which we can see visibly in its scramble to Synodality, it is surrendering the authority that comes with being Apostolic because it no longer wishes to be Apostolic.
From what Lefebvre said re- the V2 papal claimants & the conciliar church, and taking into consideration the theology of the papacy, it seems to me that he should have logically accepted the fact that these men cannot be valid popes.
I think it's important we keep our syllogisms very tight, all the terms should match etc. The conclusion should come out of a middle term between the two premises. Even if that means positing more than one syllogism. That allows others to properly critique the premises, or accept them. Without that tightness, pseudo syllogism just rely on implicit logic.
For example, these are tight - and therefore open for Tony or whoever to dispute, or accept.
S.1. [The theology of the papacy holds that] Open heretics cannot be Popes.
[The facts show that] These men have been open heretics.
Therefore, these men could not have been Popes.
S.2. One who recognises that these men have been open heretics should also recognise that they could not have been Popes.
Lefebvre recognised that these men have been open heretics.
Therefore Lefebvre should also have recognised that these men could not have been Popes.
Hey All- some so called trad influencers have just launched a new app called Pelican Plus — all things traditional Catholic except for sedevacantists. Does anyone know how to build an app like that or know someone who can? There’s certainly enough content on YouTube and here to fill an app with.
Which is precisely my point. I’ve been thinking about this idea ever since Pelican came out. And really before that. In fact, my YouTube channel has sedevacantism covered from every perspective, regardless of which theory or group you follow. If you haven’t visited yet, it’s free. Hit the playlists button and start with #1. You can find it here:
I agree the past has been broken with, perhaps broken is not the right but Rome has consciously rejected its own Apostolic Succession which we can see visibly in its scramble to Synodality, it is surrendering the authority that comes with being Apostolic because it no longer wishes to be Apostolic.
The ArchBishop is a Saint of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church founded by Our Lord. Not the recent Pope Saints of the Concilliar church of Satan
From what Lefebvre said re- the V2 papal claimants & the conciliar church, and taking into consideration the theology of the papacy, it seems to me that he should have logically accepted the fact that these men cannot be valid popes.
Will you please formulate a syllogism?
Lefebvre said re- the V2 papal claimants & the conciliar church that they have broken from Tradition
The theology of the papacy states that popes will always be faithful guardians of Tradition & faithful teachers of Catholic doctrine
Ergo, it seems to me that he should have logically accepted the fact that these men cannot be valid popes.
That’s not a syllogism.
OK, thanks.
Major: It is Catholic doctrine that the Pope will always be the faithful guardian of Tradition and teacher of the Catholic faith.
Minor: Msgr. Lefebvre stated the the V2 Popes have not safeguarded Tradition and have not taught the Catholic faith.
Conclusion: The Vatican 2 Popes cannot be true Popes (logically from the Major and Minor)
I think it's important we keep our syllogisms very tight, all the terms should match etc. The conclusion should come out of a middle term between the two premises. Even if that means positing more than one syllogism. That allows others to properly critique the premises, or accept them. Without that tightness, pseudo syllogism just rely on implicit logic.
For example, these are tight - and therefore open for Tony or whoever to dispute, or accept.
S.1. [The theology of the papacy holds that] Open heretics cannot be Popes.
[The facts show that] These men have been open heretics.
Therefore, these men could not have been Popes.
S.2. One who recognises that these men have been open heretics should also recognise that they could not have been Popes.
Lefebvre recognised that these men have been open heretics.
Therefore Lefebvre should also have recognised that these men could not have been Popes.
Thank you so much for this. I was maybe beginning to question Sedevacantism even though this was my mindset. Thank you
Hey All- some so called trad influencers have just launched a new app called Pelican Plus — all things traditional Catholic except for sedevacantists. Does anyone know how to build an app like that or know someone who can? There’s certainly enough content on YouTube and here to fill an app with.
Unfortunately I think the sede world is too fragmented for an "all things sede" app to work. I'm interested in the idea though.
Which is precisely my point. I’ve been thinking about this idea ever since Pelican came out. And really before that. In fact, my YouTube channel has sedevacantism covered from every perspective, regardless of which theory or group you follow. If you haven’t visited yet, it’s free. Hit the playlists button and start with #1. You can find it here:
https://youtube.com/@thewizionary1?si=TdQE7jgBh71sbwAD