SEDEVANTISTS SHARE BASIC ERROR WITH

INDULT CONSERVATIVES
By Father François Laisney

Now here are a few words of explanation on this topic. My whole family returned to the
Traditional Mass in 1975, not that we had really left it, but rather that the new had come in, and with it
more and more priests started to give Communion in the hand, which my parents always taught us to
be wrong and so they looked for good priests, until they found one saying the Traditional Mass. Ever
since my whole family has been with the Tradition.

At that time, there was no talk on sedevacantists: EVERY good priest - and there were a good
number who were still saying the Traditional Mass - held that Pope Paul VI was true Pope. The first
one that I ever heard to be sedevacantist was Father Guérard des Lauriers. He was teacher at Ecône
in 1976, and as soon as Archbishop Lefebvre had heard his new ideas, he required that he would not
teach them at Ecône. Father Guérard des Lauriers did not abide by this rule of Archbishop Lefebvre
during the retreat which he preached at Ecône in September 1977 [I was there], and for this cause he
was asked not to return to the seminary. This was a time when Archbishop Lefebvre had lost about
half the faculty in Ecône because of his courageous stand of the previous year, and yet he explained
to us that he could not accept the sedevacantist thesis of Father Guérard des Lauriers, and preferred
to have a fifth priest leaving rather than compromise on this point.

In 1978 a brother of mine entered a community headed by Father Olivier de Blignières, who at
that time followed Father Guérard des Lauriers in his sedevacantism. Archbishop Lefebvre always
refused to ordain their members, because of that sedevacantism. After Father Guérard des Lauriers'
episcopal consecration in 1981, I was quite concerned for my brother and went to ask advice from
Archbishop Lefebvre. He told me that one great flaw in Father Guérard des Lauriers and many
sedevacantism was "angelism". He meant by this, that they consider men to be like Angels: logical up
to the end of their principles. If an Angel chose for God, he went all the way and gave himself so
completely that such a perfect devotion deserved to be rewarded right away and he went straight to
Heaven; if another angel chose against God, he went all the way in his rebellion, and his revolt was so
grievous that he deserved to be chastised right away and was cast down to Hell. There is no middle.
However to think that men are as logical as the Angels leads to a lot of erroneous judgements. A man
can hold a principle of Faith, and at the same time hold a conclusion that is logically incompatible with
it: simply because that man is not logical with his Faith. Such a man becomes torn apart by his inner
contradiction, but this is characteristic of liberals, and Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II were both
liberals and both wanted to hold fast both the principles of the Catholic Faith, AND to please the
world... The consequence is that they pleased neither God nor the world, though the world would
applause when they said or did things that were not compatible with the Faith.

By forgetting that man can be so illogical, some drew the conclusion that these Pope had lost the
Faith, thus left the Church and thus were no longer Popes. These sedevacantists tried to be logical...
but as St. Pius X often reminded his hearers, a small error at the level of the principles leads to a big
error at the level of the consequences. This error of angelism led these people in the big error of
sedevacantism.

I used to argue with my brother (by letter and with calm...) on the matter for years, until... in 1987
their community completely changed from one excess to another, and became "Indult", they are now
the "Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer", similar to that of St. Peter. And now I have to argue with my
brother on the opposite side...
 All through these years, there are some characteristics that I found often among the
sedevacantists:
1/ They WANT to prove that the Pope is not Pope, at any cost, and their "demonstration" has
changed several times, they always find a new one... It used to be that it was the declaration on
religious freedom in 1965 that was the "proof" that the Pope lost his papacy at that time, then in was
the new Mass in 1969, then that John XXIII was a freemason before, then now it is the new rite of
ordination in 1968, and I know not what it had been in between...
2/ They hold the same erroneous idea that some "conservative novus ordo" faithful, viz. that if
the Pope is Pope, then we have to do whatever he asks, no matter what. This is not true, simply
because the Church has defined that the Pope is infallible in certain circumstances, but not in all:
when he is fallible, he may command something that is against God, and man ought to obey God
rather than men.
3/ For the above error (in 2/), they hold that the priests and even the faithful MUST judge whether
Paul VI or John Paul II is true Pope. And again this is not true: for many reason, one of which is simply
because such a judgement is ABOVE the competence of simple priests and laymen. Often
Archbishop Lefebvre used to tell us that we simply ought to keep the Faith, the morals of the Church
and her Tradition (Liturgy, devotions, etc.) at our own level, without taking upon ourselves to judge
that which is above us.
4/ Since each sedevacantist takes upon himself to judge the Pope, it is not surprising that they
have divided themselves in so many groups, they have multiplied the bishops, many of them have no
priests or merely a handful of them who follow them, and a handful of faithful. These endless division
are typical of the work of evil, and manifest that this position does not come from God.
5/ One could add the scandals given by not simply faithful and priests, but the very leaders of
their groups, such as Bishop Shukkart in Spokane, or Bishop Kelly (who stole his consecration by
abusing of the weakness of an elderly and sick ... conservative novus ordo bishop in full communion
with John Paul II !)
6/ The major argument against sedevacantism is that of the visibility of the Church: if one
accepts their claim, then the Church would have lost its visibility (it is no longer visible with the
properties that Our Lord gave her, no longer build on Peter). Now in the Old Testament even when
they were unfaithful, even when the high priests were unfaithful and they were deported to Babylon,
the Hebrews remained the people of God. In the New Testament, the Apostles when they left Christ
and even denied him, still remained the Apostles of Our Lord, and were his visible "Mystical Body"
though they were at the time spiritually dead (there may have remained only Our Lady spiritually living
at that time).
7/ And inevitably the sedevacantist position leads to ... multiple elections of phony popes (and
there are more than a dozen of them running around, from Gregory XVII, Peter II, Linus II, Michael I,
Pius XIII, etc.)

So one can use a proof by the absurd: if stating a principle leads logically to such unacceptable
conclusion, then there must be some error at the level of the principle set. This applies to the rush
judgement of invalidity of all priestly ordinations / episcopal consecrations after 1968. There must be a
nuance that has been forgotten, and its forgetting leads to such wrong conclusion. Never did
Archbishop Lefebvre accept such sweeping judgement, and he knew his theology (he was doctor in
philosophy and doctor in theology).

"I have kept to myself 7000 who did not bow the knee before Baal", did the Good Lord answer to
Elias who complained that he was left alone. But it is clear that the people of God was not reduced to
these 7000 ones. All the Hebrews of the time were the people of God. So it is today: though there may
be few good Catholics left, the others are still parts, [dead] members of the Mystical Body of Christ.