Author Topic: ABL: Sede-ism is Absurd, Dangerous, Leads to Schism, Causes Divisions (Read 2030 times)

stevusmagnus · « **on:** March 25, 2011, 01:23:11 PM »

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_three/Chapter_44.htm

Excerpts from a Conference Given by Mgr. Lefebvre at Angers, France

...We must know how to draw distinctions. As you can well imagine, it was a profound sorrow for me to see some of my priests leave the Society because they do not agree with a line of conduct which I have followed since the foundation of the Society. I have always recognized the Pope. I went to see Pope Paul VI, and I have been to see Pope John Paul II. I am ready to see Pope John Paul II tomorrow, if he asks me, but I am ready to speak the truth.

I try to explain that we must return to Tradition, that there has been an error, that they are mistaken, that it is necessary to return to a solid foundation, to the things of faith, to the catechism of old, to the sacraments of old, to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of old. There must be a return, even if they do not abandon all that they have done since the Council immediately. A tree is judged by its fruits. Let them at least leave us freedom (i.e., which rite of Mass to use). I do not agree with those who say there is no pope. very grave thing to say that there is no pope. Because the Pope is Liberal, that does not mean that he has ceased to be the Pope.

I do not think that Pope John Paul II is as infected with Liberalism as was Pope Paul VI; but, unfortunately, in view of the fact that he himself professes to be the spiritual son of Pope Paul VI, that he follows the line of Pope Paul VI, that he is there to defend and continue the work of Paul VI, that he feels it his duty to continue all that John and Paul did, whose names he took, we are troubled and we wonder where it will all end? Must we wait yet again for a new pontificate [to initiate a return to Tradition]? Yet, despite all that, the Pope is nonetheless keen to return to Tradition insofar as seminaries, clergy, Church discipline, and religious discipline are concerned. When the Pope speaks of these things, he speaks well. We are pleased to hear him. If only the Pope wished to return in this way in all respects!…

I tell you that, quite simply, because you could ask yourselves many questions, as I ask myself, wishing with all my heart, praying morning and evening, night and day, that Tradition might return to the Church. The Pope himself would be more satisfied and happy than anyone if it did. We can only live in Our Lord, and by Our Lord with the reign of Our Lord. Everywhere! Everywhere! In the Liturgy, in social, political, family life, we can do nothing without Our Savior Jesus Christ. Do you see what I am trying to tell you? We must keep a firm line and we must not deviate during these difficult times in which we live. One could be tempted, justifiably, to extreme solutions and say: “No, no. The Pope is not only Liberal, the Pope is heretical! The Pope may well be more than heretical, so there is no pope!”

That is not so. To be a Liberal is not necessarily to be a heretic, and as a necessary consequence, outside the Church. We must know how to make the necessary distinctions. This is very important if we are to stay on the right path, to stay in the Church. Besides, where would this thinking lead us? If there is no longer a pope, there are no longer any cardinals because, if the Pope isn't pope, when he nominates cardinals these cardinals can no longer elect a pope, because they are not really cardinals. Well then, would an angel from heaven provide us with a pope? The idea is absurd, and not only absurd,but dangerous because then we would be guided perhaps to solutions which are truly schismatic. One might go to find the "pope" of Palmar de Troya who has been excommunicated. He has excommunicated me, he has excommunicated the Pope and he everybody ! There are others. One could go to the church of Toulouse, to the church of Rouen, who knows ? To the Mornlons, to the Pentecostals, to the Adventists, or everywhere. Souls are lost, and I do not wish to have such a responsibility.

There are those who find me severe perhaps, for insisting that those young priests who do not agree with us, do not agree with that line which I have always followed, leave us. But I cannot allow the wolf into the sheepfold.

If today I say there is a Pope, this Pope, we are not obliged to follow him in everything. It is possible to have shepherds who are not always good shepherds in the full sense of the word, and we are not obliged to follow them in everything. But to go from this, to say that we do not have a pope, no!

And so they introduce divisions among traditionalists. They introduce division into the Church, and I want nothing to do with this. I can have nothing to do with this, while regretting it profoundly…

One day there will be a Pope truly like a St. Pius X, and there will be no more problems. Holy Church will find herself once more in the Truth, and we shall be in communion one hundred percent with the pope who will have found Tradition again.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 25, 2011, 01:48:50 PM »

I have always disagreed with those who think that the Society has fallen away since the time of Abp. Lefebvre, and this proves my point.

The SSPX is Abp. Lefebvre's creature, yesterday and today, whatever slight differences have been made. All the errors of SSPX are in this speech.

Quote

Because the Pope is Liberal, that does not mean that he has ceased to be the Pope

Acting as if they are just liberal when they are heretics.

Quote

One might go to find the "pope" of Palmar de Troya who has been excommunicated. He has excommunicated me, he has excommunicated the Pope and he everybody ! There are others. One could go to the church of Toulouse, to the church of Rouen, who knows ? To the Mormons, to the Pentecostals, to the Adventists, or everywhere.

Guilt-by-association, comparing sedes to Protestants. If believing someone can be an anti-Pope makes you Protestant, St. Bernard was a Protestant when he went up against Anacletus II, and St. Robert Bellarmine was a Protestant when he said a heretical Pope would be ipso facto deposed, and Paul IV was a Protestant when he promulgated cuм Ex Apostolatus.

But for more untrained minds, for people who are scared of saying the Pope isn't the Pope, they hear this and are convinced. Catholics are trained to be obedient and now they are being inculated with a false obedience.

Quote

"I tell you that, quite simply, because you could ask yourselves many questions, as I ask myself, wishing with all my heart, praying morning and evening, night and day, that Tradition might return to the Church."

The usage of the confusing concept of "Tradition." Where is it? How do you know where it is? Is it the Latin Mass? Because even if the Latin Mass was ENFORCED in the Vatican II churches, it would still be a phony, many of the clergy are not validly ordained and the Magisterium is a heretical fraud.

"Tradition" is the real red herring, not the Pope issue. "Truth," not "Tradition," is the key.

Quote

"There are those who find me severe perhaps, for insisting that those young priests who do not agree with us, do not agree with that line which I have always followed, leave us. But I cannot allow the wolf into the sheepfold."

Painting the sedevacantists as the enemy, as the "wolf," while giving every benefit of the doubt to manifest formal heretics.

IrishUkrainian · « **Reply #2 on:** March 25, 2011, 01:54:43 PM »

Although I'm not a sede I think sede-ism is more plausible than SSPX theology. I don't understand logically how they can believe Paul VI was a true pope yet believe the validity of NO Masses are questionable. Wouldn't a true pope have the right to change the liturgy?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 25, 2011, 02:00:44 PM »

Abp. Lefebvre said:

Quote

That is not so. To be a Liberal is not necessarily to be a heretic, and as a necessary consequence, outside the Church. We must know how to make the necessary distinctions.

Look carefully. He doesn't give any proof, he just flat-out says "he is liberal, not heretical" and it is his authority and standing that are supposed to convince us. We're supposed to just take his word for it.

The sedes, though, have proof positive that at least JPII and Benedict are heretics. We also have proof that the Magisterium of VII is not the real Magisterium so that the Popes who promoted it can't be Popes. That couldn't happen under a true Pope, the Holy Ghost protects the Magisterium under a true Pope.

Caminus · « **Reply #4 on:** March 25, 2011, 02:09:07 PM »

No Mike, he stands on the authority of the Popes who condemned liberal Catholics. They were never condemned as heretics. And if you'll read Mortalium Animos carefully, the Pope referred to those who were seduced by this error as Catholics as well. On the contrary, you are the one who is attempting to foist ill-advised, rash notions on other Catholics. Your ignorance is truly amazing, but what is more amazing is that you fear not to speak about the same things with some pretended certainty while condemning traditional Bishops and priests.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #5 on:** March 25, 2011, 02:15:36 PM »

Quote from: IrishUkrainian

Although I'm not a sede I think sede-ism is more plausible than SSPX theology. I don't understand logically how they can believe Paul VI was a true pope yet believe the validity of NO Masses are questionable. Wouldn't a true pope have the right to change the liturgy?

ABL and the Society have always believed that the NO Mass in the original Latin is valid when said with proper intention. So there is no conflict. They oppose the NO for other reasons.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #6 on:** March 25, 2011, 02:36:04 PM »

Quote from: IrishUkrainian

Although I'm not a sede I think sede-ism is more plausible than SSPX theology. I don't understand logically how they can believe Paul VI was a true pope yet believe the validity of NO Masses are questionable. Wouldn't a true pope have the right to change the liturgy?

Actually even the Pope does not have the right to drastically change the Liturgy. I'll have to dig around and see if I can find where I read that.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #7 on:** March 25, 2011, 02:40:39 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: IrishUkrainian
Although I'm not a sede I think sede-ism is more plausible than SSPX theology. I don't understand logically how they can believe Paul VI was a true pope yet believe the validity of NO Masses are questionable. Wouldn't a true pope have the right to change the liturgy?

ABL and the Society have always believed that the NO Mass in the original Latin is valid when said with proper intention. So there is no conflict. They oppose the NO for other reasons.

Actually, that is incorrect. Below is a quote from ABL:

"The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules...is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith."

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2011, 05:37:48 PM »

Non-sedes beating up on the sede again..

Whats NEW!? I see why Raoul didn't want to really come back here after the "ban", in order to try to help others realize the truth , in any way possible. I don't blame him. Its basically like pouring water on a reactor in full nuclear meltdown... USELESS!

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #9 on:** March 25, 2011, 08:01:32 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: stevusmagnus
Quote from: IrishUkrainian
Although I'm not a sede I think sede-ism is more plausible than SSPX theology. I don't understand logically how they can believe Paul VI was a true pope yet believe the validity of NO Masses are questionable. Wouldn't a true pope have the right to change the liturgy?

ABL and the Society have always believed that the NO Mass in the original Latin is valid when said with proper intention. So there is no conflict. They oppose the NO for other reasons.

Actually, that is incorrect. Below is a quote from ABL:

"The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules...is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith."

How does that contradict anything I said?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #10 on:** March 25, 2011, 09:34:23 PM »

stevus,

You are so preoccupied with sede-ism of late that one might wonder if you are not trying to convince yourself that it is not true.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #11 on:** March 25, 2011, 09:53:53 PM »

It's the only topic that really gets attention. I've posted non Sede related topics and hardly anyone posts.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #12 on:** March 25, 2011, 10:19:58 PM »

LOL! Strange, eh?

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #13 on:** March 25, 2011, 10:30:33 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

LOL! Strange, eh?

Yes. I suppose the remaining FOUR non-Sedes left on Cath Info found my topics boring!

It stinks because I really wanted to see responses to things like Akin's defense of the Pope's comments on not converting the Jєωs.

Instead I heard crickets chirp.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #14 on:** March 26, 2011, 07:59:15 AM »

Akin is a total zero around these parts. That is true for SVs and non-SVs. Most of the locals who regularly comment left that nonsense behind a long time ago and see no need to look back. I imagine very few CI-ers keep a close eye on the NO b.s. or the absurd apologies made to excuse it.