Author Topic: Archbishop Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (Read 34197 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #185 on:** March 02, 2011, 11:30:10 AM »

It is plain ABL never became a sede, stevus. However, he said many things over the years that make it crystal clear he thought it was a legitimate idea, response, etc., given the right conditions. Many who CLAIM to think like ABL, on the other hand, act as if the idea, in se, is simply untenable.

Again, look up what ABL actually said over the years.

LM · « **Reply #186 on:** March 02, 2011, 11:37:49 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

LM,

The point is that Pius XII recognized that meeting with non-Catholics, presumably where they are saying non-Catholic prayers in rooms next to you, does not make you a participant in idolatry or false worship.

Obviously JPII went beyond what Pius XII allowed as far as guidelines and cautions. But at the heart of it, despite the scandal, JPII never preached indifferentism or actively participated in false worship. Nor did he ever condone Catholics doing so.

You presume to much and add what is not there.

If you had bothered to actually read the docuмent you would see that it specifically deals with meeting with non-Catholic Christians (protestants) with the sole intent of bringing them to the Catholic Faith and the possibility of reciting a Catholic prayer (Lord's Prayer) and/or a prayer approved by the Church. You cannot add your spin, your presumption, that this also in some way implies to inviting non-Christians and having them pray to false gods.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #187 on:** March 02, 2011, 01:36:11 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

It is plain ABL never became a sede, stevus. However, he said many things over the years that make it crystal clear he thought it was a legitimate idea, response, etc., given the right conditions. Many who CLAIM to think like ABL, on the other hand, act as if the idea, in se, is simply untenable.

Again, look up what ABL actually said over the years.

GV has a point here. I've read alot of ABL's quotes over the past several years and also a book that details his entire life and I can say that ABL did in fact come close to taking the sede position. He decided against it but I don't think he was ever playing the "wait and see" game. If he was going to become sede he would have done so no later than the time JPII excommunicated him. He never had any intention of just "seeing how things play out". To my knowledge, ABL never specifically said JPII was worshipping false gods, but he did say that JPII was endorsing the act of doing so.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #188 on:** March 02, 2011, 09:59:17 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

To my knowledge, ABL never specifically said JPII was worshipping false gods, but he did say that JPII was endorsing the act of doing so.

What is the moral effect of such endorsement? His entire 'papacy' was about such endorsements.

If I endorse murderers, rapists, or abortionists, what are the moral consequences? Presuming others know about it, what are the possible consequences within the order of law?

What if I go out of my way to visit VooDoo practitioners, deep in the jungles of Africa, expressly to confirm them in their devilry? Are such actions alone without consequences?

SJB · « **Reply #189 on:** March 03, 2011, 06:38:52 AM »

It seems some here are bending over more than backwards to defend these types of actions (JPII, etc.). You may want to ponder what Bellamine had to say here:

Quote from: St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff

"In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by external act [emphasis in original Latin], as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus." (lib. IV, c. 9, no. 5)

[Further, after explaining that Felix was for a time an antipope, he continues (no. 15)]:

"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.