Author Topic: Archbishop Thuc - Consecrations (Read 28584 times)

katholikos · « **Reply #45 on:** February 12, 2012, 12:50:04 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Raoul76
ABL was a troubling and contradictory figure.

I rarely dislike one of your posts Raoul, but that is by far the dumbest thing you have posted since you returned over a year ago. The definition of a cult, first of all, would be more like the Protestant Reformation when all those stupid heretics followed Martin Luther. You need to get your definition of "cult" right.

I know you are turned off by ABL because he wasn't a sede, which is absurd. The man liked sedes, he just didn't think he had the knowledge to take such a position (according to Bishop Tissier, that is). Since when must we accept figures who are only sede? John Lane is sede and he likes ABL and the Society. I feel embarrased for you after an illogical post like that.

I think we can take all of the personal attacks out of this and explain this all very reasonably: Since the death of Pope Pius XII, we've found ourselves in an unprecedented and very difficult situation. Many good people tried to do the right thing, but they went back and forth between what to believe and what to do, because no matter what they did, they encountered problems. Regardless of what ABL may have done or intended to do, the facts, after over 50 years of this mess, are that the SSPX-type "resistance" position is not tenable because contradictory, and ditto for the Novus Ordo and indult/motu positions. Sedevacantism remains as the only possible position, without contradictions, though it does have its problems.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #46 on:** February 12, 2012, 12:50:15 PM »

Quote from: katholikos

Quote from: Nishant2011

Nor can the same be said of Bishop Williamson, though here too many speculate that he is privately one. Recently, he himself called the position "schismatic". While I don't exactly agree with him on that, I think he's made his position quite clear.

I think that's funny. The essence of the sin of schism is refusing to properly submit to the person recognized to be the Roman Pontiff. Who does that sound like? The SSPX or sedevacantists?

Wrong again.

The Essenes of schism is not failure to submit to the Roman Pontiff.

That is disobedience, unless required by necessity.

Schism, which perfectly reflects your position, is failure to acknowledge the authority of the bishop of Rome to govern the universal Church.

In other words, you are a non-Catholic schismatic.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #47 on:** February 12, 2012, 12:51:12 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Raoul76
ABL was a troubling and contradictory figure.

I rarely dislike one of your posts Raoul, but that is by far the dumbest thing you have posted since you returned over a year ago. The definition of a cult, first of all, would be more like the Protestant Reformation when all those stupid heretics followed Martin Luther. You need to get your definition of "cult" right.

I know you are turned off by ABL because he wasn't a sede, which is absurd. The man liked sedes, he just didn't think he had the knowledge to take such a position (according to Bishop Tissier, that is). Since when must we accept figures who are only sede? John Lane is sede and he likes ABL and the Society. I feel embarrased for you after an illogical post like that.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #48 on:** February 12, 2012, 12:53:42 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

Both. SSPX are sedes in fact if not in name. Neither of us submit to this heretical pope.

Proof that sedes are unable to distinguish between true and false obedience, and like their Protestant forefathers, choose to ejectnCatholic doctrines like necessity that would preclude the conclusion they have determined to defend, with or without sound doctrine.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #49 on:** February 12, 2012, 01:11:19 PM »

Quote from: katholikos

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: Raoul76
ABL was a troubling and contradictory figure.

I rarely dislike one of your posts Raoul, but that is by far the dumbest thing you have posted since you returned over a year ago. The definition of a cult, first of all, would be more like the Protestant Reformation when all those stupid heretics followed Martin Luther. You need to get your definition of "cult" right.

I know you are turned off by ABL because he wasn't a sede, which is absurd. The man liked sedes, he just didn't think he had the knowledge to take such a position (according to Bishop Tissier, that is). Since when must we accept figures who are only sede? John Lane is sede and he likes ABL and the Society. I feel embarrased for you after an illogical post like that.

I think we can take all of the personal attacks out of this and explain this all very reasonably: Since the death of Pope Pius XII, we've found ourselves in an unprecedented and very difficult situation. Many good people tried to do the right thing, but they went back and forth between what to believe and what to do, because no matter what they did, they encountered problems. Regardless of what ABL may have done or intended to do, the facts, after over 50 years of this mess, are that the SSPX-type "resistance" position is not tenable because contradictory, and ditto for the Novus Ordo and indult/motu positions. Sedevacantism remains as the only possible position, without contradictions, though it does have its problems.

And the only way you can maintain your "contradictory" party line is by ignoring the doctrine of necessity (a cause excusing from obedience from superiors).

Being a bit dishonest with ourselves, aren't we?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #50 on:** February 12, 2012, 01:13:11 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: Nishant2011
It is disingenuous for sedevacantists to make it out as if Archbishop Lefebvre inclined to their position.

Quote
"The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation.

Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. . . . And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."

It is true his views on the subject were less harsh at times, as is only right in the face of such an uncertain theological position as sedevacantism, but it was at most a pragmatic tolerance of the position.

Nor can the same be said of Bishop Williamson, though here too many speculate that he is privately one. Recently, he himself called the position "schismatic". While I don't exactly agree with him on that, I think he's made his position quite clear.

Nishant, that was ABL in 1979. Why try to represent what he thought in 1979 when 7 years later (1986) he most clearly and publicly changed his mind?

"it is possible we may be obliged to believe he is not pope....I am on the way to saying the Pope is not Pope"
Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, The Angelus, 1986

And.....uh.....he declared the Holy See vacant when?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #51 on:** February 12, 2012, 01:42:12 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Cupertino
Quote from: Nishant2011
It is disingenuous for sedevacantists to make it out as if Archbishop Lefebvre inclined to their position.

Quote
"The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation.

Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. . . . And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."

It is true his views on the subject were less harsh at times, as is only right in the face of such an uncertain theological position as sedevacantism, but it was at most a pragmatic tolerance of the position.

Nor can the same be said of Bishop Williamson, though here too many speculate that he is privately one. Recently, he himself called the position "schismatic". While I don't exactly agree with him on that, I think he's made his position quite clear.

Nishant, that was ABL in 1979. Why try to represent what he thought in 1979 when 7 years later (1986) he most clearly and publicly changed his mind?

"it is possible we may be obliged to believe he is not pope....I am on the way to saying the Pope is not Pope"
Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, The Angelus, 1986

ABL most certainly did not believe one could recognize when a pope ceased to be pope, and act upon it.

That is the main reason he never did.

He even said, "Perhaps one day they will say to us we should have known...," thereby implying exactly the opposite of what you are asserting.

And.....uh.....he declared the Holy See vacant when?

Do you really have trouble understanding the difference between believing a principle, and deciding whether it applies or not?

ABL believed a pope could cease automatically to be pope, and that we could recognize it, and immediately act upon it.

It is contrary to reason to say that since ABL never thought it applied, that it never could be applied. Nor is it reasonable to say that since he didn't, that he could not have been mistaken, especially since he was coming closer and closer to that realization, but died. His admission that he was coming closer to doing so, is an admission he may have been mistaken, and that the sedes may have been correct.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #52 on:** February 12, 2012, 01:46:38 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: Cupertino
Quote from: Seraphim
Quote from: Cupertino
Quote from: Nishant2011
It is disingenuous for sedevacantists to make it out as if Archbishop Lefebvre inclined to their position.

Quote
"The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation.

Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. . . . And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith."

It is true his views on the subject were less harsh at times, as is only right in the face of such an uncertain theological position as sedevacantism, but it was at most a pragmatic tolerance of the position.

Nor can the same be said of Bishop Williamson, though here too many speculate that he is privately one. Recently, he himself called the position "schismatic". While I don't exactly agree with him on that, I think he's made his position quite clear.

Nishant, that was ABL in 1979. Why try to represent what he thought in 1979 when 7 years later (1986) he most clearly and publicly changed his mind?

"it is possible we may be obliged to believe he is not pope....I am on the way to saying the Pope is not Pope"
Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, The Angelus, 1986

ABL most certainly did not believe one could certainly know when a pope ceased to be pope, and act on it!

That is the main reason he never did.

He even said, "Perhaps one day they will say to us we should have known...," thereby implying exactly the opposite of what you are

ABL most certainly did not believe one could recognize when a pope ceased to be pope, and act upon it.

That is the main reason he never did.

He even said, "Perhaps one day they will say to us we should have known...," thereby implying exactly the opposite of what you are asserting.

And.....uh.....he declared the Holy See vacant when?

Do you really have trouble understanding the difference between believing a principle, and deciding whether it applies or not?

ABL believed a pope could cease automatically to be pope, and that we could recognize it, and immediately act upon it.

It is contrary to reason to say that since ABL never thought it applied, that it never could be applied. Nor is it reasonable to say that since he didn't, that he could not have been mistaken, especially since he was coming closer and closer to that realization, but died. His admission that he was coming closer to doing so, is an admission he may have been mistaken, and that the sedes may have been correct.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #53 on:** February 12, 2012, 01:51:44 PM »

ABL most certainly did not believe one could know when the pope had ceased to be pope, and act upon it.

This is the main reason he never declared it.

He even said, "one day they may say to us that we should have known; that there were signs..."

I other words, his position was exactly the opposite of the one you are trying to attribute to him.

Trinity · « **Reply #54 on:** February 12, 2012, 02:22:06 PM »

One thing I thought of which I don't find mentioned here is the problem of what is going to happen if a true pope does turn up. CMRI are going to have to believe it, but SSPX is going to have to believe it plus get out of the habit of disobedience. Not an easy habit to get out of.

I see I got a thumbs down. What? You don't believe SSPX is sede? The doctrine of necessity means you (not the pope) decide what to do. Practically speaking the pope is dethroned.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #55 on:** February 12, 2012, 02:30:46 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: Seraphim
ABL most certainly did not believe one could know when the pope had ceased to be pope, and act upon it.

This is the main reason he never declared it.

He even said, "one day they may say to us that we should have known; that there were signs..."

I other words, his position was exactly the opposite of the one you are trying to attribute to him.

You are plainly" in denial", and unreasonable. Apparently you don't comprehend how one can believe a principle and yet think it does not apply. I gave you the 1986 quote in black and white, and it says just what I am telling you. You want so badly to think ABL did not believe it that you flout logic and try to conclude that since he did not apply it, he must have no longer believed in the principle. ABL believed the principle just as I said, and just as he himself said to begin with.

Or could it be that the insecurity of your position creates within you a desire to make-believe that ABL was a supporter of your position, whereas the reality was that he tolerated a position he himself clearly did not hold?

Do you care to explain why ABL would hold to the sede thesis, yet deny it in practice?

Which is the same thing as accusing ABL of dishonesty?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #56 on:** February 12, 2012, 02:34:57 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

One thing I thought of which I don't find mentioned here is the problem of what is going to happen if a true pope does turn up. CMRI are going to have to believe it, but SSPX is going to have to believe it plus get out of the habit of disobedience. Not an easy habit to get out of.

I see I got a thumbs down. What? You don't believe SSPX is sede? The doctrine of necessity means you (not the pope) decide what to do. Practically speaking the pope is dethroned.

Please, by all means, feel free to overrule Suarez, St Alphonsus, St Thomas Aquinas, Billuart, Naz, and Gerson in favor of........you.

At least you are honest in admitting ignorance on the doctrine of necessity, and your willingness to discard it likeLuther did to troublesome books in the Bible.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #57 on:** February 12, 2012, 02:56:24 PM »

Cupertino asserts ABL said a state of sedevacante was certainly knowable and that the faithful could act on such a discernment.

Really?

On p. 506 of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais's "Marcel Lefebvre," we read the following:

"Perhaps one day in 30 or 40 years, a meeting of cardinals gathered together by a future pope will study and judge the reign of Paul VI; perhaps they will say that there were things that ought to have been clearly obvious to people at the time, statements of the pope that were clearly against tradition.

"At the moment I prefer to consider the man on the chair of Peter as pope, and if one day we discover for certain that the pope was not the pope, at least I will have done my duty."

Conclusion:

1. ABL clearly believes Sedevacantism is not certainly knowable;

2. It is the therefore laughable to believe he would believe Catholics who buy into Sedevacantism to act on this shaky belief.

So contrary to Cupertino's unfounded assertion that ABL harbored Sedevacantism in principle, we have Bishop Tissier quoting him 2 sentences later, expressing how doubtful he felt the sedevacantist thesis to be, and instead preferring:

"I prefer to start from this principle: we have to defend our Faith; in that there is no shadow of doubt concerning our duty."

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #58 on:** February 12, 2012, 03:00:45 PM »

That's what I was refering to earlier (i.e Bishop Tissier's quote). ABL had respect for sedevacantists and sedevacantism, though he himself was not a sede.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #59 on:** February 12, 2012, 03:09:52 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

It is fantasy to read ABL and deny the plain comprehension of what he said. Also, the quote approved by the Holy Office of the Church. Tissier is his own man and has nothing to do with those facts.

I didn't deny anything. If anything I agreed with you that ABL was sede-friendly. He did come close to taking the sede stance, even though he never did.