[Meg]

A Lefebrvist.

That's what the Novus Ordo types and progressives call us too. You are the same as them in many ways. Two sides of the same coin.

[2Vermont]

That's what the Novus Ordo types and progressives call us too. You are the same as them in many ways. Two sides of the same coin.

Yes, we are both consistent in our positions although two very different positions.  The Lefebrvists are not consistent.  They are full of contradiction. 

[Meg]

Yes, we are both consistent in our positions although two very different positions.  The Lefebrvists are not consistent.  They are full of contradiction.

Sedes and progressives are both consistent in not letting go of their errors, and condemning as heretics or schismatics anyone who does not agree them. 

[2Vermont]

Sedes and progressives are both consistent in not letting go of their errors, and condemning as heretics or schismatics anyone who does not agree them.

  You mean like you don't do to.....sedes?
You're a piece of work.

[Meg]

 You mean like you don't do to.....sedes?
You're a piece of work.

Yeah, I'm a piece of work. At least I'm not a sede or a progressive, so I've at least got that going for me.  

[2Vermont]

Yeah, I'm a piece of work. At least I'm not a sede, so I've at least got that going for me.  

ANYTHING, but sedevacantism!  

[Meg]

ANYTHING, but sedevacantism!  

Well, no, not ANYTHING. I stay with the good example of Archbishop Lefebvre, by not agreeing with extremists to the left and to the right (progressives and sedevacantists). 

[Cantarella]

Well, no, not ANYTHING. I stay with the good example of Archbishop Lefebvre, by not agreeing with extremists to the left and to the right (progressives and sedevacantists).

Did you know that Archbishop Lefebvre intended to make an agreement with John Paul II in 1978? I do not think this is a good example to follow. This is not far from what Fellay is doing now, actually. Fr. Guerard Des Lauries was vehemently opposed to such an action. He even wrote a letter to the Archbishop telling him that he was acting like a "Pontius Pilate" . If you interested, you may read it here:

www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f045ht_Lauriers01.htm

[Meg]

Did you know that Archbishop Lefebvre intended to make an agreement with John Paul II in 1978? I do not think this is a good example to follow. This is not far from what Fellay is doing now, actually. Fr. Guerard Des Lauries was vehemently opposed to such an action. He even wrote a letter to the Archbishop telling him that he was acting like a "Pontius Pilate" . If you interested, you may read it here:

www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f045ht_Lauriers01.htm

No, I'm not aware of any such agreement with Pope John Paul ll in 1978. But then the Archbishop was only suspended at that time, and not excommunicated.

Oh wait...now that I think about it, yes, +ABL did sign an agreement, but then shortly after relented. Is that the one that one that you're referring to? He just did not trust Rome, as far as I can remember.

[MyrnaM]

How exactly does a vacant or material only occupant of the Holy See uphold the indefectibly and infallibility of the Roman Church - the mother and mistress of all the faithful.

If Rome decides to leave the Catholic church and the few that persevere are scattered because it is said when the Shepherd is struck the sheep will scatter.  Jesus Christ, as was always, is still head of His Church, therefore,
 it is still indefectible and Truth is truth still forever.  That is what happens in the Great Apostasy, we do not follow fake or real sister Lucy, theologians that can't agree, Lefebvre, your mother or father, friends or Modernism.
It time to follow Jesus Christ and what He said, "you will know them by their fruits."

[Meg]

Did you know that Archbishop Lefebvre intended to make an agreement with John Paul II in 1978? I do not think this is a good example to follow. This is not far from what Fellay is doing now, actually. Fr. Guerard Des Lauries was vehemently opposed to such an action. He even wrote a letter to the Archbishop telling him that he was acting like a "Pontius Pilate" . If you interested, you may read it here:

www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f045ht_Lauriers01.htm

I should mention, too, that Fr. Des Lauriers wasn't the one who had to deal with Rome and who was responsible for the SSPX, including priests and seminarians. Where was Fr. Des Lauriers during the Council btw? It's not surprising that Fr. Des Lauriers was vehemently opposed - as vehemence is a quality which sedes tend to have too much of, even if they are right sometimes. They lack prudence.

[MyrnaM]

If your right then I am sure there is at least one True Bishop left in Rome.

Our Lady did say, did she not, that Rome would become the seat of Anti-Christ.  

Apostasy is the denial of Christ, and the breaking of the First Commandment, that Francis encourages is just that!

[Ladislaus]

Bottom line for my position:

Sedevacantists are correct in stating that R&R have a warped, even non-Catholic, view of and attitude towards the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church, essentially having these defect.  They reduce the authority of the Magisterium and infallibility to a mere tautology:  it's infallible it it's true and non-infallible if it's wrong.

R&R are correct in the criticism of sedevacantism that it simply cannot be left up to individual Catholics, shooting from the hip, to consider popes they don't agree with deposed.  They are also correct that maintstream sedevacantism leads to an ecclesiavacantist situation and defection of the hierarchy.

It's precisely because I see the legitimacy of these arguments that I find the Father Chazal position and the sedeprivationist positions to be most Catholic.  Now, the only other alternative I see is just to fully accept the NO hierarchy, apply a hermeneutic of continuity to the V2 teachings, go to an Eastern or Tridentine liturgy due to personal preference, and argue against the abuses in the NOM.

[2Vermont]

Well, no, not ANYTHING. I stay with the good example of Archbishop Lefebvre, by not agreeing with extremists to the left and to the right (progressives and sedevacantists).

No?  Not ANYTHING?  Really?  

Well, then please do share with the forum what your pope Bergoglio could do, say or teach the universal Church that would give rise to your willingness to consider sedevacantism or at least not attack it and its adherents as rabidly as you do.

Or will you ignore this post too?

[Ladislaus]

I personally believe that Siri was elected, and accepted, and only stepped aside uncanonically under duress, in 1958.  Any of the papal instructions prior to that stated that collusion in an election (and there is solid evidence of collusion to put Roncalli on the See) would invalidate the election.