CathInfo.com

So much for the conversion of ABL to sedevacantism after Assissi (much less the assertion that Catholics could determine when a pope ceased to be pope and act accordingly)!

It does appear that way. However, I don't see why somebody can't recognize the unorthodoxy of the pope, conclude he couldn't possibly be representing the Church, and realize there are a very limited number of real actions one can actually take. Then realize these actions are the same ones almost everybody (who notices the unorthodoxy) takes.

Quote from: Seraphim

So much for the conversion of ABL to sedevacantism after Assissi (much less the assertion that Catholics could determine when a pope ceased to be pope and act accordingly)!

It does appear that way. However, I don't see why somebody can't recognize the unorthodoxy of the pope, conclude he couldn't possibly be representing the Church, and realize there are a very limited number of real actions one can actually take. Then realize these actions are the same ones almost everybody (who notices the unorthodoxy) takes.

   Now, in light of the protracted and contentious debate I have been having with Cupertino, what I have to say may surprise you.

   I have never been a dogmatic anti- sedevacantist.

   From time to time, I even wonder if it could be true.

   My whole position, which has probably been lost amongst the heated rhetoric, and which I believe was also ABLs position, is that sedevacantist might be possible, but is too uncertain to take a dogmatic stand on.

   In other worde, you could say we give the benefit of the doubt to the post-conciliar popes.

   Yes, ABL did say things at various times when Rome did something particular egregious that would tend to traject in the sede direction, but he never made it his position, and in fact became more active in suppressing them as time went by.

   And certainly he never advocated that people could discern and judge individually, and act accordingly.  That they could not is the primary reason he never did himself.

   

Quote from: Seraphim

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Telesphorus

Yes, this is totally different than what the SSPX says today.

No one has shown me any quotations of the Archbishop which strongly repudiate sedevacantism in the manner that SSPX priests today typically do.

Agreed.

   Interesting, because the quote I supplied on the Thuc thread (for which Cupertino is eagerly awaiting my response) was cited as a series of quotes between 1979 - 1982.

   And though Cupertino is predictably awaiting to receive that information so he can forward the tired old, "But his position changed at Assissi/1986," the following words are written by Bishop Williamson in his Letters to the Rector (Volume 2, p. 98) in 1990 while the Archbishop was still alive:

   "Catholics are told that if they find any Society priest taking that position, he is out of line with the Society, and in fact numbers of priests have left the Society, or forced their own dismissal, because of their sedevacantism."

   So much for the conversion of ABL to sedevacantism after Assissi (much less the assertion that Catholics could determine when a pope ceased to be pope and act accordingly)!

Seraphim, you are speaking falsely.

Look at the OP and see what ABL thought of consecrating bishops. You know very well he did an about-face with that thinking. And, it is the same with the principles behind the sede position. Your quotes from '79-'82 merely show what he thought at that time. What ABL had published in the Angelus in 1986 was an about-face also. Let he who has eyes to see, let him see:

"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" - Archbishop Lefebvre, 1986

Don't just deny the obvious. This idea of "tired old" reminds me of Modernist rhetoric. We should be thinking in terms of true or false. Archbishop Lefebvre truly spoke his mind in 1986, and your quoting someone else in the Society doesn't change what ABL believed. You can see in 1986 that ABL clearly shows there was contention in the SSPX on this point:

"Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the Pope is a heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true."

Quote from: Seraphim

So much for the conversion of ABL to sedevacantism after Assissi (much less the assertion that Catholics could determine when a pope ceased to be pope and act accordingly)!

You have to slow down and comprehend what you read. Do you know there is a difference between believing in a principle and deciding whether or not the principle applies? This is a serious question, Seraphim, and you need to answer it, and not run away.

Cupertino-

   Your lack of comprehension makes you a huge time waster, which is why I have ended our conversation in the Thuc thread.

   My only response to you here will be:

1). We are not talking about the consecrations, but about whether ABL believed, as you assert, that people can know with certainty that a pope has ceased to be pope, and act accordingly.

2) I predicted your response in my previous response on this thread, and supplied a quote to refute it (I.e., demonstrating that the opposition to sedevacantist accelerated towards the end of ABLs life, whereas you are trying to pretend he inclined towards it with his 1986 statements.

3) you seem to be unable to accept that ABL militantly opposed your position, as the quote demonstrates.

4) I will be hiding your posts from view.