Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Dawn on November 03, 2010, 12:09:50 PM
-
Is Msgr. Lefebvre the Prelate
Predicted to Restore the Church?
People Asking
To Whom It May Concern,
I have followed with keen interest the stories of Our Lady of Good Success and your books published about Mother Mariana. It is, indeed, a consoling apparition for us Catholics hanging on to tradition. I am sincerely puzzled, however, about your interpretations of the Blessed Mother's message to Mother Mariana. She was asked to suffer so that God would send us a prelate to stand up to the apostasy of our times and form good and holy priests.
You seem to believe this prelate is yet to come. But how then have we "traditional" Catholics hung on to our lifeboat of the traditional liturgy and Faith without Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre paving the way? Without him standing up to the apostasy and leading, not just the SSPX, but other orthodox, good Catholics through the desert of over 40 years now? What would there be now if it were not for him?
It would also seem futile for Mother Mariana to suffer and a prelate not show up for the time span in which the apostasy was occurring. The pin-pointing of time by the Blessed Mother also indicates there being an answer within the 20th century. Heresies will flourish from "the end of the 19th century and advancing into a large part of the 20th century" would imply that there is a time within the 20th century that heresies will be abated. Certainly heresies have not been abated through the Vatican, but then by whom, if not Archbishop Lefebvre?
Also, as pointed out within your books, it was an honor for the religious to die on the feast day of a great saint. This evidenced by Mother Mariana's Superior given to know that she would earn her eternal reward on the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi. Well then, what of January 16th, the day when Mother Mariana was called back to Our Father's Home? It is the feast of St.Pope Marcellus I. He was given the title of martyr because, for his strong conviction of the Faith, he was banished into exile by the fool-hardy king of his day. Marcellus (aka Marcel), meaning "warlike defender", astoundingly depicts the character of this important saint of our Church's history and the one yet unrecognized by the Church in our modern days (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre).
Finally, though as I'm sure you know, the Archbishop was a humble man. He had mentioned this apparition of Our Lady of Good Success in his sermon the day he consecrated the bishops to propagate the Faith. He said he had just learned of it. He did not, in fact, mention that this prelate was himself - humble as he was - but what a great consolation it must have been for him to hear the exact troubles of our days foretold by the Blessed Mother and that the very path he had been taking was the remedy the Blessed Mother asked Mother Mariana to suffer so greatly for! And I'm sure it's by no small coincidence the timing the Archbishop was given to know of this deliberately obscured apparition! All for the greater glory of God.
Sincerely in Christ,
N.N.
burbtn.gif - 43 Bytes
TIA responds:
N.N.,
We respect your interpretation of that part of Mother Mariana’s prophecy mentioning a future prelate who will restore the Church. Regarding private prophecies, we believe any person is entitled to his own opinion until the prophecy is fulfilled or until Holy Mother Church presents her final interpretation of it.
In the realm of facts, we have some observations on the presuppositions of your letter:
1. We are glad to acknowledge that, by founding the Society of St. Pius X, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre greatly contributed to keep the Tridentine Mass alive among Catholics in the long period when this Mass was effectively banned by the Liturgical Reform of Paul VI. However, we do not believe he was the only one doing this meritorious work.
Indeed, Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dình Thuc preceded Archbishop Lefebvre in that fidelity to the Traditional Latin Mass, as well as in the excommunication he received from the Vatican when he consecrated Bishops in 1976 to continue his work. Regarding the Mass the two Prelates took similar positions. The main difference between them is that Archbishop Thuc founded an underground movement quite difficult to control or even to track and, hence, open to all kinds of speculations, while Archbishop Lefebvre founded one that is visible and public.
Besides these two Prelates - along with the Bishops consecrated by them - others also assisted in the same effort of maintaining the Tridentine Mass, although without founding priestly organizations. For example, Archbishop Geraldo Proença Sigaud and Bishop Antonio Castro Mayer in Brazil also maintained the Tridentine Mass alive in that country of the largest Catholic population in the world, where SSPX has little influence.
We should not disregard that the true Sacrifice of Calvary continued to be indisputably renewed also by the Masses of other Catholic Rites, which only very slowly are being forced by the Vatican to adapt their liturgies to the progressivist reforms of the Latin Rite. These Rites count more than 15 million faithful, including large Catholic communities such as 5,5 million Catholics of the Ukrainian Catholic Rite, 3 million of the Maronite Rite, 3 million of the Syro-Malabar Rite and one million of the Melkite Rite.
Therefore, Archbishop Lefebvre was neither the only Prelate to maintain the Tridentine Mass, as implied in your letter, nor was the true Sacrifice of the Mass upheld only by means of the Latin Rite Mass.
2. For a long period Archbishop Lefebvre presented himself within SSPX as not having signed the docuмents of Vatican II. His faithful followers would take offense if anyone supported the opposite, even when presenting solid arguments. However, after an interview of Card. Hoyos in 2008 where he affirmed Msgr. Lefebvre had signed all the docuмents, this internal “dogma” became less secure. Later, the Vatican released photocopies of the conciliar docuмents signed by the French Archbishop, putting to rest that false statement.
Today even the four Bishops of SSPX admit that Msgr. Lefebvre had signed all the docuмents, as Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais stated in his recently published biography on Archbishop Lefebvre.
Although in broad lines Msgr. Lefebvre took a line of action that opposed the Council after that signature, today a growing number of his followers - including the Bishops he consecrated - act as if his opposition to the Council was quite nuanced. They imply he would have accepted Vatican II if it were interpreted in the light of Tradition. If this is true, we have Msgr. Lefebvre as a man who saw the Council not as a great catastrophe that should be completely wiped away from the Church, but as a man who wanted to save the Council.
Now, how is it possible to consider a Prelate who signed the docuмents of Vatican II and wanted to save it as a restorer of the Church from the present day apostasy? Especially since those docuмents are the official expression of that same apostasy.
We know from History that the cause of the persecution against St. Athanasius and St. Hilary of Poitiers was their refusal to agree with the various Arian or Semi-Arian councils of their time. It does not appear that Archbishop Lefebvre followed those glorious examples, since he signed all the Vatican II docuмents and would accept it if it were interpreted correctly.
This is why, in our opinion, he is not the Prelate foreseen in Mother Mariana’s revelations. As you correctly noted, we believe that the mentioned Prelate is still to come.
Cordially,
TIA correspondence desk
Posted November 2, 2010
-
2. For a long period Archbishop Lefebvre presented himself within SSPX as not having signed the docuмents of Vatican II. His faithful followers would take offense if anyone supported the opposite, even when presenting solid arguments. However, after an interview of Card. Hoyos in 2008 where he affirmed Msgr. Lefebvre had signed all the docuмents, this internal “dogma” became less secure. Later, the Vatican released photocopies of the conciliar docuмents signed by the French Archbishop, putting to rest that false statement.
Today even the four Bishops of SSPX admit that Msgr. Lefebvre had signed all the docuмents, as Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais stated in his recently published biography on Archbishop Lefebvre.
Although in broad lines Msgr. Lefebvre took a line of action that opposed the Council after that signature, today a growing number of his followers - including the Bishops he consecrated - act as if his opposition to the Council was quite nuanced. They imply he would have accepted Vatican II if it were interpreted in the light of Tradition. If this is true, we have Msgr. Lefebvre as a man who saw the Council not as a great catastrophe that should be completely wiped away from the Church, but as a man who wanted to save the Council.
Now, how is it possible to consider a Prelate who signed the docuмents of Vatican II and wanted to save it as a restorer of the Church from the present day apostasy? Especially since those docuмents are the official expression of that same apostasy.
Cordially,
TIA correspondence desk
Posted November 2, 2010
I heard claims that Archbishop Lefebvre did not sign the V2 docuмents. There are still claims circulating that he signed all but two of the V2 docuмents.
Is it now established beyond doubt that he actually signed all of them?
-
Is it now established beyond doubt that he actually signed all of them?
Nothing concerning this is certain. If it is true, then ABL was lying, which I do not believe.
-
What did ABL himself state about it?
-
I think it was Bishop Williamson who warned about putting all your eggs in the one basket of the SSPX. Likewise I would say the same about ABL in giving him a messianic persona in spite of his undoubted importance within the trad movement. It would be unfair to expect a perfect score from the man and not have regard for the circuмstances of his long career both before and after the Council. We accept he signed things he should not have signed and may have had personal grievances with his Roman peers giving him more reason to do his own thing. But whatever his flaws, his memory has now the added burden of having to bear the changes within the organisation he founded. Going back to Bp. W's warning though, we can at least take pleasure from knowing that the archbishop's historic stand benefited the general traditional movement.
-
REPLY OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE TO CARDINAL OTTAVIANI ONE YEAR AFTER THE COUNCIL
In response to a query made by Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Holy Office), Archbishop Lefebvre, then Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, made these comments about the immediate and disastrous effects of the Second Vatican Council.
Rome
20 December 1966
Your Eminence,
Your letter of July 24, concerning the questioning of certain truths was communicated through the good offices of our secretariat to all our major superiors.
Few replies have reached us. Those which have come to us from Africa do not deny that there is great confusion of mind at the present time. Even if these truths do not appear to be called in question, we are witnessing in practice a diminution of fervor and of regularity in receiving the sacraments, above all the Sacrament of Penance. A greatly diminished respect for the Holy Eucharist is found, above all on the part of priests, and a scarcity of priestly vocations in French-speaking missions: vocations in the English and Portuguese-speaking missions are less affected by the new spirit, but already the magazines and newspapers are spreading the most advanced theories.
It would seem that the reason for the small number of replies received is due to the difficulty in grasping these errors which are diffused everywhere. The seat of the evil lies chiefly in a literature which sows confusion in the mind by descriptions which are ambiguous and equivocal, but under the cloak of which one discovers a new religion.
I believe it my duty to put before you fully and clearly what is evident from my conversations with numerous bishops, priests and laymen in Europe and in Africa and which emerges also from what I have read in English and French territories.
I would willingly follow the order of the truths listed in your letter, but I venture to say that the present evil appears to be much more serious than the denial or calling in question of some truth of our faith. In these times it shows itself in an extreme confusion of ideas, in the breaking up of the Church's institutions, religious foundations, seminaries, Catholic schools—in short, of what has been the permanent support of the Church. It is nothing less than the logical continuation of the heresies and errors which have been undermining the Church in recent centuries, especially since the Liberalism of the last century which has striven at all costs to reconcile the Church with the ideas that led to the French Revolution.
To the measure in which the Church has opposed these ideas, which run counter to sound philosophy and theology, she has made progress. On the other hand, any compromise with these subversive ideas has brought about an alignment of the Church with civil law with the attendant danger of enslaving her to civil society.
Moreover, every time that groups of Catholics have allowed themselves to be attracted by these myths, the Popes have courageously called them to order, enlightening, and if necessary condemning them. Catholic Liberalism was condemned by Pope Pius IX, Modernism by Pope Leo XIII, the Sillon Movement by Pope St. Pius X, Communism by Pope Pius XI and Neo-Modernism by Pope Pius XII.
Thanks to this admirable vigilance, the Church grew firm and spread; conversions of pagans and Protestants were very numerous; heresy was completely routed; states accepted a more Catholic legislation.
Groups of religious imbued with these false ideas, however, succeeded in infiltrating them into Catholic Action and into the seminaries, thanks to a certain indulgence on the part of the bishops and the tolerance of certain Roman authorities. Soon it would be among such priests that the bishops would be chosen. This was the point at which the Council found itself while preparing, by preliminary commissions, to proclaim the truth in the face of such errors in order to banish them from the midst of the Church for a long time to come. This would have been the end of Protestantism and the beginning of a new and fruitful era for the Church.
Now this preparation was odiously rejected in order to make way for the gravest tragedy the Church has ever suffered. We have lived to see the marriage of the Catholic Church with Liberal ideas. It would be to deny the evidence, to be willfully blind, not to state courageously that the Council has allowed those who profess the errors and tendencies condemned by the Popes named above, legitimately to believe that their doctrines were approved and sanctioned.
Whereas the Council was preparing itself to be a shining light in today's world (if those pre-conciliar docuмents in which we find a solemn profession of safe doctrine with regard to today's problems, had been accepted), we can and we must unfortunately state that:
In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.
The transmission of the jurisdiction of the bishops, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last ends, etc. On all these fundamental points the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous texts of the Council on these truths will henceforward permit doubt to be cast upon them.
The consequences of this have rapidly been drawn and applied in the life of the Church:
doubts about the necessity of the Church and the sacraments lead to the disappearance of priestly vocations,
doubts on the necessity for and nature of the "conversion" of every soul involve the disappearance of religious vocations, the destruction of traditional spirituality in the novitiates, and the uselessness of the missions,
doubts on the lawfulness of authority and the need for obedience, caused by the exaltation of human dignity, the autonomy of conscience and liberty, are unsettling all societies beginning with the Church—religious societies, dioceses, secular society, the family.
Pride has as its normal consequence the concupiscence of the eyes and the flesh. It is perhaps one of the most appalling signs of our age to see to what moral decadence the majority of Catholic publications have fallen. They speak without any restraint of sɛҳuąƖity, of birth control by every method, of the lawfulness of divorce, of mixed education, of flirtation, of dances as a necessary means of Christian upbringing, of the celibacy of the clergy, etc.
Doubts on the necessity of grace in order to be saved cause baptism to be held in low esteem, so that for the future it is to be put off until later, and occasion the neglect of the sacrament of Penance. Moreover, this is particularly an attitude of the clergy and not the faithful. It is the same with regard to the Real Presence: it is the clergy who act as though they no longer believe by hiding away the Blessed Sacrament, by suppressing all marks of respect towards the Sacred Species and all ceremonies in Its honour.
Doubts on the necessity of the Church, the sole source of salvation, on the Catholic Church as the only true religion, emanating from the declarations on ecuмenism and religious liberty are destroying the authority of the Church's Magisterium. In fact, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis.
Thus, driven to this by the facts, we are forced to conclude that the Council has encouraged, in an inconceivable manner, the spreading of Liberal errors. Faith, morals and ecclesiastical discipline are shaken to their foundations, fulfilling the predictions of all the Popes.
The destruction of the Church is advancing at a rapid pace. By giving an exaggerated authority to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself powerless. What painful lessons in one single year! Yet the Successor of Peter and he alone can save the Church.
Let the Holy Father surround himself with strong defenders of the faith: let him appoint them to the important dioceses. Let him by docuмents of outstanding importance proclaim the truth, search out error without fear of contradictions, without fear of schisms, without fear of calling in question the pastoral dispositions of the Council.
Let the Holy Father deign: to encourage the bishops to correct faith and morals, each individually in his respective diocese as it behoves every good pastor to uphold the courageous bishops, to urge them to reform their seminaries and to restore them to the study of St. Thomas; to encourage Superiors General to maintain in novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of all Christian asceticism, and above all, obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, a press informed by sound doctrine, associations of Christian families; and finally, to rebuke the instigators of errors and reduce them to silence. The Wednesday allocutions cannot replace encyclicals, decrees and letters to the bishops.
Doubtless I am reckless in expressing myself in this manner! But it is with ardent love that I compose these lines, love of God's glory, love of Jesus, love of Mary, of the Church, of the Successor of Peter, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ.
May the Holy Ghost, to Whom our Congregation is dedicated, deign to come to the assistance of the Pastor of the Universal Church. May Your Eminence deign to accept the assurance of my most respectful devotion in Our Lord.
Marcel Lefebvre,
Titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia,
Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost.
-
What did ABL state about his own signing of
or not signing of the V2 docuмents?
-
What did ABL state about his own signing of
or not signing of the V2 docuмents?
He said he did not sign all of them. That's why I said he would be a liar if it were true that he did sign the docuмents in question as specific docuмents.
-
Were there any Bishops that did not signed the decrees
of vatican 2?
I was in High School at the time, and noticed no big
changes in the teaching of the Church right away.
We still continued to use the the Religious books of
1958, and 1961. I still have some of these in my
library.
The only thing I really notice that the mass was
english was being more, and more used at mass.
-
Sorry, but I have not read all the posts...
Do the math...Abp. Lefebvre has been dead for close to 20 years (may he rest in peace), yet the Church is nowhere near restored -- nuff said.
-
Today even the four Bishops of SSPX admit that Msgr. Lefebvre had signed all the docuмents, as Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais stated in his recently published biography on Archbishop Lefebvre
Why would Mallerais say he did sign if he did not? The fact is that many choose to remain blind to what really happened and nothing can ever change their minds. There was a way to act and that was the way St. Athanatius would have done. To have nothing to do with any of it. Which is was so many true sons of the Church did.
-
Could it be that when the Bishops signed these docuмents,
they saw them entirely in a different light, with no idea
that the revolution that was soon to come, and is still is
on going these 45 years. The docuмents were ambiguous,
in which a conservative can be convinced of tradition,
and a liberal can be convinced of revolution.
A council of the church is supposed to be protected by the
Holy Spirit, therefore protected from error.
It is in this mind that the Archbishop signed the docuмents.
Believing that the Holy Spirit will sort things out.
Only question is, if the Archbishop signed all the docuмents,
and it is on record that he has. It must be admitted he did
so.
-
Why would Mallerais say he did sign if he did not?
The same question could be asked about ABL. Why would he say he did not sign if he did?
-
unday, June 04, 2006
Rev. Father Peter Scott on Archbishop Lefebvre and His Signing of the VII Docuмents
A very good question has been directed to Ecclesia Militans regarding the Ven. Archbishop Lefebvre and why he signed some of the Vatican II docuмents. This question has been brought up in other Traditional circles and it is certainly worthy of an educated and sufficient response. For this reason we will post here the answer to this question given by the Rev. Father Peter Scott, Rector of the SSPX Holy Cross Seminary in Austrailia. Fr. Scott was ordained by the Archbishop and is quite respected by this writer as a bright light in the darkness of this decadent age.
We thank Father Scott publicly for taking time out of his busy priestly life to answer this question. The reply follows Professor Romero's question below.
Professor Romero:
I noticed once that the great Archbishop Lefebvre's signature is on the official docuмents of Vatican II. Now, I would not argue that V2 is heretical, but it is certainly puzzling how this super champion of tradition could ever sign such ambiguous and suspicious docuмents. What's your two cents on this?-Mr. R.
J.M.J.
June 3, 2006
Dear Mr. Protomanni,
I thank you for your message concerning the question of whether or not Archbishop Lefebvre signed the docuмents of Vatican II. Here is what I can say. He himself constantly and repeatedly stated that he signed all but two docuмents, but did not sign the two worst docuмents, namely those on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes). When it was pointed out that his signature was on these docuмents, he responded that what he signed was the list of the bishops present for the vote, but not the docuмents themselves.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in his biography of the Archbishop maintains
that he had a memory lapse, and that he did in fact sign those docuмents, but afterwards forgot about it. Although this could be comprehensible after a 20 year interval, it does seem a little much that the Archbishop would have erred on such an important point.
Be that as it may, the Archbishop did not state that Vatican II was openly and explicitly heretical, but simply that it contained dangerous errors that favored heresy. It was for this reason that he was willing to accept Vatican II "interpreted in the light of Tradition" - which means excluding those errors that are contrary to the Church's Magisterial teaching (such as religious liberty and ecuмenism). Consequently, it would not have been in contradiction with his principles to have signed docuмents that could be "interpreted in the light of Tradition". This is the explanation of his certainly having signed other docuмents that also contain errors, such as Dei Verbum, which contains serious errors on the sources of revelation and Lumen Gentium, which contains serious errors on the Church. Furthermore, the fact that he constantly and unchangingly stood up against the errors of Vatican II, from the very time of the Council, indicates that he cannot be incriminated for a moment in adhering to these errors or professing his Faith in an ambiguous manner. The question of whether or not he actually signed these docuмents is consequently a rather irrelevant historical detail.
Yours faithfully in Christ Our King and Mary our Queen,
Father Peter R. Scott
Posted by Dario Protomanni at 1:57 PM
1 comments:
Genevieve said...
He signed all the docuмents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDdQlEEQLFw&feature=channel
January 14, 2009 11:43 AM
-
Very revealing info from SSPX clergy themselves. Thanks Dawn.
-
I honestly looked around on this. And, all I kept coming up with were articles that he DID sign them. Then when I saw this one I knew it was what I was looking for. The article from Tradition in Action is a very nice article not hostile. However, it points out the truth. We are all called to be Athanasius and this did not happen.
-
I honestly looked around on this. And, all I kept coming up with were articles that he DID sign them. Then when I saw this one I knew it was what I was looking for. The article from Tradition in Action is a very nice article not hostile. However, it points out the truth. We are all called to be Athanasius and this did not happen.
Let's say ABL (or anybody for that matter) DID NOT sign all the docuмents of V2. How in the world does that make him an Athanasius???
-
For pity sake. The whole article from TIA was on whether or not he signed all of the docuмents. Their point was when faced with the choice of signing papers he thought held heresies he did sign them. You act as though I wrote the article which of course I did not.
But, the truth is that each and everyone of us will be called to make a stand. To stand against heresy and they referred to Athanasius in this article, but it could just as easily have read St. John Fisher. And, when push came to shove HE SIGNED. Remember as is pointed out quite frequently here I am a sede so I do not think that Archbishop Lefebvre ever was the Bishop predicted to restore the Church. I do not think he ever was period and now he has been dead all of these years there is proof enough of that.
It has been mentioned on this board that if not for Lefebvre there would be no Tradition, no Latin Mass which is positively absurd. The record speaks for itself. There were many who never ever compromised no matter what and it is because of those men we have the True Mass of Pope St. Pius V and not just the compromise Mass of 1962.
-
The reference to the denial is found in in Apendix IV of Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, Part One. Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae were said to have been not signed by ABL.
-
More brilliant logic from the folks at TIA. One wonders if their bodies are made of wood too or if it's just their reasoning ability. Taking advantage of historical perspective is most disingenuous. ABL was part of a Catholic Ecuмenical Council, how could he not maintain such a deference in the beginning, even if some of the statements in these docuмents appeared suspect? He was a faithful Roman Bishop, the benefit of the doubt was certainly present in the great historical moment of sitting in Council. The great work of the past 20 Councils surely informed this instinctive attitude. Why should this one be any different? Such an enormous event takes time to sink into the mind, Dawn's preternatural gifts aside. Given the fact that the Fathers continually broke the rules of the Council, I would not be surprised in the least if through confusion of proceedings, he signed a docuмent that ended up being the final work. The presence of his signature doesn't negate his internal reservations. Only after seeing the matter after mature deliberation, did he draw out all the consequences.
But of course, no great man of the Church, no saintly Bishop or Doctor ever made a mistake, they never erred in a slight prudential matter or in a question of fact, they were never deceived or trusted the wrong person even momentarily. No, that'ts not possible according to the logic of TIA. Yes, like a bird of prey, they circle until an opportunity is presented to descend in attack, impugning the character of a man who they could only hope to imitate. Next they should go after St. Cyril and his weak affirmations of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost in the heat of controversy. Or St. Thomas in his struggle with the Immaculate Conception. Or St. Jerome in his pelagian sounding writings. They've already done quite a number on John Henry Newman, and I'm sad to say that there was involved not a few mortal sins in that campaign of ignorance. Any joker with a website becomes an authority these days. Who cares what "TIA" some lady with a computer thinks? But now we have to clean up endless messes because of such a lack of discretion spread by the blessings of modern technology.
-
I guess my first step would be to contact Fr. Peter Scott.
-
Is it better to go after the truth or to obfuscate? We live in an age of false images, manipulation and trickery. So much of this is part of ordinary daily thinking and practice to the point of become a person's second nature. Add to this a higher level of erudite interpretation and fuzzy logic intended to muddy the water further and we say goodbye to truth once and for all in order to maintain a glossy reputation, cold partisanship and a conceited feeling of well-being.
-
Likewise I would say the same about ABL in giving him a messianic persona in spite of his undoubted importance within the trad movement.
I think it is too late for that.
-
Is it better to go after the truth or to obfuscate? We live in an age of false images, manipulation and trickery. So much of this is part of ordinary daily thinking and practice to the point of become a person's second nature. Add to this a higher level of erudite interpretation and fuzzy logic intended to muddy the water further and we say goodbye to truth once and for all in order to maintain a glossy reputation, cold partisanship and a conceited feeling of well-being.
Most people are no longer interested in either facts or the truth as that would necessitate them rethinking their conclusions. And I am not just referring to the SSPX, lest anyone get the wrong idea.
-
Is it better to go after the truth or to obfuscate? We live in an age of false images, manipulation and trickery. So much of this is part of ordinary daily thinking and practice to the point of become a person's second nature. Add to this a higher level of erudite interpretation and fuzzy logic intended to muddy the water further and we say goodbye to truth once and for all in order to maintain a glossy reputation, cold partisanship and a conceited feeling of well-being.
The obfuscation resides soley with you and those who think this has any relevance. My entire point is: so what? What does a signature have to do with anything other than the imaginary premise that it means irrevocable assent? This "fact" exists in your imagination. It has nothing to do with my "comfort" because it is irrelevant. This comes down to the hidden assumptions on the part of those who hold this out as somehow signficant.
And another thing. TIA infers from mere chronology that ABL could not be that important, referring to other heroes that came before. That is also irrelevant and illogical. One looks at the quality, stability and fecundity of the work, not who came first. The Vietnamese bishop was unstable, unpredicatable and his work came to naught but confusion and division, but hey, he came first so he must detract from ABL's greatness! ABL's work clearly carries with it a divine quality and this has significance within the Church. TIA (or the lady writing the opinion piece) is blind to this fact, like so many others.
And for those offended by referring to the names or persons of founders, then I suggest you all start a movement attempting to abolish using the names of Francis, Dominic, etc.
-
Most people are no longer interested in either facts or the truth as that would necessitate them rethinking their conclusions.
Well said. The problem that must be surmounted is realizing when one is substituting opinion for fact. This involves a great deal of self-reflection. Many seem to think that the demise of Catholicism will come about when they must relinquish their opinions.
-
The problem that must be surmounted is realizing when one is substituting opinion for fact.
The real problem is the society substituting its opinions and wishful thinking for the facts.
Wessex's post was excellent and should be a reason for society chapel goers to reflect. The thing that can ruin the SSPX is blind obedience.
-
Most people are no longer interested in either facts or the truth as that would necessitate them rethinking their conclusions.
Well said. The problem that must be surmounted is realizing when one is substituting opinion for fact. This involves a great deal of self-reflection. Many seem to think that the demise of Catholicism will come about when they must relinquish their opinions.
Caminus, another red letter day for me! I agree. :cool:
-
The thing that can ruin the SSPX is blind obedience.
Or, to express it another way, 'The thing than can ruin the SSPX faithful is blind obedience to everything the present leadership says and/or commands.' I don't mean to champion wanton rebellion either. We do need traditional Catholic clergy setting our course in the right direction. But, unfortunately, there is major cleavage at the very top of the SSPX hierarchy. That fact is beyond dispute. Is it any wonder that there is confusion amongst the rank and file lay members, and even amongst some priests in the Society?
-
I guess my first step would be to contact Fr. Peter Scott.
If my memory serves me correctly, I think this has already been done.
-
Why would Mallerais say he did sign if he did not?
The same question could be asked about ABL. Why would he say he did not sign if he did?
Perhaps he thought his faithful would be scandalized and think less of him.
-
What did ABL state about his own signing of
or not signing of the V2 docuмents?
He said he did not sign all of them. That's why I said he would be a liar if it were true that he did sign the docuмents in question as specific docuмents.
have heard rumors his signature was forged or he signed something, that was pushed in front of him,etc...none hte lsss, signing or not, what did he do AFTER V2? that is the question-heck 10 yrs ago, I was a Republican and neocon, sadly to admit..
-
heck 10 yrs ago, I was a Republican and neocon, sadly to admit..
:shocked: :scared2:
Oh Belloc, tell me it isn't so!!!!!
-
yes, it is and did not atend Mass from 1997-2004 either...and no, no living room praying the Missals either......part of reason I know how dnagerous CM world is....thankfully, did not go down same path...
-
The problem that must be surmounted is realizing when one is substituting opinion for fact.
The real problem is the society substituting its opinions and wishful thinking for the facts.
Wessex's post was excellent and should be a reason for society chapel goers to reflect. The thing that can ruin the SSPX is blind obedience.
And if this question is decisive for you, then follow your conscience and jump ship. Again, what purpose does it serve to determine whether ABL signed these docuмents? Does it change anything? But if this is anything like your conjectures on other matters, it seems that irrelevant facts of history are of extreme and defining importance in your mind. So again I ask, reflect on WHAT precisely and WHY should it matter? Your last sentence is incoherent: obedience to WHAT? Who is issuing a command that we sin by excess in following?
I'm beginning to question your sincerity. What was that about plants again?
-
The thing that can ruin the SSPX is blind obedience.
Or, to express it another way, 'The thing than can ruin the SSPX faithful is blind obedience to everything the present leadership says and/or commands.' I don't mean to champion wanton rebellion either. We do need traditional Catholic clergy setting our course in the right direction. But, unfortunately, there is major cleavage at the very top of the SSPX hierarchy. That fact is beyond dispute. Is it any wonder that there is confusion amongst the rank and file lay members, and even amongst some priests in the Society?
Confusion pertaining to what precisely? Slight differences of opinions have never "separated" catholics before, but for those who apparently loathe the SSPX, it becomes an occasion for excitement. Just because you apparently cannot comprehend that a differing opinion about prudential matters does not imply disunity in the faith that binds, does not mean others cannot comprehend this fact and proceed in a spirit of peace. I suspect this post wouldn't exist if these matters were looked upon with charity first. But since you seem to think that charity amounts to servile obedience, then no wonder why you're complaining about us.
-
Is it better to go after the truth or to obfuscate? We live in an age of false images, manipulation and trickery. So much of this is part of ordinary daily thinking and practice to the point of become a person's second nature. Add to this a higher level of erudite interpretation and fuzzy logic intended to muddy the water further and we say goodbye to truth once and for all in order to maintain a glossy reputation, cold partisanship and a conceited feeling of well-being.
The obfuscation resides soley with you and those who think this has any relevance. My entire point is: so what? What does a signature have to do with anything other than the imaginary premise that it means irrevocable assent? This "fact" exists in your imagination. It has nothing to do with my "comfort" because it is irrelevant. This comes down to the hidden assumptions on the part of those who hold this out as somehow signficant.
And another thing. TIA infers from mere chronology that ABL could not be that important, referring to other heroes that came before. That is also irrelevant and illogical. One looks at the quality, stability and fecundity of the work, not who came first. The Vietnamese bishop was unstable, unpredicatable and his work came to naught but confusion and division, but hey, he came first so he must detract from ABL's greatness! ABL's work clearly carries with it a divine quality and this has significance within the Church. TIA (or the lady writing the opinion piece) is blind to this fact, like so many others.
And for those offended by referring to the names or persons of founders, then I suggest you all start a movement attempting to abolish using the names of Francis, Dominic, etc.
Well, saintly founders of movements in our own time have been caught with their pants down. But signatures on docuмents of such great import have to mean something together with the presence of qualified witnesses and aides. It has to mean a settled attitude of mind existing at that time after much deliberation and a final willingness to solidify a decision. Otherwise people could be accused of being rather reckless with their pen and ink.
If the contributions of Archbishop Thuc and others to the traditional movement are to be disparaged, it is only fair to cast the magnifying glass over Archbishop Lefebvre lest his divinity be mistaken for the second coming.
-
Well said Wessex.
-
Today even the four Bishops of SSPX admit that Msgr. Lefebvre had signed all the docuмents, as Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais stated in his recently published biography on Archbishop Lefebvre
Why would Mallerais say he did sign if he did not? The fact is that many choose to remain blind to what really happened and nothing can ever change their minds. There was a way to act and that was the way St. Athanatius would have done. To have nothing to do with any of it. Which is was so many true sons of the Church did.
According to all credible reports, the official docuмents do show that Archbishop Lefebvre signed all of the Vatican II decrees. On the other hand, Archbishop Lefebvre truly believed that he did not sign (at least) two decrees and I've read his own accounts that John Paul II also believed he did not sign (at least) the declaration on religious liberty.
How can we account for the discrepancy? Based on numerous second and third hand accounts, it appears that there was, at times, confusion over signature lists and whether particular lists were simply "sign-in" rosters or if they were the rosters giving assent to decrees or if signature lists may have been intentionally or unintentionally attached to the wrong docuмents (especially since the clerks probably assumed the bishops present would all have signed the decrees).
Given the fact that there was clearly much confusion in the administration of the Council, confusion that was, I think, deliberately created by the enemies of the Church (i.e., Modernist bishops, cardinals, and periti), I believe one must give Archbishop Lefebvre the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not he truly intended to sign all of the Council decrees.
Please note that on another topic the question was raised whether or not we should give the "benefit of the doubt" to Benedict XVI and I had answered in the negative. One should note the profound differences in these two cases. In the case of Benedict, he has publicly propounded heresy from his early years and maintained those heresies to the present going so far as to have his heretical catechism re-published the year before his election and continuing to keep it in print even to the present day. Archbishop Lefebvre, on the other hand, evidently signed heretical docuмents in fact, but denied do so from the earliest record until his dieing day. This, I think, is the proper way to give one the benefit of the doubt.
-
well, guess then will stay at home alone, knowing I am the last real Catholic.....I feel better already....I can know from this that no one maybe at some point repented, if not publicly and went to confession....I feel much, much better already....
Wessex, as I had you on hide, would not have noticed your rather nasty and dumb post had I not sadly looked down a few posts.....
Not aware anyone was saying ABL was divine, at all. Thuc is not "disparaged" but as he seemed to lack any discernment in who he ordain, we have serious, serious problems with him.....sorry, if he is YOUR hero and truth hurts....esp, when one looks at Thuc's ordains and some seemed to be rather swarmy themselves and some, quetstionable. Like the fellow, Lauriens was it, that was a sededprivionist or whatever...he was, then Thuc ordain him when he said he no longer was, then poof, he was again right after ordination...the whole situation is rather screwed up and not as easy to discern, the whole 60's were rather a cluster....all I know, as a child, we had little hope of resistance other than from the SSPX......if that digs ya Wessex, tough titties....to say that the rest of us think ABL is "divine" is insulting and asinine...
Matthew, does this constitute a banning offense? likely, not, as Classifallible is still around as well as the druggie Roscoe....then again, me thinks they may be entertaining and good examples of what could happen, no? Living illustrations...
Sorry Wessex, your last part, NOT well said......now, some java nad will try to avoid near occasions of sin (like reading your posts when I paged down)
-Belloc, last remaining Catholic :fryingpan:
-
Likewise I would say the same about ABL in giving him a messianic persona in spite of his undoubted importance within the trad movement.
I think it is too late for that.
Alexandria, tell Wessex NO ONE HERE thinks ABL is messianic, that is stupid, condecending to others and rather asinine....if there is any Cult of Personality, it is usually, though not always, in Sede circles (SGG,etc)
-
Liberals, and progressives are famous in forgeries, deceptions,
and outright lying in promoting their agendas.
First off, pushing the agenda is far more important than
the actual truth, in which they will be held accountable
before God on their day of Judgment.
We have seen proof of this how they lied to promote radical
revolution in the church that has no basics in the traditional
teachings of the church, and even V2.
A sign in sheet for a V2 session could be easily used in
getting signatures, and easily copied, even in 1965
technologies.
Archbishop Lefebvre was actually telling the truth.
-
Likewise I would say the same about ABL in giving him a messianic persona in spite of his undoubted importance within the trad movement.
I think it is too late for that.
Alexandria, tell Wessex NO ONE HERE thinks ABL is messianic, that is stupid, condecending to others and rather asinine....if there is any Cult of Personality, it is usually, though not always, in Sede circles (SGG,etc)
Belloc, I must disagree with you, that is not true. What I have tried to do here, unsuccessfully, is to make others see that we are all guilty of the same things we accuse others of. Such are the times in which we live.
-
Liberals, and progressives are famous in forgeries, deceptions,
and outright lying in promoting their agendas.
First off, pushing the agenda is far more important than the actual truth, in which they will be held accountable before God on their day of Judgment.
We have seen proof of this how they lied to promote radical revolution in the church that has no basics in the traditional teachings of the church, and even V2.
A sign in sheet for a V2 session could be easily used in getting signatures, and easily copied, even in 1965 technologies.
Archbishop Lefebvre was actually telling the truth.
There is sufficient doubt around almost any significant issue these days. It's just a part of the larger crisis we are in today.
-
Likewise I would say the same about ABL in giving him a messianic persona in spite of his undoubted importance within the trad movement.
I think it is too late for that.
Alexandria, tell Wessex NO ONE HERE thinks ABL is messianic, that is stupid, condecending to others and rather asinine....if there is any Cult of Personality, it is usually, though not always, in Sede circles (SGG,etc)
I am not sure what a 'Sede circle' would look like here in the UK. If you mean Catholics not in communion or 'partial-communion' with Newchurch, two names that come to mind are the valient Father Oswald Baker and Father Morgan's (SSPX Superior) dad, both now deceased. There may be a few living ones 'in the closet', notably Bp. Williamson. We do not have such a variety of traditionalist expression to be able to muster distinctive factions of any size. Instead, we observe the goings-on across the oceans with interest and some detachment (in true British style) and see the rise and fall of heroes and movements with greater dispassion. But my personal experience is that the Church has almost disappeared. You may become the last Catholic!
One thing that I think troubles some trads so much about sedevacantism is that they have this fear that both ABL and Bp. Mayer were disposed to it to a great extent ....... maybe they fear it within themselves, God forbid! Therefore, such a lot of mileage goes into over-compensation. But if nothing else the passage of time will decide that the only alternative to the Second Reformation (aka Newchurch) can be sedevacantism. Any negotiation will only confirm this reformation.
-
You are good Wessex. Again great job
-
Likewise I would say the same about ABL in giving him a messianic persona in spite of his undoubted importance within the trad movement.
I think it is too late for that.
Alexandria, tell Wessex NO ONE HERE thinks ABL is messianic, that is stupid, condecending to others and rather asinine....if there is any Cult of Personality, it is usually, though not always, in Sede circles (SGG,etc)
Belloc, I must disagree with you, that is not true. What I have tried to do here, unsuccessfully, is to make others see that we are all guilty of the same things we accuse others of. Such are the times in which we live.
note my underlined comments-unless one is saying that no SV at all are guilty of this, then the underliend comments are true, that some SV indeed do have a Cult personality, such a the long running SGG thread.....
would agree with your statement, that yes, we are all guilty and well you noted:
"make others see that we are all guilty of the same things we accuse others of. Such are the times in which we live."
-
Well, saintly founders of movements in our own time have been caught with their pants down.
What's that supposed to mean?
But signatures on docuмents of such great import have to mean something together with the presence of qualified witnesses and aides.
Only if you ignore the circuмstances and the actions taken after the fact.
It has to mean a settled attitude of mind existing at that time after much deliberation and a final willingness to solidify a decision. Otherwise people could be accused of being rather reckless with their pen and ink.
That does not follow at all, especially when you ignore the circuмstances. Even supposing that it was not a clerical error due to the confusion of the proceedings, to ignore the events and actions that followed, as well as the obvious truth that one could still have internal reservations, is simply a rash conclusion favorable to those who feel the incessant need to criticize ABL.
If the contributions of Archbishop Thuc and others to the traditional movement are to be disparaged, it is only fair to cast the magnifying glass over Archbishop Lefebvre lest his divinity be mistaken for the second coming.
The point had to do with an overall observation of the respective work. With this in mind, it is manifest that the two are not on equal footing, mere chronology notwithstanding. You and I are of two different spirits and I would caution you to examine yourself.
-
Confusion pertaining to what precisely?
What precisely? There is deep division, I feel, among the SSPX hierarchs and clergy over ongoing discussions in Rome. Bishop Williamson, it is clear, thinks they are going nowhere. Bp. Fellay apparently thinks otherwise. Bishops Williamson and Fellay are indisputably divided on this issue. As for "charity" or a lack thereof in the context in which you use it- I have no idea what you're talking about, so will not comment.
-
perhaps Caminus it is exactly that. The events that have followed that we are paying attention to. Seems Bishop Williamson sees things differently than you do as well.
-
perhaps Caminus it is exactly that. The events that have followed that we are paying attention to. Seems Bishop Williamson sees things differently than you do as well.
would to date, side more with Williamson on this one.....not sure in the end, where any negotiations would go...talking has to have a result and end...what would it be here?? not much, until the old modernist guard, literally, dies off.
-
When all this "discussion" with Rome business began, we were told that it might require years of negotiation. It was presented to us as an utterly open-ended affair, in which the SSPX hierarchy would try to persuade Rome that she was on the wrong track, and to turn back towards tradition. Yet I have heard pretty recently that these so-called "discussions" might end in early spring of 2011. I think Bp. Fellay has bitten off more than he and his negotiating team can chew. I feel he may be seeking a way out, as adroitly and as unobtrusively as possible. Bp. Williamson's "dialogue of the deaf" characterization is being born out in reality more and more with each passing month.
-
When all this "discussion" with Rome business began, we were told that it might require years of negotiation.
But they're not supposed to be negotiations. That's one of the things that's so troubling about the sorts of things that seem to be done to please the the NO bishops. Like having a catechism class to tell sspx church goers to defend the Pope and the NO bishops when they discuss the abuse scandal with people.
-
Thuc? Seriously? Wasn't he insane?
-
Thuc? Seriously? Wasn't he insane?
You've been spending too much time on CAF, Stevus. You're starting to sound like them. :rolleyes:
-
Does the Society recognize the Thuc consecrations? Does Rome?
Last I heard, they were considered doubtful, or at least some of them were.
-
Does the Society recognize the Thuc consecrations? Does Rome?
Last I heard, they were considered doubtful, or at least some of them were.
Can you post correspondence from the Vatican that states this? As for the "Society", what they think of the Thuc consecrations is of no interest to me.
-
Thuc? Seriously? Wasn't he insane?
According to Fr. William Jenkins he most certainly was.
Such accusations are typical of that group, and to be taken with buckets of salt.
As in most cases, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think Perplexed might be a better adjective?
In the SSPV's book The Sacred and the Profane much is made of the fact that Abp. Thuc kept cats in his apartment, implying disorder.
Their radio sermons against Abp. Thuc are so spiteful-but cannot be counted on as truth.
I fell for the spite against Abp. Thuc, but trusting the SSPV diagnosis of Thuc's mental state is not advisable.
-
Archbishop LeFebvre was not the prelate to RESTORE the Church, he was the prelate to preserve Tradition.
-
Archbishop LeFebvre was not the prelate to RESTORE the Church, he was the prelate to preserve Tradition.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not THE PRELATE to preserve Tradition.
He was ONE of the prelates to preserve Tradition.
-
Archbishop LeFebvre was not the prelate to RESTORE the Church, he was the prelate to preserve Tradition.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not THE PRELATE to preserve Tradition.
He was ONE of the prelates to preserve Tradition.
Right, though of those prelates he was the main one.
-
hateful speech and spiteful speech is not Catholic. If these persons had the truth they should be able to get it across with out the venom. They do not have the truth about these men. I find this to be a very sad thing indeed. And, unfortunately so many are hungry for scandal they really rake people in.
-
Archbishop LeFebvre was not the prelate to RESTORE the Church, he was the prelate to preserve Tradition.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not THE PRELATE to preserve Tradition.
He was ONE of the prelates to preserve Tradition.
What other prelates upheld Tradition the way he did?
He sure seemed to be *very* alone as he consecrated the 4 bishops. Only Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer stood with him. Where is the witness of the various Sedevacantist bishops? Or do their episcopacies all post-date Abp. Lefebvre?
-
hateful speech and spiteful speech is not Catholic. If these persons had the truth they should be able to get it across with out the venom. They do not have the truth about these men. I find this to be a very sad thing indeed. And, unfortunately so many are hungry for scandal they really rake people in.
I agree. When I see venom, bitterness, deceit, etc. I know I'm not in the right place -- and any person who shows those traits A) has issues, and B) shouldn't be followed -- especially blindly.
That's what I like about the SSPX. With all their faults, they focus on preserving and restoring Tradition for the greatest number of people, and keep things civil for the most part. Their sermons are about the Faith, not low-level political rants. When "the world" makes its way into the sermons, it's only an application of the Gospel message. And the SSPX doesn't require signed statements from its members before allowing them admittance to their chapels -- they remember their place. They realize that they can't take the place of the Pope. Their only job is to serve the people with the true Faith and Sacraments.
Of course, we're dealing with Traditional Catholics, so I'm sure there's bound to be some fighting, but it's not exactly their fault.
Matthew
-
Archbishop LeFebvre was not the prelate to RESTORE the Church, he was the prelate to preserve Tradition.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not THE PRELATE to preserve Tradition.
He was ONE of the prelates to preserve Tradition.
What other prelates upheld Tradition the way he did?
He sure seemed to be *very* alone as he consecrated the 4 bishops. Only Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer stood with him. Where is the witness of the various Sedevacantist bishops? Or do their episcopacies all post-date Abp. Lefebvre?
true, as SV Bishop, priests were not there, no offered solidarity and liekly, would not as they viewed ABL/SSPX as heretics, not valid,etc
-
Does the Society recognize the Thuc consecrations? Does Rome?
Last I heard, they were considered doubtful, or at least some of them were.
Can you post correspondence from the Vatican that states this? As for the "Society", what they think of the Thuc consecrations is of no interest to me.
So because you personally don't like the SSPX, you're prepared to throw out their collective expertise on Ordination? What makes you think they're so petty that they'd deny the validity of Thuc ordinations just because Thuc-line bishops/priests aren't part of the SSPX?
So many people have a *very* narrow view and experience of the SSPX. They go on very thin anecdotal evidence at best.
And no, spending a number of years at a single SSPX chapel doesn't count as a ton of experience. No more than I could call myself a "widely traveled man" if I spent 50 years living in my hometown. I might be an expert at my hometown -- but not other places.
Some people have a bad experience with a few parishioners, or an individual priest, and then throw out the baby with the bath water. "The whole group is rotten!" How rational is that? That's a very emotional way to behave.
So if I can come up with one example of a woman having loose morals, I can conclude that all women are sluts? That is the *exact same logic* as the person who fights with an SSPX priest, leaves the congregation, and spends his remaining days bashing the SSPX.
What is wrong with some people?
Matthew
-
Does the Society recognize the Thuc consecrations? Does Rome?
Last I heard, they were considered doubtful, or at least some of them were.
Can you post correspondence from the Vatican that states this? As for the "Society", what they think of the Thuc consecrations is of no interest to me.
So because you personally don't like the SSPX, you're prepared to throw out their collective expertise on Ordination? What makes you think they're so petty that they'd deny the validity of Thuc ordinations just because Thuc-line bishops/priests aren't part of the SSPX?
So many people have a *very* narrow view and experience of the SSPX. They go on very thin anecdotal evidence at best.
And no, spending a number of years at an SSPX chapel doesn't count as a ton of experience. No more than I could call myself a "widely traveled man" if I spent 50 years living in my hometown. I might be an expert at my hometown -- but not other places.
Matthew
The SSPX is not the Church, Matthew. What their opinion is regarding the Thuc line bishops holds no weight compared to a statement from a congregation in the Vatican. Surely, you can agree with that.
-
Yes, they are just a branch of the Church. They aren't the Church hierarchy, and they can't replace it.
But when compared with the view of a layman, what they have to say should be given some thoughtful consideration.
Incidentally, I don't think they reject the Thuc consecrations/ordinations. I could be wrong though.
They're not hypocrites, and they're not liars.
One priest pointed out, "How could we be critical of a bishop consecrating other bishops to maintain the Tradition of the Church?" He didn't have to say much more -- I caught his drift. It would undermine the legitimacy of the SSPX to condemn other bishops who essentially did what Abp. Lefebvre did.
Again, they're not hypocrites.
Matthew
-
Yes, they are just a branch of the Church. They aren't the Church hierarchy, and they can't replace it.
But when compared with the view of a layman, what they have to say should be given some thoughtful consideration.
I agree.
-
I was married in the Church, witnessed by an SSPX priest.
One of the things the priest did was submit notice of our marriage to my wife's parish church where she was baptized (where mainstream Catholic Church records are kept). Also, he pointed out that at some point in the future, the official Catholic Church structure will have to rubber-stamp all the marriages witnessed by SSPX priests during these years.
Because although the SSPX is currently filling a void by providing sacraments and traditional doctrine during the Crisis, they haven't replaced the Church or its hierarchy. The organization is a mere PART of the Catholic Church.
Makes sense to me.
That is why the SSPX doesn't "give up on" Rome. Sure, they have a snowball's chance in hell of converting Rome from modernism -- but it isn't up to them to give up. That isn't a choice they are permitted to make, no matter how reasonable it might seem.
-
Archbishop LeFebvre was not the prelate to RESTORE the Church, he was the prelate to preserve Tradition.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not THE PRELATE to preserve Tradition.
He was ONE of the prelates to preserve Tradition.
What other prelates upheld Tradition the way he did?
He sure seemed to be *very* alone as he consecrated the 4 bishops. Only Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer stood with him. Where is the witness of the various Sedevacantist bishops? Or do their episcopacies all post-date Abp. Lefebvre?
Thus why I replied to Roman Catholic and said he was the main prelate. Castro Mayer was the only other one that comes to mind for me. I think ABL deserves alot more credit than the sedes give him. I agree with you, Matthew.
-
Archbishop LeFebvre was not the prelate to RESTORE the Church, he was the prelate to preserve Tradition.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not THE PRELATE to preserve Tradition.
He was ONE of the prelates to preserve Tradition.
What other prelates upheld Tradition the way he did?
He sure seemed to be *very* alone as he consecrated the 4 bishops. Only Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer stood with him. Where is the witness of the various Sedevacantist bishops? Or do their episcopacies all post-date Abp. Lefebvre?
The other prelates upheld Tradition in a different way...Bishop Thuc, Bishop De Lauriers, Bishop McKenna, Bishop Pivarunas etc....
Were they or any other prelates invited when he consecrated the 4 bishops? Were any of them welcome?
-
Pardon me while I ask a question. Is tradition the 1962 Mass or is tradition the Mass of All Times promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V?
-
Pardon me while I ask a question. Is tradition the 1962 Mass or is tradition the Mass of All Times promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V?
You mean Tradition with a capital T, for starters. Also, there is VERY little difference between those two. You should spend your time defending the TLM instead of arguing about what form of it is best and which is wrong.