Author Topic: Is Msgr. Lefebvre the Prelate Predicted to Restore the Church? (Read 7409 times)

Dawn · « **Reply #45 on:** November 10, 2010, 05:22:21 AM »

You are good Wessex. Again great job

Belloc · « **Reply #46 on:** November 10, 2010, 09:04:26 AM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote from: Belloc
Quote from: Alexandria
Quote
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."

Caminus · « **Reply #47 on:** November 10, 2010, 11:20:46 AM »

Quote

Well, saintly founders of movements in our own time have been caught with their pants down.

What's that supposed to mean?

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

hollingsworth1 · « **Reply #48 on:** November 10, 2010, 01:19:02 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: hollingsworth1
Quote from: Telesphorus
Confusion pertaining to what precisely?
Quote

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.

Dawn · « **Reply #49 on:** November 10, 2010, 01:45:11 PM »

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.

Belloc · « **Reply #50 on:** November 10, 2010, 01:54:26 PM »

Quote from: Dawn

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.

hollingsworth1 · « **Reply #51 on:** November 10, 2010, 07:19:51 PM »

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.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #52 on:** November 10, 2010, 07:32:13 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth1

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.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #53 on:** November 11, 2010, 04:40:35 PM »

Thuc? Seriously? Wasn't he insane?

Alexandria · « **Reply #54 on:** November 11, 2010, 04:42:48 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Thuc? Seriously? Wasn't he insane?

You've been spending too much time on CAF, Stevus. You're starting to sound like them. :rolleyes:

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #55 on:** November 11, 2010, 07:40:45 PM »

Does the Society recognize the Thuc consecrations? Does Rome?

Last I heard, they were considered doubtful, or at least some of them were.

Alexandria · « **Reply #56 on:** November 11, 2010, 07:43:24 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

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.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #57 on:** November 11, 2010, 09:36:40 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

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.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #58 on:** November 11, 2010, 09:54:54 PM »

Archbishop LeFebvre was not the prelate to RESTORE the Church, he was the prelate to preserve Tradition.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #59 on:** November 12, 2010, 12:19:06 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

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.