Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]

Author Topic: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church  (Read 4691 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ByzCat3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1951
  • Reputation: +518/-147
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
« Reply #105 on: October 25, 2020, 03:07:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 25, 2020, 02:47:12 PM
    Total sede baloney.

    ABL made two comments, years apart, in which he acknowledged in theory that sede could be possible.

    But that's two comments in 25 years.

    A far cry from Ladislaus's hallucination of an ABL on the brink!
    Lemme clarify. I think Ladislaus is correct that Lefebvre wavered somewhat at times on what exactly the correct course towards New Rome was, and that at least sometimes he flirted with Sedevacantism as a possibility (there are other quotes from Fr. Cekada not just the two.)

    However, I don't know that Lefebvre was really on the brink of going Sede at any point.

    I don't understand why its so unreasonable to admit that the Archbishop changed his mind sometimes though.  He was a great man, but still a man.
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3469/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #106 on: October 25, 2020, 03:24:21 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 25, 2020, 03:07:55 PM
    Lemme clarify. I think Ladislaus is correct that Lefebvre wavered somewhat at times on what exactly the correct course towards New Rome was, and that at least sometimes he flirted with Sedevacantism as a possibility (there are other quotes from Fr. Cekada not just the two.)

    However, I don't know that Lefebvre was really on the brink of going Sede at any point.

    I don't understand why its so unreasonable to admit that the Archbishop changed his mind sometimes though.  He was a great man, but still a man.

    No, +ABL did not flirt with Sedeism. He wasn't stupid.

    Why does Ladislaus believe that he is the supreme authority on Archbishop Lefebvre?

    Could it be that Ladislaus wants to discredit the Resistance? That's the likely reason - the reason why he's on this forum.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #107 on: October 25, 2020, 03:27:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Meg on October 25, 2020, 03:24:21 PM
    No, +ABL did not flirt with Sedeism. He wasn't stupid.

    Why does Ladislaus believe that he is the supreme aurthority on Archbishop Lefebvre?

    Could it be that Ladislaus wants to discredit the Resistance? That's the likely reason.
    //2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
    //

    https://romeward.com/articles/239752775/archbishop-lefebvre-and-sedevacantism

    Honestly I agree with Lefebvre here.  I'm definitely not Sede.  But I'm not certain the Church couldn't, at a future date, tell us these guys aren't popes.  I think that's just less likely than other alternatives.  *shrugs*
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3469/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #108 on: October 25, 2020, 03:28:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 25, 2020, 03:27:22 PM
    //2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)
    //

    https://romeward.com/articles/239752775/archbishop-lefebvre-and-sedevacantism

    Honestly I agree with Lefebvre here.  I'm definitely not Sede.  But I'm not certain the Church couldn't, at a future date, tell us these guys aren't popes.  I think that's just less likely than other alternatives.  *shrugs*

    You posted a link to a sede site. Therefore, I don't have to accept it. 

    You don't have to be a sede to agree with Ladislaus. He has fooled others too.

    Why do the sedes and sedewhatevers, like Ladislaus, work so hard to make +ABL into a sede or nearly a sede? 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #109 on: October 25, 2020, 03:30:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Meg on October 25, 2020, 03:28:24 PM
    You don't have to be a sede to agree with Ladislaus. He has fooled others too.
    OK can you explain where he's off, other than just saying he has no authority?
    Logged

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6791
    • Reputation: +3469/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #110 on: October 25, 2020, 03:35:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 25, 2020, 03:30:43 PM
    OK can you explain where he's off, other than just saying he has no authority?

    Where does Ladislaus get his authority to claim that he is the only one who knows the "real" +ABL?

    Is he psychic? A prophet of God? Or is he on a mission to discredit the Resistance?
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #111 on: October 25, 2020, 03:42:05 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Last Tradhican on October 25, 2020, 02:43:39 PM
    The above two postings are what I got out of this thread, Ladislaus's clear position and Mr. Sean Johnson's position as articulated by Forlorn and confirmed as correct by Sean Johnson himself. It is as simple as that, and the rest of the thread is pretty much ignorable material. As always, it is up to the reader to decide which makes more sense. As for me, I see the Sean Johnson take as cockeyed, makes no sense whatsoever. It looks like they just do not want to go the distance and just say the pope is schismatic. The Ladislaus take makes sense.  
    Abp. Lefebvre is dead, so any discussion about what he would think today is all speculation from both sides, really totally useless. Like I said above, the only certain in this thread is Ladislaus's take and Sean Johnson's take on the Vatican II church and the pope , there is no speculation there, it is the bottom line of what each one believes. It is a fact.  
    Logged

    Online Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14962
    • Reputation: +6192/-917
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #112 on: October 26, 2020, 04:53:56 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 25, 2020, 03:30:43 PM
    OK can you explain where he's off, other than just saying he has no authority?
    No Byz, saying +ABL sympathized with the sede belief is true, but if the picture were painted accurately,  it would be painted only in the sense of +ABL being likened to a father who understood the trials of his children. +ABL taught as you quoted, 
    "...It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” No one disagrees with this AT ALL, except the sedes.

    What Last Tradhican posted is certainly true re: it's all speculation, yet what is apparent because it is recent history, is that the priests within the SSPX who were expelled by +ABL for their sedeism (and other things stemming from their sedism) wanted no part and had no intention of waiting for the Church to confirm their hypothesis - note that this is still true. I actually witnessed this. This is the jist of the whole "+ABL went back and forth on sedeism" idea that Lad constantly promotes, which is an idea that is altogether fallacious and I think disgusts +ABL every time the idea is promoted.

    These days, the turmoil within the SSPX in those days caused by sedeism is nearly *always* underestimated and understated, the confusion and chaos it caused within the SSPX was tremendous and affected the SSPX as a whole, it was plenty great enough so that if +ABL was going to give in, he would have given in right then in there, but he didn't, he never did. 

    Take it for what it's worth coming from one who was there.
       
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline clarkaim

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 298
    • Reputation: +168/-39
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Ladislaus Position on the non-Catholic Conciliar Church
    « Reply #113 on: November 03, 2020, 04:57:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 23, 2020, 08:07:29 AM
    I say something like:

    “We stick to the traditional Catholic Faith as it was taught before the Second Vatican Council, which was not infallible, and not binding.”
    Those points might be debatable.  however, clearly the whole milieu of V2 clearly resulted in a new religion as it were, and it is adhered to by millions, ne billions of those who consider themselves the catholic Church and this religion constituted by this "council" is considered y them (this includes the associated hierarchy)to be the Catholic faith.  we can slice and dice until we have julian fries, yet the question remains  is it or is it not?  We all know the answer as well as we know the DOGMA that the true Church cannot promulgate/propose/promote such a thing.  At some point, it seems rather obvious that the V2 church is a defected body, one that has separated themselves from the true church.  Now Bergoglio is "Pope" of this church we can all agree, but can we identify this body with the true church without offending truth?  I just can't see it
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]
    « previous next »