Author Topic: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism  (Read 6123 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CatholicInAmerica

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • Reputation: +28/-19
  • Gender: Male
Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
« Reply #240 on: October 10, 2019, 01:54:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. Hesse did indeed believe that the new rite of ordination is valid. He was hardly alone among traditionalists in believing that. There is no consensus among traditionalists that the new rite of ordination is invalid. If you want to believe it's invalid, that's you choice.

    I'll ask again. If you are not comfortable in answering, that's fine. Do you deny that VII deviated from all other Councils in that it did not address and condemn error?
    Lefebvre and almost all  other OG trads atleast doubted, if not knew it was invalid. I said it very clear in my las reply. Vatican II is not a valid council as John xxiii was not a true pope. If you think that John xxiii was a true pope, then you must accept v2 or you are in schism. 
    Jorge Bergoglio isn’t even a real priest.

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3062
    • Reputation: +1514/-2390
    • Gender: Female
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #241 on: October 10, 2019, 01:57:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • Lefebvre and almost all  other OG trads atleast doubted, if not knew it was invalid. I said it very clear in my las reply. Vatican II is not a valid council as John xxiii was not a true pope. If you think that John xxiii was a true pope, then you must accept v2 or you are in schism.

    Then why didn't +ABL and the SSPX always re-ordain priests who came to them from the Novus Ordo?

    I do understand the insane sede view that we must accept Vll or we are in schism, if we believe that J23 was a true Pope. You are obviously a ridiculous dogmatic sede. That's not unusual around here.

    The forum has been taken over by sedes and sedeprivationists. But that's okay. It is what it is, and it was bound to happen. Sedes always strive to take over - they are like Jews in that sense.


    Offline Mark 79

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1253
    • Reputation: +1122/-122
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #242 on: October 10, 2019, 02:13:48 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • And yet… there is that insane idea that harpies may pontificate.

    Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith.  But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. 1 Cor 14:34

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9603
    • Reputation: +3799/-886
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #243 on: October 10, 2019, 02:22:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lefebvre and almost all  other OG trads atleast doubted, if not knew it was invalid. I said it very clear in my las reply. Vatican II is not a valid council as John xxiii was not a true pope. If you think that John xxiii was a true pope, then you must accept v2 or you are in schism.
    Meg, if only you would profess that JXXIII was not a valid pope, you would not be in schism. :facepalm:
    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3062
    • Reputation: +1514/-2390
    • Gender: Female
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #244 on: October 10, 2019, 02:35:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Meg, if only you would profess that JXXIII was not a valid pope, you would not be in schism. :facepalm:

    Yeah....so I've been told.  ;D


    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18345
    • Reputation: +10179/-4823
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #245 on: October 10, 2019, 03:55:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Meg, if only you would profess that JXXIII was not a valid pope, you would not be in schism. :facepalm:

    J23 is long dead, so you can't exactly be in schism from him.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18345
    • Reputation: +10179/-4823
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #246 on: October 10, 2019, 04:02:31 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Sweetie:

    ...

    1) Ladislaus says the opposite of every pre-conciliar theologian: A universally accepted pope is not a dogmatic fact.

    Don't call me sweetie.  Are you gay?

    So you continue to lie.  I am the one who asserted that papal legitimacy is dogmatic fact, and that this is de fide.  After that you equivocated that it was just theologically certain, and to "prove" this you cited a Catholic Encyclopedia article to the effect that theologians were divided between whether this was of Divine faith or Ecclesiastical.  Then I cited an article which explained that rejecting a truth of Ecclesiastical faith is also heresy.  I was the one affirming this even while you were denying it.

    What I, and the sedevacantists argue, is that there is no Universal Acceptance of the V2 papal claimants.

    This is why I will no longer respond to any of your posts.  You are a shameless liar, Johnson.  I will continue this discussion with people like ByzCat and Pax.  We're all trying to get to the truth and form our consciences.  You, Stubborn, and Meg are only interested in grinding your axes.  And, as such, you are absolutely useless for having meaningful discussions with.  Much is made of dogmatic sedevacantism ... but rarely is there a mention of dogmatic R&Rism.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 670
    • Reputation: +128/-43
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #247 on: October 10, 2019, 04:10:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lefebvre and almost all  other OG trads atleast doubted, if not knew it was invalid. I said it very clear in my las reply. Vatican II is not a valid council as John xxiii was not a true pope. If you think that John xxiii was a true pope, then you must accept v2 or you are in schism.
    I think "accepting" Vatican II is vague terminology.  What exactly does it mean to accept it?  Paul VI himself said its not defining any infallible dogma.  Now I get, as Ladislaus and other people would point out, that's not supposed to mean that it can be positively harmful, and there could be room for debate regarding just how off a pastoral council that's accepted by basically all bishops can be, but I don't think even the Vatican (or at least the Vatican under Benedict XVI) said the thing was completely above criticism.

    All that said, this criticism would apply to +Lefebvre too.  He did have doubts about it, I realize he also had *doubts* about the Popes at times, but he NEVER straight up rejected them like you are.


    Online hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2463
    • Reputation: +2660/-330
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #248 on: October 10, 2019, 04:25:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Lad:
    Quote
    This is why I will no longer respond to any of your (SJ's) posts.  You are a shameless liar, Johnson.  I will continue this discussion with people like ByzCat and Pax.  We're all trying to get to the truth and form our consciences.  You, Stubborn, and Meg are only interested in grinding your axes.  And, as such, you are absolutely useless for having meaningful discussions with.  Much is made of dogmatic sedevacantism ... but rarely is there a mention of dogmatic R&Rism.

    Lad, as the forum member who started this topic, I appeal to you to end this debate.  It is going on 3800 views and I've forgotten how many pages.  The topic needs to be put out of its misery. I  am asking you and the others to desist in the interests of maintaining CI as a viable and reasonably informative chat site.  I apologize for having introduced it in the first place.
    Obviously, SJ, (in my opinion certainly) is an unhinged, maybe even deranged individual.  Just look at how he responded to me yesterday.  Hey, I'm not asking you or anyone else to endorse my newly arrived at position concerning SVism , or to take my side on any other topic.  But in the interests of preserving forum sanity, I ask for your assistance in bringing this unfortunate thread to an end.
    Bp. Williamson has been informed of SJ's remarks to me.  They're extremely bizarre.  But it's up to him if we wants to continue an association with SJ.

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3062
    • Reputation: +1514/-2390
    • Gender: Female
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #249 on: October 10, 2019, 04:41:16 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0

  • Hey, I'm not asking you or anyone else to endorse my newly arrived at position concerning SVism , or to take my side on any other topic.  But in the interests of preserving forum sanity, I ask for your assistance in bringing this unfortunate thread to an end.

    Just my two-cents worth:

    I agree that the thread should come to and end - but the discussion will just keep going on other threads - since the sedes and sedeprivationists dominate the forum.

    You said that you don't want anyone to endorse your newly arrived at position of SVism, so I suggest that you not start another thread in which you contend that +ABL would be an SV if he were still alive.

    If forum members want to hold the SV position, I don't really care. It's that they often insist that everyone who has any Catholic sense or intelligence HAS to hold the SV or sedeprivationist position. I don't happen to believe that R&R is absolutely or necessarily the correct view. Most who hold the R&R position aren't dogmatic about it, though Ladislaus will falsely accuse us of it, because he's vindictive.

    We can't see the whole picture. That's what SV's and their fellow travelers don't get.

    Yes, Sean was a bit unhinged on this thread. Even I have to admit that. And....I don't think it was appropriate to say that Ladislaus should be banned, when he was really only joking about that, and not serious. This subject seems to bring out the worst in traditional Catholics. But they, it does bring a lot of traffic to the forum, so who am I to complain?  

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 670
    • Reputation: +128/-43
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #250 on: October 10, 2019, 05:44:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just my two-cents worth:

    I agree that the thread should come to and end - but the discussion will just keep going on other threads - since the sedes and sedeprivationists dominate the forum.

    You said that you don't want anyone to endorse your newly arrived at position of SVism, so I suggest that you not start another thread in which you contend that +ABL would be an SV if he were still alive.

    If forum members want to hold the SV position, I don't really care. It's that they often insist that everyone who has any Catholic sense or intelligence HAS to hold the SV or sedeprivationist position. I don't happen to believe that R&R is absolutely or necessarily the correct view. Most who hold the R&R position aren't dogmatic about it, though Ladislaus will falsely accuse us of it, because he's vindictive.

    We can't see the whole picture. That's what SV's and their fellow travelers don't get.

    Yes, Sean was a bit unhinged on this thread. Even I have to admit that. And....I don't think it was appropriate to say that Ladislaus should be banned, when he was really only joking about that, and not serious. This subject seems to bring out the worst in traditional Catholics. But they, it does bring a lot of traffic to the forum, so who am I to complain?  
    Ladislaus says Sean, particularly, is dogmatic about it.  Which is definitely true.  He borderline implied that I'm a heretic for taking the "We have to assume he's Pope but the Church might eventually tell us he wasn't" position.  

    He's not necessarily saying everyone who's R + R is dogmatic about it.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4717
    • Reputation: +4134/-1447
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #251 on: October 10, 2019, 05:51:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Ladislaus says Sean, particularly, is dogmatic about it.  Which is definitely true.  He borderline implied that I'm a heretic for taking the "We have to assume he's Pope but the Church might eventually tell us he wasn't" position.  

    He's not necessarily saying everyone who's R + R is dogmatic about it.

    Get over it, wussy.

    Ladislaus is a dogmatic doubtist: Anyone he cant cause to doubt dogmatic facts is a heretic. :o

    Total idiot.

    Ps:I am absolutely a Catholic (ie., dogmatic sedeplenist, as all are obliged to be).
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 670
    • Reputation: +128/-43
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #252 on: October 10, 2019, 05:56:05 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Get over it, wussy.

    Ladislaus is a dogmatic doubtist: Anyone he cant cause to doubt dogmatic facts is a heretic. :o

    Total idiot.

    Ps:I am absolutely a Catholic (ie., dogmatic sedeplenist, as all are obliged to be).
    1: I don't actually care.  I just was pointing out that you are dogmatic on the issue.  

    2: I acknowledge that it might be a dogmatic fact.  If it is, I submit to it.  Even if its not, I still think it much, much, much more prudent to assume that the man who appears to be the Pope, is.  If he isn't, the Church can tell us later.  Im not obliged to figure that out on my own.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4717
    • Reputation: +4134/-1447
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #253 on: October 10, 2019, 05:58:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1: I don't actually care.  I just was pointing out that you are dogmatic on the issue.  

    2: I acknowledge that it might be a dogmatic fact.  If it is, I submit to it.  Even if its not, I still think it much, much, much more prudent to assume that the man who appears to be the Pope, is.  If he isn't, the Church can tell us later.  Im not obliged to figure that out on my own.
    All Catholics are required to be completely dogmatic on the issue
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1062
    • Reputation: +729/-257
    • Gender: Male
    Re: ++Lefebvre and sedevacantism
    « Reply #254 on: October 10, 2019, 06:04:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just keep in mind that SJ, XavierSem, Praeter, Disco and Salsa and all the other nutty r&r people have no authority.  You aren’t in schism or heresy with any Novus Ordo Bishops so no worries.  If Frank is the pope we’re all saved.  If he’s not the pope it is the r&r people who tried to excommunicate everyone who have big troubles.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16