Author Topic: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (Read 4224 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #30 on:** March 31, 2008, 03:14:47 AM »

If I thought further castigation of your pigheadedness might serve some purpose, I would continue.

I shall take your post (Kp) to mean that you do in fact understand that he thought such a course was possible and justifiable. You seem to have a hard time with yes/no. Even in conceding ground, you do so in a manner that is altogether contrary to manly, rational behavior.

As for you, my dearest Joan...although you seem no more capable of a rational discourse about a specific point than Kp, I shall ask you the same question:

Did Abp. Lefebvre admit that sedevacantism might become the correct course of action, thus demonstrating that he himself thought it was, given certain circuмstances, a legitimate line of action? This is a YES or NO question, dear. All other "insightful" comments that fail to provide a simple answer to the question shall be received as what they are: the evasion of a proud mind that does not possess the critical thinking skills to even speak about these matters in such a way that is remotely profitable to anyone.

Btw, no one has ANY DOUBTS about Abp. Lefebvre's having never believed that sedevacantism was, in fact, the correct response. This is PLAIN and CONCEDED. Try to focus on the actual point under discussion. Such a practice might help matters immensely.

Cletus · « **Reply #31 on:** March 31, 2008, 03:25:31 AM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

It was and is simply in the realm of opinion still though, and Abp. Lefebvre took the path of prudence and did not make a hasty judgment concerning the validity of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

It would seem that he did make a judgment. A judgment in his favor.

Hasty? John Paul II was elected in 1978. Archbishop Lebebvre died in 1991. The days of Methuselah are over. After thirteen years whatever it was that the Archbishop was being it was not not being hasty.

Traditional Catholics who call their Holy Father antichrist and friend of the Revolution and confused Modernist and faithless archenemy of the Faith have a rather hollow ring when they suggest that sedevacantists are as bad as or worse than the Jєωs and the Moslems etc...

The real question is: Does anyone who calls their Holy Father all that REALLY believe, before God, that sedevacantists are worse than their Holy Father himself? That antichrist? That friend of the Revolution? That confused Modernist? That enemy of the Faith who has no faith?

roscoe · « **Reply #32 on:** March 31, 2008, 12:59:26 PM »

One day real soon, ben16 is going to take a crap in the middle of St Peters and some will think he's a saint.

Why do we need Lefevbre to tell us the v2 'popes' are apostates. Paul IV plainly forsaw what could happen and indeed had already occurred about 40 times even in his day--anti-popes. He was so terrified of another Anachlet II that he got carried away and mistakenly threw Card Morone in jail.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see--the Bible. Ciao

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #33 on:** March 31, 2008, 01:01:02 PM »

To answer your question, gladius: yes. The reality is though that he never did take that line of action. It was also simply his adherence to a theological opinion that has been merely theoretical. What matters now is what DID happen, not what could have happened. This argument of yours seems akin to the argument made against the 1988 consecrations that it would have been better if Abp. Lefebvre had waited still, where Rome kept delaying approval of episcopal consecrations until Abp. Lefebvre would die. What DID actually happen though were the 1988 consecrations due to necessity considering the current emergency situation of the Church at this time. And so, what also DID HAPPEN was that Abp. Lefebvre never took the sedevacantist line of action, regardless of him saying it was a possibility and legitimate line of action.

Cletus · « **Reply #34 on:** March 31, 2008, 02:04:28 PM »

The point here is NOT what in fact DID happen as far as Archbishop Lefebvre and sedevacantism went.

The point is what Archbishop Lefebvre said MIGHT happen before long. Archbishop Lefebvre MIGHT have denounced John Paul II as a pretender to the papal throne.

But some people condemn sedevacantists as though they were saying that they had first class relics of the Blessed Virgin, which, we know, could not be the truth.

The focus on Archbishop Lefebvre here is a kind of argumentum ad hominem: sedevacantists are taking as their basis of argument something that most Traditional Catholics believe: that Archbishop Lefebvre was a wise and heroic leader of the flock, the Athanasius of our times etc...

Then the question to some Traditional Catholics who recognize the Vatican II popes as popes becomes: why do you pretend to see as just about the vilest form of life on earth fellow Catholics who at worst are just jumping the sedevacantist gun that was always dangling from the little finger of the Athanasius of our time?

Cletus · « **Reply #35 on:** March 31, 2008, 02:14:04 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

One day real soon, ben16 is going to take a crap in the middle of St Peters and some will think he's a saint.

Why do we need Lefevbre to tell us the v2 'popes' are apostates. Paul IV plainly forsaw what could happen and indeed had already occurred about 40 times even in his day--anti-popes. He was so terrified of another Anachlet II that he got carried away and mistakenly threw Card Morone in jail.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see--the Bible. Ciao

Is it necessary to be that crude in a Catholic forum? In mixed company? But if we're going to be devastatingly crude at least we should be accurate. The idea of deliberateness was not expressed. Elderly people and sick people not infrequently have terrible embarrassing accidents.

But you ask a good question. What angel or Lady from heaven ever said that only Archbishop Lefebvre would know when it WAS time for "us" to say that the "antichrist" of Rome (as he put it) was no longer gloriously reigning as the Vicar of Christ?

Cletus · « **Reply #36 on:** March 31, 2008, 02:19:36 PM »

I think that things such as fingernail clippings count as first class relics. So it might be possible to have first class relics of the Blessed Mother. I meant alleged first class relics that would fly in the face of the dogma of the Assumption.

roscoe · « **Reply #37 on:** March 31, 2008, 03:01:44 PM »

'The idea of deliberatness was not expressed'.

I didn't think it necessary to go into the details. The meaning is clear enough. Crude?--OK .

Ciao

Cletus · « **Reply #38 on:** March 31, 2008, 04:04:28 PM »

Okay, but in the practical order we would be obliged to give him the benefit of the doubt as regards deliberateness should the worst happen.