Author Topic: Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (Read 4223 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #1 on:** April 12, 2007, 12:47:09 PM »

The Archbishop's comments were fuel for those who concluded that the See of Peter is empty, as well as for those who eventually were formed into the FSSP. He was on the fence himself; some days leaning one way, some days the other way. Those days, as these, were heady days indeed, and it is understandable that one would be unsure - for a time. Eventually, one must get off that bloomin' fence, as the splinters really start hampering your ability to sit very well.

Trinity · « **Reply #2 on:** April 12, 2007, 01:37:57 PM »

Did he never declare, then?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #3 on:** April 13, 2007, 08:24:10 AM »

As far as I know, he remained non-sede, claiming that "someday" it might become necessary to declare the See vacant. What this proves, however, is that he thought it perfectly possible and legitimate to do so, although he thought the time had not arrived, or he would not have even mentioned it.

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #4 on:** April 13, 2007, 07:35:41 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

As far as I know, he remained non-sede, claiming that "someday" it might become necessary to declare the See vacant. What this proves, however, is that he thought it perfectly possible and legitimate to do so, although he thought the time had not arrived, or he would not have even mentioned it.

That's not true. He never said it was a legitimate to do so? What happened to the 9 he threw out for their beliefs in sedevacantism? If it was ok he wouldn't have suspended them out of the SSPX. Facts speak louder than words.

His view was simple that is imprudent to say the Pope isn't the pope because we are not in that position to do so. If you would like a good article on this issue follow this link by Fr. Boulet of the SSPX:

http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/church/insan_o_sed1.htm

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #5 on:** April 13, 2007, 09:10:27 PM »

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto

If it was ok he wouldn't have suspended them out of the SSPX. Facts speak louder than words.

MS,

His own bloomin' words make it PLAIN AS DAY that he himself thought it might one day be necessary to do so. CLEARLY, he must have thought it BOTH possible and legitimate to do so, despite the fact that he thought the time had not yet arrived to do so (i.e., it was "imprudent" to do so at the time he was speaking).

Quote

His view was simple that is imprudent to say the Pope isn't the pope because we are not in that position to do so.

No, it was not. Some days, sure. Others, he said PLAINLY that advocating such a position might become necessary. Although I sincerely appreciate the link, it will clearly be citing only some of his remarks, ignoring the others which are CLEAR AS A BELL.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #6 on:** April 13, 2007, 09:17:13 PM »

Clodovicus · « **Reply #7 on:** April 14, 2007, 01:15:07 AM »

Hmmm, This is a most interesting topic for me, as sedevacantism intrugues me. I have seen the above quotes many times, and it puzzled me as to how he could thus claim such. People are too into movements and not actual Catholic Dogma.

Trinity · « **Reply #8 on:** April 14, 2007, 08:56:01 AM »

I don't know about movements, Clo. I just see what I see and draw the inescapable conclusions that can be drawn from it. One thing is inescapable to me; that the last five popes have been working on the same evil agenda, which means they are evil wolves and not good shepherds. The Spirit of the Church is the Holy Spirit. The spirit of the vatican is an evil spirit. Again we would probably be better aided by defining the word "pope". What exactly makes a pope a pope, and do these people fit the criteria?

There is a line in "A Man For All Seasons" wherein Charlton Heston as St. Thomas More tells his son in law (I think) that God gave us these wits to escape traps, or some such. I think too many people aren't using their wits. They see a wolf in the shepherd's hut and deny the evidence of their own eyes. This puzzles me greatly. It isn't the hut which is slaughtering the sheep, but the wolf inside the hut. But it is the hut which they claim makes the wolf a shepherd. :confused1:

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #9 on:** April 14, 2007, 09:39:36 AM »

Quote from: Clodovicus

People are too into movements and not actual Catholic Dogma.

This is a rather sweeping, general statement, eh?

Moderns are "too into" making vague, general statements without using actual examples in order to prove the claim. See the quoted portion of this post for an example.

Do not misread this, Clodovicus, as, in the main, I agree.

Trinity · « **Reply #10 on:** April 14, 2007, 10:50:03 AM »

And so do I. If that wasn't true, there wouldn't be a remnant, but a large body.

Clodovicus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 14, 2007, 12:44:03 PM »

Trinity · « **Reply #12 on:** April 15, 2007, 09:07:17 AM »

That's why I posted Gerry Matatics on Sedevacantism. We should be Catholics or not Catholics, and there should be no other distinction. Someone once called me "the OTHER kind of Catholic". Until till then I believed that there was only one kind of Catholic. After years of confusion, turmoil and pain I returned to my original premise. There is only one kind of Catholic. But there are many kinds of "not Catholics", and that is what the rest of them are no matter what they claim.

Clodovicus · « **Reply #13 on:** April 16, 2007, 07:56:42 PM »

There is indeed only one kind of Catholic - the one that holds to Catholic dogma, all the others which reject some article of faith that must be believed is not Catholic.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #14 on:** March 19, 2008, 12:05:38 PM »

Joan,

I bumped this for you to read. Cheers.