Author Topic: Archbishop Lefebvre on Sedevacantism (Read 15084 times)

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #195 on:** March 04, 2011, 10:28:23 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

That is my whole point. JPII was endorsing the act of worshipping false gods.

"Endorse" implies promoting. Thus an athlete "endorses" a brand name tennis shoe and encourages others to buy and wear it.

That is not what happened at Assisi. The Pope was not encouraging, endorsing, promoting that people join other religions or worship false gods. He preached Jesus Christ at the meeting itself. Obviously through this and countless other of his writings and the fact that he is POPE people can plainly see he is Catholic (sedes aside) and wants people to be Catholic. Obviously we believe he wants people to be Catholic as sort of a pious desire as opposed to Trads who believe it is a necessity.

One can interpret Assisi to mean these things, but I think they have to strain to do so. In fact Assisi appeared to give this impression, but in reality conservative Catholics and even liberal Catholics know the Pope was not actively promoting the joining of non-Catholic religions. If he really did so, don't you think the liberals would be crying this from the roof-tops? Instead they were probably PO'ed he didn't join the pagans in worship.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #196 on:** March 04, 2011, 12:11:30 PM »

The only straining is done by those who seek to explain away the patently obvious.

If I invite a man to my home and provide him with the necessary space, tools, etc., to perform some activity which I know he will perform, am I not ENCOURAGING him to PERFORM said activity?

Voluntary blindness is an ugly thing to behold. To pretend JP2 sought to convert men to the Faith is absurd. His words AND actions confirmed hundreds of millions -- if not 3.5 billion :wink: -- in their errors.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #197 on:** March 04, 2011, 01:00:47 PM »

Indifferentism does not mean the active promotion of JOINING false religions. To pretend as if it does flows from either misunderstanding or bad will.

Indifferentism involves words and/or deeds that make it clear one does not think it really matters which religion you hold and practice, so long as you do so in a sincere manner. This idea -- that all religions are 'more or less good and praiseworthy' -- is at the heart of V2's and JP2's message (and was profoundly incarnated at Assisi). In fact, it is stated word for word in both messages, although it had been condemned word for word by Pius XI and others.

It is about CONFIRMING men in error.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #198 on:** March 04, 2011, 01:26:32 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

The only straining is done by those who seek to explain away the patently obvious.

If I invite a man to my home and provide him with the necessary space, tools, etc., to perform some activity which I know he will perform, am I not ENCOURAGING him to PERFORM said activity?

No. If you have a Muslim staying with you whim you invited to help work on your house and he knows you are a Christian, but you let him use your spare room to say his prayers, are you "encouraging" him to say his prayers? Are you approving of Islam? No. You are simply allowing or tolerating him saying prayers, knowing Jesus Christ is God and he is mistaken, but taknig into account that he is blind to the true reality.

LM · « **Reply #199 on:** March 04, 2011, 01:49:53 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: gladius_veritatis
The only straining is done by those who seek to explain away the patently obvious.

If I invite a man to my home and provide him with the necessary space, tools, etc., to perform some activity which I know he will perform, am I not ENCOURAGING him to PERFORM said activity?

No. If you have a Muslim staying with you whim you invited to help work on your house and he knows you are a Christian, but you let him use your spare room to say his prayers, are you "encouraging" him to say his prayers? Are you approving of Islam? No. You are simply allowing or tolerating him saying prayers, knowing Jesus Christ is God and he is mistaken, but taknig into account that he is blind to the true reality.

What is the intent/purpose/call of the invitation. Is it to have the muslim work on the house, or have the muslim pray.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #200 on:** March 04, 2011, 02:02:48 PM »

Quote from: LM

Quote from: stevusmagnus
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
The only straining is done by those who seek to explain away the patently obvious.

If I invite a man to my home and provide him with the necessary space, tools, etc., to perform some activity which I know he will perform, am I not ENCOURAGING him to PERFORM said activity?

No. If you have a Muslim staying with you whim you invited to help work on your house and he knows you are a Christian, but you let him use your spare room to say his prayers, are you "encouraging" him to say his prayers? Are you approving of Islam? No. You are simply allowing or tolerating him saying prayers, knowing Jesus Christ is God and he is mistaken, but taknig into account that he is blind to the true reality.

What is the intent/purpose/call of the invitation. Is it to have the muslim work on the house, or have the muslim pray.

Work on the house. It is a good goal/ pursuit. Similarly working towards peace is a good/ goal pursuit. What if you ask the Muslim to pray that the house work goes well? I suppose you woud say you are then encouraging "false worship".

I guess the key distinction to be made is that we, knowing the Truth, realize that this Muslim is in error objectively. We also realize that subjectively he sincerely believes he is right and is following God as he understands to be the true way. This, of course, doesn't mean he is right.

JPII (and Neo-Caths) recognizing this, contend that God also recognizes this and hears their misdirected prayers for whatever value they are worth. JPII will not participate in this worship because he knows it is objectively wrong, but, for the non-Catholics, subjectively they bear little culpability (unless perhaps if they are knowledgable apostate Catholics who converted to Islam).

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #201 on:** March 04, 2011, 02:29:32 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
That is my whole point. JPII was endorsing the act of worshipping false gods.

"Endorse" implies promoting. Thus an athlete "endorses" a brand name tennis shoe and encourages others to buy and wear it.

That is not what happened at Assisi. The Pope was not encouraging, endorsing, promoting that people join other religions or worship false gods. He preached Jesus Christ at the meeting itself. Obviously through this and countless other of his writings and the fact that he is POPE people can plainly see he is Catholic (sedes aside) and wants people to be Catholic. Obviously we believe he wants people to be Catholic as sort of a pious desire as opposed to Trads who believe it is a necessity.

One can interpret Assisi to mean these things, but I think they have to strain to do so. In fact Assisi appeared to give this impression, but in reality conservative Catholics and even liberal Catholics know the Pope was not actively promoting the joining of non-Catholic religions. If he really did so, don't you think the liberals would be crying this from the roof-tops? Instead they were probably PO'ed he didn't join the pagans in worship.

Of course the libs don't think so, they act as if JPII was perfect. That's not the point though. The point is that it really does not matter if JPII mentioned Jesus Christ. It was an event where people of nearly all religions gathered around. If he really was promoting Christianity as the true faith during the meetings he would have condemned all of the false religions and in fact would never have held the meetings. But he did not say one bad thing about the religions. Sure JPII was Catholic, but he clearly saw nothing wrong with these people of other religions. He was participating in their routines" such as receiving that cow dung on his forehead", he let them go up to the podium and speak, and let's not forget how he covered up all the crosses and didn't offer Mass on one Sunday during Assisii II so he wouldn't offend anybody. What about the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church? As Pope it is his duty to uphold that dogma, and unfortunetly turned around instead and said "Hey, it doesn't matter what religion you are. Sure I'm a Catholic, but if you're Buddhist, Jєωιѕн, Hinduist, Muslim, or whatever, it doesn't matter, we all believie in some kind of god and should all just try to get along". Interestingly getting along with the Traditionalists was not something high on his list of priorities. Do the research, you can't do what JPII did and NOT in some kind of way promote the practice of being non-Catholic.

LM · « **Reply #202 on:** March 04, 2011, 02:41:27 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: LM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Quote from: gladius_veritatis
The only straining is done by those who seek to explain away the patently obvious.

If I invite a man to my home and provide him with the necessary space, tools, etc., to perform some activity which I know he will perform, am I not ENCOURAGING him to PERFORM said activity?

No. If you have a Muslim staying with you whim you invited to help work on your house and he knows you are a Christian, but you let him use your spare room to say his prayers, are you "encouraging" him to say his prayers? Are you approving of Islam? No. You are simply allowing or tolerating him saying prayers, knowing Jesus Christ is God and he is mistaken, but taknig into account that he is blind to the true reality.

What is the intent/purpose/call of the invitation. Is it to have the muslim work on the house, or have the muslim pray.

Work on the house. It is a good goal/ pursuit. Similarly working towards peace is a good/ goal pursuit. What if you ask the Muslim to pray that the house work goes well? I suppose you woud say you are then encouraging "false worship".

I guess the key distinction to be made is that we, knowing the Truth, realize that this Muslim is in error objectively. We also realize that subjectively he sincerely believes he is right and is following God as he understands to be the true way. This, of course, doesn't mean he is right.

JPII (and Neo-Caths) recognizing this, contend that God also recognizes this and hears their misdirected prayers for whatever value they are worth. JPII will not participate in this worship because he knows it is objectively wrong, but, for the non-Catholics, subjectively they bear little culpability (unless perhaps if they are knowledgable apostate Catholics who converted to Islam).

The muslim believes their belief is objectively right. To invite/call for the prayer of false religions along side Catholic prayers is to give credence to what they believe is objectively right.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #203 on:** March 04, 2011, 02:55:54 PM »

Quote from: LM

The muslim believes their belief is objectively right. To invite/call for the prayer of false religions along side Catholic prayers is to give credence to what they believe is objectively right.

I totally agree! I'm not defending Assisi carte blance. I'm simply distinguishing what I see are good criticisms from shaky ones.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #204 on:** March 04, 2011, 02:58:47 PM »

StevusMagnus, saying what you do, you're a better advertisement for sedevacantism than I could ever be.

Even Spiritus, who has heretofore imbibed your doctrine as sheepishly as possible, sounds like he's fed up.

Have you forgotten, or do you just conveniently leave it out to bolster what passes for your argument, that JPII is quoted as saying "The Old Covenant has never been revoked"? Have you forgotten that he visited ѕуηαgσgυєs and the Wailing Wall? Have you forgotten that he APOLOGIZED for the Church's treatment of Jєωs in the past? ( When in reality, the Church always defended Jєωs against genocide, so what was he apologizing for? Could it be for the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church? ) Surely you are aware that this man bent over backwards to please the Jєωs, as well as other religions? Not to mention that the VII Magisterium, that shares his Modernist mindset, heretically said that false religions contain the "seeds of the Word."

Now look at Assisis Uno y Dos in this context. Your pettifogging is not going to work here. Everyone can see the way you keep narrowly focusing on Assisi, totally divorced from the rest of JPII's "papacy." They are trying to point out the big picture, which you consistently ignore.

What trad do you know of that defends Assisi? SSPX doesn't defend Assisi. You're out on your own here. I can see that as a lawyer, if I wanted to get my client off, I would take attention off the gory details of his life and I would focus on the evidence proving he didn't do the crime in question. If he was accused of murder, I wouldn't want people focusing on the fact that he has a history of getting into lots of fights in bars, or that he once pulled a knife on his girlfriend. I'd carefully try to arrange things so that these topics got as little airtime as possible.

That's what you're trying to do with Assisi, take attention off JPII's life as a whole and exonerate him based on some kind of technicality for Assisi in particular. I guess you could conceivably do this, at least for Assisi One -- the question is WHY would you want to? Another question is, why does anyone want to rehash this tired shtick.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #205 on:** March 04, 2011, 02:58:57 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Of course the libs don't think so, they act as if JPII was perfect.

Astonishingly they don't! The Neo-Caths (conservative Novus Ordites) think he was perfect. The kooky libs actually think he was too conservative because he cracked down on politician priests and made them give up their office (often socialist/ lib ones in Latin America and US), he refused to allow married priests, refused to allow birth control, would not legally allow for intercommunion of Prots, too strict on abortion and euthanasia and stem cells, etc. etc....

LM · « **Reply #206 on:** March 04, 2011, 03:58:16 PM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Of course the libs don't think so, they act as if JPII was perfect.

Astonishingly they don't! The Neo-Caths (conservative Novus Ordites) think he was perfect. The kooky libs actually think he was too conservative because he cracked down on politician priests and made them give up their office (often socialist/ lib ones in Latin America and US), he refused to allow married priests, refused to allow birth control, would not legally allow for intercommunion of Prots, too strict on abortion and euthanasia and stem cells, etc. etc....

I disagree, they don't believe he was perfect. What they do is regulate his un-Catholic words/actions to just some type of "unforseen" circuмstance and blind themselves to the truth that his papacy and legacy are a disaster to the Faith.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #207 on:** March 04, 2011, 05:00:11 PM »

Yeah I never said they literally thought he was perfect, I said they acted as though they thought he was.

I pretty much agree with everything Raoul has said on this issue. There is no overlooking what JPII did. His actions show he was a modernist. He may have took up for the unborn but that is not enough to label him as a true conservative. Besides, he obviously knew that if he did not take up for the unborn then a large amount of people would begin to question his Papacy do to contradicting the Church's teaching that abortion is wrong. Of course, he also contradicted the Church's teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, but due to the fact that Vatican II changed that and not the teachings on abortion, it would be easier for even the less-alert Catholic to detect that something is wrong if he had said abortion was ok.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #208 on:** March 04, 2011, 10:48:10 PM »