Yes, he most certainly wavered. And I too have said that this is nothing to hold against him. In fact, I would think something wrong with him if he hadn't wavered. It's a sign of his sincerity in seeking truth. There's a common attack in the political realm of "flip-flopping". That really only should apply to people who change positions due to political advantage (say, looking at polls). If someone has a sincere change of mind, I hold that not as a negative but a positive. It speaks to a person's honesty and sincerity.
There has been this phenomenon among various groups of Traditional Catholics to claim that THEY are the ones being TRUE to +Lefebvre. So they engage in this dishonest practice of pulling out only those +Lefebvre quotes that back up their current position. Then the other side pulls out ThEIR +Lefebvre quotes. Neither side is honest enough to say, well, +Lefebvre did hold BOTH those views ... at different times. There are times shortly after the election of JP2 where +Lefebvre very much favored an agreement with Rome. There were times, after Assisi, where he was, by his own admission, a hair's breadth away from declaring the See vacant. So the +Fellay-ites grab the former set of quotes, and the Resistance and sedevacantists grab the latter. Both are right, and both are wrong.
Indeed, I know of no Traditional Catholics ... except the Dimondites ... who do not hold Archbishop Lefebvre in the highest esteem and have great respect for him. Translating a disagreement with +Lefebvre into "you hold him in contempt" is another dishonest tactic that has become prevalent here lately. When I disagreed with a position of St. Alphonsus, I was told that I had "contempt" for him. I can disagree with St. Alphonsus or with Archbishop Lefebvre while still having the greatest respect for them; my disagreement with St Thomas on his teaching regarding the Immaculate Conception in no way lessens the reverence I have for him (of course it's easy to disagree in hindsight).
You know what would be refreshing. I would love to hear the Resistance say, "yes, there were times that +Lefebvre did not shy away from seeking an agreement with Rome, and we disagree with his having done so." Or to hear the SSPX say, "yes, Archbishop Lefebvre did at times oppose an agreement with Rome in principle, and we disagree with that position." Instead of, "We're the true +Lefebvrites." "No, we are."
Nice try:
You expressed contempt for St. Alphonsus when you put the word “great” in parenthesis.
You were upset that I referred to him as such , because he contradicted your position on marital sodomy (ie., you arguing that marital sodomy is a permissible means to an end).
Never mind that sodomy is an unnatural sex act, and unnatural sex acts are intrinsically evil, and can never therefore be licit under any circuмstances, for any reason.
But that one must have really stung you, if you are still trying to shake it off.
Truth is, you are a loser with no life outside Cathinfo, and we’re deeply someone as obscure as St. Alphonsus should dare to challenge your permissive stance.
You routinely fling insults around the forum, then rattle off 250 two-sentence posts attempting to justify it.
Your comments in this thread are more liberal-Laxislaus nonsense.
Lefebvre was never a “hair’s breath” from sedevacantism, as you gratuitously claim.
At best, on two occasions, he made comments which gave eternal hope to the sedes, but he himself was never anywhere close to endorsing that opinion (regardless of whatever smoke Laxislaus the Liar wants to say).
Get lost, you ignorant blowhard!
Ps: And way to go, in attempting to justify Jone by falsifying the teaching of St. Alphonsus (ie., attributing to Alphonsus the teaching that one can safely follow the moral conclusions in any approved book of theology, even if that is a minority position. That is Probabilism, which Alphonsus abandoned in 1769, in favor of his famous Aequiprobabilism, which rejects that position).
Topic: Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre - Against Sedevacantism (Read 4792 times)