Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 47

Author Topic: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?  (Read 23653 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
« Reply #185 on: January 20, 2024, 03:32:53 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn on January 20, 2024, 12:26:26 PM
The interview begins by saying: "Fr. Epiney told me personally, so many times that after the 1988 consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre would not anymore mention the name of John Paul 2 in the Canon of the Mass. So you know, I'm not lying about this, I have no reasons to believe that Fr. Epiney lied about it, and that's what he told me multiple times." He goes on to say he believes it because he believes it came to a head and finally hit +ABL after the 1988 consecrations.

First, it is easy to understand that +Roy has no reason to disbelieve Fr. Epiney because he is himself non-una cuм, and unlike +ABL, has always believed in and preached non-una cuм. Believes non-una cuм to be correct and probably even virtuous.

Meanwhile we have recordings of +ABL from 1989, almost a whole year after the consecrations - plenty of time to have "seen the light" - yet he is preaching against sedeism and specifically preaching against non-una cuм....If you read the link, you will find that +ABL continues on to explain what the prayer actually does mean. NOTE: Whether or not sedes agree it means what +ABL says it means does not matter, what matters *in this case* is that *he believes it,* and is on that account he never could have said the Mass non-una cuм, not ever.

He ends by saying:What the bishop in the video is saying and apparently believes, is that +ABL includes himself among those poorly instructed and poorly taught who believe in a false idea. And that +ABL himself no longer understands anything, is completely desperate and does not know what to expect.

The whole idea that +ABL was at anytime non-una cuм is altogether absurd to the Nth degree. The video is "ridiculous! ridiculous!"
So what I would like to see is someone present this to Bishop Roy and see how he responds.

I would add that perhaps you should avoid implying that he is lying given you falsely accused another sede Bishop of lying not too long ago.
Logged

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
« Reply #186 on: January 20, 2024, 03:53:19 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 20, 2024, 12:52:38 PM
No, they're not stories.  Personal experience.  Fr Jenkins is not dogmatic in the sense that he won't permit opposing views, but he is dogmatic in the sense that he pushes the idea that non-Sedes/una cuм are heretical.  They have this odd logic that "If you're a sedevacantist, then going to an una cuм is wrong.  If one isn't a Sede, they aren't culpable."  It's similar false logic/situational ethics used towards the novus ordo.  "If you know the new mass is wrong, then you can't attend.  Many people don't know it's wrong."

So, "on paper" they aren't dogmatic.  But in practice, they are teaching many, many Trads to believe/act as if 'una cuм' is heretical.  But these rules only apply "If they are Sedevacantist..."  And i've heard this argument from many who attend such chapels.

It's a philosophical way to both deny the formal policy, while encouraging the bad ideals.  I'm not saying this is done deceitfully, nor subversively, but that it's just bad logic.
Not my experience, and I'll go out on a limb and say I know a lot more sedes IRL than you do. In my experience the large majority of sedes I know would not say una cuм is heretical nor sinful.  But they will say that they prefer to assist non una cuм and will do so if there is a choice.  They will also discourage assistance una cuм, but wouldn't say someone cannot do so.  This is much like Bishop Pivarunas' position.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
« Reply #187 on: January 20, 2024, 05:48:28 PM »

Quote
They will also discourage assistance una cuм, but wouldn't say someone cannot do so. 
They would say this to non-sedes.  But if you’re a sede, then it’s sinful to attend una cuм.  
Logged

Offline Everlast22

  • Supporter
Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
« Reply #188 on: January 20, 2024, 05:51:03 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 20, 2024, 05:48:28 PM
They would say this to non-sedes.  But if you’re a sede, then it’s sinful to attend una cuм. 
It's sinful? 
Logged

Online Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?
« Reply #189 on: January 20, 2024, 06:09:27 PM »
Seem as though only Stubborn and a few of the other Old Catholics here really care whether +Lefebvre did or did not offer Mass una cuм Wojtyla.  That's because they're replaced the rule of faith they have rejected in the Magisterium with the latest position of Archbishop Lefebvre (which could differ from year to year and even month to month).  If +Lefebvre had started doing Novus Ordo clown Masses before he died, it would have zero effect on what I think.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 47
« previous next »