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

Author Topic: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre?  (Read 13302 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46493
  • Reputation: +27375/-5056
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • What Bishop Roy stated about "non una cuм" does correspond with a certain pattern in Archbishop Lefebvre's manifest understanding of the Crisis.

    There's a mistake being made here to conflate simple "not una cuм" with dogmatic "not una cuм".  We're simply looking at this as a possible indication that +Lefebvre may have warmed up to the possibility of sedevacante in his final years, which we saw starting from 1986 and then after 1988.  Obviously +Lefebvre did not impose some kind of dogmatic "non una cuм" on SSPX.  So, for instance, SSPV and CMRI do not put Bergoglio's name in the Canon, but they're not among those who effectively excommunicate anyone who does.  There's a huge difference that doesn't seem to be understood.

    With that in mind, far from seeing such a move as "divisive", I see it as potentially unifying, as we see Bishop Williamson, Father Chazal, etc. softening on their hostility against the possibility that Jorge is not the pope.

    Offline B from A

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1243
    • Reputation: +823/-135
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nice clickbait title, BTW.

    What's next? Talking about "one weird trick"? or "10 Things Trads don't know. Number 7 will blow your mind!"

    :laugh1:


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46493
    • Reputation: +27375/-5056
    • Gender: Male
    Did +Lefebvre stop offering Mass "una cuм" JP2 in his last days?
    « Reply #17 on: January 15, 2024, 10:05:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This.

    I don't think Fr. Roy, who was ordained in what, 2012? has "discovered" such a thing that wasn't already common knowledge.'

    Nice clickbait title, BTW.

    What's next? Talking about "one weird trick"? or "10 Things Trads don't know. Number 7 will blow your mind!"

    I agree that the title is bad.  Perhaps the title is what's causing people to consider this "divisive" whereas the subject matter is not inherently divisive.

    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 787
    • Reputation: +342/-140
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nevertheless he is still making senseless divisions.

    I almost find humor in it.  The sheer insanity of it all is so many more magnitudes larger than anyone could have imagined; Bergo blesses homos, abortionists, worships Pachamama and now we find +Lefebvre may have been going secretly sede in his final, post-Assisi days?  Just when you think it can't get any crazier it somehow does.



    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11386
    • Reputation: +6355/-1115
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Texana, as a fellow (?) sedevacantist I do think your title was unnecessary/inflammatory.  If we wish others to avoid similar, inflammatory anti-sede titles, we should do the same.

    Having said that, I did see this interview elsewhere, and I do find it interesting.


    Offline Texana

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +212/-58
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Texana, as a fellow (?) sedevacantist I do think your title was unnecessary/inflammatory.  If we wish others to avoid similar, inflammatory anti-sede titles, we should do the same.

    Having said that, I did see this interview elsewhere, and I do find it interesting.
    Dear 2Vermont,
    Thank you --I appreciate constructive criticism!  It would be helpful to the discussion if people would view the entire video before making their own conclusions, but time is a precious commodity.  Truth is too.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12070
    • Reputation: +7596/-2288
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Anyone who is still making the argument, 30 years later, that "+ABL said this" or "+ABL wouldn't agree with that" is just living in the past.  +ABL lived his life according to catholic principles.  These principles still exist, won't change, and we can still apply them to our lives.  We don't need +ABL's permission/condemnation to make decisions today.  Some of the questions we are dealing with today are different than +ABL's time; most of the questions are the same.

    The most basic questions of Traditionalism have all been answered - go to a valid priest, who says a valid mass, pray your rosary, do your daily duty and work to save your soul through charity to your neighbor, etc.

    Everything else is just controversy, division and noise.  Most modern Trad clerics are just obsessed with the "politics" of Traddom.  R&R vs sspx vs Sedeism.  It's no different than being obsessed about politics.  

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11386
    • Reputation: +6355/-1115
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just stop for a moment and think about this, Texana.
    Here we are, over 30 years since the Archbishop died, and we are learning from one of the 'defectors' from the Archbishop's Society/Resistance, one who never knew the Archbishop; we are learning from him what no one until now ever knew???
    The entire Society of the Archbishop, the bishops in whom he confided, the superior general, all the priests and the faithful - we have all been deceived???
    Now I ask you, how likely is that?
    I don't say that Rev Roy or Fr Epiney are deliberately distorting the truth, but certainly somewhere along the line there is a misunderstanding to say the very least.

    Perhaps it was a well-guarded "secret".  ;)


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46493
    • Reputation: +27375/-5056
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Anyone who is still making the argument, 30 years later, that "+ABL said this" or "+ABL wouldn't agree with that" is just living in the past.  +ABL lived his life according to catholic principles.  These principles still exist, won't change, and we can still apply them to our lives.  We don't need +ABL's permission/condemnation to make decisions today.  Some of the questions we are dealing with today are different than +ABL's time; most of the questions are the same.

    Agreed, as you know.  But there are some who are hung up on using +Lefebvre as some kind of "rule of faith" ... even if one can find quotations from him that contradict one another, as he did change his mind over time.  There's no monolithic +Lefebvre.  Generally, however, I see individuals attempting to use +Lefebvre as a sock-puppet for their own opinion, cherry-picking whatever quotes they feel serve that purpose while ignoring the ones that don't.

    Offline trento

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 800
    • Reputation: +226/-144
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • How exactly does this represent "senseless division"?  If anything, it's one more step toward everyone coming to a consensus that Jorge is not the pope.  We have Bishop Williamson and Father Chazal very much warming up to the notion now.

    And this is not surprising at all.  At the consecrations, reliable witnesses report that Bishop de Castro Mayer was going around telling people "We have no pope."

    Two years earlier, +Lefebvre had said this:
    From someone who was there at the consecrations, I was told +de Castro Mayer didn't say that. It was more like "Peter, where art thou?". For me that sounds more like a lamentation for the state of the Church than outright concluding sedeism.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32649
    • Reputation: +28907/-574
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Someone made a great point in this thread, which totally vindicates my other thread "R&R had +Lefebvre. Who do the sedes got?"

    To prove that +Lefebvre was the greatest saintly figure in the post-Vatican II (Traditional) Catholic Church, just look at how all sides are trying to get him on their side, "own" or "claim" him, even after his death?

    You don't see this with any of the Sede bishops, not even +Thuc. You don't hear Indult/neo-SSPX/Resistance/Sede Catholics all trying to claim that they are the true followers of +Kelley or +Thuc.

    But this DOES happen with +Lefebvre. Why? See what I mean? He was such a great man, such a great SAINT, that it really bolsters a position (group, etc.) to have +Lefebvre counted as your leader, founder, holder of your position, etc.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline MiracleOfTheSun

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 787
    • Reputation: +342/-140
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!4
  • He was such a great man, such a great SAINT...

    I have never heard of any miracles performed during his life.  Or maybe you experienced and apparition and was told he is in Heaven?

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12070
    • Reputation: +7596/-2288
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    To prove that +Lefebvre was the greatest saintly figure in the post-Vatican II (Traditional) Catholic Church, just look at how all sides are trying to get him on their side, "own" or "claim" him, even after his death?
    No, Unfortunately, fighting over +ABL’s legacy doesn’t prove his saintliness (which stands apart and on its own).  Fighting over +ABL only proves that the warring factions in Traddom only want power, control and increased “market share”.  It’s nothing more than this. 

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46493
    • Reputation: +27375/-5056
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Someone made a great point in this thread, which totally vindicates my other thread "R&R had +Lefebvre. Who do the sedes got?"

    To prove that +Lefebvre was the greatest saintly figure in the post-Vatican II (Traditional) Catholic Church, just look at how all sides are trying to get him on their side, "own" or "claim" him, even after his death?

    You don't see this with any of the Sede bishops, not even +Thuc. You don't hear Indult/neo-SSPX/Resistance/Sede Catholics all trying to claim that they are the true followers of +Kelley or +Thuc.

    But this DOES happen with +Lefebvre. Why? See what I mean? He was such a great man, such a great SAINT, that it really bolsters a position (group, etc.) to have +Lefebvre counted as your leader, founder, holder of your position, etc.

    I think it's somewhat unilateral, where many R&R have stood him up as some kind of "rule of faith" due to the vacuum left by the Conciliar so-called "Magisterium".  SVs tend to quote +Lefebvre to show that he wasn't hostile to SVism and wasn't onboard with the dogmatic sedeplenism that some on the R&R side tend to attribute to him.  (Neo-)SSPX and the Resistance are battling over who are the true "faithful heirs of Lefebvre".

    So I see it as similar to how Catholics might argue against Prots by citing the Bible.  They don't concede that the Bible can be interpreted and understood authoritatively without the Church's authority, but, knowing that the Prots think of it that way, they feel they can go after them on their own terms.  Thus, the Dimonds have a pamphlet (highly recommended) called "The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church", where no only do they limit themselves to the Bible, but they even use the King James version (to take that objection off the table).

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46493
    • Reputation: +27375/-5056
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • St. Athanasius was a great leader during the Arian crisis, but there were many others as well.  But Christians did not define themselves as "Athanasites", but rather as true Christians and anti-Arians.

    This argument over Archbishop Lefebvre reminds me of this from Sacred Scripture (I Corinthians 11-15)
    Quote
    11 For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.  12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ.  13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?  14 I give God thanks, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Caius;  15 Lest any should say that you were baptized in my name.

    So this started pretty early.  "I'm of Lefebvre.  I'm of Fellay.  I'm of Williamson.  I'm of Sanborn.  I'm of Kelly.  I'm of Pivarunas.  I'm of Pfeiffer."  :laugh1: