Author Topic: Is Msgr. Lefebvre the Prelate Predicted to Restore the Church? (Read 5059 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #60 on:** November 12, 2010, 09:27:07 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Archbishop LeFebvre was not the prelate to RESTORE the Church, he was the prelate to preserve Tradition.

Archbishop Lefebvre was not THE PRELATE to preserve Tradition.

He was ONE of the prelates to preserve Tradition.

Right, though of those prelates he was the main one.

Dawn · « **Reply #61 on:** November 12, 2010, 11:51:02 AM »

hateful speech and spiteful speech is not Catholic. If these persons had the truth they should be able to get it across with out the venom. They do not have the truth about these men. I find this to be a very sad thing indeed. And, unfortunately so many are hungry for scandal they really rake people in.

Matthew · « **Reply #62 on:** November 12, 2010, 12:37:39 PM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Archbishop LeFebvre was not the prelate to RESTORE the Church, he was the prelate to preserve Tradition.

Archbishop Lefebvre was not THE PRELATE to preserve Tradition.

He was ONE of the prelates to preserve Tradition.

What other prelates upheld Tradition the way he did?

He sure seemed to be *very* alone as he consecrated the 4 bishops. Only Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer stood with him. Where is the witness of the various Sedevacantist bishops? Or do their episcopacies all post-date Abp. Lefebvre?

Matthew · « **Reply #63 on:** November 12, 2010, 12:42:54 PM »

Quote from: Dawn

hateful speech and spiteful speech is not Catholic. If these persons had the truth they should be able to get it across with out the venom. They do not have the truth about these men. I find this to be a very sad thing indeed. And, unfortunately so many are hungry for scandal they really rake people in.

I agree. When I see venom, bitterness, deceit, etc. I know I'm not in the right place -- and any person who shows those traits A) has issues, and B) shouldn't be followed -- especially blindly.

That's what I like about the SSPX. With all their faults, they focus on preserving and restoring Tradition for the greatest number of people, and keep things civil for the most part. Their sermons are about the Faith, not low-level political rants. When "the world" makes its way into the sermons, it's only an application of the Gospel message. And the SSPX doesn't require signed statements from its members before allowing them admittance to their chapels -- they remember their place. They realize that they can't take the place of the Pope. Their only job is to serve the people with the true Faith and Sacraments.

Of course, we're dealing with Traditional Catholics, so I'm sure there's bound to be some fighting, but it's not exactly their fault.

Matthew

Belloc · « **Reply #64 on:** November 12, 2010, 12:44:44 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Roman Catholic
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Archbishop LeFebvre was not the prelate to RESTORE the Church, he was the prelate to preserve Tradition.

Archbishop Lefebvre was not THE PRELATE to preserve Tradition.

He was ONE of the prelates to preserve Tradition.

What other prelates upheld Tradition the way he did?

He sure seemed to be *very* alone as he consecrated the 4 bishops. Only Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer stood with him. Where is the witness of the various Sedevacantist bishops? Or do their episcopacies all post-date Abp. Lefebvre?

true, as SV Bishop, priests were not there, no offered solidarity and liekly, would not as they viewed ABL/SSPX as heretics, not valid,etc

Matthew · « **Reply #65 on:** November 12, 2010, 12:47:38 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote from: stevusmagnus
Does the Society recognize the Thuc consecrations? Does Rome?

Last I heard, they were considered doubtful, or at least some of them were.

Can you post correspondence from the Vatican that states this? As for the "Society", what they think of the Thuc consecrations is of no interest to me.

So because you personally don't like the SSPX, you're prepared to throw out their collective expertise on Ordination? What makes you think they're so petty that they'd deny the validity of Thuc ordinations just because Thuc-line bishops/priests aren't part of the SSPX?

So many people have a *very* narrow view and experience of the SSPX. They go on very thin anecdotal evidence at best.

And no, spending a number of years at a single SSPX chapel doesn't count as a ton of experience. No more than I could call myself a "widely traveled man" if I spent 50 years living in my hometown. I might be an expert at my hometown -- but not other places.

Some people have a bad experience with a few parishioners, or an individual priest, and then throw out the baby with the bath water. "The whole group is rotten!" How rational is that? That's a very emotional way to behave.

So if I can come up with one example of a woman having loose morals, I can conclude that all women are sluts? That is the *exact same logic* as the person who fights with an SSPX priest, leaves the congregation, and spends his remaining days bashing the SSPX.

What is wrong with some people?

Matthew

Alexandria · « **Reply #66 on:** November 12, 2010, 12:54:48 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Alexandria
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Does the Society recognize the Thuc consecrations? Does Rome?

Last I heard, they were considered doubtful, or at least some of them were.

Can you post correspondence from the Vatican that states this? As for the "Society", what they think of the Thuc consecrations is of no interest to me.

So because you personally don't like the SSPX, you're prepared to throw out their collective expertise on Ordination? What makes you think they're so petty that they'd deny the validity of Thuc ordinations just because Thuc-line bishops/priests aren't part of the SSPX?

So many people have a *very* narrow view and experience of the SSPX. They go on very thin anecdotal evidence at best.

And no, spending a number of years at an SSPX chapel doesn't count as a ton of experience. No more than I could call myself a "widely traveled man" if I spent 50 years living in my hometown. I might be an expert at my hometown -- but not other places.

Matthew

The SSPX is not the Church, Matthew. What their opinion is regarding the Thuc line bishops holds no weight compared to a statement from a congregation in the Vatican. Surely, you can agree with that.

Matthew · « **Reply #67 on:** November 12, 2010, 12:56:11 PM »

Yes, they are just a branch of the Church. They aren't the Church hierarchy, and they can't replace it.

But when compared with the view of a layman, what they have to say should be given some thoughtful consideration.

Incidentally, I don't think they reject the Thuc consecrations/ordinations. I could be wrong though.

They're not hypocrites, and they're not liars.

One priest pointed out, "How could we be critical of a bishop consecrating other bishops to maintain the Tradition of the Church?" He didn't have to say much more -- I caught his drift. It would undermine the legitimacy of the SSPX to condemn other bishops who essentially did what Abp. Lefebvre did.

Again, they're not hypocrites.

Matthew

Alexandria · « **Reply #68 on:** November 12, 2010, 12:58:20 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Yes, they are just a branch of the Church. They aren't the Church hierarchy, and they can't replace it.

But when compared with the view of a layman, what they have to say should be given some thoughtful consideration.

I agree.

Matthew · « **Reply #69 on:** November 12, 2010, 01:04:47 PM »

I was married in the Church, witnessed by an SSPX priest.

One of the things the priest did was submit notice of our marriage to my wife's parish church where she was baptized (where mainstream Catholic Church records are kept). Also, he pointed out that at some point in the future, the official Catholic Church structure will have to rubber-stamp all the marriages witnessed by SSPX priests during these years.

Because although the SSPX is currently filling a void by providing sacraments and traditional doctrine during the Crisis, they haven't replaced the Church or its hierarchy. The organization is a mere PART of the Catholic Church.

Makes sense to me.

That is why the SSPX doesn't "give up on" Rome. Sure, they have a snowball's chance in hell of converting Rome from modernism -- but it isn't up to them to give up. That isn't a choice they are permitted to make, no matter how reasonable it might seem.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #70 on:** November 12, 2010, 10:16:22 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Roman Catholic
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Archbishop LeFebvre was not the prelate to RESTORE the Church, he was the prelate to preserve Tradition.

Archbishop Lefebvre was not THE PRELATE to preserve Tradition.

He was ONE of the prelates to preserve Tradition.

What other prelates upheld Tradition the way he did?

He sure seemed to be *very* alone as he consecrated the 4 bishops. Only Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer stood with him. Where is the witness of the various Sedevacantist bishops? Or do their episcopacies all post-date Abp. Lefebvre?

Thus why I replied to Roman Catholic and said he was the main prelate. Castro Mayer was the only other one that comes to mind for me. I think ABL deserves alot more credit than the sedes give him. I agree with you, Matthew.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #71 on:** November 13, 2010, 12:40:50 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Roman Catholic
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Archbishop LeFebvre was not the prelate to RESTORE the Church, he was the prelate to preserve Tradition.

Archbishop Lefebvre was not THE PRELATE to preserve Tradition.

He was ONE of the prelates to preserve Tradition.

What other prelates upheld Tradition the way he did?

He sure seemed to be *very* alone as he consecrated the 4 bishops. Only Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer stood with him. Where is the witness of the various Sedevacantist bishops? Or do their episcopacies all post-date Abp. Lefebvre?

The other prelates upheld Tradition in a different way...Bishop Thuc, Bishop De Lauriers, Bishop McKenna, Bishop Pivarunas etc....

Were they or any other prelates invited when he consecrated the 4 bishops? Were any of them welcome?

Dawn · « **Reply #72 on:** November 13, 2010, 05:23:36 AM »

Pardon me while I ask a question. Is tradition the 1962 Mass or is tradition the Mass of All Times promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #73 on:** November 13, 2010, 02:43:36 PM »

Quote from: Dawn

Pardon me while I ask a question. Is tradition the 1962 Mass or is tradition the Mass of All Times promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V?

You mean Tradition with a capital T, for starters. Also, there is VERY little difference between those two. You should spend your time defending the TLM instead of arguing about what form of it is best and which is wrong.