First, that translation is incoherent, second, I'm not interested in "claims" of the publisher.  I would like for you to demonstrate for us the justification for the statement "the SSPX is attempting to suppress the Archbishop's sermons."  Your statement indicates some kind of intimate knowledge of the affair and I would like for you to provide proof.

You're not interested in the claims of the publisher?  Why not?  Only the SSPX is allowed to make claims?

They've taken the publisher to court not to claim royalties but to suppress the publication.

 

A demonstration would consist in something like a statement from an official priest of the SSPX stating, for example, that the sermons contain controversial material we do not wish publicized.  

You mean only an admission of guilt?

As it stands, we have nothing more than the practically incoherent claims of an internet stranger and your ridiculous interpretation that, of course, paints the SSPX as a devilish organization without any justification whatsoever.  

Accusing people of theft for disseminating Archbishop Lefebvre's sermons is insufferable.  If they have a problem with Archbishop Lefebvre's sermons they should openly state it - of course they won't, so instead they resort to litigation to suppress them.

That is what they are doing.  Suppressing them.

Google translation: I cannot demonstrate any justification for my claims, but let me repeat them in a different form.  

No, the publisher was taken to court and has reported on what has happened.  They are suppressing his sermons.

What possible motivation could there be?

None that is good.  Either the SSPX stands by Archbishop Lefebvre's teachings or they don't.  If they seek to suppress the dissemination of his teachings, it's obvious they don't stand by those teachings.

Quote

What possible motivation could there be?

I believe that it may be something else. The SSPX- for as much good a holiness they bring the world- also likes to control as much as they can- and in many aspects you and I could empathize with them if we were in their position. So I don't believe that it would necessarily be they are trying to prohibit the publication of +Lefebvre's because they disagree with his teachings. But (in the style of Lefebvre as my quotes show) I also don't say that thats what they aren't doing.  :dancing: Essentially I'm saying we don't know either way. We can't put words in their mouth because there are a thousand different "possibilities".

They've had 20 years and they haven't published them.  If it were just a matter of money they could come to an arrangement with the publisher.  

Yes, you're right - the SSPX LIKES CONTROL.  Control of people's thoughts.  I've discussed this with someone at the chapel about sedevacantism.  She said sedevacantists were heretics.  I pointed out Archbishop Lefebvre's sermon on the subject, and that he had said it might be necessary to say someday that the Pope isn't the Pope - in that case - you could hardly claim sedevacantists are necessarily heretics.  She didn't want to hear it.  People at these chapels are so worried about belonging that they shut down their critical faculties.  If they don't want to read what Archbishop Lefebvre said - if the leaders don't want Archbishop Lefebvre's sermons published, then there's a serious, serious problem.

 

I don't think anyone here honestly believes that Bishop Fellay's position is the same as Archbishop Lefebvre's.

How do you know there wasn't a theft of this material?  How do you know how this publisher came into possession of it?

The received permission from the Archbishop's sister and brother.

 

How do you know that what was published is an accurate account of the material?  I'll give you one more chance to justify your statement with actual proof.  Seizing upon a one-sided story and imputing malice to men whom you hate is insufficient to exonerate you from injustice.  

Disseminating the Archbishop's sermons is not "theft."  Anyone who claims that it is malicious.

http://gloria.tv/?media=142663

Am I a thief for posting this link?

Is the uploader a thief!

What insufferable arrogance to claim it is theft.

Quote

Disseminating the Archbishop's sermons is not "theft."  Anyone who claims that it is malicious.

Mr. Tele- you're mixing issues here.

No I'm not.  They're calling people who disseminate his sermons thieves, when they themselves refuse to disseminate them.

Think a little deeper about it- no one is sayin that disseminating his sermons would be wrong.

They're calling it theft.

Its about who has the rights to them. Heck- it may very well be his family members- BUT- you also have to agree that it MAY be the SSPX- this is all legalities.

No, it has nothing to do with legalities, it has to do with what is right and what is wrong.

Anyways- I'm personally for them being published, but I have as much say as you on this- which is zero

I never claimed to be able to control what's going to happen, but I sure can point out the injustice of preventing the publication of the sermons and accusing those of disseminating them of theft.

Those sermons are meant for the faithful.  A group using technicalities of law to keep them away from the faithful are the real thieves - not those making them known.

Sedes, remain quiet on this matter. Gagged.