CathInfo.com

Now, was this man you speak of the one who ordained ABL? Because I know people have accused the man who ordained him as being a nut. Even if that were the case, his ordination would still be valid.

No.  His name is Cardinal Lienart, and your understanding is correct -- i.e., even if Lienart was, as some say, a Mason, albeit unknown at the time, such would NOT affect the validity of his actions.

I do not appreciate any illogical attacks on ABL.

I do not think anyone does.  Mike (Raoul) can answer for himself, of course, but I imagine he would say his 'attack' is not illogical.  If I understand his motive correctly, his OP is about setting (or trying to set) the record straight about Fr. le Floch, etc.

I

don't mind criticisms of Bishop Fellay. Because let's face it, what Fellay did to Bishop Williamson was wrong. But I do not appreciate any illogical attacks on ABL.

For you, it's "illogical" to say anything against ABL because you are told constantly in your community that he's a saint.  Go to France sometime and talk to some sedes and you will see how the other half lives.  And when the sedevacantist position becomes OFFICIAL, as it should have become long ago, watch Abp. Lefebvre's reputation plummet.  

I doubt anyone will ever say he deliberately sold out the trads, but he will be quietly swept under the rug, probably treated like a doddering uncle no one wants to talk about.  He will not be canonized.  We can make a bet if you want, if we get to heaven we will resolve it there, unless we both live to see the Church restored.  But time has a way of revealing who the real heroes are, and it's impossible to call Abp. Lefebvre that.  The contradictory nature of his position and of his sermons is far too apparent.  Saints make mistakes, but this is something else, sometimes the way he spoke was so paradoxical that it is reminiscent of the Modernists.  

On top of this, he was a bitter enemy of sedes, who sedes now, for some reason, try to enlist into their cause with the famous "deathbed conversion" ( see under:  Malachi Martin, Napoleon, George Washington, John XXIII ).  

I hope the man is in heaven, but we don't need him as a sede mascot.  He was famous in his time, but time will reveal there were others who were greater and who were forced into the shadows by the somewhat artificial light of Abp. Lefebvre -- believe me, he would not have been as famous as he was if he were teaching the FULL truth.  The condition for being the "hero who saves the Church" and for getting all that press was he had to be compromised, intentionally or not.  Sad but true.  This is a time where the devil has full media control.

Perhaps he is a glass-half-empty, glass-half-full figure.  You either see him as someone who helped preserved the Mass, or else someone who dragged trads kicking and screaming back into the false church in Rome.  He is hard to condemn, but equally hard to lionize, sort of like Liberius when he was allegedly against Athanasius ( a good comparison, since Liberius is considered a saint by some but officially is not ).

Lord Phan said:

Firstly he was removed by request of the french government.

He was removed by Pius XI.

Secondly, Action Francais was UNCONDEMNED by Pope Pius XII.

Refer to Cristian's post above, I had never heard about this.

Thirdly. They did not belief in putting the state above the papacy, they were french monarchists who wanted to make Roman Catholiscism the state religion in france again. Restore the monarchy etc.

From the way they talk, the suggestion is that the monarchy would subordinate the Church rather than the other way around.  The Action Francaise has a scent of statism, of Gallicanized fascism.  It is very subtle, but something is not quite right about it, in my opinion, an extra-Catholic movement that grudgingly supports Catholicism for political reasons?  No.  

It's good that it's against Masonry and Jewry, but that is no reason to compromise and to hitch our wagon to an agnostic, politicized, statist star.  I hope someone out there understands that sentence.

Even the king, should he have arisen, would probably have been a puppet of Maurras, who was the real intellectual leader of that movement -- and an agnostic.  That is the problem, Catholicism is de-spiritualized and turned into a "force for order and civilization" only, it's heartless and wrong.  I believe if Action Francaise were successful, Catholicism would quickly grow cold under their auspices, because there is an unpleasant kind of fascist smell to it.

I will say this, we are opening a huge can of worms here and this is something I want to research further.  I once defended Action Francaise here, I believe, but the priest I know in France is always vehemently against it.  For a while this confused me.  Then I saw why -- in France, there is a skinhead-type network infiltrating trad Catholicism, that seems to emanate from the Action Francaise mentality.  Everything is about the state, about organization and rule.  To a casual observer, it may just sound like the usual patriotism you might have heard in Catholic Spain... But it's not, it smacks more of communism and fascism, there is a kind of dehumanized collectivist spirit that I pick up on there.

fourthly, I am astonished you are anti-monarchist.

From what I have heard about Action Francaise, I believe it is Gallican-tainted and puts the monarchy above the papacy, and that is never what I have been about.  I admit though, that is hearsay, an impression, and I have to study this more.  Now is the time, because it has just hit me that this controversy has important consequences for the future, there is something very significant going on here.

As for whether I hate SSPX, I hate compromise and false theology, and for that reason I hate the SSPX.  However, since they probably don't teeter over into heresy, I have to recognize them as Catholics and love them for that reason, not the organization but the people :farmer: