Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 25934 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #120 on:** July 14, 2016, 01:10:10 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Meg
Lover of Truth,

You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?

Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.

When I started looking into SV it was the intellectual dishonesty (or their incredible ignorance) of their apologists that re-enforced the correctness of the SV position for me when compared to those who simply showed me what the Church taught in an unbiased manner. Meg brings back those memories to me. Those days of Ferrara and the "patent absurdity of SV". I looked up to him until I saw how dishonest and biased he was.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #121 on:** July 14, 2016, 01:14:23 PM »

I think the problem is Meg thinks of Sedevacantist as a different religion other than Catholic. Sedevacantism means we conclude as Catholics that since the man sitting in the Chair of Peter is not a Catholic therefore the chair is currently EMPTY of a Catholic pope.

When in reality it is the novus ordo that is not Catholic AND A DIFFERENT RELIGION; and Francis is its leader. Leader of the novus ordo, New Order.

With Francis so obvious these days, and if Archbishop Lefebvre is as you say he was, he would not only be opened to it but would embrace it. To say otherwise is saying one does not think as highly of him after all.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #122 on:** July 14, 2016, 01:15:22 PM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Meg
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Meg
Lover of Truth,

You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?

Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.

Okay, I'll put the simple question to you (since Lover of Truth doesn't want to address it directly): was ABL, in your view, a Sedevacantist?

He was open to the idea.

He was open to the idea.

He was open to the idea.

Do you get it?

Do you or do you not understand the distinction between being open to the idea and actually holding the idea fast or not? Be honest if you can. Maybe you really are as ignorant as you seem. If so I apologize for the harshness of my response.

Did you read the article I sent that quotes him at leangth on this topic?

Thank you for answering it. But we already knew that ABL was open to it. However, you wrote this, which implies, IMO, that you believe that he was a Sedevacantist:

"As it becomes more clear, ABL considered it and spoke aloud about it but did not think that it was the right time to official declare it (even if it was true)."

The above, to me, implies that ABL believed SVism to be true, but didn't think it was the right time to declare it. Perhaps you meant that he was going to declare that he was "open to it?" But I was assuming that it was already known, by his statements, that he was "open to it". That's why I assumed that you were referring to the former....that he believed SVism to be true. Do you see what I'm trying to explain?

He was going to declare he was open to it?

He did declare he was open to it!!!

Did you read the article or not? If not you don't care about the answer. As you have plenty of time to post here but won't read it.

I made my position clear. I'm done with you.

Say goodnight Gracie.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #123 on:** July 14, 2016, 01:18:20 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

I think the problem is Meg thinks of Sedevacantist as a different religion other than Catholic. Sedevacantism means we conclude as Catholics that since the man sitting in the Chair of Peter is not a Catholic therefore the chair is currently EMPTY of a Catholic pope.

When in reality it is the novus ordo that is not Catholic AND A DIFFERENT RELIGION; and Francis is its leader. Leader of the novus ordo, New Order.

With Francis so obvious these days, and if Archbishop Lefebvre is as you say he was, he would not only be opened to it but would embrace it. To say otherwise is saying one does not think as highly of him after all.

The SSPX ain't what it used to be. That is for sure. This is where compromise with error leads. The idea that good Catholics can refuse submission to valid Popes. For 46 years!!!!!!!

TKGS · « **Reply #124 on:** July 14, 2016, 01:21:13 PM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Meg
Lover of Truth,

You implied that Archbishop Lefebvre was a Sedevacantist. So, in your view, if someone is open to the idea, then this automatically makes them an Sedevacantist?

Here's just one more example that anti-sedevacantists simply don't read anything that sedevacantists write. Either that, or they are willfully blind and will not understand what is written.

Okay, I'll put the simple question to you (since Lover of Truth doesn't want to address it directly): was ABL, in your view, a Sedevacantist?

Archbishop Lefebvre died years before I even knew that tradition still existed. He had been dead more than a decade before I had even heard of sedevacantism. All that I know about the archbishop's thoughts is from his English-language writings and sermons I have read and listened to.

It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre was conflicted on the issue. It is clear that he was open to the sedevacantist thesis but was not prepared to openly declare it, unlike Bishop Castro Meyer. The problem with Archbishop Lefebvre is that one can find quotes from him to "prove" whatever position one wants to paint him with.

Don't worry, though, I don't expect you to actually understand a thing that I've written here. I expect that you'll read this and say that I won't tell you even though I've told you exactly what "I think" (as if what I think is of any importance).

(P.S. Lover of Truth has answered your question multiple times.)