Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 25855 times)

Meg · « **Reply #175 on:** July 20, 2016, 11:42:18 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

ABL:

Quote
2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.

Alexandria · « **Reply #176 on:** July 20, 2016, 11:47:14 AM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Lover of Truth
ABL:

Quote
2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.

Don't be antagonistic.

Meg · « **Reply #177 on:** July 20, 2016, 11:54:43 AM »

Quote from: Alexandria

Quote from: Meg
Quote from: Lover of Truth
ABL:

Quote
2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.

Don't be antagonistic.

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.

Alexandria · « **Reply #178 on:** July 20, 2016, 12:07:58 PM »

Quote from: Meg

Quote from: Alexandria
Quote from: Meg
Quote from: Lover of Truth
ABL:

Quote
2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.

Don't be antagonistic.

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a sedevacantist.

How old are you?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #179 on:** July 20, 2016, 01:07:25 PM »

ABL:

Quote

3. “…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)