Author Topic: The SSPX - Resistance is superior to sedevacantism (Read 25866 times)

St Ignatius · « **Reply #180 on:** July 20, 2016, 01:14:58 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.

[/b]
I second that...

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #181 on:** July 20, 2016, 01:59:51 PM »

ABL:

Quote

4. “It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)

St Ignatius · « **Reply #182 on:** July 20, 2016, 06:15:59 PM »

To you "Dogmatic Sedevacantists" from a faithful and attentive son of the great Archbishop...

Quoted from "Eleison Comments" #357

Quote

The crazy words and deeds of Pope Francis are presently driving many believing Catholics towards sedevacantism, which is dangerous. The belief that the Conciliar Popes have not been and are not Popes may begin as an opinion, but all too often one observes that the opinion turns into a dogma and then into a mental steel trap. I think the minds of many sedevacantists shut down because the unprecedented crisis of Vatican II has caused their Catholic minds and hearts an agony which found in sedevacantism a simple solution, and they have no wish to re-open the agony by re-opening the question. So they positively crusade for others to share their simple solution, and in so doing many of them – not all -- end up displaying an arrogance and a bitterness which are no signs or fruits of a true Catholic. (emphasis mine)

Now these “Comments” have abstained from proclaiming with certainty that the Conciliar Popes have been true Popes, but at the same time they have argued that the usual sedevacantist arguments are neither conclusive nor binding upon Catholics, as some sedevacantists would have us believe. Let us return to one of their most important arguments, which is from Papal infallibility: Popes are infallible. But liberals are fallible, and Conciliar Popes are liberal. Therefore they are not Popes.

Link to letter: http://stmarcelinitiative.com/churchx2019sinfallibilityx2013iii/

This is what my opinion, in general, has been for a long time about the Archbishop's position.

I have read long ago, what some are posting now as evidence to support their sedevacantist (dogmatic) positions, and found them to be what Bp Williamson expresses here.

I believe for one to even begin to understand the Archbishop's position, one can't just take these excerpts out of context of his life's work.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #183 on:** July 21, 2016, 05:08:07 AM »

ABL:

Quote

5. “If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #184 on:** July 25, 2016, 07:38:40 AM »

ABL:

Quote

1. “While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)