Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: True Obedience by Archbishop Lefebvre  (Read 4118 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: True Obedience by Archbishop Lefebvre
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2024, 07:28:17 AM »
Yeah, we know that you've defined Magisterium as being anything the Pope teaches that you agree with, effectively making yourself your own Magisterium.  No Catholic authority or Catholic theologian has ever defined Magisterium as what remains after Stubborn's post-filtering.  When a Pope teaches as Pope, it's Magisterium.  Canon Law indicates that anything that appears in Acta Apostolicae Sedis is to be considered authentic Papal Magisterium.  Now, SSPX and others simply state that the "merely authentic" Papal Magisterium can be in error.

But you've reduced the inerrancy of the Magisterium to an ridiculous absurdity, claiming that whatever true in the Magisterium is "inerrant".  No, "inerrancy" is an a prior guarantee of its trueness.  Something that just happens to be true is not "inerrant".

Every post of yours becomes absurd.  99% of R&R would reject this stupidity.
Put it this way, per your papal quotes on the Church's Magisterium, you have your own idea of what it even is which is contrary to those same quotes. But my posts are absurd lol

All you need to do, is believe those quotes you yourself posted. Why can't you?

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: True Obedience by Archbishop Lefebvre
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2024, 07:30:32 AM »
But it's OK for the SSPX to go and establish their own chapels, seminaries, schools, and convents, all in defiance of the men they claim are true popes? You can set up a parallel church against the Catholic Church?

Was Vatican II Catholic or not?
No, under normal conditions it's not ok. Did you read the OP?

Better yet, why not concentrate on why +ABL never went sede. 


Offline OABrownson1876

  • Supporter
Re: True Obedience by Archbishop Lefebvre
« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2024, 10:34:35 AM »
Abp. Lefebvre was in a precarious position because he was surrounded by prelates (some he knew prior to Vatican II), who had papal affiliations, but who were still dancing the Novus Ordo, new ecclesiology line.  Consider Cardinal Gagnon who met with the Archbishop several times.  Cardinal Gagnon was consecrated a bishop in March of 1969, and the new rite was approved in 1968.  So here we have "Cardinal Gagnon" visiting Abp. Lefebvre, and Lefebvre knows that Gagnon is a valid priest, but probably did not question whether Gagnon was a bishop or not.  And who knows what form was used at Gagnon's episcopal consecration, but knowing what we know now, I would submit that most traditional Catholics would demand that Gagnon receive conditional consecration.  What a mess.   

Re: True Obedience by Archbishop Lefebvre
« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2024, 11:10:57 PM »
Simple obedience is a red herring and misapplied to the problem with this crisis.  We're talking about the Pope's Magisterium and the Universal Discipline that he's imposed on the Conciliar Church, not simple acts of obedience.  It's completely disingenuous to equate those things with a simple act of obedience, such as if your religious superior commands you to do something immoral.

I'm still waiting for a repudiation and refutation of Archbishop Lefebvre's clear statement that the Papacy is guided by the Holy Spirit in such a way as to preclude the kind of destruction we've seen with Vatican II and its aftermath.
You continue to misrepresent Archbishop Lefebvre, Ladislaus. What is your agenda?
Here we have Archbishop Lefebvre very clearly setting forth in 1988 his understanding of the crisis and how we should react as faithful Catholics. He is repeating what he said 10 years earlier, yet you are taking some words that he said in between these two declarations to pretend that he shared your view of the Church and the Papacy and how it relates to the See of Peter as regards the question of sedevacantism.
He did not. Please be honest.
While he may have thought that there was some merit in your view, he never considered it certain, and he never arrived at your conclusions.
He was not just an armchair philosopher, he was a bishop, a pastor of souls, a theologian and a great churchman who was given a special mission by God in the Church in the 2Oth century.
You believe you are better placed to make the right judgement and so to teach others?
We all have to give an account.