Uh-huh.
Pbax, does this post amount to anything other than your expressed dissatisfaction with the very existence of sedevacantists? I'm serious. I'm trying to distill these four paragaphs to a thesis, and the best I can come up with is your disappointment at having the R&R position challenged on a forum that isn't a sedevacantist forum so-called.
You are leaving the issues alone. In your last post we were discussing issues. Relevant facts, and relevant Catholic principles to apply to them.
You are painting a very Neo-SSPX picture of Archbishop Lefebvre. Have you read his Fideliter interview(s)? His 1986 address to the seminarians, wherein he openly speculated the see may be vacant and that the Society may be obliged (his word, not mine) to be sedevacantists if things didn't get better? And as concerns Abp. Thuc, you are aware that ABL actually recommended Fr. Revas from Palmar de Troya to approach Abp. Thuc for orders, yes?
As far as CI now being a "sede-minded" site "thanks to the likes of me," you give me far, far too much credit.
It is not I but Holy Mother Church that is expressly dissatisfied with sedevacantism. It is schismatic! According to your definition you have to be a sedevacantist to be a traditional Catholic when you say, “I think that traditional Catholics, by definition, doubt his (and his predecessors) legitimacy.” Seriously, do you have to be schismatic to be a Trad Catholic?
I am unaware of the term R&R (other than rest and recreation). I had tried to get a definition earlier and got a response that made no sense. Why would a “Sunday Catholic” bother with this or any other blog. I could only assume that it is a term coined to make a person submit to a view through feeling of guilt.
I am disappointed with these sede discussions which are causing a distraction from what was stated to be the real intent of this site – discussion amongst SSPX/Resistance adherents. Again my analogy to a leech which attaches itself to the victim, saying I have a right to be here to survive. The itch causes a distraction from the duties at hand whilst ignoring it could be detrimental to the victims health (in our case spiritual).
Ah huh! “Neo-SSPX”! You state the words “speculated” and “may” correctly. According to Bishop Tissier the Archbishop also expressed these views earlier in ‘Cor Unum’ of 1979. However he followed these speculations with the quote I put in from the Biography, which was in line with his actions to his deathbed.
Despite the differences that have arisen within the SSPX, the four bishops are clearly in agreement on one point – the Archbishop was not sedevacantist and envisaged further down the track a group of cardinals gathered together by a future Pope to judge the situation. He was not going to be judge and jury. He was not going to be in schism! He was not going to be a self-appointed Pope.
What did happen… In 1976, Fr Revas approached the Archbishop apparently on an errand from one who had visions from the Blessed Virgin. The Archbishop was too busy and did not have the time to examine the case. For this reason he referred him to Archbishop Thuc. This examination was not carried out possibly due to the manner in which the message was related leading him to believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was in agreement with their request. In September of 1976 Archbishop Thuc obtained absolution from Pope Paul VI for his mistake (inadequate priestly formation of the candidates, Pope Gregory XVII etc.). You are aware of the Fr. Lauriers expulsion from the SSPX and self-nominated bishop. In Feb, 1982 Archbishop publicly declared his position as a sedevacantist. You are aware of the case … you should know the facts in time sequence, no?
It is funny though don’t you think that Archbiship Thuc came out and said that from John 23rd onwards the SEE is vacant, and all that these non popes have said and done are null and void. If that is true well who consecrated Thuc a bishop. It probably why the leeches stick to the SSPX/Resistance the blood is more pure over here, and as I have said before a leech needs blood to survive.
Until the ‘rightful authority i.e Cardinals, or future Pope’ declares the seat vacant, who are we to judge. Hence my comment earlier on the “twang” of the heart strings. Who interprets teachings from scripture and tradition? Sedes try to convince SSPX /Resistance to think their position is right despite the unambiguous teachings of the Church. But telling this to a sede is like banging your head against a brick wall. I am sorry but since when did the ‘Church of Mythrandylan’ become the ‘rightful authority’
Topic: Will the resistance go sede? (Read 19080 times)