Author Topic: Abp. Lefebvre - diabolical hand demanding destruction of the Church! (Read 3666 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #15 on:** July 13, 2014, 12:51:47 AM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

Neil O, for me this is the big picture. This is what I have been wrestling with for years. The people who lay claim to the papacy and hierarchy are freemasons. So how can they be legitimate? Which brings us to, what now?

Someone said that the bishop who consecrated ABL bishop was a Freemason so therefore ABL was never made a real bishop. Do you believe that?

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #16 on:** July 13, 2014, 01:06:22 AM »

Quote from: RomanCatholic1953

Any way to explained it is the "Diabolical Hand" .
I live through the times of the big changes. So many lost their faith,
and left the church.
"Diabolical Hand" is the only way of explanation.
This is my experience.

Nothing personal, RC53, but I have no idea what you're saying.

Quote

Any way to explained it is the "Diabolical Hand" .

Did you mean to say, "Any way to explain it is by the 'Diabolical Hand' ?"
But that doesn't help because it's still nonsense.
How about, "The only way to explain it is by the 'Diabolical Hand'."
Now that, I can grasp okay. But that's not what you wrote, is it?

Quote

I live through the times of the big changes. So many lost their faith, and left the church.

Did you mean to say, "I lived through the times of the big changes. So many lost their faith, and left the church?"

Quote

"Diabolical Hand" is the only way of explanation. This is my experience.

I guess this one is okay. Sort of.
Is it the same as "'Diabolical Hand' is the only way to explain what has happened?"

.

peterp · « **Reply #17 on:** July 13, 2014, 12:30:47 PM »

Yes, and we can add his comment "The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs ..."; almost a decade bracketed by these two comments and every other one in between. Yet, it did not stop Abp. Lefebvre negotiating or, indeed, coming to an an agreement with Rome.

I suppose we could draw an analogy with, say, one's own father joining the Masons. If your father subsequently asked you to stop saying your rosary you would rightly refuse (or atleast continue to say it privately), where as if he asked you to put out the garbage to you would (or ought to) comply as (i) it does not compromise your faith and (ii) he, being your father, has authority over you.

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #18 on:** July 13, 2014, 06:29:38 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta
Neil O, for me this is the big picture. This is what I have been wrestling with for years. The people who lay claim to the papacy and hierarchy are freemasons. So how can they be legitimate? Which brings us to, what now?

Someone said that the bishop who consecrated ABL bishop was a Freemason so therefore ABL was never made a real bishop. Do you believe that?

.

I'm unfamiliar with that accusation, Neil O. I pray he who consecrated +ABL had the proper intent. I presune the form and matter would have been evident.

MarylandTrad · « **Reply #19 on:** July 13, 2014, 07:42:49 PM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta
Neil O, for me this is the big picture. This is what I have been wrestling with for years. The people who lay claim to the papacy and hierarchy are freemasons. So how can they be legitimate? Which brings us to, what now?

Someone said that the bishop who consecrated ABL bishop was a Freemason so therefore ABL was never made a real bishop. Do you believe that?

.

I'm unfamiliar with that accusation, Neil O. I pray he who consecrated +ABL had the proper intent. I presune the form and matter would have been evident.

You pray that Archbishop Lefebvre was an actual Bishop? Sedevacantists should not be allowed to post here. They discredit legitimate traditional Catholicism. When they are not spreading their diabolical theories they are criticizing the errors of the modern hierarchy in the most ugly and bitter way possible, make legitimate traditional Catholic critiques unappealing to those who might otherwise have considered embracing the traditional movement.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #20 on:** July 13, 2014, 07:59:28 PM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta
Neil O, for me this is the big picture. This is what I have been wrestling with for years. The people who lay claim to the papacy and hierarchy are freemasons. So how can they be legitimate? Which brings us to, what now?

Someone said that the bishop who consecrated ABL bishop was a Freemason so therefore ABL was never made a real bishop. Do you believe that?

.

I'm unfamiliar with that accusation, Neil O. I pray he who consecrated +ABL had the proper intent. I presune the form and matter would have been evident.

There is no reason at all to believe there was any defect in the Archbishop's orders.

This rumor (it really is a rumor) is completely unsubstantiated, and is found in an anonymous source. It's the equivalent of someone walking up to you and saying "I heard you were baptized with milk" and you running to get conditionally baptized based on the stranger's word.

Besides that, sacramental theology doesn't work that way. If a Catholic minister performs a Catholic ceremony with proper matter and form, intent is presumed.

Those who cast doubt on the Archbishop's orders (ditto ++Thuc) are really doing the devil's work, even if they don't realize it.

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #21 on:** July 13, 2014, 09:16:32 PM »

I appreciate your answer, Mithrandylan. The possibility otherwise was very disturbing. So much chaos, so many lies, so much diabolical disorientation!

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #22 on:** July 13, 2014, 10:00:54 PM »

Quote from: MarylandTrad

Sedevacantists should not be allowed to post here. They discredit legitimate traditional Catholicism. When they are not spreading their diabolical theories they are criticizing the errors of the modern hierarchy in the most ugly and bitter way possible, make legitimate traditional Catholic critiques unappealing to those who might otherwise have considered embracing the traditional movement.

Quite a broad and sweeping generalization here. Maybe we should ban humans because Stalin was one of them.

B from A · « **Reply #23 on:** July 13, 2014, 10:30:49 PM »

Quote

There is no reason at all to believe there was any defect in the Archbishop's orders.

This rumor (it really is a rumor) is completely unsubstantiated, and is found in an anonymous source. It's the equivalent of someone walking up to you and saying "I heard you were baptized with milk" and you running to get conditionally baptized based on the stranger's word.

Besides that, sacramental theology doesn't work that way. If a Catholic minister performs a Catholic ceremony with proper matter and form, intent is presumed.

Those who cast doubt on the Archbishop's orders ... are really doing the devil's work, even if they don't realize it.

Quote

The validity of Archbishop Lefebvre's ordination and consecration

September 13, 1992

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

If one looks around one today for examples of insanity, there is not exactly a poverty of choice, but one of the choicest specimens within our ken must be the notion that Archbishop Lefebvre was invalidly ordained as a priest, and/or invalidly consecrated as a bishop.

It is an old piece of insanity which has been around for several years. It first appeared soon after the Archbishop rose to prominence in defense of Catholic Tradition. It has been firmly refuted, but every now and again it still gets wheeled out on stage by enemies of the Archbishop on the right, like an old cardboard cannon, to be fired off amidst theatrical effects with a tremendous pop of a bang, whereupon it disappears back-stage, waiting to be trundled out again for its next dramatic appearance.

Now people who love pops and bangs are thoroughly entitled to a bang for their buck. The only thing is that too many bangs are liable to damage the ear-drums so that one can no longer listen to reason. However, since there are interesting points of doctrine involved in this case, then for all those whose hearing is not too impaired, here are some arguments, drawn in large part from an article written on the question by Michael Davies in "Approaches" #71, November 1, 1980.

Archbishop Lefebvre is supposed to have been an invalid priest and/or bishop because he was both ordained priest and consecrated bishop by Cardinal Lienart, who was a Freemason, and who therefore cannot have had the sacramental intention necessary to perform validly the ordination or consecration of Marcel Lefebvre.

Michael Davies replies, firstly, it is not proved beyond doubt that Cardinal Lienart was a Freemason. Secondly, even if he was a Mason, he did not necessarily have an invalid sacramental intention in confecting a sacrament. Thirdly, every time he externally used the proper sacramental rite in a normal way, he may and must be presumed to have had internally the intention necessary for validity. Fourthly, even if the Cardinal both at the ordination in 1927 and at the consecration in 1947, secretly withheld the necessary sacramental intention, nevertheless Marcel Lefebvre became a valid bishop and priest by either or both of the two bishops co-consecrating him in 1947 with the Cardinal. Let us take each of these points in turn.
...

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #24 on:** July 15, 2014, 08:14:58 AM »

.

Quote from: hollingsworth

"We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a “diabolical hand” which is located at Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church."

Just imagine a statement like this proceeding from the lips of Bp. Fellay, Fr. Phluger or Fr. Rostand! These cassocked imposters would just as soon die than say something like this publicly. You have only to publish the countless utterances of the Archbishop throughout his career, then compare them with what comes out of the mouths of these neo-sspx fraudsters.

At that point this thread was pretty much done.

Quote from: B from A

Quote from: hollingsworth

Quote
Michael Davis ...

And just what does that useless piece of information have to do with the price of beer? :thinking:

Exactly. Michael Davies (may he rest in peace) was not the thread topic in the OP; his book was just listed as the source of the quote, which is the thread topic.

And now, back to the thread topic:

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

“We know now with whom we have to deal. We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a “diabolical hand” which is located at Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church! And this is why we have the right and the duty to refuse this obedience… I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals… “Are you with the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?” “With whom am I dealing?” If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, 1978, Ordination Sermon, )

Another one:

Quote from: In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre

... the basic problem remains unchanged: Rome means to exterminate Tradition...

That pretty much says it all, right there.

"Rome means to exterminate Tradition" -- and now these Halloween costumed cardinals harboring this desire to destroy everything around them, have elected to pope a man whose entire career has been in the liturgical and theological demolition derby, so we should not be surprised that more of that is now going on within the Vatican: extermination of Tradition.

And by extension, as hollingsworth pointed out above, this same auto-demolition derby is raging among the Menzingen-denizens who scamper to the front row of the Vatican's Newprogram so as to garner approval of the Modernists, which, eventually, makes the M-denizens into Modernists themselves. As Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko say in recent sermons, it's two steps forward and one step back, two steps forward, one step back. This is the Revolution. (They're quoting from Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira's book on Communism in the Church).

.