Author Topic: Eleison Comments (Read 10393 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** August 30, 2015, 09:40:34 AM »

Quote from: Wessex

There were others who stood up to "the unfaithful Church authorities".
They must always be acknowledged and remembered.

Great! But if the world relies on that post, they'll be forgotten.

How about this: Provide a list of their names and countries of origin/operation.

I'm asking for the names of those who stood up at least as prominently as ABL did (since your claim is that he didn't really stand up so much in the first place).

E.g., Does Fr. Leonard Feeney make your list? He "stood up" in 1948, long before the Council reared its ugly head. Or is he somehow disqualified for some unmentionable 'reason'?

.

2Vermont · « **Reply #6 on:** August 30, 2015, 09:53:55 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Wessex

There were others who stood up to "the unfaithful Church authorities".
They must always be acknowledged and remembered.

Great! But if the world relies on that post, they'll be forgotten.

How about this: Provide a list of their names and countries of origin/operation.

I'm asking for the names of those who stood up at least as prominently as ABL did (since your claim is that he didn't really stand up so much in the first place).

E.g., Does Fr. Leonard Feeney make your list? He "stood up" in 1948, long before the Council reared its ugly head. Or is he somehow disqualified for some unmentionable 'reason'?

.

Cardinal Ottaviani?

Matto · « **Reply #7 on:** August 30, 2015, 03:39:26 PM »

I would like to learn about these others who opposed Vatican II and the Novus Ordo and the evil that followed it. I was only aware of three Bishops who did anything about it and we all know who those were. Were there any other Bishops or are you just talking about the many independent priests who opposed the Novus Ordo religion?

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** August 30, 2015, 04:42:12 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

I would like to know about this myself. Why did ABL sign those docuмents in the first place? Does he ever explain why and when he came to the realization that he made a huge mistake? How long did it take him?

Many concerns were raised for many of the docuмents by many bishops. Those concerns were answered, by and large, adequately by Vatican officials. What the bishops didn't know was that the very officials who were answering their questions were also the ones who intended to use the docuмents' vagueness to remake the Church. (This is also, by the way, another item of evidence that there was no valid pope as this could not have happened, in my opinion, if the Holy Ghost had been protecting Peter from the evil one.)

In any event, although the archbishop's signature is reported to have been attached on all 16 docuмents, the archbishop denied having signed at least two of them. I have read that the bishops present had to sign attendance rosters each day they were present for a general session and that Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed sign a docuмent he believed was simply an attendance roster that was later attached (rightly or wrongly) to two of those docuмents.

I heard part of this explanation in at least one cassette tape recording of the archbishop giving a conference (the cassette, I'm afraid, no longer exists, but I did hear it). He maintained in the conference that he did not sign all of the docuмents though the only one he specifically named in the conference was the docuмent on religious liberty since that was what he was talking about at the time.

2Vermont · « **Reply #9 on:** August 30, 2015, 04:52:07 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: 2Vermont
I would like to know about this myself. Why did ABL sign those docuмents in the first place? Does he ever explain why and when he came to the realization that he made a huge mistake? How long did it take him?

Many concerns were raised for many of the docuмents by many bishops. Those concerns were answered, by and large, adequately by Vatican officials. What the bishops didn't know was that the very officials who were answering their questions were also the ones who intended to use the docuмents' vagueness to remake the Church. (This is also, by the way, another item of evidence that there was no valid pope as this could not have happened, in my opinion, if the Holy Ghost had been protecting Peter from the evil one.)

In any event, although the archbishop's signature is reported to have been attached on all 16 docuмents, the archbishop denied having signed at least two of them. I have read that the bishops present had to sign attendance rosters each day they were present for a general session and that Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed sign a docuмent he believed was simply an attendance roster that was later attached (rightly or wrongly) to two of those docuмents.

I heard part of this explanation in at least one cassette tape recording of the archbishop giving a conference (the cassette, I'm afraid, no longer exists, but I did hear it). He maintained in the conference that he did not sign all of the docuмents though the only one he specifically named in the conference was the docuмent on religious liberty since that was what he was talking about at the time.

I since found this online

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Interview_With_Archbishop_Lefebvre.htm

which seems to corroborate what you are stating. IT appears he did not sign Dignitatis Humanae and Guadium Et Specs. I am surprised that he did sign Lumen Gentium.