Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)  (Read 1847 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Last Tradhican

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2326
  • Reputation: +1239/-611
  • Gender: Male
Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2018, 02:53:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Because he actually believes that whatever he says or does is infallible, so he is just doing his part to widen that narrow road.
    Progressivists do not believe in infallibility or dogmas, that is a fact. Anything they say is just an order, which can change with time. 
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1312
    • Reputation: +1951/-361
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #16 on: April 13, 2018, 06:17:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you Stubborn and Williamson. For a minute here I thought that this had become a sedevacantist blog site.
    No popes since 1958. Thank God only a few out of 1.2 billion who call themselves Catholic believe this.
    Most of this number would have difficulty knowing what exactly they believe. They may vaguely incline to some supernatural element inherited from their parents but their 'religious' lives would largely consist of hedonistic practices with the support of extremely worldly priests and priestesses. They engage in an orgy of feeling good which psychologists would easily recognise as emotional relief from humrum lives. Their churches have prevented them from acquiring some real substance, hence the hunger for it elsewhwre.

    Bp. W's persistent clinging to redundant Romans (which one, Ratzinger or Bergoglio?) is not inspiring for trads. I cannot see the next generation believing in such an absurd situation. R & R may have had a certain currency during the time of ABL but this was a feature of a unique personal relationship with his Roman contemporaries which few of us could share.  


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3833
    • Reputation: +3712/-282
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #17 on: April 13, 2018, 08:11:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Wessex,

    Quote
    Bp. W's persistent clinging to redundant Romans (which one, Ratzinger or Bergoglio?) is not inspiring for trads. I cannot see the next generation believing in such an absurd situation. R & R may have had a certain currency during the time of ABL but this was a feature of a unique personal relationship with his Roman contemporaries which few of us could share.  
    This was at a time when there was still some doubt about what was happening and what it meant. Rome was till substantially Catholic.
    That time has long since departed as that is no longer the case.
    The Lefevbre brand does not have the magic that it once had because its arguments have been long overtaken, in the practical sense, by the collapse of the Church.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 539
    • Reputation: +230/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #18 on: April 13, 2018, 08:21:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Wessex,
    This was at a time when there was still some doubt about what was happening and what it meant. Rome was till substantially Catholic.
    That time has long since departed as that is no longer the case.
    The Lefevbre brand does not have the magic that it once had because its arguments have been long overtaken, in the practical sense, by the collapse of the Church.
    Agreed. Lefevbre's caution was fitting the situation he lived in, and yet he clearly did not recognise the full authority of Pope John Paul II as he ignored his orders under the pain of excommunication, and he never recognised his excommunicated status. 
    The R&R crowd have to believe that the founder of their own movement was excommunicated and damned to Hell by accepting the Conciliar Popes as valid Popes, and yet they still continue despite that. Either these Popes are valid and the founder of the SSPX died an excommunicated man, in which case they should all leave the society and stop honouring him as they do, or the Popes are not valid(in which case they're sedevacantists and not R&R at all). 

    Offline St Ignatius

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 905
    • Reputation: +719/-140
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #19 on: April 13, 2018, 09:00:58 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • HE can't really explain it... nor the fact that Paul VI, JP II and Benedict XVI were of Jewish extraction.

    We can simply trust that these are visible de facto popes, whose mission has been to execute some facet of destroying Holy Mother Church.

    Christ has allowed it and in this sense, we must hold fast to the truth, while accepting these de facto, anti-Christ, destroyer popes.

    In effect, "We" not Rome, are the resisting remnant of the Church militant here on earth.
    ^^^^^^^
    This!
    :applause:


    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2626
    • Reputation: +1218/-1869
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #20 on: April 13, 2018, 09:49:42 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Most of this number would have difficulty knowing what exactly they believe. They may vaguely incline to some supernatural element inherited from their parents but their 'religious' lives would largely consist of hedonistic practices with the support of extremely worldly priests and priestesses. They engage in an orgy of feeling good which psychologists would easily recognise as emotional relief from humrum lives. Their churches have prevented them from acquiring some real substance, hence the hunger for it elsewhwre.

    Bp. W's persistent clinging to redundant Romans (which one, Ratzinger or Bergoglio?) is not inspiring for trads. I cannot see the next generation believing in such an absurd situation. R & R may have had a certain currency during the time of ABL but this was a feature of a unique personal relationship with his Roman contemporaries which few of us could share.  

    We "cling" to Rome because we are Catholic. It may be more comfortable for sedes in that they have washed themselves clean from Rome, and now their state of mind is supposedly clear and they can breathe a sigh of relief that they don't have to be confused anymore. And they insist that all trads MUST become as they are. Sedes just want comfort. They are wimpy, IMO. They may talk tough, but they have given up and thrown in the towel. Losers.

    There may not be an end to the Crisis for quite awhile. God may have to intervene, and it may get worse before it gets better. That doesn't change the fact that the Catholic Church by its very nature requires a pope. Even an extremely faulty one. My faith isn't dependent on the faith of the Pope in Rome. 

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 539
    • Reputation: +230/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #21 on: April 13, 2018, 10:44:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • We "cling" to Rome because we are Catholic. It may be more comfortable for sedes in that they have washed themselves clean from Rome, and now their state of mind is supposedly clear and they can breathe a sigh of relief that they don't have to be confused anymore. And they insist that all trads MUST become as they are. Sedes just want comfort. They are wimpy, IMO. They may talk tough, but they have given up and thrown in the towel. Losers.

    There may not be an end to the Crisis for quite awhile. God may have to intervene, and it may get worse before it gets better. That doesn't change the fact that the Catholic Church by its very nature requires a pope. Even an extremely faulty one. My faith isn't dependent on the faith of the Pope in Rome.
    What crisis is there exactly, if there is a valid Pope in Rome?
    And why do you persist to support SSPX if you believe a valid Pope demanded its dissolution before excommunicating its founder for illegally making Bishops. If you accept the V2 Popes you have to accept the fact that Lefebvre was excommunicated and damned to Hell according to your own beliefs, and yet you continue to support it despite that. You believe the V2 Popes are valid Popes, and yet you ignore and defy their authority(and yet you deny being sedeprivationists) So your position is entirely contradictory. 

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2626
    • Reputation: +1218/-1869
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #22 on: April 13, 2018, 11:06:33 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • What crisis is there exactly, if there is a valid Pope in Rome?
    And why do you persist to support SSPX if you believe a valid Pope demanded its dissolution before excommunicating its founder for illegally making Bishops. If you accept the V2 Popes you have to accept the fact that Lefebvre was excommunicated and damned to Hell according to your own beliefs, and yet you continue to support it despite that. You believe the V2 Popes are valid Popes, and yet you ignore and defy their authority(and yet you deny being sedeprivationists) So your position is entirely contradictory.

    You ask questions to which you will not accept any answer that I would give. You are too far entrenched in your error. May God help you. 



    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 539
    • Reputation: +230/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #23 on: April 13, 2018, 12:54:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You ask questions to which you will not accept any answer that I would give. You are too far entrenched in your error. May God help you.
    Ad hominem attacks do not replace arguments. If you don't have any rebuttals, then just be honest and admit it. Otherwise, please explain to me why exactly you still support a society whose dissolution was demanded and whose leader was excommunicated and damned to Hell according to your own beliefs, and why you defy the authority of Popes you see as valid. 

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2626
    • Reputation: +1218/-1869
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #24 on: April 13, 2018, 01:03:20 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ad hominem attacks do not replace arguments. If you don't have any rebuttals, then just be honest and admit it. Otherwise, please explain to me why exactly you still support a society whose dissolution was demanded and whose leader was excommunicated and damned to Hell according to your own beliefs, and why you defy the authority of Popes you see as valid.

    It is not my belief that Archbishop Lefebvre is in Hell. That's your belief. 

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 539
    • Reputation: +230/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #25 on: April 13, 2018, 02:16:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is not my belief that Archbishop Lefebvre is in Hell. That's your belief.
    No, I think he's either in Heaven or Purgatory. I'm almost certain he's not in Hell. But since you believe his excommunication was granted to him by a valid Pope, you must believe that he is in Hell. Because that's where you go if you die excommunicated. 


    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2626
    • Reputation: +1218/-1869
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #26 on: April 13, 2018, 02:18:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, I think he's either in Heaven or Purgatory. I'm almost certain he's not in Hell. But since you believe his excommunication was granted to him by a valid Pope, you must believe that he is in Hell. Because that's where you go if you die excommunicated.


    Glad to see that you do not believe that +ABL is in Hell. 

    No doubt you have had it explained to you before as to why Archbishop Lefebvre believed that it is lawful to resist conciliar popes. 

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 539
    • Reputation: +230/-273
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #27 on: April 13, 2018, 02:19:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Glad to see that you do not believe that +ABL is in Hell.

    No doubt you have had it explained to you before as to why Archbishop Lefebvre believed that it is lawful to resist conciliar popes.
    Do you believe his excommunication was valid or not?

    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1312
    • Reputation: +1951/-361
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #28 on: April 13, 2018, 02:35:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Wessex,
    This was at a time when there was still some doubt about what was happening and what it meant. Rome was till substantially Catholic.
    That time has long since departed as that is no longer the case.
    The Lefevbre brand does not have the magic that it once had because its arguments have been long overtaken, in the practical sense, by the collapse of the Church.


    The evolving conciliar church is breeding her own brands of conservatism where some elderly churchmen are suffering revolution fatique. They no doubt have their own ideas as to where the train of change should pause! That is not to say the world of tradition is not experiencing its own development over time. The collapse of the Church should have prompted believers to fill the vacuum but it seems their collective commiitment was lacking and many have got lost down the smells and bells trail.

    It was obvious Lefebvrism presented only a nuanced opposition which fell considerably short of a full counter-reformation. There were others in the field but the SSPX route had great appeal before disillusion set in. The future of the Church was never considered and the creation of bishops of an inferior kind was the extent of its long-term ambition before indulging in vanity seminaries and doctrinal pluralism. The archbishop will not be remembered because he was not hardline enough and has easily become the property of disparate groups sifting his inconsistent words. That is why some of the remnant feel they have no alternative but to continue clinging to the wreckage of Rome.  

    Offline Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2626
    • Reputation: +1218/-1869
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #29 on: April 13, 2018, 02:49:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you believe his excommunication was valid or not?

    Did +ABL believe that the excommunication was valid?

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16