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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17

Author Topic: Fr. Ribiero da Silva Separated from the SAJM  (Read 20964 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline clarkaim

Re: Fr. Ribiero da Silva Separated from the SAJM
« Reply #70 on: September 03, 2021, 03:12:55 PM »
Quote from: Neil Obstat on July 29, 2018, 07:54:42 AM
.
It seems that the two opposing sides of this discussion would have two very different explanations for what is going on.
.
What happened in the life of Fr. Da Silva to make him go from praying for the Pope in his Masses to not praying for the Pope because he thinks Francis is not a pope?
.
Did he read something, if so, what?
Did he speak with someone and accept their counsel, if so, whom?
Did he have a private revelation from God? If so, he would have to have said that he did.
.
Nobody goes to bed one day and wakes up the next sedevacantist. It doesn't work that way. Something made this happen.
Easy answer.  just got to keep things simple   Francis I  Bergoglio happened/is happening  don't need more mental gymnastics than that. 
Logged

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: Fr. Ribiero da Silva Separated from the SAJM
« Reply #71 on: September 03, 2021, 03:25:59 PM »
Quote from: clarkaim on September 03, 2021, 03:12:55 PM
Easy answer.  just got to keep things simple   Francis I  Bergoglio happened/is happening  don't need more mental gymnastics than that.

Uh.... Pope Francis was elected in 2013. Not exactly a new development.

Neither is his uber-liberal behavior new. The world has known what a bad/liberal pope Francis was since maybe 2-3 years after his ɛƖɛctıon.

The question stands.
Logged

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: Fr. Ribiero da Silva Separated from the SAJM
« Reply #72 on: September 03, 2021, 03:31:02 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on August 30, 2021, 07:12:30 AM

It's absurd to impose an opinion held 30 years ago as somehow etched in stone for all time.
And yet, Abp. Lefebvre IS etched in stone for all time. He can't change anymore. His earthly life -- opportunity to change, merit, or demerit -- ended on March 25, 1991.
So it's absurd for Sedevacantists to try to "own" or "acquire" the saintly man, when it's a fact that said saintly man never embraced the sedevacantist position.
At worst, you can't use him in the argument.

We "get" +ABL permanently, just like Sedevacantists "get" Fr. Cekada, who died a sedevacantist. (You can have him...hahaha)
Logged

Offline clarkaim

Re: Fr. Ribiero da Silva Separated from the SAJM
« Reply #73 on: September 03, 2021, 03:56:43 PM »
Quote from: Matthew on September 03, 2021, 03:25:59 PM
Uh.... Pope Francis was elected in 2013. Not exactly a new development.

Neither is his uber-liberal behavior new. The world has known what a bad/liberal pope Francis was since maybe 2-3 years after his ɛƖɛctıon.

The question stands.
Again, When "francis " was elected machs nichts.  there are consequences to accepting Sede vacantism as it were.  many people don't come to such a conclusion without a sense of trepidation.  The reality is, for all practical purposes, sans the indult groups, ALL trads are more or less practical sedevacantists.  SSPX'ers want to try to convince themselves they are not, calling the Pope the pope while continuing to disregard him at EVERY turn?  I'd rather some lefevbrist explain to me how that is NOT practical sedevacantlsm.  Oh I know all the  canards and cliche's.  bottom line the cavalier statements such as Father Fullerton's reply that" the new M.P. doesn't apply to us"  belies this reality or the not so secret fact thus that an accord must be in place.  
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Fr. Ribiero da Silva Separated from the SAJM
« Reply #74 on: September 03, 2021, 04:18:44 PM »
Quote from: Matthew on September 03, 2021, 03:31:02 PM
So it's absurd for Sedevacantists to try to "own" or "acquire" the saintly man, when it's a fact that said saintly man never embraced the sedevacantist position.

No sedevacantist is trying to "own" him, and the argument made from +Lefebvre is that he was not a dogmatic anti-sedevacantist like, say, Sean Johnson.  Neither is Bishop Williamson, nor is Avrille (having made a statement that it's OK to hold as a private opinion).

Just because he never became a sedevacantist, that doesn't mean he was a dogmatic anti-sedevacantist.  It's people like SeanJohnson who try to "own" Archbishop Lefebvre as a fellow dogmatic anti-sedevacantist.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17
« previous next »