Author Topic: If you are home aloner or sedevacantist, why hang out with Resistance? (Read 4848 times)

Matthew · « **on:** August 23, 2016, 04:55:42 PM »

A bit of a rant about some people on "Archbishop Lefebvre Forum 2.1" who spend time on a forum named after +Lefebvre, but oppose everything he built or stood for.

Ridiculous!

I mean, think about it!

If you criticize the SSPX's origin, their fundamental principles, how they've formed priests for DECADES, and/or the Recognize-and-Resist position, you are not Resistance. Period. Call yourself what you are: Sedevacantist, home aloner, etc.

But why hang out on fora that claim to be 100% Resistance? Especially those that are LITERALLY named after Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre? Why hang around with a bunch of pro-Resistance Catholics?

There is only one reason: your traffic is so pathetic, you'll take absolutely anything: even sedevacantists who are there to recruit and nothing more. Like a starving man digging through the dumpster at McDonald's, you can't be picky.

Even if one is a die-hard Pfeifferite -- that still means that he can't lambast Archbishop Lefebvre, or the SSPX back when Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko were contented members of it!

Want to hear about how truth is stranger than fiction: how about a forum called "Archbishop Lefebvre" with several people talking about how bad the SSPX was, even 20 years ago, and dissing everything about the old SSPX including the recognize-and-resist position, their formation, their theology, their canonical justification, etc.

What a joke! Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't a home aloner, and he wasn't a Sedevacantist (he wasn't a dogmatic sedeplenist, to be sure, but let's be factual: he wasn't a sedevacantist!).

You can't claim to be with +Lefebvre if you hate the old SSPX, the neo-SSPX, the Resistance, AND Fr. Pfeiffer's group.

I have one thing to say to them: Unless the name of your game is deception, Pick a new name for your forum, already!

Conspiracy_Factist · « **Reply #1 on:** August 23, 2016, 08:04:10 PM »

if there are sedevacantists here that criticize the origin of the sspx I would agree with you that it doesn't make sense. That being said there were priests who came out of the seminaries of the sspx and figured out the sedevacantist position was the correct one. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made the following interesting statements, so for myself I am comfortable with resistance priests even though they are wrong on the sedevacantist question.

You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

“The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

Matto · « **Reply #2 on:** August 23, 2016, 08:11:39 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Unless the name of your game is deception, Pick a new name for your forum, already!

Which forum are you talking about, Matthew?

compline · « **Reply #3 on:** August 23, 2016, 08:31:55 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Matthew
Unless the name of your game is deception, Pick a new name for your forum, already!

Which forum are you talking about, Matthew?

I'm guessing "Archbishop Lefebvre Forum 2.1".
They've linked to some CathInfo posts lately, unfavorably.

Matto · « **Reply #4 on:** August 23, 2016, 08:38:42 PM »

Quote from: compline

Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Matthew
Unless the name of your game is deception, Pick a new name for your forum, already!

Which forum are you talking about, Matthew?

I'm guessing http://..com. They've linked to some CathInfo posts lately, unfavorably.

*edit* apparently i'm unable to link to that forum. LOL. I might be banned in 5..4..3..2....

I know that on Archbishop Lefebvre forums 2.1 there was some criticizing of the old SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre, but that forum hasn't been working for me for the past month so either I was banned and they didn't tell me or the site is down. And I know of Archbishop Lefebvre forums 3 but on that forum I haven't noticed much criticizing of Lefebvre and the old SSPX.

P.S. If Matthew doesn't want me to mention the names of those forums, I am sorry. I just wanted to know which of the forums you were talking about.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #5 on:** August 23, 2016, 09:20:30 PM »

If you read Matthew's posts from the bottom up, I think they'd make more sense. And, yes, he gives the most relevant details last IRL too.

For the record, he's not talking about CathInfo in this post.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** August 23, 2016, 09:26:56 PM »

Matto,

It's the 2.1 version -- the ghost town one -- ABL forum.

The 3.0 version is halfway decent, but still exceedingly tiny. They ran off all the hardcore Pfeifferites at least, and they have some good members. They with their 65 members have more posts and traffic than ABL 2.1 with their "96 members".

ABL 2.1 is now just a personal blog for Suzanne Romano, where she preaches sedevacantism and how the SSPX (and recognize and resist) has been rotten for 3 decades. It has about as much traffic as it deserves -- which is next to nothing.

I don't blame you guys for not even knowing what I'm talking about. :)

I should have been clearer.

Anyhow, I didn't mean to make the CathInfo Sedevacantists feel unwelcome. You guys are here because this is the largest Traditional Catholic forum. Anyone who is interested in being Traditional Catholic is welcome here. So your presence makes plenty of sense.

I was ranting about how ridiculous it was to hate the OLD SSPX and +Lefevbre's works and beliefs, on a forum named after him. That was all.

Matto · « **Reply #7 on:** August 23, 2016, 09:29:10 PM »

Quote from: compline

I'm guessing "Archbishop Lefebvre Forum 2.1".
They've linked to some CathInfo posts lately, unfavorably.

Oh I guess it is still up then. So I must be banned. I wish they would have emailed me so I would know that I was banned.

Matto · « **Reply #8 on:** August 23, 2016, 09:33:55 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Matto,

It's the 2.1 version -- the ghost town one -- ABL forum. . . .

ABL 2.1 is now just a personal blog for Suzanne Romano, where she preaches sedevacantism and how the SSPX (and recognize and resist) has been rotten for 3 decades. It has about as much traffic as it deserves -- which is next to nothing.

Yeah. About a year ago when I first saw her condemning Bishop Williamson I told her she was nuts to try to save the Church on her own while rejecting all the Bishops.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #9 on:** August 23, 2016, 10:45:00 PM »

Oh! I am not familiar with those forums, sorry I misunderstood.

reconquest · « **Reply #10 on:** August 23, 2016, 11:01:36 PM »

"Resistance" (a political position) and "sedevacantist" (a doctrinal one) are not mutually exclusive, as Matthew seems to claim here. I can think of at least five Resistance priests who work with Bishops Williamson and Faure and take a moderate sedevacantist view.

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** September 08, 2016, 01:16:02 AM »

A new low has been reached.

Of course, the forum in question is a ghost town, so it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things, but still --

Just now, a member posted an article with a well-worn, ignorant charge that Archbishop Lefebvre was not a priest OR a bishop! It also claims he was a Masonic plant.

This is on a forum that is named after, and claims to be dedicated to, "Archbishop Lefebvre".

Isn't that ridiculous? I sure think it is. You can't make up stuff like this!

Truth really is stranger than fiction.

Domitilla · « **Reply #12 on:** September 08, 2016, 08:36:36 AM »

That thread was condemned and locked by the owner.

Domitilla · « **Reply #13 on:** September 08, 2016, 08:45:36 AM »

In the interest of truth and justice, Matthew, please publish the entire thread.

Matthew · « **Reply #14 on:** September 09, 2016, 05:10:40 AM »

Quote from: Domitilla

In the interest of truth and justice, Matthew, please publish the entire thread.

That is not necessary. You pointed out that the thread was locked. People can read your posts (above).

But was the person banned from the forum? They certainly don't belong there -- at least not if you take the forum's tagline at face value.

Several months ago (it's probably still on page 1 -- LOL) they had someone else complaining that Michael Matt was "canonizing" Archbishop Lefebvre. It just seemed extremely ironic to read that on a forum named after +ABL. As far as I know, that thread has never been moderated, deleted, locked, or anything like that.