Sean,

First, here's the main quote from the Archbishop:


While 2Vermont in her words characterized ABL's position as "TLM Churches within the Novus Ordo Structure," ABL didn't say that: he said, "some priests (even some priests in the Society) . . . say we need not worry about the pope" because we have the sacraments, etc.  I can think of non-society priests that celebrated the TLM who were not Sede - e.g., Father Wathen and Fr. DePaul come to mind. If there were only two non-Sede "priests" outside the Society who said the TLM, your argument falls apart: I gave you two.

And the characterization of ABL would be accurate about Fr. Wathen and Fr. DePaul in so much as they do in effect say, "we have the true faith and practice it," so the "pope problem" is not a radical problem for the Church since the Catholic faith survives in the Church (us). Obviously ABL's position is different, as he sees that if the pope were in fact a heretic that would be a radical problem for the Church.

I also think of Fr. Hesse, who basically said that the V2 and the Conciliar popes taught heresy, but it did not pose a radical problem for the Church, which remained pure and unstained in its true faith and doctrine handed down from Tradition and adhered to by living, faithful Catholics who attended the TML, etc.

In any event, I do not see ABL's comments above as referring to Sedes.

DR

Not until Loudestmouth retracts and apologizes for his continual accusations of me being a liar.

Sean's had these meltdowns before.  In fact, the biggest one was over the same issue ... in response to the claim that Archbishop Lefebvre had on-and-off been rather sympathetic with sedevacantism.  As here, he desperately twisted and warped the obvious meaning of what the Archbishop had said until presented with a couple of quotes that he couldn't explain away.  So he stormed off the forum insisting that he would not return until I was banned.  Within a couple days, he was noticed posting in Anonymous, and eventually signed up with a new account called something like "Mr. X" (I can't recall the exact account).  But the point is that when Sean is argued into a corner, rather than concede, he'll have an emotional meltdown.  And then he has the nerve, the very second that he starts losing an argument, to start accusing people of being "emotional" and acting like a woman ... when it's painfully obvious that he's the one who's beginning to lose his grip on his emotions.

I really have found this curious, though, why people get so bent out shape if Archbishop Lefebvre happens to have held an opinion they disagree with.  It's perfectly OK to say, "well, I don't agree with the Archbishop on that point".  Archbishop Lefebvre was not God.  He wasn't infallible.  He wasn't a Doctor of the Church.  He wasn't even really a theologian.  I've disagreed with him on a few things.  I've disagreed with Bishop Williamson on a number of issues.  That doesn't lessen my respect for either one.  That in fact is an eminently manly virtue, that one doesn't make some rational disagreements PERSONAL.

But, unfortunately, many in R&R have undermined the authority of the Magisterium so badly, that they seek these substitutes for doctrinal authority, and they have set up this cult of Archbishop Lefebvre, elevating him almost to divine status (or at least quasi-papal status).  They give every idle word of Archbishop Lefebvre more weight than they do the teaching of (what they believe to be) an Ecuмenical Council and 60 years of Papal Encyclicals.

Just keep that in mind, as you fight with each other.

Its not necessary to impute bad disposition to your interlocutor, and usually indicates you have lost the argument.

For the most part, Lad gets away with this behavior, and always has. As if sedevacantists have some sort of access to truth that no one else has. Lad seems to believe (and others believe it too) that he has special abilities and insight, and if he lies about others, there must be a good reason for it. Which is one of the reasons why Sedeism is insidious. IMO.