Author Topic: Archbishop Lefebvre Sedevacante (Read 3262 times)

Amicus24 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2013, 03:26:37 PM »

Well said, Ambrose. If only the people on both sides of the issue were of the same demeanor as you and Bowler, it could at least bring nothing negative to discuss.

Grant

Nishant · « **Reply #11 on:** February 02, 2013, 01:21:30 PM »

The somewhat amusing idea that "understanding" sedevacantism as the truth somehow is a panacea and precludes all possibility of making mistakes where relations with Rome are concerned is unfortunately not true, as the simple fact of the life of Archbishop Thuc vis-a-vis that of Archbishop Lefebvre illustrates. Fr.Boulet's recount,

Quote

In 1976, he consecrated Bishop Clemente Dominguez y Gomez, the founder of the sect of Palmar de Troya, Spain. Bishop Thuc was then excommunicated by the Vatican for such consecration, but was 'reconciled' by Paul VI in the course of the same year.

In 1977, the following year, he consecrated Bishop Laborie, the founder of the sect called Eglise Latine de Toulouse. Then, in 1981-1982, he consecrated Bishop Guérard des Lauriers and 3 other bishops in different ceremonies held in secret in his private apartment, in Toulon, France. In 1982, he made a statement, called the Munich Declaration, by which he declared Vacancy of the See of Peter, in other words that John-Paul II lost his office.

Last but not least, Bishop Thuc was finally 'reconciled' by the Vatican shortly before his death, in 1984. So, from 1976 till his death, Bishop Thuc had been oscillating between Sedevacantism and reconciliation with the Vatican.

InDominoSperavi · « **Reply #12 on:** February 02, 2013, 03:10:45 PM »

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais thinks that and my blog follows that position :

Lettre de Mgr Tissier de Mallerais du 28 février 2009 à l'abbé Schoonbroodt :

A Ecône, le 28 février 2009

Monsieur le curé,

votre lettre du 25 février m'est bien parvenue, j'en ai pris connaissance lors de mon retour des Etats-Unis. (...)
Cher Monsieur le Curé, j'admets très bien qu'un prêtre, que des fidèles, aient des doutes sur la validité d'’un pape tel que Jean-Paul II ou Benoît XVI ; Mgr Lefebvre n'en a-t-il pas eu parfois ? Mais pas plus que notre vénéré fondateur, je ne veux faire de ce doute légitime un cheval de bataille ou une justification de mon action. Mon action se fonde toute entière sur le devoir du combat de la foi, selon saint Paul. Quant à celui qui siège à Rome, puisqu'’il y a doute, puisque la présomption est en faveur du possidens, puisque les arguments sédévacantistes ne sont pas admis par la grande majorité des catholiques de tradition, il faut appliquer le canon 209 “"in dubio positivo... juridictionem supplet Ecclesia pro fors tum externo tum interno"”. C'est pourquoi la FSSPX entretient des relations avec Benoît XVI, certes pas pour embrasser ses erreurs, mais pour le convertir.
Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le curé, l'assurance, malgré tout de mon religieux dévouement pour Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ,

drivocek · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2013, 01:26:24 PM »

...certes pas pour embrasser ses erreurs, mais pour le convertir.

Why the necessity of even entering into a
conversation with BXVI and negotiating with
a non-catholic which AB Lebevre stated "the
Pope is not catholic."
We know that +Fellay will not embrace
ses erreurs but why even expect the pope
to convert . . . he has been a Modernist
his entire life and has denied basic articles
of The Faith. The Resistance is formed bc
of + Fellay's playing with heretics.Play with
Fire and you will get burned. Then too my
French is not too good and maybe I didnt
grasp your point for wh/ I apologize.

Quantum Potes, Tantum Aude!

Sigismund · « **Reply #14 on:** February 04, 2013, 03:34:20 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Yes.

We can all believe whatever we want.

Good Catholic theology.

I don't think it is a matter of believing whatever you want. It is simply recognition that different people may conclude different things about this theological matter and still be Catholics.