CathInfo.com

Maybe position is the wrong word.

He had a constant, distinctly Catholic, prudent approach to the confusing, changing situation on the ground. He was trying to get through the Crisis just like any of us. But something about his approach, his attitude, attracted a LARGE number of Catholics of good will. Apparently his approach (and latest position AT ANY GIVEN TIME, IN REACTION TO THE CHANGING SITUATION) was Catholic, attractive, and rang true with a great number of souls also trying to preserve their Catholic Faith during the Crisis.

If you are stable, it doesn't mean you won't change -- because what if the situation or world around you changes? What CAN be stable is your Catholic principles and bearing, to be applied to any situation that's thrown at you.

Always turning the steering wheel right or left* isn't the point -- the point is always turning the wheel the CORRECT WAY AT THE TIME to give the passengers the greatest chance of preserving life and limb. Yes, his steering wheel is pointing this direction this minute, and a different direction another minute. But all the time, he is making the most prudent course based on the current status of the road (number and position of cars around him, current weather, etc.)

Or maybe a better analogy -- a driver has to make countless minute movements of the steering wheel (to the left or right) in order to continue going forward PERFECTLY STRAIGHT, due to slight dips and imperfections in the road, wind, bulges in the road, etc.

Course corrections based on changing information or a changing situation are always legitimate.

The example I often give -- I used to be SSPX, then I supported Fr. Pfeiffer. Today I do neither. Am I the least bit unstable? Not at all. In fact, I've stayed in the same exact spot. It's the SSPX that decided to go on a Quixotic errand and head back to Modern Rome. Fr. Pfeiffer continued the SSPX original position for a while, then he went off the deep end. I had to make corrections or changes just to keep a sane, Catholic position.

* in this analogy, left and right don't mean anything special, like the usual liberal and conservative.

Yeah, some people have misused +ABL all right.

IMHO, +ABL is not a Saint.
And I don't agree with him on his theology about the Novus ordo missae or (4) Baptisms.

He was an important Roman Catholic cleric, a pious leader in an era of the impious.
I believe he had good intentions, but he had human frailties too.

Eternal rest grant unto him Oh Lord.  

1. I don't know what you're talking about (re: "4 baptisms")

2. "His" theology regarding the NOM is the only one that fits all the requirements, and makes the most sense. I'm not going to get into a sedevacantist debate here to derail the thread, but let's just say +ABL's "recognize and resist" position holds its own against all other theories on the Crisis, ESPECIALLY sedevacantism.

3. Yes, he was a frail human being -- like all the other saints canonized by the Church. Except for our Blessed Mother, all the saints had Original Sin and fought against personal sin as well.

4. I disagree with you because I think +ABL did go straight to heaven, and someday when the Church is restored he will be one of the first men of heroic virtue during this Crisis to be canonized.

5. You have to cut him some slack though -- he didn't have access to the great wisdom of the armchair lay theologian "Incredulous" who pits his own opinions and theology against those of the prelate chosen by the Pope to represent all of French-speaking Africa, the prelate chosen to help compose schemata (docuмents, basically a to-do list and outline) for Vatican II, etc.

+ABL had great education and experience, dealt with several Popes -- but alas, he didn't have Incredulous to help him with his theology. What a shame.

6. Marcel Lefebvre, ora pro nobis.