Author Topic: Rule Violator #2: JPaul (Read 20981 times)

SeanJohnson · « **on:** June 04, 2018, 10:31:56 AM »

Asked whether Archbishop Lefebvre contradicted the Council of Trent by calling the NOM evil, JPaul responded,

“If he did not reject the New Order service as such [per se, SJ] then yes he was.”

Well, not only did ABL reject the per se invalidity of the NOM, but actively endorsed participation of it in the early years, and like BW, even allowed exceptional attendance at it in the mid/late 1980s, per Fr. Crowdy.

Therefore, according to JPaul, ABLs position was against the faith, and he becomes Violator #2.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** June 04, 2018, 10:50:29 AM »

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2018, 10:54:03 AM »

Logic is not your strength, SeanJohnson.

Just because you say that the NOM might be valid doesn't mean you consider it good and Catholic.

Just because you say that some people can attend it under certain circuмstances (basing it on the moral theology regarding material participation) doesn't mean you consider it OBJECTiVELY good and Catholic.

Both +Lefebvre and +Williamson clearly consider the NOM defective/bad/non-Catholic.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2018, 10:54:38 AM »

And +Lefebvre clearly changed his mind after the "early years".

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #4 on:** June 04, 2018, 11:20:19 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 04, 2018, 10:54:38 AM

And +Lefebvre clearly changed his mind after the "early years".

...after which point (long after the 1981 Pledge of Fidelity), he continued to permit people in difficult circuмstances to participate in the NOM, per the testimony of Fr Crowdy in the UK.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Rule Violator #2: JPaul (Read 20981 times)

SeanJohnson

Rule Violator #2: JPaul

Ladislaus

Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul

Ladislaus

Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul

Ladislaus

Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul

SeanJohnson

Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul