CathInfo.com

1. Yes, that is exactly the Catholic position which you are denying by your "tolerant" attitude: it IS sinful to run a library knowing that the books contain many errors and sins. And in allowing and providing these bad books, you DO become guilty of the errors and sins of others. As Our Lord said, you are either for Him or against Him, and there is no middle way. Ask Pontius Pilate how his "tolerance" worked out for him!

2. Even if you want to put sedevacantism on the "not erroneous and/or sinful" bookshelf, even then you have a problem here. Apart from the "doctrine" of sedevacantism, we also have their "attitude" to deal with. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. The above excerpt from the Archbishop illustrates this nicely (thanks Sean).

3. Regarding the accusations of "it's good for business", this does not have to be taken as financial business only. I have no doubt the financial rewards of the worldly advertising on CI are minimal, which makes me wonder why you allow all that nonsense on a Catholic forum in the first place. Anyway, you admitted that CI wants to cater for more than the Resistance. It wants to be more "inclusive". But then you should stop pretending that CathInfo is a Resistance forum, because it is not. By the same standard it is a sede forum, or a feeneyite forum, or a flat earth forum, with the Resistance being tolerated as an optional add-on.

4. I know of several good and strong Resistance faithful who avoid CathInfo like the plague, precisely because of it's "tolerance" policy.

5. It is not just Sean and me who think like this, but also certain Resistance priests (and bishops if I am not mistaken) who have told you this before. So you're up against them as well, and against the Archbishop. The choice is yours, but so is the responsibility for the damage your "tolerance" does.

Traditional Catholic Forum

A message board for SSPX, Resistance and other Traditional
Catholics to discuss news and matters pertaining to the Catholic Faith.

Nice selective "point in time" snapshot in an attempt to characterize Archbishop Lefebvre.  In point of fact, it's well known that the Archbishop was very optimistic after the election of Karol Wojtyla ... as a change from the hostile Montini regime.

But at the time of Assisi, the Archbishop turned back the other way and speculated publicly that he might have to go sedevacantist as a result of that blasphemy.

It's very well known that the Archbishop went back and forth on this question, from being against it but tolerating it (I do not say he is not the pope but do not say that you cannot say he's not the pope) to being against it (here) to being THIS close to publicly embracing it at the time of Assisi.  At one point he simply said that he was not YET ready to go with it in public ... implying that he was very seriously considering it.

Anyone wishing to get a true picture of how the Archbishop felt about this issue should read the following:
http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/

So please don't be selective about facts in order to construct a false narrative in support of your agenda.

Well, since you continue to lie and to distort, you leave me no choice but to cite some of the quotations from that link.

Yes, in one quote, he says the Church might decide this some day.  In either case, that means that he was personally IN DOUBT and considered it a possibility.  And leaving it to the Church to decide formally lines up, again, with Father Chazal.

But, to expose your lie:
Notice that he says that "for 20 years" ... since 1966? ... he and +de Castro Mayer preferred to WAIT.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not have a single monolithic position on the issue that can be represented by your selective citation.  You're simply not an honest person but are driven by your agenda.