Typical weak sede sauce with chips.
He makes 2 statements in 25 years, never reaffirms them, expels active sedes, institutes oaths against them, but he was allegedly indifferent on the matter.
Notice how Lad equates this with “openly calling into question their legitimacy!”
In fact, he does just the opposite when he decides the Society will officially accept the popes and read their names in the Mass, while expelling those who “openly call into question their legitimacy.”
Notice Johnson's compelling logical argument: "weak sede sauce with chips".
You embarrass yourself ... which is your custom when you're painted into a logical corner. You come out swinging with the
ad hominems.
There are about a dozen statements above. Was +Lefebvre a heretic at the time he made those statements? Were those statements heretical?
Objective analysis of +Lefebvre is this.
1976-1978 ... leaned sedevacantist (after suspension by Montini)
1979-1984/5 ... anti-sedevacantist (hopeful after the ɛƖɛctıon of Wojtyla ... due to Montini being gone and embittered by The Nine)
1984/5-1991 ... leaned sedevacantist (beginning with Assisi and through the "excommunication")
But dishonest types like Johnson pretend that only the 1979-1984/5 +Lefebvre actually existed.
Topic: Are there any anti una cuм people on cathinfo? (Read 28739 times)