Archbishop Lefebvre

  • Thread starter Thread starter TantumErgo90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reading comprehension, Catharina.

YOU brought up the slander accusation and the imputation of evil to a pope’s actions.

Don’t prevaricate. Don’t obfuscate.

And yes, your rush to cry slander and evil does indeed bespeak a hysterical mind.
 
AlexV said:
Reading comprehension, Catharina.

YOU brought up the slander accusation and the imputation of evil to a pope’s actions.

Don’t prevaricate. Don’t obfuscate.

And yes, your rush to cry slander and evil does indeed bespeak a hysterical mind.
Click to expand...
Your attempt at using “big” words is quite hysterical. (Speaking of hysterical … .) None the less, the issue at hand is that you have not answered the question: are you on a secret mission from God that would allow you to accuse any Pope of any action that speaks to evil intent. I’m attempting to use very small words to assist you in understanding.

The question is stated.
Your answer: Yes or No.
 
I use “big” words? Sorry, I didn’t realize I needed to limit my vocabulary for your benefit. Then again, you DO seem to have a problem…obtuse indeed…with grasping a point.

I stated that John Paul left out the Filioque from a Roman Rite Mass Credo.

You took that statement of fact and used it to raise issues of slander and imputation of evil to papal intentions.

That’s a hysterical overreaction without basis in fact.

End of story.
 
Returning oince again to Tantumergo90’s original post:

“I am wondering if one can hold this opinion and still remain in good accord with the Catholic Church. Here it is: One can support and believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was a great archbishop and did wonders for traditionalism, but he was totally wrong to ordain the four bishops without papal mandate.”

IMO, it would be fine to hold that Archbishop Lefebvre MIGHT have been a great archbishop and MIGHT have done wonders for traditionalism, but he was totally wrong to ordain the four bishops without papal mandate.

I’m certain most would guess that to be my opinion.

I would like to ask if any here feel free to admit that they are indeed separatists who knowingly follow Lefebvre.
 
catharina said:
Lovely that you would attempt to step in with your view. I asked a few simple questions, such as: “Has Almighty God requested your assistance and given you special graces and tasks in your duties that would lead you to slander a Pope?”

He still hasn’t answered.

Can you answer for him?
Help yourself.

Perhaps he’s on a secret mission from God, huh?
Click to expand...
Nice try catharina—but your own words bear witness to your accusation. You made your bed — lie in it.
 
AlexV said:
I use “big” words? Sorry, I didn’t realize I needed to limit my vocabulary for your benefit. Then again, you DO seem to have a problem…obtuse indeed…with grasping a point.

**I stated that John Paul left out the Filioque from a Roman Rite Mass Credo.

You took that statement of fact and used it to raise issues of slander and imputation of evil to papal intentions.**

That’s a hysterical overreaction without basis in fact.

End of story.
Click to expand...
Number One: I might ask what WAS your point?

Number Two: I don’t really care any longer.

Number Three: You “seeeeeeem” to be way big on the side of Personal Attack. Good luck with that in your spiritual life. (yuck.)
 
Walking_Home said:
Nice try catharina—but your own words bear witness to your accusation. You made your bed — lie in it.
Click to expand...
So you stand with ‘he’s on a secret mission from God’ - as are you - which leaves both of you outside the Church? There’s is nothing else I can conclude. Thanks anyway.
 
I want to affirm here that the only thing keeping me from following Lefebvre or any other separatist into a cult or area of schism is the GRACE OF GOD.
 
catharina said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Nice try catharina—but your own words bear witness to your accusation. You made your bed — lie in it.

So you stand with ‘he’s on a secret mission from God’ - as are you - which leaves both of you outside the Church? There’s is nothing else I can conclude. Thanks anyway.
Click to expand...
I stand on your words bearing witness against you ---- not on how you are trying to get out of the bed you are in.

Originally Posted by catharina
Much as you repeat it (and wish it were so?)** I have never accused you of slander **- although you have accused me of “slander -BLATANT slander.” I’ve no interest in your opinion of me. I would be interested to know if you stand as a Lefebvre separatist, only because you tend to sound like one. If you are one, then it would seem that you have turned your back on the chair of Peter.

Quote=catharina
A-V and P-C,
Has Almighty God requested your assistance and given you special graces and tasks in your duties that would lead you to slander a Pope. Are you imagining you can read the intentions (soul) of another? Terribly “funny” this is being stated in a Lefebvre thread. No surprise though.

Quote=catharina
Originally Posted by AlexV
YOU used the word slander. Not I.

To impute evil to the motivations of another’s actions and to spread that idea is to approach/announce slander.
 
Catharina, I strongly suggest you think before posting further. You throw out accusations recklessly of: Slander, Imputation of evil motives, Schism, Separatism, and bad spiritual life.

How dare you? Can such arrogance be bought in a store?
 
Well. WH and A-V, you can continue to nurture your separatist notions with one another - and I imagine you will do exactly that.

I’ve stated my beliefs regarding the Church VS the Lefebvre separatist movement. You’ve become personally insulting and rather borderline-vulgar. Again, no surprise but terribly sad.

You would rather cling to Lefebvre than stand faithful to the Chair of Peter - or so it would seem. Then, so be it. Ta ta, fellas.
 
Amazing how I never said a thing about “clinging to Lefebvre”, but rather about John Paul’s omission of a word from the Credo at a Roman Rite Mass.

Also amazing…continuously amazing…how some Cathlics who claim to be so orthodox and obedient to the Magisterium fly into hysterics whenever the mere name of Lefebvre comes up, even by people who aren’t “clinging” to him and never did.
 
AlexV said:
Amazing how I never said a thing about “clinging to Lefebvre”, but rather about John Paul’s omission of a word from the Credo at a Roman Rite Mass.

Also amazing…continuously amazing…how some Cathlics who claim to be so orthodox and obedient to the Magisterium fly into hysterics whenever the mere name of Lefebvre comes up, even by people who aren’t “clinging” to him and never did.
Click to expand...
Hi there, fella. You new here?

You have disavowed Lefebvre, in public. Your house didn’t all down and no one has spit at you? Now that’s progress. Welcome to the Forums. Nice to meet you.

PS - don’t mean to rattle you with the friendly overture. Do settle in and make yourself at home with the many men on this site.
 
JReducation said:
FOUR – PART II

What was allowed to be changed is what Canon Law and theology calls the accidens. Accidens are those elements that are part of the Liturgy, but are not essential. While these accidens may help the faithful in many spiritual ways, in themselves they are not the mass nor are absolutely necessary for a valid mass. There were many accidens modified or completely done away with. Some examples of these are: altar facing the wall, the exclusive use of Latin, the order of the readings, the words of the Eucharistic prayer, but not the words of consecration. Some prayers were added and some were taken away. Also, lay ministers were introduced into the celebration of the liturgy.

JR
Click to expand...
That you are well-intentioned is not under any dispute (as far as I’m concerned) at all.

You mentioned above that the words of consecration were not done away with. So, you realize that those words are not per accidens - yes?

Let’s start by addressing the issue of whether or not the innovation “for all men” has been sanctioned by the Holy See. Were the words of consecration, in effect, done away with?

Does this sound like a good starting point?
 
catharina said:
Well. WH and A-V, you can continue to nurture your separatist notions with one another - and I imagine you will do exactly that.

I’ve stated my beliefs regarding the Church VS the Lefebvre separatist movement. You’ve become personally insulting and rather borderline-vulgar. Again, no surprise but terribly sad.

You would rather cling to Lefebvre than stand faithful to the Chair of Peter - or so it would seem. Then, so be it. Ta ta, fellas.
Click to expand...
Well I guess when someone is not fazed by being caught in contridiction by her own words —implying another is not faithfull to Rome would be part of that same nature.
 
AlexV said:
Your posts are increasingly incoherent. Bizarre, certainly.
Click to expand...
“You have disavowed Lefebvre, in public. Your house didn’t all down and no one has spit at you? Now that’s progress. Welcome to the Forums. Nice to meet you.”

(Heart of the matter duplicated in quotes.)

Quite coherent.
I’m pleased you could state your belief.
Congrats.
Blessed be God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top