And wasn’t Lefebvre a borderline sede vacantist? Didn’t he contradict himself and lie about what he thought about the Pope?The last part is the irony of the SSPX, their leaders are explicitly excommunicated in the Pope’s letter, yet they “recognize him as legitimate successor”?
One would think if they truly accepted him as legitimate successor they would adhere to his authority.
Can’t tell if that means agree or disagree.:whacky: :banghead:
uch: :newidea: :twocents:
Do you even know what “apostasy” means? Because you cannot apply that word to the SSPX. Have you ever attended an SSPX Mass? Are you not aware of the burgeoning chapels, the over-crowded seminaries, the many priests who are ordained, more and more, every year? These are the undeniable fruits. As opposed to the other undeniable fruits of the conciliar church: Catholics leaving the practice of their faith by the droves, parishes being closed and merged, seminaries and monasteries closing, grand old churches being torn down, high altars and communion rails being ripped out and destroyed, confusion about or outright denial of the real presence… need I go on?
That appears to be your skewed and biased opinion, I hope you have been fair to yourself in your assessment of the SSPX, because anyone with charity in their hearts could not say this with good conscience. Have you ever been to an SSPX chapel and talked to one of their priests? I doubt it, for if you had you would cry out in shame for the words you have said. I have always believed that it is fair and right to go and see for oneself before drawing a conclusion and making judgements based on opinion and hearsay. That is the diplomatic approach and would serve justice as well.
Document for what? If you’re so doubtful of known and well documented words of one of the Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church, then why don’t you write to him and ask?
A lot of us feel the same way. So what’s your point? He’s dead but his organization lives on and is in a irregular canonical status currently.
I haven’t heard THAT one. Is it in one of his books? Perhaps you can quote what exactly he said.
An obvious contradiction there.
Come on…Holding up the Pope as your leader, all the while rejecting his authority (in this case excommunication)?Excommunication is not dependant upon the subject denying the authority of the Pope. I don’t see what’s so confusing about that.
Document for this statement.
Magazine articles hardly pass for Magisterial pronouncements.
He might be referring to this statement by Lefebvre:
sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Letter_to_the_Future_Bishops.htm
Wow, that is pretty undeniable.
Your error is that you are confusing disobedience with a rejection of authority. They do not have to go hand in hand, and in the case of Lefebvre they certainly did not.
But he was not saying that he was being submissive to the Pope, for that would be submitting to error. Error in the Church cannot come from Christ, hence it must be from the anti-Christ. You need to understand the difference between being obedient to the Pope and rejecting his authority, and you must understand that it is forbidden by the Church to follow a Pope in error. Pope Paul VI said himself that the “smoke of Satan” had entered the sanctuary.
“It is written: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 104, A. 5)
To quote Archbishop Lefebvre, at the Episcopal Consecrations in 1988:
*“On the contrary, it is in order to manifest our attachment to Rome that we are performing this ceremony. It is in order to manifest our attachment to the Eternal Rome, to the Pope, and to all those who have preceded these last Popes who, unfortunately since the Second Vatican Council, have thought it their duty to adhere to grievous errors which are demolishing the Church and the Catholic Priesthood.” *
You will note that he is not saying the the Pope is not the Pope.
I also take issue with your statement of “numerous derogatory comments” from the SSPX. I have never read anything personally derogatory. If you have, please back up such a claim with evidence.
I have noticed that not once have I been answered when I have asked another poster here who is lambasting the SSPX whether they have actually ever attended an SSPX chapel, and talked to a priest or the faithful there. No, it is much easier to get your opinions from someone else, and to repeat them ad nauseum.
anthony022071:
You need to look up in the dictionary what “apostate” means. As I have already pointed out, you cannot apply this term to Lefebvre.
So how much publicity did the previous two indults without Lefebvre get? I rest my case.
outside of this site and its links, I’d heard absolutely nothing about the MP. It’s NOT getting significant press, at least not where I’m at.
One could easily get news alerts to his email address from Yahoo or Google concerning issues like “Pope Benedict” or “Latin Mass.” Normally I get 2-3 per day.
The point is, BobP, that one has to go looking to find it; it’s not in the “mainstream” media by any stretch.
