Right, well you are giving the impression that you think I hold something else.
Where the properties continue to be found is just another way of asking where the Church continues to be found. This is a more involved issue than I want to deal with here, so I'm happy simply to say that I can't tell you with certainty which individual living men continue to hold and exercise legitimate authority, in the sense relevant to the question, in the Church.
Thank you for this article. I believe one should look at Abp. Lefebvre, his intentions, thoughts, and actions, as a true pastor whose sole purpose was the salvation of souls. From a broader perspective this is what has been lost, this zeal for souls, since Vatican II and its embrace and tolerance of the theological, philosophical, psychological, sociological, and scientific ideas rooted in the New Theology, Liberalism, and the Enlightenment. In fact, the very ideas of the soul, sin, judgment, etc. have been reinterpreted and redefined contrary to pre-Conciliar Catholic teaching, at least in practice if not in formal declarations. This influence is so apparent in any poll of Catholic clergy or laity as to be undeniable. The only question that remains is whether one thinks pre-Conciliar teaching was timeless and infallible, correct or incorrect.
The Archbishop was a man, a fallible, fallen, man, in time, who had his own thoughts, feelings and perspectives based on his formation and experience. This included being a missionary and being at the Second Vatican Council (something none of his current heralders nor detractors can claim...). I appreciate the attempt to "re-historify" him (should that be considered a word) and regard him for who he was, however the man himself never claimed to be perfect. He is also frankly more a leader than Mel Gibson, his father or frankly any online sedevacantist ever was or probably will be (including his former disgruntled students). He can be taken as an authority insofar as he was at the front-line at the time before you or I were a speck in our parent's eye. He spoke out for Tradition, albeit perhaps if in an imperfect fashion, in the Catholic Church (not known for, at least then, anyhow, being a democracy). He was a dutiful bishop to his superiors, until he felt he couldn't be. Then, he wasn't always entirely sure what to do. I can hardly fault him for that. However, he set the tone for the resistance, whatever you particularly think that should be now. For, I will always be grateful. Archbishop Lefebvre, pray for us!
If Lefebvre had not done that, would someone else have ? Or would we have gone from then until now without a significant 'limited opposition' to "The Second Vatican" (V2). Or would there have been a significant sedevacantist split from the Newchurch ?
I don't feel like you're reading what I'm writing properly as you are disagreeing with different points to what I actually make.
May I ask, are you using AI to write these comments? The cadences are resonant of that.
My purpose at present is principally showing that the four properties are not present in the conciliar/synodal church.do you dispute with that?
Right, well you are giving the impression that you think I hold something else.
Where the properties continue to be found is just another way of asking where the Church continues to be found. This is a more involved issue than I want to deal with here, so I'm happy simply to say that I can't tell you with certainty which individual living men continue to hold and exercise legitimate authority, in the sense relevant to the question, in the Church.
Appreciation and blessings from Sydney Australia.
Thank you for this article. I believe one should look at Abp. Lefebvre, his intentions, thoughts, and actions, as a true pastor whose sole purpose was the salvation of souls. From a broader perspective this is what has been lost, this zeal for souls, since Vatican II and its embrace and tolerance of the theological, philosophical, psychological, sociological, and scientific ideas rooted in the New Theology, Liberalism, and the Enlightenment. In fact, the very ideas of the soul, sin, judgment, etc. have been reinterpreted and redefined contrary to pre-Conciliar Catholic teaching, at least in practice if not in formal declarations. This influence is so apparent in any poll of Catholic clergy or laity as to be undeniable. The only question that remains is whether one thinks pre-Conciliar teaching was timeless and infallible, correct or incorrect.
The Archbishop was a man, a fallible, fallen, man, in time, who had his own thoughts, feelings and perspectives based on his formation and experience. This included being a missionary and being at the Second Vatican Council (something none of his current heralders nor detractors can claim...). I appreciate the attempt to "re-historify" him (should that be considered a word) and regard him for who he was, however the man himself never claimed to be perfect. He is also frankly more a leader than Mel Gibson, his father or frankly any online sedevacantist ever was or probably will be (including his former disgruntled students). He can be taken as an authority insofar as he was at the front-line at the time before you or I were a speck in our parent's eye. He spoke out for Tradition, albeit perhaps if in an imperfect fashion, in the Catholic Church (not known for, at least then, anyhow, being a democracy). He was a dutiful bishop to his superiors, until he felt he couldn't be. Then, he wasn't always entirely sure what to do. I can hardly fault him for that. However, he set the tone for the resistance, whatever you particularly think that should be now. For, I will always be grateful. Archbishop Lefebvre, pray for us!
If Lefebvre had not done that, would someone else have ? Or would we have gone from then until now without a significant 'limited opposition' to "The Second Vatican" (V2). Or would there have been a significant sedevacantist split from the Newchurch ?