Archbishop Lefebvre was ‘non Una Cum’ in his last years
Bishop Pierre Roy claims that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was “non Una Cum” [Sedevacantist] in his last years, that is, after his 1988 consecrations.
Bishop Pierre Roy: Bishop Lefebvre was non Una Cum in his last years; Una Cum Francis is deception
"Unlike sedevacantists, we act vis-a-vis the Pope as vis-a-vis the Successor of Peter. We address ourselves to him as such, and we pray as such. ("Apres les ralliements sonnera l’heure de vérité," Fideliter 68, March 1989, p. 13).
It’s doesn’t say want you want it to. And even if it did, it still doesn’t help you: Lefebvre would just be spouting the SSPX official line, not his personal opinion.
False: See conference of April 1, 1989 to the Dominican nuns in Brenne, where he ridicules those adopting the non una cum position:
Archbishop Lefebvre - Against Sedevacantism
True: See a list pro-Sedevacatism quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre compiled by Fr. Cekda:
: Quidlibet : › Pro-Sedevacantism Quotes from Abp. Lefebvre
…as rended by sedevacantists (despite Lefebvre’s never-abrogated 1981 Oath of Fidelity required of all candidates to holy orders, rejecting sedevacantism).
Sedes gonna sede, and indulters gonna indult.
Irrelevant, Lefebvre wasn’t in charge in/after 1988.
But we do know these 3 facts:
i) he consciously employ a sedevacantist seminary professor at Ecône;
ii) he ordained and assign ministries to sedevacantist clergy;
iii) he sent his seminarians to gain pastoral experience with a sedevacantist priest at his month-long summer camp each year.
lol…So in the face of Lefebvre’s explicit 1989 denunciation of the non una cum position, and his continued use of the oath against sedevacantism, Matt concludes…….Lefebvre was a sedevacantist.
You’re incapable of rational thought.
The ‘oath’ is that of the SSPX, not Lefebvre, and Lefebvre stepped down as its leader in 1982. Hence totally irrelevant.
In 1989 Lefebvre did NOT denounce the UC position per se. If you had bothered to read what he said, he was criticizing Dom Guillo for asserting that to include the pope’s name was to “embrace everything the Pope says”. Not what you claim at all.
LMAO: Apparently, my thought will only become "rational" when I become so delusional as to believe your schtick that Lefebvre was irrelevant in the the SSPX for the last 10 years of his life (umm, even though it was he alone that dealt with the Vatican and consecrated bishops?), that the SSPX had taken an anti-SSPX trajectory against his will, and under his nose.
Smelling salts, anyone?
And I'll become even more "rational" when I believe his explicit condemnations of the non una cum position mean that........he endorses the non una cum position!
Lefebvre mocking the stupidity of the non una cum position:
"He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una cum.., una cum of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cum? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel en Brenne). You say una cum in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous!"
-Conference to the Dominican nuns of Brenne (April 1, 1989).
The Non-Una-Cum Position is Ridiculous (Lefebvre) | Trad + Cath + Forum
I’m not responsible for your level ignorance. That Lefebvre changed his personal opinion from the “official” SSPX line isn’t that difficult to understand, especially as it was allowed - at least “unofficially” in the Society - since SVs were employed at Econe and SVs were ordained at Econe.
And he didn’t condemn the “non una cum position” as I’ve already pointed out. You’re twisting his quote.
This is the full quote that you’re trying to twist:
“ And then, he [Dom Guillo] goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous…you know, this famous una cum.., una cum of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cum? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel en Brenne). You say una cum in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cum summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer.”
So what Lefebvre is saying is: the assertions of Dom Guillo, that saying “ una cum summo Pontifice” means you are condoning everything the Pope says is ridiculous; that’s not what the prayer means. Lefebvre isn’t condemning the “non una cum position”.
That’s basic reading comprehension, which either you don’t have because English isn’t you first language or you’re simply a deceiver.
Could it perhaps have been because he received a letter purportedly from Paul VI in 1984 when the rest of the world believed that the Pope of that name had died?
Some people hold to the view that Pope Paul VI did not die in 1978. But, having been bullied, forcibly imprisoned and replaced by an Impostor, eventually, broke free of his confinement in 1972, Certain evidence was gained by Private Detectives to support this belief, which is covered in a Book called "The Broken Cross" (see link below)
In 1984 at the side of a road, Fr Bonaventure Meyer recorded on audio a conversation that he had with Archbishop Lefebvre, during which the Abp discussed quite cheerfully the topic of a note that had been handed to him in 1984 signed by "Paul VI"which asked him to "Consecrate many Bishops" On the audio Abp Lefebvre says that the letter is carried with him wherever he goes.
Maybe it was because he had received that note from a person claiming to be Paul VI in 1984 - when Paul should have been dead and buried, that Archbishop Lefebvre Consecrated those 4 Bishops In 1984 and wouldn't offer a Mass in communion with a potentially false Pope ?
It would be interesting to know where that letter is now.... SOMEBODY must have it?
Here is the audio of Abp Lefebvre speaking of the note - in French
Mgr Lefebvre témoigne du mandat de Paul VI
Here also is the same audio recording contained in a longer video -in French but with English subtitles. The letter is discussed and the audio can be heard about 1 hour 28 minutes or so into the video. (about 7 minutes from the end)
PAUL VI And The Mystery Of Iniquity (1/4)
A link to the Book "The Broken Cross" by Piers Compton.
The Broken Cross : Piers Compton : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
In other words, he didn’t say it. Duh.
Sedes gonna sede.
Lefebvre mocking the stupidity of the non una cum position:
"He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una cum.., una cum of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cum? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel en Brenne). You say una cum in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous!"
-Conference to the Dominican nuns of Brenne (April 1, 1989).
The Non-Una-Cum Position is Ridiculous (Lefebvre) | Trad + Cath + Forum
This is supported by comments made by the Archbishop and Fr. Joseph Bisig (a former SSPX member and co-founder of the FSSP).
From The Angelus, July 1986:
“You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Archbishop Lefebvre)
“I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic … Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. … So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Archbishop Lefebvre)
From Catholic Register, November 2018:
“Pope Paul VI’s subsequent suspension led to a change in Lefebvre’s attitude towards Rome, and his language became increasingly “polemical.” Lefebvre began to entertain sedevacantism, the idea that Paul VI was not the real pope, and thus the Chair of Peter was vacant.” (Fr. Bisig)
Explicitly rejected by Archbishop Lefebvre during his retreat preached to the Dominican nuns at St. Michel en Brenne, April 1, 1989).
…as rended by sedevacantists (despite Lefebvre’s never-abrogated 1981 Oath of Fidelity required of all candidates to holy orders, rejecting sedevacantism).
Sedes gonna sede, and indulters gonna indult.
Irrelevant, Lefebvre wasn’t in charge in/after 1988.
But we do know these 3 facts:
i) he consciously employ a sedevacantist seminary professor at Ecône;
ii) he ordained and assign ministries to sedevacantist clergy;
iii) he sent his seminarians to gain pastoral experience with a sedevacantist priest at his month-long summer camp each year.
lol…So in the face of Lefebvre’s explicit 1989 denunciation of the non una cum position, and his continued use of the oath against sedevacantism, Matt concludes…….Lefebvre was a sedevacantist.
You’re incapable of rational thought.
The ‘oath’ is that of the SSPX, not Lefebvre, and Lefebvre stepped down as its leader in 1982. Hence totally irrelevant.
In 1989 Lefebvre did NOT denounce the UC position per se. If you had bothered to read what he said, he was criticizing Dom Guillo for asserting that to include the pope’s name was to “embrace everything the Pope says”. Not what you claim at all.
LMAO: Apparently, my thought will only become "rational" when I become so delusional as to believe your schtick that Lefebvre was irrelevant in the the SSPX for the last 10 years of his life (umm, even though it was he alone that dealt with the Vatican and consecrated bishops?), that the SSPX had taken an anti-SSPX trajectory against his will, and under his nose.
Smelling salts, anyone?
And I'll become even more "rational" when I believe his explicit condemnations of the non una cum position mean that........he endorses the non una cum position!
I’m not responsible for your level ignorance. That Lefebvre changed his personal opinion from the “official” SSPX line isn’t that difficult to understand, especially as it was allowed - at least “unofficially” in the Society - since SVs were employed at Econe and SVs were ordained at Econe.
And he didn’t condemn the “non una cum position” as I’ve already pointed out. You’re twisting his quote.