Anniversary of the forum approaching

[TerrorDæmonum]

That is an important point: personal judgements on these matters of individuals, even those at a very high level in the Church, can be uncertain.

The certainty with which some personal judgements and opinions are expressed on the forum is often excessive. I sometimes think people make forceful posts like that not just because they believe it, but because they want to believe it without a doubt, rather than deal with uncertainty.

Uncertainty is a very stressful thing.

[GiftOfGod]

This thread has gone all over the place. I just want to comment on G.O.G.'s criticism of Msgr. Lefebvre in which he believed that Msgr. L. In a letter to my Dad, was acting duplicitously on the subject of the re-ordination of priests that were ordained in the new rite of orders, who worked with the SSPX. According to Fr. Cekada, Msgr. Originally had doubts as to the validity of the new rite of orders, but latter changed his opinion. However,  he was willing to re-ordain priests ordained in the new rite who requested it, or which the faithful requested it. He replied to my Dad in the manner that he did, because he was  not against performing the re-ordinations, and to accommodate the faithful who did have doubts as to the validity of the new rite. There was nothing duplicitous in his response, but rather it showed his great charity and prudence in dealing with questions which were open for discussion.

I don't know the time period in which the letter to your father was written, could you tell us? I don't think ABL ever changed his opinion of the New Rite of Priestly Ordination (though the SSPX later took an accommodating/liberal view of it after his death).

[Michael Wilson]

Msgr. Lefebvre's letter is dated Oct. 28, 1988. Fr. Cekada in his article Here:
Stated that Msgr. L. Told him in 1975 that he thought that the new rite of Orders was invalid:

In 1975, moreover, Mgr. Lefebvre personally told me that the new rite was invalid. My research and articles more than three decades later confirm that conclusion, and I cite documentation which readers can verify for themselves.

But latter changed his mind.
I believe that Msgr. Tissier de Mallerais also doubts their validity; but not Msgr. Fellay or Williamson. I don't know what Mons. Galareta holds on this subject, as he is very reserved with his opinions.

[Elizabeth.2]

Nothing like dogmatic SV's with their jaded, know-it-all disrespect and nit-picking at +ABL.

Maybe read Bp. Tissier's Biography a couple of times and be old enough to know what was actually going on before embarrassing yourself.
Fr. Cekada was a very intelligent and funny man, but consider the millions of dollars of property the 9 stole from SSPX
and the fact that they actually had a process server jump out and ambush elderly Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre getting out of a car to hijack his new seminary, paid for by the faithful.
One of the things I respected Fr.Cekada (in hindsight) for is that he did not lie or deny it like many of them still do.  He used to post at Mr. Lane's forum, and said he was sipping champagne on anniversary.  I remember that day.

Dogmatic sedes are so off-putting, that nobody wants to hear of any such doubt as to the validity of sacraments, or learn about distinctions or how to think.  It boils down to woundedness and horrible problems with Dads and authority. 
Calling +ABL a flip flopper    or duplicitous  :vomit:How about he had humility and fear of God, and he knew he wasn't the Pope or the Church very well.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Dogmatic sedes are so off-putting, that nobody wants to hear of any such doubt as to the validity of sacraments, or learn about distinctions or how to think.

For what it is worth, when it comes down to it, they are uncertain about it all when it comes to NO ordinations, NO bishops, and NO sacraments.

None have admitted to actually holding the view that some have inserted onto random threads on a subject that actually involves a real act of conscience besides avoiding the NO or anybody they perceive to be close to it.

Keeping track of Sedevacantist bishops and their lineages and making an independent judgement on the validity or not because there is no system above them to judge it would seem to be a full time job. Where does such a person find the time to think about the Pope and Vatican and FSSP and others?

If I had to rely on personal judgement of myself that a priest was actually a priest, that the bishop was actually a bishop, and that the sacraments are actually valid, I'd not do anything else but examine what personally affected me.

I do wonder what it would be like if all the non-Sedevacantist members here posted constant news about Sedevacantist bishop and priest issues and doubts about their validity and their sacraments. There is certainly a lot more to go after there.

[GiftOfGod]

Nothing like dogmatic SV's with their jaded, know-it-all disrespect and nit-picking at +ABL.

Spoken like a true Lefebvrist: ABL was above reproach, sinless like the Virgin Mary, and any criticism of him or how he ran the SSPX is "disrespect and nit-picking".

[...]consider the millions of dollars of property the 9 stole from SSPX and the fact that they actually had a process server jump out and ambush elderly Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre getting out of a car to hijack his new seminary, paid for by the faithful.

Paid for by the faithfu? Yes. But also owned by the faithful. If you read more than just Tissier's hagiography, you would have known that the legal ownership of those properties were with corporations owned and controlled by the laity, specifically at the order of ABL because he feared that if the SSPX or any of its clergy owned them that the Conciliar Church could take possession. When The Nine were expelled, the laity-controlled corporate boards decided to transfer ownership to them and not the SSPX. The laity at those chapels heard both sides of the dispute and sided with The Nine, with almost no laymen leaving. The other SSPX chapels across the world only heard the SSPX's side so, like yourself, they think of The Nine as villains.
I don't think you know how service of process works. A client doesn't tell a process server how to do their jobs; they just tell them when and where to find the person.
It's interesting how you gloss over not only the facts of the case but the fact that ABL and SSPX clergy committed calumny against The Nine in The Angelus (and probably in private conversation as well) by claiming that the property was stolen. Calumny is a mortal sin, in case you didn't know.

Can you answer this question?
How could The Nine "steal" property from the the SSPX if the properties were in fact never owned by the SSPX or SSPX clergy?

Dogmatic sedes are so off-putting, that nobody wants to hear of any such doubt as to the validity of sacraments, or learn about distinctions or how to think.  It boils down to woundedness and horrible problems with Dads and authority.

Ironic coming from an R&Rer, since an R&R argument is that Francis (and previous antipopes) are "bad dads" that you must recognize as your father but also resist.
You don't want to hear "of any such doubt as to the validity of sacraments" because you would have to seriously consider whether ABL and the SSPX seriously misled the faithful and if they did, how many people might have committed idolatry by worshiping bread and wine due to invalid Masses or didn't have sins absolved due to invalid confessions.

Calling +ABL a flip flopper    or duplicitous 

Well, which one was he? You have evidence that he told people different things about a vital matter over a relatively short period of time. If given the benefit of the doubt, ABL changed his mind (was a flip flopper). Or he hid his true opinion/lied (was duplicitous). It's one or the other.

How about he had humility and fear of God[...]

Irrelevant. John Salza recently called-out Xavier on 1P5 for using this line of argumentation as a defense of the SSPX: "Mr. Xavier's Primary Argument: He Appeals to the Sanctity of Archbishop Lefebvre".

When the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
When the law is on your side, pound the law.
When neither is on you side, pound the table (or appeal to ABL's good works/personal piety).

[Bonaventure]

It is useful to have a female moderator for dealing with the Mary Garden.

This is an echo of my earlier call for subforum-specific mods. Heinrich for The Alps, Michael Wilson for The Sedevacantist Thesis, etc.

Can we have a "Contra Judaism" subforum pretty please

IMO it isn't necessary on an authentically Catholic forum.

[LausTibiChriste]

It is useful to have a female moderator for dealing with the Mary Garden.

This is an echo of my earlier call for subforum-specific mods. Heinrich for The Alps, Michael Wilson for The Sedevacantist Thesis, etc.

Can we have a "Contra Judaism" subforum pretty please

IMO it isn't necessary on an authentically Catholic forum.

Touche