An Archbishop Lefebvre Question

[EnchantedEve]

There is no such thing as “binding statements of the previous” popes, when we are speaking of the authority of a current pope. A pope does not “bind” future popes because the power and authority of the Pope belong to the Office of the Papacy, not to the Pope as an individual. The Office cannot “bind itself”. Therefore, while the orders of a Pope can bind all Catholics, a future Pope can modify or abrogate the order.

Not exactly. A Catholic must submit to the authority of the current Pope, regardless of whether or not the Catholic interprets Tradition in the same way.

This is an error, for two reasons:

1. If by binding, the Pope is speaking ex cathedra or definitively (short of ex cathedra) on a subject, future popes are not free to change them at will, since the Holy Father is not omnipotent but may only excercise his power insofar as his office permits. I quote from above:

"All authority to which we bow has its source in Him and cannot be validly used against Him. It is the recognition of the authority of God vicariously exercised through a human agent that confers upon the act of obedience its special merit. No hard and fast rule can be set down for determining the degree of guilt of the sin of disobedience. Regarded formally as a deliberate scorning of the authority itself, it would involve a divorce between the soul and the supernatural principle of charity which is tantamount to a grievous sin. As a matter of fact many other things have to be taken account of, as the greater or lesser advertence in the act, the relatively important or trifling character of the thing imposed, the manner of enjoining, the right of the person who commands. For such reasons the sin will frequently be esteemed venial. "

So pope’s authority has limits, it is knowing when to identify when the limits are reached that can be somewhat tricky.

1. The Pope cannot change the way a doctrine has always been understood:

Vatican 1, 1870, Session 3, Canon 3
"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And Session 3, Chapter 3, line 14:

“Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.”

So no man, need even the Holy Father, may make changes contrary to what was taught before, because it would not be in his power to do so.

This was further emphasized by Pope Bl. Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X in other encylicals.

 

[cam100]

This is an error, for two reasons:

1. If by binding, the Pope is speaking ex cathedra or definitively (short of ex cathedra) on a subject, future popes are not free to change them at will, since the Holy Father is not omnipotent but may only excercise his power insofar as his office permits.

I’m not sure what you mean by the sentance above. I think you are speaking about a different topic. “Ex cathedra” refers to the defining of a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church. This is a declaration of a truth already revealed by God. It is not an order by the Pope to do nor not do something. I think you are getting the power of infallibility confused with the authority of the Pope.

I quote from above:

"All authority to which we bow has its source in Him and cannot be validly used against Him. It is the recognition of the authority of God vicariously exercised through a human agent that confers upon the act of obedience its special merit. No hard and fast rule can be set down for determining the degree of guilt of the sin of disobedience. Regarded formally as a deliberate scorning of the authority itself, it would involve a divorce between the soul and the supernatural principle of charity which is tantamount to a grievous sin. As a matter of fact many other things have to be taken account of, as the greater or lesser advertence in the act, the relatively important or trifling character of the thing imposed, the manner of enjoining, the right of the person who commands. For such reasons the sin will frequently be esteemed venial. "

So pope’s authority has limits, it is knowing when to identify when the limits are reached that can be somewhat tricky.

There is a difference between a Pope giving an order from his personal authority (such as to his assistant), and an order given by the Pope as the Head of the Catholic Church. For the latter, he has the final say. Vatican I declared that the Pope has “full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church”, “not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church”

1. The Pope cannot change the way a doctrine has always been understood:

Vatican 1, 1870, Session 3, Canon 3
"If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And Session 3, Chapter 3, line 14:

“Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.”

So no man, need even the Holy Father, may make changes contrary to what was taught before, because it would not be in his power to do so.

This was further emphasized by Pope Bl. Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X in other encylicals.

I’m not sure what this has to do with Archbishop Lefebvre, but the declarions given by Vatican I are referring to a person who tries to change the meaning of a dogma already defined by the Church, not the Pope clarifying the meaning of a dogma, even if it be different from the meaning that was understood by a number of faithful.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I’m not sure what you mean by the sentance above. I think you are speaking about a different topic. “Ex cathedra” refers to the defining of a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church. This is a declaration of a truth already revealed by God. It is not an order by the Pope to do nor not do something. I think you are getting the power of infallibility confused with the authority of the Pope.

There is a difference between a Pope giving an order from his personal authority (such as to his assistant), and an order given by the Pope as the Head of the Catholic Church. For the latter, he has the final say. Vatican I declared that the Pope has “full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church”, “not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church”

I’m not sure what this has to do with Archbishop Lefebvre, but the declarions given by Vatican I are referring to a person who tries to change the meaning of a dogma already defined by the Church, not the Pope clarifying the meaning of a dogma, even if it be different from the meaning that was understood by a number of faithful.

Forgive me if I missread your statement, but since there was no defining of terms, I can only read into what is given. I never said that an “ex cathedra” statement ordered anybody to do anything, nor did I define what a dogma was in relation to papal authority. However, regarding binding future popes, ex cathedra statements are made by the Holy Father’s own authority and may not be changed at will, which I gather from your statement you know. However, other statements not clearly ex cathedra must be adhered to and cannot be changed by future popes without serious reason, for example:

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950
"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians…Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: “in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church.”

Again, a pope is not free to rephrase or change the manner in which a doctrine is taught or understood, even if he has supreme authority over matters of Faith and morals, it is not in his power to change the meaning or teaching of his predecessors, for such would be an abuse of the authority his office. The Office of Holy Father may not “bind itself,” but it is bound to the Magisterium.

I think the question here is not contradicting Tradition as understood “by a number of the faithful,” but by the Popes themselves. The Holy Father may not make statements or define matters outside the way the Church has always understood them. This was the chief concern of Archbishop Lefebvre, that there appeared to be a departure from what post-Vatican II popes were saying and what those before said. (I am not saying whether he was right or wrong, only that he would not be out of hand if he was concerned by this). Vatican I also said as posted above: “Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.” This applies to the Holy Father, as well as those beneath him. No man is above the law, and the Pope is not above the Magisterium of the Church, but a living part of it.

Hopefully this makes my position somewhat clearer.

 

[Timothysis]

I am truly shocked by this statement. The Church of Jesus Christ would “WITHER UP AND DIE!??!?” Wow, the Satan must be pretty powerful if the “modern world” could do what 2,000 years of opposition could not. If Bl. Pope John really believe this was the case, than it really is time to pray for our popes!

Personally, this sounds like a song of surrender, rather than a call to militancy, with regards to the modern world. Only the strength of what we have received from our forefathers will preserve us, not eternal updates and novelties. (Not implying everything post-Vatican II is novelty, just a fair amount!)

Perhaps you should look up the word “hyperbole.”

*–noun Rhetoric.

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”*

 

[Rogerteder]

Without the Archbishop, the Society of SSPX and a few sympathetic Bishops, the original indult most likely never would have been granted as there would have been no need to. They were pretty much the only ones who kept the Traditional Mass alive. The Traditional Mass would have been shelved and remembered only as a relic of ages past.

Just the way the progressives and reformers of the day wanted it to be,

Maybe maybe not. We dont know because it didnt happen. i have always wondered how the Archbishop could have really believed that "there was an emergency.: It wasnt as if there was no mass or no priests. The Archbishop blatantly disobeyed the Holy Father. it seems to me that that was, objectively a sin. Did God bring good out of it, probably. Was the Archbishop right–not in my opinion.

 

[Rogerteder]

you write:
"The Holy Father may not make statements or define matters outside the way the Church has always understood them. "

Give us an example of a Pope doing this

 

[CassiusLonginus]

i have always wondered how the Archbishop could have really believed that "there was an emergency.

Really? You’ve never just…ya know…looked around and had a good hard look at the state of things? Also, it’s not as though there “was” and emergency. There is an emergency and although tons of people around here pretend that we truly are living in the “new springtime” the facts simply point the opposite direction.

It wasnt as if there was no mass or no priests.

True, there were priests and there was a Mass…But there wasn’t the Mass. Moreover, priests were forbidden to pray the traditional Mass although it hadn’t been abrogated by the new one. Is that just? Of course not. Injustice and lax practice and belief ruled the day…It’s no wonder Lefebvre followed through with “operation survival”. If you were falsely and unjustly stopped from doing something you have a right to do you’d fight for your rights too.

The Archbishop blatantly disobeyed the Holy Father. it seems to me that that was, objectively a sin. Did God bring good out of it, probably. Was the Archbishop right–not in my opinion.

Ultimately, Lefebvre disobeyed because of an unjust situation. Pope Benedict’s lifting of the 4 excommunications was both a move of good will and of justice.

 

[palmas85]

Maybe maybe not. We dont know because it didnt happen. i have always wondered how the Archbishop could have really believed that "there was an emergency.: It wasnt as if there was no mass or no priests. The Archbishop blatantly disobeyed the Holy Father. it seems to me that that was, objectively a sin. Did God bring good out of it, probably. Was the Archbishop right–not in my opinion.

Actually it did happen. There very few authorized Traditional Mass between the late sixties and the issuing of the Indult. The only ones that were sanctioned were celebrated by Priests who due to their age were granted dispensation and a great many of those Masses were private. The SSPX was formed in 1970 as a direct result of the deteriorating condition of the Church in France, Interestingly enough, the Society was initially supported by Rome and more than a few Priests transferred in legally from both Dioceses and Religious Orders.These actions infuriated a great many Bishops in France who by and large were avowed modernists and progressives and they in turn actively actively sought the suppression of the Society. Given that Europe in general and France and Germany in particular at the time was steeped heavily in anti traditionalism in general the outcome was hardly surprising and the Society was suppressed, some say illegally and in violation of canon Law in 1976.

And that would have been the end of the Traditional Mass right there. Virtually no place to celebrate It and very few Priests either willing or able to do so outside of the Society.In 1971 an allowance was made to allow the Traditional Mass in certain limited circumstances in the UK, but that was it.

Under Pope John Paul II, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in 1984, granted diocesan bishops the Indult which authorized, under certain conditions, celebrations of the Traditional Mass. It was hoped that this would help to regularize the situation with the Society, which after it;s suppression continued on.’

Following the consecration of four bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre and the subsequent excommunications, , Pope John Paul II issued on 2 July 1988 a motu proprio entitled Ecclesia Dei recommending a "wide and generous application of the directives of the 1984 indult. This was done primarily as a peace offering if you will to get the Society back into the Church. However, many diocesan bishops decided not to grant certain priests or lay people permission to use the Traditonal Rite. In many cases this was because, in the opinion of the bishops in question, they did not meet the required conditions. Other refusals of permission were arguably more difficult to explain or justify. In one fairly infamous and well known case the Archbishop of a large Arch Diocese refused to grant permission for any celebration of the Traditional Mass by anyone who had not been an adult and a practicing Catholic in 1962.

So yes, the major if not the only reason we still have the Traditional Mass is because of the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebrve.

Whether or not the Church was actually in a crisis situation as he believed will probably never be known. We do know that no less a figure than the Holy Father himself was pretty traumatized during this same general time period when he was denounced in his own classroom in Germany by outside students who felt he was too old fashioned and not on the cutting edge of theology and progressive thought. An attendee at Vatican II, the Holy Father as a young man was a hearty supporter of the reforms of Vatican II. After the above incident he apparently realized that many of the liberties being taken in the quest for modernization were perhaps doing more harm than good.

Was the Archbishop right or wrong, again history has a way of sorting things out in time,
As Catholics we are required to use our conscience to help make informed decision. . Having lived thriugh the time period myself, I can tell you that it was crazy and the Church was pretty much unrecognizable for more than a little while. It was pretty bad, especially for someone with a more Traditional way of looking at things…

 

[Rogerteder]

Actually it did happen. There very few authorized Traditional Mass between the late sixties and the issuing of the Indult. The only ones that were sanctioned were celebrated by Priests who due to their age were granted dispensation and a great many of those Masses were private. The SSPX was formed in 1970 as a direct result of the deteriorating condition of the Church in France, Interestingly enough, the Society was initially supported by Rome and more than a few Priests transferred in legally from both Dioceses and Religious Orders.These actions infuriated a great many Bishops in France who by and large were avowed modernists and progressives and they in turn actively actively sought the suppression of the Society. Given that Europe in general and France and Germany in particular at the time was steeped heavily in anti traditionalism in general the outcome was hardly surprising and the Society was suppressed, some say illegally and in violation of canon Law in 1976.

And that would have been the end of the Traditional Mass right there. Virtually no place to celebrate It and very few Priests either willing or able to do so outside of the Society.In 1971 an allowance was made to allow the Traditional Mass in certain limited circumstances in the UK, but that was it.

Under Pope John Paul II, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in 1984, granted diocesan bishops the Indult which authorized, under certain conditions, celebrations of the Traditional Mass. It was hoped that this would help to regularize the situation with the Society, which after it;s suppression continued on.’

Following the consecration of four bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre and the subsequent excommunications, , Pope John Paul II issued on 2 July 1988 a motu proprio entitled Ecclesia Dei recommending a "wide and generous application of the directives of the 1984 indult. This was done primarily as a peace offering if you will to get the Society back into the Church. However, many diocesan bishops decided not to grant certain priests or lay people permission to use the Traditonal Rite. In many cases this was because, in the opinion of the bishops in question, they did not meet the required conditions. Other refusals of permission were arguably more difficult to explain or justify. In one fairly infamous and well known case the Archbishop of a large Arch Diocese refused to grant permission for any celebration of the Traditional Mass by anyone who had not been an adult and a practicing Catholic in 1962.

So yes, the major if not the only reason we still have the Traditional Mass is because of the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebrve.

Whether or not the Church was actually in a crisis situation as he believed will probably never be known. We do know that no less a figure than the Holy Father himself was pretty traumatized during this same general time period when he was denounced in his own classroom in Germany by outside students who felt he was too old fashioned and not on the cutting edge of theology and progressive thought. An attendee at Vatican II, the Holy Father as a young man was a hearty supporter of the reforms of Vatican II. After the above incident he apparently realized that many of the liberties being taken in the quest for modernization were perhaps doing more harm than good.

Was the Archbishop right or wrong, again history has a way of sorting things out in time,
As Catholics we are required to use our conscience to help make informed decision. . Having lived thriugh the time period myself, I can tell you that it was crazy and the Church was pretty much unrecognizable for more than a little while. It was pretty bad, especially for someone with a more Traditional way of looking at things…

Ya but your initial argument was that we wouldnt have the indult we have now if Lefebvre didnt disobey. We might have—who knows—Also, I just dont see how it could be considered an emergency(enough to disobey the Pope) if there was a valid mass and valid priests—CANT SEE IT

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Ya but your initial argument was that we wouldnt have the indult we have now if Lefebvre didnt disobey. We might have—who knows—Also, I just dont see how it could be considered an emergency(enough to disobey the Pope) if there was a valid mass and valid priests—CANT SEE IT

Just one question. Have you ever been to the TLM?

Thanks in advance,
CL

 

[Rogerteder]

Just one question. Have you ever been to the TLM?

Thanks in advance,
CL

yA I LOVE IT. It isnt a necessity though—People can get to heaven without the Tridentine mass—Like I said i just dont see how Lefebvre thought it was a real emergency. There was a valid MASS and valid priests to administer the saraments-o good reason, in my opinion, to disobey the holy Father–

 

[Timothysis]

Ya but your initial argument was that we wouldnt have the indult we have now if Lefebvre didnt disobey. We might have—who knows—Also, I just dont see how it could be considered an emergency(enough to disobey the Pope) if there was a valid mass and valid priests—CANT SEE IT

Someone here recently said something that applies to those who believe that they have the right to decide what is right, just and, above all, Catholic for themselves. It was this:

“We can be disobedient because we are right; you cannot be disobedient because you are wrong.”

And you thought that relativism was the domain only of the liberals…

 

[ProVobis]

Oh, good grief. So, it truly seems to be that conspiracy theories are, indeed, one of the hallmarks of the self-styled “traditionalists.”

Very typical writing of one who loves to stereotype. But I’m not going to call you a sterotypist.

By the way, I don’t consider myself any kind of “traditionalist.” I just don’t respect those who like to throw a lot of stones without making a point.

 

[pnewton]

Maybe maybe not. We dont know because it didnt happen.

This is my opinion also. I find it hilarious that some can claim alternative history “really did happen.”

No, we will never know what would have been if only ________ .

The good news is as Catholics we do not need to concern ourselves with this. I see in this thread that the opinion of these “what ifs” is totally colored by preconceived notions and preferences and this whole thread is a ridiculous exercise in the futility of begging a question.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Perhaps you should look up the word “hyperbole.”

*–noun Rhetoric.

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”*

Sorry Tim, but given the context, had the meaning implied not been literal, or akin to it, than the rest of the point makes little or no sense. For if Bl. John XXIII had not really thought it was that dire of an emergency, according to this example, than he would not have convoked a Council to respond to these problems. If this was meant to be hyperbole, it was poorly executed, and did harm to his otherwise reasonable observation. Basic grammer would show that a hyperbole will make a point greater than if it was not there, not make the point disappear altogether if removed.

 

[EnchantedEve]

This is my opinion also. I find it hilarious that some can claim alternative history “really did happen.”

No, we will never know what would have been if only ________ .

The good news is as Catholics we do not need to concern ourselves with this. I see in this thread that the opinion of these “what ifs” is totally colored by preconceived notions and preferences and this whole thread is a ridiculous exercise in the futility of begging a question.

True, this thread is by nature meant to be subjective, not invective!

 

[EnchantedEve]

you write:
"The Holy Father may not make statements or define matters outside the way the Church has always understood them. "

Give us an example of a Pope doing this

I am not going down that road, because it will lead us away from the point of this thread and the point I am trying to make here. The Pope can is different from the Pope has, and all I am trying to say here is the Pope can overstep his bounds, not that the Holy Father has. Whole other topic there!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Just one question. Have you ever been to the TLM?

Thanks in advance,
CL

I have. It did not move me nearly as much as many OF masses I’ve attended. I’ll acknowledge that it also didn’t tick me off as much SOME of the OF Masses I’ve seen abused…except for the part in the homily where the priest said (twice) that the NO Mass was an “abomination.”

 

[pnewton]

True, this thread is by nature meant to be subjective, not invective!

Thanks. Posting to this subject is often invectious. I have didn’t take a shot this this year for this invection.

 

[palmas85]

Ya but your initial argument was that we wouldnt have the indult we have now if Lefebvre didnt disobey. We might have—who knows—Also, I just dont see how it could be considered an emergency(enough to disobey the Pope) if there was a valid mass and valid priests—CANT SEE IT

If the reason we got the indult was because the Vatican wanted to bring the SSPX back into the fold then it seems pretty obvious.

As to the emergency situation the Archbishop certainly felt that there was one. Maybe there was, and the situation was pretty grim back in those day and maybe it wasn’t/. As I said history has a way of sorting things out,

My hope is that if it is determined at some future date that his actions were justified that those of you who have such strong negative feelings towards the society will re consider.

As an aside, why do you think we got the indult if it wasn’t as a gesture to the SSPX and it’s followers?