An Archbishop Lefebvre Question

[EnchantedEve]

I can not give you a specific answer as of this moment but suffice it to say that many of the meetings at the Council of Trent were delayed to give the invited protestant theologians time to arrive. You see, it wasn’t just the Vatican II council that had protestant observers; they were at Trent, too.

Actually, as I understand it the protestants never showed at Trent, although invited. However, in context at Trent the protestants were invited to discuss Catholic doctrine with the hierarchy (at the urgings of the Holy Roman Emperor) and have the opportunity to recant. This was not the reason they were invited to Vatican II, nor did it become that way. However, Tim is right in that the Church has generally been a generous debater with its opponents, for Jews and Muslims were also often invited to universities and monasteries to debate doctrine (even publically) in the Medieval era. The Dominicans thrived on this.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Actually, the person who makes the charge is obligated to supply proof, under common law. No proof exits that protestants helped, nor freemasons. The Protestant observers and the Holy See both deny the truth of the accusation. There is no proof that Archbishop Bugninni was a Freemason. The Holy See denied that he was.

If mere assertion was sufficient proof to condemn or damn us, we’d all be in a great deal of trouble.

My apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

100% right, although you can concede that this is English common law, which the Holy See does not follow.

I think you could also see from a conspiratorial perspective, if the Vatican is infested by Reds and masons, why would they be truthful about being Red and masonic?

Now that is interesting about Bugnini, however, because I know the Grand Orient headquarters in France (and in Italy, I believe) still lists him as having been a member in good standing, with his fraternal name (Bl. Pope Pius IX had been too, but was expelled the 1850s for obvious reasons).

And thank you, apology accepted.

 

[EnchantedEve]

See Post #81 for some descriptives, but what they are “like” is as varied as the myriad denominations that make them up. They do not have “one” style. And much of what the liturgical Protestant ecclessial communities have in terms of worship that IS similar to our worship (and yes, even the EF, if you read the vernacular translation) is the result of COMMON ROOTS…they draw on the same sources. Luther didn’t throw out everything, Cranmer didn’t, etc.

The classic term “Protestant” relates only to the historic Reformation (or “Deformation,” if you like, historically and factually, it’s the same thing). We don’t generally call people who protest against the Church today (from the SSPX to Bishop Gumbleton and Fr. Richard O’Brien) “protestant.” We call them dissidents.

It was kind of rhetorical, but thank you anyway!

I do protest(!) you refering to the SSPX as being in protest against the Church. They are in disagreement with the hierarchy in Rome, which is not synonymous with the Church. The Vatican is simply the seat of the Church, not the Church herself. Until they are considered suspect of heresy (which they are not), they cannot be said to be in protest against the Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

100% right, although you can concede that this is English common law, which the Holy See does not follow.

I think you could also see from a conspiratorial perspective, if the Vatican is infested by Reds and masons, why would they be truthful about being Red and masonic?

Now that is interesting about Bugnini, however, because I know the Grand Orient headquarters in France (and in Italy, I believe) still lists him as having been a member in good standing, with his fraternal name (Bl. Pope Pius IX had been too, but was expelled the 1850s for obvious reasons).

And thank you, apology accepted.

Could you please provide a credible source on the Masons listing Bugnini?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It was kind of rhetorical, but thank you anyway!

I do protest(!) you refering to the SSPX as being in protest against the Church. They are in disagreement with the hierarchy in Rome, which is not synonymous with the Church. The Vatican is simply the seat of the Church, not the Church herself. Until they are considered suspect of heresy (which they are not), they cannot be said to be in protest against the Church.

I’m sorry, but facts are facts. They protest quite a few things (note that I have not called them Protestant) that the Church has done. I realize that the Church is more than the hierarchy, but Church is hierarchical in nature and the SSPX seems to take issue with (to protest, if you will) that hierarchy at this time. We’re starting to split hairs.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Could you please provide a credible source on the Masons listing Bugnini?

Apologies, I once had a source from the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon regarding famous Masons, including Bugnini and Pius IX, but now I cannot find it. If I track it down I will let you know.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I’m sorry, but facts are facts. They protest quite a few things (note that I have not called them Protestant) that the Church has done. I realize that the Church is more than the hierarchy, but Church is hierarchical in nature and the SSPX seems to take issue with (to protest, if you will) that hierarchy at this time. We’re starting to split hairs.

In my eyes it was not splitting hairs, but saying what we mean. You say what you mean so you mean what you say.