"An Open Letter to Confused Catholics"

  • Thread starter Thread starter nsper7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nsper7

Guest
I just started reading Archbishop Lefebvre’s “An Open Letter to Confused Catholics” and it makes quite a bit of sense. Has anyone else read this book? If so, how did they respond to it? Any comments?
 
I read the opening chapter and the last chapter online just now. Actually, I skimmed over it.

It appears LeFebvre is making observations about our current Church and pointing back to Vatican II and the current remnants of the Modernist movement as the cause of the problems.

He implicates our Pope as well. I am not sure if he is referring to JP-II or B16 however. For this reason though, I declare he is “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” He is drawing too wide of a circle to decide what needs to be fixed and what is still OK.

It seems that he means well but is just lacking some humility - in my humble opinion.

I agree, we have problems. I will stand with our Pope however and the pronouncements of Vatican II. Some of our bishops, priests, nuns, and other religious need our help though. They need our prayers, support, and loving correction when necessary.

Have you read the latest encyclical?

Check out the review in The Washington Times (online) by Jeffrey Kuhner. It is wonderful!
 
The excommunications have been lifted on the society, and from what I understand Lefebvre’s excommunication would have become null and void on his death anyways. I’m not a trad, but I’ve read the open letter before and he has some legimtimate points about the Church’s downwards spiral after Vatican II. He’s certainly not a Heretic, because he doesn’t deny any of the truths of the faith. It seems that the further we get from the council the more people are willing to point out areas where the Church went off the rails, and that’s certainly legitimate. It’s not un-Catholic to criticize certain reforms that were taken too far.
 
nsper7 said:
I just started reading Archbishop Lefebvre’s “An Open Letter to Confused Catholics” and it makes quite a bit of sense. Has anyone else read this book? If so, how did they respond to it? Any comments?
Click to expand...
I’ve read it.

I don’t remember it distinctly. It is very short as I recall. Michael Davies’ 3 part series, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, and Bp. Tissier de Mallerais’ biography left a stronger impression on me. Like most folks here, I was and am afraid of disobedience to Rome. But it is very clear to anyone who studies all of the literature, Abp. Lefebvre was also very afraid of disobedience to Rome. The decision for the consecrations was agonizing for him. I don’t expect it to be easy for Traditionalists to see their way to his understanding of what he often called the crisis in the Church.

I was drawn by the Church Fathers, St. Francis de Sales, and many other compelling influences that predate my lifetime to enter the Catholic Church. If the great movement toward unification and springtimes of evangelization that were the promised fruits of the Second Vatican Council had materialized, I probably would have been on board with it. Instead, I found seminaries empty, feminism run amuck, and active homosexual priests who only had to make sure they didn’t abuse their own parishioner’s children in order to continue in sin. And then, I learned about those meetings at Assisi, to which our current Holy Father, may God preserve and strengthen him, objected also. John Paul II’s first prayer meeting for peace was perceived as diabolical. That the prayers didn’t seem to move heaven either is not without significance to me. In any case, it seems to have been the “elephant” that broke the camel’s back for Abp. Lefebvre, and I think for me too in the long run.

At best, I think that the consecration of the bishops was providentially necessary. That is what I tend to believe. At worst, it was an act of a man who subjectively perceived that he could be obedient to Eternal Rome or the Rome of Pope John Paul II, but not both, so he chose the former. Perhaps, as the title of his book might suggest to those who think ill of him, Abp. Lefebvre himself was confused. He certainly suffered. If he was confused and should have waited, I hope God will have mercy on him, and on me too. I know I just want to be Catholic like those whose writings drew me to Rome. There is nothing in the writings that drew me to the Catholic Church, or in the orthodox formation that Abp. Lefebvre received in seminary, to prepare us for the antics, inertia, and indifference to sound doctrine that characterized the episcopate and pontificate during the times of Pope John Paul II, and which are still lingering scandals to the church and to the world. I don’t picture Sts. Dominic, Alphonsus, or the Cure of Ars as acting differently than Abp. Lefebvre to the tumultuous times that disturbed and overshadowed the twilight years of a faithful priest, active missionary, and troubled prince of the Catholic Church.
 
PadraigPearce said:
The excommunications have been lifted on the society, and from what I understand Lefebvre’s excommunication would have become null and void on his death anyways. I’m not a trad, but I’ve read the open letter before and he has some legimtimate points about the Church’s downwards spiral after Vatican II. He’s certainly not a Heretic, because he doesn’t deny any of the truths of the faith. It seems that the further we get from the council the more people are willing to point out areas where the Church went off the rails, and that’s certainly legitimate. It’s not un-Catholic to criticize certain reforms that were taken too far.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
steve_green_2 said:
His Excellency was NOT a heretic. He will be a saint someday I hope ! 👍
Click to expand...
Um, think again!
*
Pages 73-74:** “Does this mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved?* No, it would be a second error to think that.*** Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula Outside the Church there is no salvation, also reject the Creed, “I accept one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is.* There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of martyrs who confessed their faith while still catechumens); and baptism of desire.* Baptism can be explicit.* Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.”* I told him, “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you…”

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Angelus Press, pp. 73-74.

How is this position any different than what the Catholics who the SSPX would label “Conciliarists” or “Novus Ordo Catholics” hold?
 
How is this position any different than what the Catholics who the SSPX would label “Conciliarists” or “Novus Ordo Catholics” hold?
Click to expand...
I think the problem +Levebvre sees is that Vatican 2 and the “Conciliar Church” seem to promote the idea that others can be Saved through their religions (an example is Mother Theresa’s advice: Muslims should be the best Muslims they can be, Hindus should be the best Hindus they can be, etc.). +Lefebvre and the SSPX are NOT “Feeney”-ites and acknowledge that Non-Catholics can be Saved, but it will in spite of their religion, not because of it and, in terms of ecumenism, we must urge all to join the True Church of Christ. I think this is his complaint, but please do not hold me to it since I am no expert.
 
nsper7 said:
I think the problem +Levebvre sees is that Vatican 2 and the “Conciliar Church” seem to promote the idea that others can be Saved through their religions (an example is Mother Theresa’s advice: Muslims should be the best Muslims they can be, Hindus should be the best Hindus they can be, etc.). +Lefebvre and the SSPX are NOT “Feeney”-ites and acknowledge that Non-Catholics can be Saved, but it will in spite of their religion, not because of it and, in terms of ecumenism, we must urge all to join the True Church of Christ. I think this is his complaint, but please do not hold me to it since I am no expert.
Click to expand...
I think the SSPX is just hypocritical on this point. Their whole existence is negated by their belief that people can be saved in false religions.

I think the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond said it best when refuting Father (now Bishop) Williamson, SSPX in his opposition to the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Church”:

"What difference, may I ask, does it make what Mass one goes to, if his sincerity is what determines his state of soul? Some people are very sincere about Jehovah’s Witness services! Are they, according to your theology, to be blamed? If not, why do you insist Catholics stop going to the Novus Ordo? What right do you have to disturb their conscience, if salvation depends upon sincerity? You yourself admit that the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Church” really means that there is no salvation without the Church — as if the defining Church of the past had no idea what it really meant by choosing the Latin word “extra ” rather than “sine .” You prefer to accent the general truth, which is more of a truism, and suppress the more specific truth, which is a challenge. Yet you find this same tactic abhorrent in the liturgical demolitionists who replaced the pro multis with “for all men.”
catholicism.org/father-feeney-and-catholic-doctrine.html

(By the way posting this is not an endorsement of Saint Benedict Center Richmond, I myself am a sympathizer of the approved Saint Benedict Center in Still River) I just post this because it can’t be said better.

It’s true, why bother with the SSPX, if the SSPX itself says that even Hindus, Muslims, and ANIMISTS can be saved?! So…ok, let’s get this straight…pagans can be saved, but the SSPX spend so much energy denouncing the “Novus Ordo”? Does anyone see the inconsistency here?
 
nsper7 said:
I think the problem +Levebvre sees is that Vatican 2 and the “Conciliar Church” seem to promote the idea that others can be Saved through their religions (an example is Mother Theresa’s advice: Muslims should be the best Muslims they can be, Hindus should be the best Hindus they can be, etc.). +Lefebvre and the SSPX are NOT “Feeney”-ites and acknowledge that Non-Catholics can be Saved, but it will in spite of their religion, not because of it and, in terms of ecumenism, we must urge all to join the True Church of Christ. I think this is his complaint, but please do not hold me to it since I am no expert.
Click to expand...
Neither Vatican II nor what you call the “Conciliar Church” promote any such idea. And neither did Mother Teresa. The quote from her that you cite doesn’t promote such an idea either. Anyone who gets saved gets saved BECAUSE of Christ and His Church, not in spite of it.

Mother Teresa didn’t promote indifferentism either. In order to be a faithful Catholic convert, wouldn’t being a good follower of whatever-religion-you-currently-are be a good groundwork for eventually accepting Jesus and His Church? Most fundamentalists-turned-Catholics, while they admit Protestantism’s errors, are nevertheless grateful to their former churches for planting in them the knowledge of God and laying the foundation for them to ultimately accept the full truth that can only be found in Catholicism.

Also, I believe it’s illegal for Christians to evangelize publicly in India, so Mother Teresa did her best to follow St. Francis of Assisi’s advice – “Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.” Yet she did invite those to whom she ministered to be baptized, while, of course, not coercing them.
 
Tradycja said:
I think the SSPX is just hypocritical on this point. Their whole existence is negated by their belief that people can be saved in false religions.

I think the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond said it best when refuting Father (now Bishop) Williamson, SSPX in his opposition to the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Church”:

"What difference, may I ask, does it make what Mass one goes to, if his sincerity is what determines his state of soul? Some people are very sincere about Jehovah’s Witness services! Are they, according to your theology, to be blamed? If not, why do you insist Catholics stop going to the Novus Ordo? What right do you have to disturb their conscience, if salvation depends upon sincerity? You yourself admit that the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Church” really means that there is no salvation without the Church — as if the defining Church of the past had no idea what it really meant by choosing the Latin word “extra ” rather than “sine .” You prefer to accent the general truth, which is more of a truism, and suppress the more specific truth, which is a challenge. Yet you find this same tactic abhorrent in the liturgical demolitionists who replaced the pro multis with “for all men.”
catholicism.org/father-feeney-and-catholic-doctrine.html

(By the way posting this is not an endorsement of Saint Benedict Center Richmond, I myself am a sympathizer of the approved Saint Benedict Center in Still River) I just post this because it can’t be said better.

It’s true, why bother with the SSPX, if the SSPX itself says that even Hindus, Muslims, and ANIMISTS can be saved?! So…ok, let’s get this straight…pagans can be saved, but the SSPX spend so much energy denouncing the “Novus Ordo”? Does anyone see the inconsistency here?
Click to expand...
NO ONE has said that ANYONE can be saved because of their false religions. If anyone gets saved, it’s because of Christ and His Church, not in spite of it. You also seem unable or unwilling to see that just because someone believes it’s POSSIBLE for a non-Catholic to be saved (even if only a small one), then they’re denying the dogma of “no salvation outside the Church” and are a heretic. That’s utterly false! The Church teaches that if someone is invincibly ignorant yet strive to follow God as best they can, then they CAN be saved. But it doesn’t say they WILL be saved. That’s up to God to decide. It’s undoubtedly much, much harder for a non-Catholic to go to heaven. Yet if an invincibly ignorant non-Catholic does happen to make it to heaven (and we don’t know how often that happens – if it happens at all), then it means that while they’re not part of the Body of the Church, they’re nevertheless part of the SOUL of the Church. And lest you think it’s something that “modernist” bishops, priests, and laity dreamed up after Vatican II, many pre-Vatican II catechisms say that same thing. I believe the Baltimore Catechism is one of them.
 
DavidJoseph said:
NO ONE has said that ANYONE can be saved because of their false religions. If anyone gets saved, it’s because of Christ and His Church, not in spite of it.
Click to expand...
DavidJoseph said:
You also seem unable or unwilling to see that just because someone believes it’s POSSIBLE for a non-Catholic to be saved (even if only a small one), then they’re denying the dogma of “no salvation outside the Church” and are a heretic. That’s utterly false!
Click to expand...
Actually such a person is denying the Dogma. If someone is a “non-Catholic” that means that they are outside the Church (otherwise they wouldn’t be a “non-Catholic”). The dogmatic definition says ALL who are outside the Church “cannot share in eternal life”.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews [aut] or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
DavidJoseph said:
The Church teaches that if someone is invincibly ignorant yet strive to follow God as best they can, then they CAN be saved. But it doesn’t say they WILL be saved. That’s up to God to decide.
Click to expand...
Yes, they CAN be saved, but they need to come to receive the Faith first. Are you saying someone is saved without the Faith?
DavidJoseph said:
It’s undoubtedly much, much harder for a non-Catholic to go to heaven. Yet if an invincibly ignorant non-Catholic does happen to make it to heaven (and we don’t know how often that happens – if it happens at all)
Click to expand...
Actually we DO know that it NEVER happens:

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which** nobody at all **is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top