"An Open Letter to Confused Catholics"

[numealinesimpet]

Lefebvre was a cafeteria Catholic. He wanted to pick and choose from the Church doctrines / practices that he liked and discard the rest. Just because his motives were allegedly good does not make his actions acceptable. He promised obedience to the Church and he failed in that obedience.

But in his book “Open Letter” he lays it on the line. He followed the entire teaching of the Church. What he was rejecting was unauthorised novelties. The Church owes him a great debt by refusing to be swept off his feet by imprudent enthusiasms.

 

[numealinesimpet]

• Fr Paul Kramer said, during a talk given at the Fatima
  Peace Conference in October, 2001.

Truly we are in the midst of the greatest confusion in the Church since the Arian crisis. And we should have seen it coming. Pius XII, when he was still Monsignor Pacelli, made an astonishing prophesy about the current state of the Church, which he tied to the Message of Fatima:

“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, in Her theology and Her soul … A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God … In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, ‘Where have they taken Him?’”
(see pages 52-53 in the book Pie XII Devant l’Histoire,
in English the title is Pope Pius XII Before the Bar
of History
quoted in fatimaperspectives.com/ef/perspective146.asp

& many other places.

"Pope Pius XII’s biographer, Msgr. Roche, noted that at this moment in the conversation, according to a Count Galeazzi, “the gaze of the Pope, seen through the lenses of his glasses, became supernatural, and there emanated from his tall and slender body an irresistible mystical force.”
“ The Devil’s Final Battle:” Ch5 Fr P. Kramer

 

[numealinesimpet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by numealinesimpet

Here are the refs:

geocities.com/peterpaulmin/BaptismofDesireandBlood.html

The Church’s Official Teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood….

Council of Trent: “Justification of the impious is indicated as being a translation from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” (Session 6, Chapter 4)

Council of Trent: “If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them,*** or without the desire thereof,*** men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.”(Session 7, Canon 4)

Vatican II:"Catechumens, moved by the Holy Spirit, who seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own. (Lumen Gentium, 14)

Catechism of the Council of Trent: “On adults, however, the Church… has ordained that Baptism be deferred for a certain time. … should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins,*** will avail them grace and righteousness.***”

As the Geocities website rightly cautions, it is not Catholic teaching that just anyone who is making a reasonable effort to ‘be good’ can be presumed to have ben granted "Baptism of Desire’. An overstatement of the Doctrine has actually hindered the Missionary Effort in recent decades. A reaction, of whom the “Feenyites” are very prominent, tries to insist as a known fact that there is NO Baptism of Desire Ever. Mgr Lefebvre avoided this rash over-reaction.

I greatly hope that this thread will not be derailed by endless discussion on this: by all means, good people, start up a thread on the topic of Baptism of Desire, but let us not let this thread become bogged down with the arguments.

 

[wanner47]

But in his book “Open Letter” he lays it on the line. He followed the entire teaching of the Church. What he was rejecting was unauthorised novelties. The Church owes him a great debt by refusing to be swept off his feet by imprudent enthusiasms.

Consecrating bishops illicitly is not following the teaching of the Church, nor is encouraging other Catholics to disobey.

He is no better than Martin Luther, trying to remake the church in his own image.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Consecrating bishops illicitly is not following the teaching of the Church, nor is encouraging other Catholics to disobey.

On the contrary, the law of the Church does make provision for emergency situations. This is nothing new. To give just one example, Our Lord reminded the Pharisees how King David ate the “Shewbread” that it was (normally) unlawful for laymen to eat, to prevent starvation. There is explicit mention in the New Code of Canon Law indemnifying one in a “State of Necessity” from any sanction. The only remaining question is whether Mgr Lefebvre & the others actually were in a State of necessity. Lefebvre stated publicly and explicitly, even before the consecrations, that the continuing and even accelerating crisis constituted such a situation. That is what his book is all about.

It is worthy of debate whether he was justified, but it cannot be maintained in Canon Law that it was illicit. Yes, I know that some, even very prominent, churchmen, continued to use this language, but others of the highest standing contradicted it.

I have never, in the past 20 years, seen anyone at all explain to us calmly why it is that canons 1321 – 4 of New code of Canon Law somehow apply to everyone else except Archbp. Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops. All the Vatican ever did was to ignore the issue, and repeat their original charges, without ever facing his defence.

He is no better than Martin Luther, trying to remake the church in his own image.

With respect, this statement betrays huge ignorance of the facts of history, theology, Church Law…
At least Lefebvre did not respond to any Papal decree in the words Luther used; e.g. “Another fart from the Pope”.
I hope I have not offended any reader, but this is recorded fact. One must be careful before saying that anyone at all is “no better than Martin Luther”.

 

[Tradycja]

In reply to Tradycja and AnneElliot - Roniel Aledo, Captain US Army (Ret). Points to:
–1. Catholic Dictionary, Attwater (Imprimatur/Nihil obstat 1946): “. .Those NON-Catholics who are saved are in life outside the visible body of the Church, but are joined invisibly to the Church by charity and by that implicit desire of joining the Church which is inseparable from the explicit desire to do God’s will.”

–2. THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED, Rev. Francis Spirago, Professor of Theology(c) 1899, 1921, by Benziger Bros. (Printers to the Apostolic See) Nihil Obstat: Scanlon. Imprimatur: Archbishop Hayes, D.D.NY: “If, however, a man, through no fault of his own, remains outside the Church, he may be saved if he lead a God-fearing life; for such a one is to all intents and purposes a MEMBER of the Catholic Church.”

–3.Baltimore Catechism No.3, (IMPRIMATURS: Archbishop John McCloskey of New York 1885,Archbishop Gibbons Baltimore 1885, NIHIL OBSTATS: Rev. Remigius LaFort, Censor Librorum 1901)
”Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to belong to the “SOUL of the church”; that is, they are really MEMBERS of the Church without knowing it.”

–5. THE CATECHISM OF ST. PIUS X, 172 : “ If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit DESIRE of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as BEST HE CAN such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to THE SOUL of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation” (172)
See jloughnan.tripod.com/aledo02#assisi

Catholic dictionaries, encyclopedias, and even catechisms are not infallible documents.
Catechisms are not part of the solemn magisterial teaching of the Church. They are only infallible, where they reiterate defined doctrine. Even the Catechism of Trent is not per se infallible, but only in the same qualified sense. The Jesuits, for example, refused to abide by the Trent Catechism on the question of efficacious grace and the freedom of the will. The Catechism favored the Thomistic view, which emphasized the movement of the free will by grace. The Jesuits emphasized the free will’s cooperation with the grace. Both opinions are free to be held, so long as the two extremes of Jansenism, on the one side, and Pelagianism on the other are avoided. If a catechism teaches a novel doctrine, then that cannot be part of the ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium must measure with the solemn magisterium, it is not a parallel magisterium. Basically the famous principle laid down by St, Vincent of Lerins defines what came to be known as the “ordinary magisterium.” That is of Catholic Faith which has been believed “semper, ubique, et ab omnibus.” (always, everywhere, and by all.)

–4.THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE, August 8, 1949: “For in this letter –(June 29, 1943, “On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.”)- the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who ARE UNITED to the Church only by desire.”

This statement, Suprema Haec Sacra or Protocol 122/49, was:

1. a letter written from one Bishop to another
2. it was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis), and so was not an official act of the Holy See.
3. Subsequently not being an act of the Holy See it was never signed by Pius XII either.

 

[wanner47]

On the contrary, the law of the Church does make provision for emergency situations.

Not relevant. There was no emergency.

Lefebvre stated publicly and explicitly, even before the consecrations, that the continuing and even accelerating crisis constituted such a situation. That is what his book is all about.

He did not have the authority to make such a determination, not to mention that he was wrong.

It is worthy of debate whether he was justified, but it cannot be maintained in Canon Law that it was illicit. Yes, I know that some, even very prominent, churchmen, continued to use this language, but others of the highest standing contradicted it.

It doesn’t say in Canon Law that I can’t microwave my cat, but that doesn’t mean I have free reign to do so, especially against the express orders of the Pope. Other canon lawyers and respected churchmen disagreed with Lefavbre, including the Vicar of Christ.

I have never, in the past 20 years, seen anyone at all explain to us calmly why it is that canons 1321 – 4 of New code of Canon Law somehow apply to everyone else except Archbp. Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops. All the Vatican ever did was to ignore the issue, and repeat their original charges, without ever facing his defence.

Obviously, you haven’t looked too hard. Try Catholic.com. Or JimmyAkin.org. Or canonlaw.info.

With respect, this statement betrays huge ignorance of the facts of history, theology, Church Law…
At least Lefebvre did not respond to any Papal decree in the words Luther used; e.g. “Another fart from the Pope”.
I hope I have not offended any reader, but this is recorded fact. One must be careful before saying that anyone at all is “no better than Martin Luther”.

Oh, so he was a polite heretic. Well, that makes it all better.

 

[numealinesimpet]

:
Originally Posted by numealinesimpet 
On the contrary, the law of the Church does make provision for emergency situations.

Not relevant. There was no emergency.

As I said, it is open to rational debate whether there was an Emergency of the kind to ‘activate’ canons 1323, 1324 +1321. What I am pointing out is that there *is *such a provision built into the very system of law. It is one thing to say that Mgr Lefebvre was not justified in invoking or applying these canons, so long as one does not deny the principle. Do you agree that there is, and must be, such provision in any rational system of law?

:
Lefebvre stated publicly and explicitly, even before the consecrations, that the continuing and even accelerating crisis constituted such a situation. That is what his book is all about.

He did not have the authority to make such a determination, not to mention that he was wrong.

On the contrary, as an archbishop he was not a private citizen and had a duty before God precisely to make such judgments. Likewise, the father of a family is bound to disregard his parish priest if the latter commands him to send his child to a school that the father knows well is harmful to the child’s faith, even though it be labelled a Catholic school.

:
It is worthy of debate whether he was justified, but it cannot be maintained in Canon Law that it was illicit. Yes, I know that some, even very prominent, churchmen, continued to use this language, but others of the highest standing contradicted it.

It doesn’t say in Canon Law that I can’t microwave my cat, but that doesn’t mean I have free reign to do so, especially against the express orders of the Pope.

If the pope ordered you not to, and you & your family were starving, and there was no other food, then you most certainly would have free rein to microwave your cat. that is the point. the only debate is over the surrounding details.

Other canon lawyers and respected churchmen disagreed with Lefevbre, including the Vicar of Christ.

The latter was not a canon lawyer - neither were most popes. JPII’s assessment of Lefebvre was tacitly repudiated almost immediately by canon lawyers. E.g. Mgr Perl said “the [Lefebvre] case is not, strictly, one of schism”… other examples can be given.

:
I have never, in the past 20 years, seen anyone at all explain to us calmly why it is that canons 1321 – 4 of New code of Canon Law somehow apply to everyone else except Archbp. Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops. All the Vatican ever did was to ignore the issue, and repeat their original charges, without ever facing his defence.
Obviously, you haven’t looked too hard. Try Catholic.com. Or JimmyAkin.org. Or canonlaw.info.

Unfortunately, the above lads employ arguments that ‘prove too much’. They would deny anybody the right to set aside the ruling or judgment of a pope. As I have said in a previous posting, this cannot in fact be maintained, as was proven a mere 1600 years ago during the Arian Crisis.

:
With respect, this statement betrays huge ignorance of the facts of history, theology, Church Law…
At least Lefebvre did not respond to any Papal decree in the words Luther used; e.g. “Another fart from the Pope”.
I hope I have not offended any reader, but this is recorded fact. One must be careful before saying that anyone at all is “no better than Martin Luther”.
Oh, so he was a polite heretic. Well, that makes it all better. 

Worse and worse. Are you telling us now that you don’t know what makes one a heretic? Would you like someone to remind you of the meaning of the word, or are you going to show by what steps Lefebvre was a heretic– something that has never remotely been alleged against him by the Vatican?

 

[otjm]

Whoa. Hold up. I never once said anything about Vatican II… or not accepting it. I attend a diocesan parish that celebrates both the TLM and the NO. I accept the Second Vatican Council. And I have read the Conciliar (and many of the post-conciliar) documents and not one of them states that a non-Catholic can be saved without joining the Catholic Church. If you think Vatican II nuances EENS, I’d like to see the texts of the Council that support such a claim.

The divinity of Christ, the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc. were also defined “centuries ago”-- even longer ago than EENS. Age does not make doctrine, or doctrinal interpretations by Popes less relevant. There is a continuity within the Church that would be disastrous to try and do without, so I’d caution against dismissing something because of “age”.

Lumen Gentium makes clear that it follows what the Church has taught in the past. Paragraph 16 relates to those who are not explicitly members of the Church though Baptism. Nothing in 16 indicates that those who are not explicitly members (i.e. baptized) come in any way except through Christ; so one has to draw the conclusion that if those who “enter the Kingdom” and are not baptized, do so through Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit but not explicitly through baptism; that is, they are members of the Body of Christ by the action of Christ, brought there by the Holy Spirit and not through baptism and through no fault of their own. It does not propose some sort of universal salvation through other religions; but neither does it condemn those who, through no fault of their own, are not aware of the the Church; but rather, states that their joining, if such occur, occurs through Christ. LG also restates the necessity of evangelization.

The issue is the language “joining the Church” as that is too often taken as only through the explicit process of baptism. Anyone who joins joins through Christ and because of His salvific act. Some take NSOC as meaning thsoe who are not baptized with water and the Trinitarian formula cannot be saved; others take it that baptism itself is not sufficient, but one must explicitly be Catholic.

 

[otjm]

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

Your use of “ex cathedra” is inappropriate as it presumes that teh Pope is speaking infallibly. Theologians who follow the Magisterium are in agreement (and I am sure we cal all find one or so who are not) that there have been two ex cathedra statements in the history of the papacy - the defining of the assumption and the Immaculate Conception. Your use of the term ex cathedra to Pius 9th’s statement does not thereby render it so. and he is correct; but you are assuming that nuance means a recession. It doesn’t. It is a further explication of a question pertaining to the doctrine or dogma that was not explicitly treated previously.

You need to read a little more carefully. We are not talking about “private interpretations”; we are talking about the teaching of the Magisterium.

The very point of a dogmatic DEFINITION is to DEFINE precisely and exactly what the Church means by the very words of the formula. If it does not do this by those very words in the formula or document (modernism) then it has failed in its primary purpose – to define – and was pointless and worthless.

OK, it sailed right over your head. Your presumption that in stating a doctrine or dogma that the Church thereby has so thoroughly exhasuted the issue as to never have a question that is not on its face immediately answered is to ignore 2000 years of history of the Church.

Those who say DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by non-infallible statements (from theologians, catechisms, etc.) are denying the whole purpose of the Chair of Peter. They are subordinating the dogmatic teaching of the Chair of Peter (truths from heaven) to the re-evaluation of fallible human documents, thereby inverting their authority and denying their purpose.

To begin with, I didn’t make such a statement. The Magisterium of the Church, throug the Chair of Peter, and in the actions of the bishops in union with Rome are the source of which I speak. Theologians, catechisms, etc. may convey the doctrine or dogma correcdtly, but not necessarily completely; in addition, they will do the groundwork of answering questions that arise as to how the doctrine or dogma applies; but unless and until the Church accepts or repudiates the work of those groups, it is not officially accepted. And neither is it officially denied. A prime exa,ple was noted herein; between grace and free will there are two boundaries of pelagianism and Jnasenism; they are the outer boundaries of “too far removed”; but there is ample ground in between for discussion.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sharonj]

Ok, so as I understand it, it isn’t wise to follow a person’s advice if they are not in Communion with the Church. As I see it disobeience causes heresy and are all capable. That doesn’t mean that a person is worthless, it means their advice shouldn’t be taken over the Chruch’s advice/ Doctrine. We also are not to judge the souls of people especially not Priests. We are to trust the advice of the Church becasue doctrine wasn’t just ‘created’ by men who need control, it was revealed by God. Even if let’s say someone in the Church made a bad decision, God will make it come out right.

The Saints were often truely misunderstood and it was only through their humble obedience (even in times of injustice) that God fully revealed Himself, and their place in His plan. I’m thinking of Padre Pio and Mother Theresa and St. Faustina who were gravely misunderstood or forbidden to do or say certain things…only in their obedience did the truth come out. So for our part, we are to be obedient to God through Holy Mother Church and He will clear up any misunderstandings and representations that have or will occur.

Our responsibility then doesn’t change, pray, love, fast, forgive, receive Jesus, and we will all be blessed to be able to by the Grace of God achieve these actions.

I learned a lot from this thread and am extremely grateful but also a little concerned when a debate gets this heated and polarized that we recognise that we have to at this point let go and let God.

Wishing you every Blessing
sharon

 

[wanner47]

As I said, it is open to rational debate whether there was an Emergency of the kind to ‘activate’ canons 1323, 1324 +1321. What I am pointing out is that there *is *such a provision built into the very system of law. It is one thing to say that Mgr Lefebvre was not justified in invoking or applying these canons, so long as one does not deny the principle. Do you agree that there is, and must be, such provision in any rational system of law?

Of course I agree. However, having read the canons in question, I disagree that any of these applied to the archbishop.

On the contrary, as an archbishop he was not a private citizen and had a duty before God precisely to make such judgments. Likewise, the father of a family is bound to disregard his parish priest if the latter commands him to send his child to a school that the father knows well is harmful to the child’s faith, even though it be labelled a Catholic school.

In this instance, however, the archbishop was disobeying legitimate authority. Also, his conscience was not properly informed. The Catechism emphasizes primacy of conscience, but only if one’s conscience was properly formed. The archbishop’s was not.

The latter was not a canon lawyer - neither were most popes. JPII’s assessment of Lefebvre was tacitly repudiated almost immediately by canon lawyers. E.g. Mgr Perl said “the [Lefebvre] case is not, strictly, one of schism”… other examples can be given.

Not based on the research I’ve done. See here, for example: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304fea2.asp

Unfortunately, the above lads employ arguments that ‘prove too much’. They would deny anybody the right to set aside the ruling or judgment of a pope. As I have said in a previous posting, this cannot in fact be maintained, as was proven a mere 1600 years ago during the Arian Crisis.

Really? My research says differently: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711eaw.asp

Worse and worse. Are you telling us now that you don’t know what makes one a heretic? Would you like someone to remind you of the meaning of the word, or are you going to show by what steps Lefebvre was a heretic– something that has never remotely been alleged against him by the Vatican?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

If you must be so picky, then – it makes no difference that Lefebvre was a *polite * schismatic as opposed to a rude schismatic. He was still a schismatic. He *clearly *broke Canon Law, went against the *legitimate *authority of the Church, encouraged others to do likewise, and flouted every attempt at reconciliation by JPII just because he was afraid that JPII wouldn’t keep his promise to let SSPX consecrate their own bishop. Lefebvre, by the way, decided this one day after the agreement was made.

 

[AnneElliot]

Lumen Gentium makes clear that it follows what the Church has taught in the past. Paragraph 16 relates to those who are not explicitly members of the Church though Baptism. Nothing in 16 indicates that those who are not explicitly members (i.e. baptized) come in any way except through Christ; so one has to draw the conclusion that if those who “enter the Kingdom” and are not baptized, do so through Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit but not explicitly through baptism; that is, they are members of the Body of Christ by the action of Christ, brought there by the Holy Spirit and not through baptism and through no fault of their own. It does not propose some sort of universal salvation through other religions; but neither does it condemn those who, through no fault of their own, are not aware of the the Church; but rather, states that their joining, if such occur, occurs through Christ. LG also restates the necessity of evangelization.

The issue is the language “joining the Church” as that is too often taken as only through the explicit process of baptism. Anyone who joins joins through Christ and because of His salvific act. Some take NSOC as meaning thsoe who are not baptized with water and the Trinitarian formula cannot be saved; others take it that baptism itself is not sufficient, but one must explicitly be Catholic.

Lumen Gentium does **not **claim that persons can join the Church without being baptized… the last part of paragraph 16 speaks of the importance of the *missions *in the Church for those who have “not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge” of the faith.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
“Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues; But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a *preparation *for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and *procure the salvation of **all ***of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.” (my emphasis)

 

[SSPXwannaB]

I thought the Archbishop was right on. I had been reading about the SSPX for a couple of years. I went to their Church last week and loved it. Then I drove by one of Roger Mahony’s places after a hike and saw people going in with flip flops and shorts and t-shirts. I remembered the gay ‘priest’, the native American new age stuff and the left wing politics of his Church. I remembered that my parents had to switch from one church to another because they had a gay priest there as well. I remember reading the environmentalism and left wing propaganda in their new parish’s tract. I knew that I had made the right choice.

If SSPX is wrong, so is all of pre-Vatican II Catholic history.

 

[wanner47]

I thought the Archbishop was right on. I had been reading about the SSPX for a couple of years. I went to their Church last week and loved it. Then I drove by one of Roger Mahony’s places after a hike and saw people going in with flip flops and shorts and t-shirts. I remembered the gay ‘priest’, the native American new age stuff and the left wing politics of his Church. I remembered that my parents had to switch from one church to another because they had a gay priest there as well. I remember reading the environmentalism and left wing propaganda in their new parish’s tract. I knew that I had made the right choice.

You do realize that Mahoney’s church is the exception and not the norm, don’t you? And that the Church does not promote or condone any of the above?

It’s also not sinful for a priest to be gay as long as he is living in accordance with Church teaching.

If SSPX is wrong, so is all of pre-Vatican II Catholic history.

Also not true. SSPX is wrong because the founder deliberately put himself in a state of schism by illicitly consecrating four bishops, deliberately and publicly going against the laws of the Church as well as the Vicar of Christ. All followers of SSPX are likewise wrong because they are deliberately placing themselves outside communion of the Church established by Jesus Christ.

Unless you mean to suggest that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church, and Jesus was a liar?

You should read this article: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304fea2.asp

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

It’s more Catholic than anything JP2 ever wrote. And it is blessedly free of needless verbiage - one can understand what the Archbishop is saying. Most Vatican material is horribly, horribly, horribly verbose, & making sense of it is next to impossible; to read it is like wading through porridge. “Is the Pope a Catholic ?” Don’t ask me; I don’t know - but the Archbishop was. ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Here is a link I found indicating Lefebvre was excommunicated in 2000.

cuf.org/FileDownloads/socpiusx.pdf

June 30, 1988, actually. If he was excommunicated, which is questionable at least. IF JP2 wasn’t excommunicated by his actions at Assisi in 1986, it’s laughable to suggest that the Archbishop was excommunicated other than in appearance.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

ISTM you can’t read English - he is saying “it would be a second error to think” “that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved”. Therefore, they can be. As he goes on to explain in the remainder of the passage you quote.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

There’s no inconsistency - he said nothing that is not perfectly orthodox. How can people be saved by or because of the falsity in their religions ? That would be an absurd position, and it was not his.​

Of two evils, the lesser evil is still evil, and must still be denounced, as must the greater. The corruption in the Church is still an enormous evil, & must be denounced, as must the evil of false religion outside the Church. Yet God does not deny mercy to those in false religions: if he did, no one in them could be saved. That does not make animism good or true. Again, there is no inconsistency.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Originally Posted by numealinesimpet
As I said, it is open to rational debate whether there was an Emergency of the kind to ‘activate’ canons 1323, 1324 +1321. What I am pointing out is that there is such a provision built into the very system of law. It is one thing to say that Mgr Lefebvre was not justified in invoking or applying these canons, so long as one does not deny the principle. Do you agree that there is, and must be, such provision in any rational system of law?

Of course I agree. However, having read the canons in question, I disagree that any of these applied to the archbishop.

The problem with the New code is that it gives legal force to the subjective judgment of the person invoking the ‘State of Emergency’. So it doesn’t matter what you or I think.
It was different under the Old Code. He would have been disciplined for the Objective Action, & would have been provided with an opportunity, on appeal, to prove his case. Now, the onus would have been on his opponents to prove that he did not really believe it was a State of Necessity. Whether or not this is even possible in principle, it most certainly was not even attempted.