Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

[Your_Abbott]

Sure,

I’m wondering how you come to this conclusion. I agree that the Motu Proprio Ecclessia Dei, delcared the act of Mons. Lefebvre to be a schismatic act, but if you look at the document, that appears to be a rash conclusion.


But I don’t think anybody today would assert, at least not reasonably, that Mons. Lefebvre or the SSPX doesn’t recognize the Roman primacy. Just go to the SSPX website and look in the left column if you don’t believe me.

Also, if we can’t trust what the head of Ecclesia Dei says about the matter, who can we trust? I am not trying to be difficult, but if we assume Cardinal Hoyos was speaking personally and without any authority, as it seems you’re insinuating, it begs several questions. Is he a rogue Cardinal? Should Pope Benedict discipline him for making heretical statements? I’m sure this isn’t what you meant, so could you please clarify?

Okay, we can keep it very simple. If you are condemned for committing schismatic acts, and you are excommunicated for them, then what is it they are excommunicated for? Schism.

 

[Sure]

Sure,

I’m wondering how you come to this conclusion. I agree that the Motu Proprio Ecclessia Dei, delcared the act of Mons. Lefebvre to be a schismatic act, but if you look at the document, that appears to be a rash conclusion.


But I don’t think anybody today would assert, at least not reasonably, that Mons. Lefebvre or the SSPX doesn’t recognize the Roman primacy. Just go to the SSPX website and look in the left column if you don’t believe me.

Also, if we can’t trust what the head of Ecclesia Dei says about the matter, who can we trust? I am not trying to be difficult, but if we assume Cardinal Hoyos was speaking personally and without any authority, as it seems you’re insinuating, it begs several questions. Is he a rogue Cardinal? Should Pope Benedict discipline him for making heretical statements? I’m sure this isn’t what you meant, so could you please clarify?

In addition to Ecclesia Dei which is pretty clear. You can trust the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. It’s their job to officially interpret legislative documents (ie, a motu proprio like Ecclesia Dei). Here is what they said **8 years **after Ecclesia Dei which makes it impossible that it was a “rash decision”:

“As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.”

And also…

“[D]oubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances. (cf CIC, can. 1323) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops.”

And this…

1. As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who “adhere formally” to the said schismatic movement. Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of “formal adherence to the schism” would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:

a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church),

b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian “ecclesial” acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).

1. In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above (n.5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence.

Yes, that means the priests and deacons of SSPX are most likely "excommunicated’ in addition to being suspended.

This is the latest official decree of the Church. Anything else is hearsay, speculation and is not authoritative. Maybe, it’s just me, but I think it’s prudent to heed the official teaching of the Church. Of course, one can ignore official Church teaching at one’s own peril.

 

[Your_Abbott]

QUOTE]

Because they believe the Roman Catholic Church is in heresy, according to SSPX. Or, some other ridiculous statemen, like we are ‘a sect’… Return, have the orders regularized, if the Holy Father allows it - which he won’t. You can’t reward schismatic acts, and flagrant disobedience.

Your Abbott

 

[Your_Abbott]

In addition to Ecclesia Dei which is pretty clear. You can trust the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. It’s their job to officially interpret legislative documents (ie, a motu proprio like Ecclesia Dei). Here is what they said **8 years **after Ecclesia Dei which makes it impossible that it was a “rash decision”:

And also…

And this…

Yes, that means the priests and deacons of SSPX are most likely "excommunicated’ in addition to being suspended.

This is the latest official decree of the Church. Anything else is hearsay, speculation and is not authoritative. Maybe, it’s just me, but I think it’s prudent to heed the official teaching of the Church. Of course, one can ignore official Church teaching at one’s own peril.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. But, I hear the drums roll, and they are getting the blindfolds ready. 'One last cigarette?"

Your Abbott

 

[Your_Abbott]

I remember when the meeting took place thinking that this is one thing we can all agree on. The rift needs to be healed.

Then heal it. Get them to go to Rome on their knees and beg for forgiveness of their excommunications and other sins of disobedience. Time for them to get right with God.

Your Abbott

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Well this is certainly a complicated issue and I’m glad that some of you are brining up documents and arguments that I haven’t seen before. However, I do have a few questions.

Sure,

You only answered part of my question. What do we make of Cardinal Hoyo’s statements? I know that you believe them not to be authoritative, but how can you totally ignore them? I see them, along with recent changes made by Pope Benedict, as a reversal in the views of the Church. Am I wrong here?

Also, I think you’re citing the wrong authority for an absolute conclusion. You cite statements issued by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, but in one of your quotes they even admit that this is probably a question for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I don’t know of any official statements issued by the CDF of hand, but I do know that when the Bishop of Hawaii tried to excommunicate several members of the diocese for attending SSPX services, then Cardinal Ratzinger, as the Prefect of the CDF overturned the decision, stating:

From the examination of the case… it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the decree of [execomunicating those who attended SSPX masses], lacks foundation and hence validity.

You may read this differently, but this seems to state that there is no doubt that at least those Catholics like me who attend SSPX masses from on occassion are not excommunicated because we are not adhering to schism. Wouldn’t that mean that the SSPX isn’t actually in schism. Also, the timing and wording of these documents is interesting as they seem to indicate that everyone in the RRC hierarchy isn’t on the same page when it comes to this.

As to the comment made by Your Abbott, do you have anything to cite for the proposition that the SSPX consider themselves a sect, or that they believe the RCC is objectively heretic. And I think that your last statement is misinformed. Pope Benedict was the mediator between Pope John Paul II and Mons. Lefebvre before Mons. Lefebvre was exommunicated and has been one of the leading voices in the Church calling for SSPX to be fully recognized as not being in an “irregular” state. I would be happy to see anything that leads you to believe he would not welcome the SSPX back.

 

[SFD]

If you are excommunicated you are not in communion with the Church.

what’s pal mgrfin?

Excommunicated persons are merely deprived of the use of certain spriitual goods of the Church. They are not necessarily “outside the Church” because of an excommunication. Read the Catholic Encyclopedia on Heresy, Excommunication, and Ecclesiastical Censures.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

The real punishment of ecclesiastical censures consists in the privation of the use of certain spiritual good or benefits. These spiritual goods are those which are within the power of the Church or those which depend on the Church, e.g., the sacraments, public prayers, Indulgences, sacred functions, jurisdictions, ecclesiastical benefices and offices. Censures, however, do not deprive of grace, nor of the private prayers and good works of the faithful; for, even if censured, the eternal communion of the saints still remains by virtue of the indelible character imprinted by baptism.

mgrfin is someone just like you who makes the same tired “arguments” and whines about everyone being uncharitable.

SFD

 

[Your_Abbott]

Excommunicated persons are merely deprived of the use of certain spriitual goods of the Church. They are not necessarily “outside the Church” because of an excommunication. Read the Catholic Encyclopedia on Heresy, Excommunication, and Ecclesiastical Censures.

mgrfin is someone just like you who makes the same tired “arguments” and whines about everyone being uncharitable.

SFD

I thought Mystici Corporis made it clear that you’d be outside the Mystical Body of Christ. But, you know better than me. Does he travel to Europe like me?

Your Abbott

PS I don’t anyone here, but I don’t want to hang with someone who bullies newcomers.

 

[Your_Abbott]

QUOTE]

Let me ask a simple question. You don’t know a church that is in union with Rome, rather than a problemitcal situation?

Your Abbott

 

[SemperFidelis]

Then why didn’t Lefebvre agree with John Paul II?

Probably because Archbishop Lefebvre actually stood up for Tradition, when Pope John Paul II hardly ever would. A simple question will answer who was right here. Which one, would you say, followed the Church’s Traditional teaching regarding Ecumenism?

Tradition is clear?

Yes.

Why do some demand that Tradition mandates a sedevacatist position?

Sedevacantism, as a theory, has very little support among the theologians who have speculated on it, and very few have even speculated on it at all. Even then, those theologians hardly ever agreed on how one would go about deposing a heretical pope (and if that even needed to happen at all), but all advocated some means by the rest of the Church hierarchy. Considering sedevacantists have done no such thing, it’s easy to understand how sedevacantism and all the conjecture surrounding it plays its way into Tradition ie: it doesn’t. The Church has made no pronouncement (such as an actual defintion) on what would happen if a pope were to become heretical, so the middle-road position of the Society is the safest bet. The Traditional phrase of “Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur” (no one may judge the First See) should say it all. Unfortunately for some it doesn’t. Other than that, I won’t get into sedevacantism any more, as it’s a banned topic.

If everything was so clear as to not allow for personal opinion, the SSPX would not exist.

I’m speaking here of Dogma. Modern errors, such as false ecumenism, religious liberty, etc. have been clearly condemned by previous Pontiffs. The Church Tradition regarding these subjects is a clear and objective standard. Vatican I clearly states the pope is the servant of Tradition, not the other way around. The most recent few popes seemed to think otherwise. Resisting popes or others in the hierarchy, when they try to overturn or poison Tradition has been clearly spelled out by Popes, Doctors, Saints, and theologians. I quoted a few of them earlier, and they’re very clear. The SSPX has followed their wisdom to the letter.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

GodIsSalvation;3413272:

QUOTE]

Let me ask a simple question. You don’t know a church that is in union with Rome, rather than a problemitcal situation?

Your Abbott

You’re question is a little vague, but I assume you’re asking if there are any non-SSPX churches where I live.

There are. However, I enjoy going to the TLM and like to go with my fiancee on occassion. I know all of the arguments about why I shouldn’t attend an SSPX mass, but I find most them very lacking. For instance, because the SSPX priests don’t have jurisdiction, their masses are valid nut illicit. I don’t claim to be a theologian, but I was in CA at one point and attended a mass that must have been illicit at the point the priest started mentioning Native American spirits. I’m making another assumption here, but something tells me that you wouldn’t be very upset if started going to that parish on a regular basis. Besides, if Jesus came back tomorrow and you (or anyone else) told Him that the extremely devout people who attend SSPX masses are going to hell because the mass is illicit due to a lack of jurisdiction, do you think He would nod in agreement and tell you that you have a good point, or would He hang His head and tell you that you’re missing the point?

 

[bear06]

You only answered part of my question. What do we make of Cardinal Hoyo’s statements? I know that you believe them not to be authoritative, but how can you totally ignore them? I see them, along with recent changes made by Pope Benedict, as a reversal in the views of the Church. Am I wrong here?

I anxiously await the good Cardinal to put it into his own writing and sign, seal and deliver it. Quite frankly, I can’t figure out why he hasn’t unless he was told not to. That said, I rely on what the Church officially puts out, not magazine articles.

Also, I think you’re citing the wrong authority for an absolute conclusion. You cite statements issued by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, but in one of your quotes they even admit that this is probably a question for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I don’t know of any official statements issued by the CDF of hand, but I do know that when the Bishop of Hawaii tried to excommunicate several members of the diocese for attending SSPX services, then Cardinal Ratzinger, as the Prefect of the CDF overturned the decision, stating:

The Hawaii Six case never followed canonical procedure and therefore was overturned. The situation in Nebraska where Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated the SSPX is a different story. Nobody’s even bothered to challenge the case. Bishop Bruskewitz followed canonical procedure.

You may read this differently, but this seems to state that there is no doubt that at least those Catholics like me who attend SSPX masses from on occassion are not excommunicated because we are not adhering to schism. Wouldn’t that mean that the SSPX isn’t actually in schism. Also, the timing and wording of these documents is interesting as they seem to indicate that everyone in the RRC hierarchy isn’t on the same page when it comes to this.

How do you figure? If you attended a protestant wedding you wouldn’t be in schism either. That doesn’t mean they aren’t heretical. Most everyone in the heirarchy is doing everything possible to bring the SSPX into a regular status. Their perseverence in the matter has been nothing short of awesome. Hopefully they will continue and hopefully the matter will end soon. That said, my prediction is that we will have a splintering after splintering of the SSPX until all or at least most come back. It’s just my guess.

 

[pnewton]

Probably because Archbishop Lefebvre actually stood up for Tradition, when Pope John Paul II hardly ever would.

Bull. John Paul II was as knowledgable in Church tradition and as faithful a shepherd who ever was. The fact that others did not agree with him shows that there is more than one way to view a lot of issues. I refuse to get back into ecumenism because that is way off the topic here. As I suspected, this topic always comes back to dissent with the Holy Father. Terms such as “modernism” and “false ecumenism” do nothing but beg the question of what is false and what modernism is. Modernism is not the same thing as progressive or modern. It is a specific philisophical movement that was condemned that has nothing to do with John Paul II. If Lefebvre had the attitude that his opinions were the only possible one, it is no wonder he lacked the humility to acknowledge the possibility he could be wrong and submit to the Holy Pontiff.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Bull. John Paul II was as knowledgable in Church tradition and as faithful a shepherd who ever was.

So you can square away Assisi I, Assisi II, Quran kissing, or praying in mosques and synagogues with say Mortalium Animos or this?:
Pius XI:

Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name of Christian?

In the negative! … It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ for those who are separated from Her.

He might have been knowledgeable of such things, but if that was the case, he clearly ignored them. Ecumenism is not at all way off topic here. It is a part of Tradition, and this in fact is a perfect example, so I don’t how it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Reading the previous papal enyclicals that have to do with the ecumenical movement can provide one with a clear and objective standard for what Tradition is, with regards to ecumenism, and it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to know John Paul II’s actions contradicted it. Archbishop Lefebvre was critical of John Paul II’s ecumenical “tendencies,” as he should of been.

 

[Your_Abbott]

So you can square away Assisi I, Assisi II, Quran kissing, or praying in mosques and synagogues with say Mortalium Animos or this?:

He might have been knowledgeable of such things, but if that was the case, he clearly ignored them. Ecumenism is not at all way off topic here. It is a part of Tradition, and this in fact is a perfect example, so I don’t how it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Reading the previous papal enyclicals that have to do with the ecumenical movement can provide one with a clear and objective standard for what Tradition is, with regards to ecumenism, and it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to know John Paul II’s actions contradicted it. Archbishop Lefebvre was critical of John Paul II’s ecumenical “tendencies,” as he should of been.

I can square with Assisi. No problem. You going to give us that ‘heretical’ pope nonsense, or that the Roman Catholic Church is now a sect, or that the See of Peter is now vacant, or some other dismal assessment of "that they all may be one’. The Holy Father can move in the 20th Century towards Ecumenism as he saw fit, since all other efforts have failed. He did nothing the Lord Jesus himself would not have done, and where is it written that he is limited to some definition of yours about what Tradition is.
Thank God for the Vicar of Christ on earth acting as the Spirit moved him. He is seated in the See of Tradition and you are not.

Your Abbott

 

[Your_Abbott]

I anxiously await the good Cardinal to put it into his own writing and sign, seal and deliver it. Quite frankly, I can’t figure out why he hasn’t unless he was told not to. That said, I rely on what the Church officially puts out, not magazine articles.

The Hawaii Six case never followed canonical procedure and therefore was overturned. The situation in Nebraska where Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated the SSPX is a different story. Nobody’s even bothered to challenge the case. Bishop Bruskewitz followed canonical procedure.

How do you figure? If you attended a protestant wedding you wouldn’t be in schism either. That doesn’t mean they aren’t heretical. Most everyone in the heirarchy is doing everything possible to bring the SSPX into a regular status. Their perseverence in the matter has been nothing short of awesome. Hopefully they will continue and hopefully the matter will end soon. That said, my prediction is that we will have a splintering after splintering of the SSPX until all or at least most come back. It’s just my guess.

I agree with your assessment. They will splinter because the Holy Spirit is not with them. Imagine sitting in your SSPX room, knowing that the Holy Father was willing to mee with them, and that they took it upon themselves to turn down the Vicar of Christ.
First thing I would do is to pack my bags for the Roman Catholic Church express.

Your Abbott

 

[Your_Abbott]

It’s not personal opinion. Tradition, unlike the Bible, is clear and concise for a reason. That is so that if a crisis arises, there can be an easy to find, objective standard to follow. Tradition is that objective standard. It’s not complicated. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand what Pius XI said on ecumenism and then see that the last few popes have thrown those teachings out the window. That is because Tradition is a clear, objective standard. Other than that, if you have a problem with the quotes I posted, take it up with the several Doctors of the Church, Popes, and theologians that said those things.

That’s because the SSPX didn’t exist at the time. The SPPX however, is only following the wisdom of those that I quoted. A blind man could easily draw the correlation.

Wow, where did you get that notion that Tradition was simpler and more direct and intelligible than the Bible? What strange theology is that? Do you have some modern day theologians who hold to that? Maybe you can dig up something from Robert Bellarmine? You put yourself way out on a limb, and being blind, you won’t be able to find yourself back.

Your Abbott

 

[latinmasslover]

GodIsSalvation;3412391:

QUOTE]

Because they believe the Roman Catholic Church is in heresy, according to SSPX. Or, some other ridiculous statemen, like we are ‘a sect’… Return, have the orders regularized, if the Holy Father allows it - which he won’t. You can’t reward schismatic acts, and flagrant disobedience.

Your Abbott

Yet pagan worship is rewarded. This doesn’t alert you to a major crisis? Pagan worship, aka false worhip, given the OK by JPII, in contradiction constant Church teaching, not to mention the infallible Scriptures…If this is rewarded, I say “Beat me to a pulp!”

 

[latinmasslover]

Then heal it. Get them to go to Rome on their knees and beg for forgiveness of their excommunications and other sins of disobedience. Time for them to get right with God.

Your Abbott

After Rome begs the Lord forgiveness for not upholding the First Commandment.

 

[latinmasslover]

I can square with Assisi. No problem. You going to give us that ‘heretical’ pope nonsense, or that the Roman Catholic Church is now a sect, or that the See of Peter is now vacant, or some other dismal assessment of "that they all may be one’. The Holy Father can move in the 20th Century towards Ecumenism as he saw fit, since all other efforts have failed. He did nothing the Lord Jesus himself would not have done, and where is it written that he is limited to some definition of yours about what Tradition is.
Thank God for the Vicar of Christ on earth acting as the Spirit moved him. He is seated in the See of Tradition and you are not.

Your Abbott

Try reading up on papal infallibility, it will do you a lot of good. Let me give you a hint: the pope is not God.