Vatican 2 mentality did not abrogate the Canon Law of the Church, by which Lefebrve and his ordinations were excommunicated as schimatics.From which Vatican II document do you get this from?
Well, it turns out I was right. This thread did turn into a pile on the archbishop.We are not to judge the Archbishop. God already did. But he was disobedient; how could he have been ‘Catholic’.
He did not profess ‘credo…in unam, sanctam, catholicam, apostolicam ecclesiam’. He died outside the Catholic Church, outside the Mystical Body of Christ. God have mercy on him for the havoc he wrecked on the Church.
No, it is just recognizing realityIs this not the most clear post expressing Pope worship or what?! Study the teachings, bud.
The Vatican II mentaility is very mercurial, it will ignore certain Canon Laws in order to promote an agenda.Vatican 2 mentality did not abrogate the Canon Law of the Church, by which Lefebrve and his ordinations were excommunicated as schimatics.
That’s because the problems and ambiguities are in the documents of Vatican II. Some things can be understood in the light of Tradition. You need that light in order to avoid the pitfalls in the documents.Funny, you people try quoting Vatican 2 when it is on your side, and curse it to hell when it is not.
Your really care about Vatican 2? There is a law in the Church. It is called the Code of Canon Law. He flew in the face of the Pope and the Church, and disobeyed, not once, but several times. He was a schismatic according to the excommunication. We are not making it up. His followers continue in that disobedience. He was cast, by his actions, ‘into the exterior darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth’. He put himself outside the Mystical Body of Christ. God have mercy on him.Remaining faithful to the teachings of the Church damns someone?
St. Joan of Arc died excommunicated for not submitting to her bishop. St. Athanasius was unjustly excommunicated, what if he died? You believe he’d be damned?
Besides, using the words “schismatic” and “heretic” are not in line with the Vatican II mentality.
Canonized? For what? For flying in the face of the Holy Father? in the face of the Vicar of Christ on earth? Shame on you!I personally think Archbishop Lefebvre will be exonerated and eventually even canonized. As others have stated, great saints have been excommunicated in the past, only to later be vindicated. Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t teach anything outside the Catholic Faith, and even Pope Benedict admitted to the possibility of a “case of necessity” in France and Germany. Certainly Lefebvre himself was utterly convinced of this necessity, and had patiently taken every avenue of recourse possible with the Vatican until he realized his impending death, and also realized that the Vatican seemingly did not wish to proceed in ordaining bishops for Lefebvre.
I hope everyone who refers to the SSPX as schismatic here would be twice as quick to label the Eastern Orthodox as schismatic, just for the sake of logical consistency.
Your Abbot, you say that traditional Catholics use Vatican II when it suits them but curse it when it doesn’t. I think the point others were trying to make is the hypocrisy that is rife in the liberal position of rushing to call the SSPX schismatic, but seemingly never saying this about the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, and refusing to label Protestants as heretics. Instead of showing a truly “liberal,” position, it only serves to show a very thinly-veiled hatred towards all things traditional.
Let’s count all the people here, both real and fictious, who are promoting an agenda. Who do you think you are kidding?The Vatican II mentaility is very mercurial, it will ignore certain Canon Laws in order to promote an agenda.
That’s because the problems and ambiguities are in the documents of Vatican II. Some things can be understood in the light of Tradition. You need that light in order to avoid the pitfalls in the documents.
Are you making light of excommunication, of schism? If you put yourself outside the Mystical Body of Christ, and you call that piling on the archbishop? As for the Code, what is the most vile crime? Physically, beating up the Pope? Destruction and profanity of the Eucharist? Breaking the seal of confession? Solicition of sex in the sacrament of Penance? Forgiving a conspirator in sex in Confession?Well, it turns out I was right. This thread did turn into a pile on the archbishop.
When did obedience become the highest law of the Church?
Didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas teach about the difference between true and false obedience?
I don’t see any ambiguities in what Vatican 2 teaches. You are just pushing an SSPX agenda. Who are you kidding?The Vatican II mentaility is very mercurial, it will ignore certain Canon Laws in order to promote an agenda.
That’s because the problems and ambiguities are in the documents of Vatican II. Some things can be understood in the light of Tradition. You need that light in order to avoid the pitfalls in the documents.
Spot on!The Archbishop is not Joan of Arc. He was flagrantly disobedient to the Pope and to the Church. He was excommunicated. He put himself outside of the Mystical Body of Christ. He formed his own hierarchy, and his own church. He was more like Martin Luther than Joan of Arc.
Your Abbott
“He can do what he wants cause he is the Vicar of Christ on earth.”No, it is just recognizing reality
Your Abbott
How would you know about promoting an agenda after three days and 23 posts? That is rather a quick snap judgment for one so new.Let’s count all the people here, both real and fictious, who are promoting an agenda. Who do you think you are kidding?
We’re not Mormon; if he’s cast into that eternal darkness, there is no mercy for him.Your really care about Vatican 2? There is a law in the Church. It is called the Code of Canon Law. He flew in the face of the Pope and the Church, and disobeyed, not once, but several times. He was a schismatic according to the excommunication. We are not making it up. His followers continue in that disobedience. He was cast, by his actions, ‘into the exterior darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth’. He put himself outside the Mystical Body of Christ. God have mercy on him.
I actually got that particular comment from a Divine Mercy pamphlet.From which Vatican II document do you get this from?
So, aside from this one act of disobedience that he’s condemned for, what teachings are not Catholic? Who flew in the face of 2000 years of Catholicism? Who did what previous Popes and Saints warned against, thinking that the modern worldly mentality knew better than the Church? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t the Archbishop.Are you making light of excommunication, of schism? If you put yourself outside the Mystical Body of Christ, and you call that piling on the archbishop? As for the Code, what is the most vile crime? Physically, beating up the Pope? Destruction and profanity of the Eucharist? Breaking the seal of confession? Solicition of sex in the sacrament of Penance? Forgiving a conspirator in sex in Confession?
Do you have a 'favorite"? Promoting schism, to me, is right up there, setting up one’s own church counts in crimes as being horrific.
These pamphleteers need to read their Catechism, section 2089I actually got that particular comment from a Divine Mercy pamphlet.
The words of Jesus “schismatics and heretics” were changed to “those who have separated themselves from my Church” and the note given for this change was that it wasn’t in line with Vatican II.
is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11*Incredulity
Read the documents of V-II and compare them with Church documents written before the Council. Pay particular attention to the documents regarding ecumenism and religious freedom, (past and “present,” if you will). I’m sure you’ll be surprised.I don’t see any ambiguities in what Vatican 2 teaches. You are just pushing an SSPX agenda. Who are you kidding?
No, shame on you. Latin is an “unintelligible language?” How, then, do we have translations to and from Latin? How, then, do we even know what the Mass says? Or any official Church document, whose definitive texts are always rendered in Latin?Derbingo said: **
Canonized? For what? For flying in the face of the Holy Father? in the face of the Vicar of Christ on earth? Shame on you!
I am not defending any liberal position. The position is the true conservative position of Catholicism. You can have your traditional Mass. That is a totally separate position than the disobedience of the Archbishop. If you want your Mass in an unintelligible language, fine. The Holy Father already gave that to you. There are other issues, that you want ‘negotiated’. Truth is that is going nowhere. Truth be told, the Church doesn’t have enough priests to celebrate the liturgy as is, let alone ministers, who are totally unwilling anyway, to celebrate some rite which has been reformed. It is not going to rehabilitate the Archbishop. He died in his sins, and you want him absolved from them by the Church.**
No, he cannot, he must follow the Holy Scripture, and the Holy Tradition.The Holy Father is not constrained or constricted by any previous pope. His power, according to the Law of the Church, is absolute. He can convene a General Council, oversee its decisions, ratity and approve, provide everything for the need of the Church, even if that needs cheese sandwiches. He can issue apostolic letters, encyclicals, bulls, and definitions, if he decides to define ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, intending to define. He is the Vicar of Christ on earth. He is the Pope.
Where in the law of the Church does it say he must obey the law of some former pope? That is not what the law of the Church says. Research if you will.