Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

[latinmasslover]

I’d just like to point out for a moment here that we’re comparing apples to oranges. First of all, Joan wasn’t excommunicated by the Supreme Legislator, Lefebvre was. Secondly, just because I’m sure it’ll be brought up, Liberius was under duress (or at least that’s the common thought on the subject), John Paul II was not.

Could’ve been, I’ve heard many say that there were a precious few in the Vatican that he trusted. Doesn’t mean he was, I’m just open to the possibility.

Whoo hoo! I think there is some strange fantasy going around that people (at least the ones in this conversation would be upset). I’m sure there are some raging liberals who might be but upset but that’s not the majority here. Again, I think the SSPX is looking for a declaration of nullity. I don’t think lifting actually says that Lefebvre was never excommunicated, only that he isn’t now. In other words, I think one says it never existed and the other says that the person has been absolved but I could be wrong.

I like to ask that when people start speaking with hate toward the Archbishop.
I should’ve specified, I meant if the excommunications were in fact declared null.

 

[latinmasslover]

Pretty haughty, supersillious of you, if you ask me. You can’t see the agenda here. They are closing down these threads left and right. How blind can you be?

Your Abbott

That implies that the moderators are the ones with the agenda.

 

[latinmasslover]

You don’t read well. Who else has supreme power, which cannot be hampered in any way? The Pope, that’s it (unless some tribal chieftain whom I don’t know). It’s not life and death, but pretty close.

Supreme, absolute power - think about it.

Your Abbott

As Canon law changes, you really should read the actual documents regarding papal infallibility. You’re spouting papal worship here…

 

[bear06]

Not if there was a state of necessity. If there was, he was completely within the canonical bounds. It is, of course, the position of the SSPX (and many outside of it) that there WAS a state of necessity, since Lefebvre was dying and there would be no way to ordain new traditional priests without an episcopacy willing to do so

The Supreme Legislator didn’t agree to this necessity. We didn’t have a situation where Rome was unable to be contacted about the assumed emergency. In fact, many discussions occured. Roma locutus est, causa finis est. I’m trying to think of one case in history, and maybe someone can help me out, where a bishop in discussion with the Holy See has ever plead emergency been told that they still didn’t have permission to ordain bishops and did it anyway. I don’t think they were even trying to ordain bishops during the Arian heresy. Probably because Roma locutus est meant something to them.

. He was guided by the Vatican into thinking that these concerns of his would probably be met; when he realized both that (1) his death was drawing near and (2) the Vatican had no intention of allowing any traditional episcopal consecrations,he acted

 

[bear06]

Could’ve been, I’ve heard many say that there were a precious few in the Vatican that he trusted. Doesn’t mean he was, I’m just open to the possibility.

You’re stretching big time. He wasn’t in exile and it’s amazing that he could do other things he wanted but he was under duress in this circumstance. And where does the precious few come from? I’m glad you’re open to the possibility but we shouldn’t base our beliefs on the maybes.

I like to ask that when people start speaking with hate toward the Archbishop.
I should’ve specified, I meant if the excommunications were in fact declared null.

 

[Derbingo]

As Canon law changes, you really should read the actual documents regarding papal infallibility. You’re spouting papal worship here…

Guess who has to approve the change?

You got it! The Pope.

BTW, do you actually understand Latin, so you know what they are saying up there?

 

[Derbingo]

So the Pope could say the Papacy no longer exists and it would be true. Or the Pope could say there is no such thing as gravity and it would be true.

r u really supersillious?

thk so.

 

[holdencaulfield]

But our faith is that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from such fantasy situations. If we have not faith in the Holy Spirit today, why would we trust in His leading the church for the last 2000 years?

Yes, true however my point is still valid the Pope cannot contradict previous Tradition or Scripture.

 

[Derbingo]

r u really supersillious?

thk so.

Yeah, right. And God could put a square peg in a round hole.

 

[GerardP]

There is no problem lifting the excommunications. The redemy is in the law. ASK FOR FORGIVENESS!

That very interesting but irrelevant. The SSPX want the excommunications nullified. How does one get justice in matters like this other than to ask the authority to reverse it’s previous unjust decision?

That is how all sin and crimes are washed from our souls.

But you can’t lie your way into forgiveness.

But these people are arrogant.

No they aren’t. Arrogance is thinking you can reform the Church in your own image and thumb your nose at 2000 years of tradition. Arrogance is being the representative of Christ on Earth and denying him time after time by kissing books that blaspheme him and engaging in policies that allow others to continue in darkness.

They blame it on the Church, or on the devil, or on their enemies, or on the Germans, or the French or the Americans ---- they blame it everywhere but where the blame falls - on themselves.

What in blazes are you talking about?

Just repent. Say you are sorry. period

That is a willfully ignorant statement. I love the armchair know it alls that have “the quick answer” whether it’s “shoot first and ask questions later” or “Just repent.”

 

[Your_Abbott]

That very interesting but irrelevant. The SSPX want the excommunications nullified. How does one get justice in matters like this other than to ask the authority to reverse it’s previous unjust decision?

What in blazes are you talking about?

"

What I am talking about is what you are talking about. Blame your sin on everyone else. “The dog ate my homework”.

Excuses, excuses.

"My excommunication was the Church’s fault’. The ordination of the bishops was done out of necessity’

“We had to do it because the Church was going over the edge”.

"We were forced because Vatican 2 was overwhelmed by ‘modernists’ and ‘ecumenicists’.

"Our hand was forced because they were going to re-organize the liturgy.’

“Latin is so important to the Church - So, noone understands it, so what? It is beautiful”

“Rome will lift the excommunications and exhonorate us”

“Don’t give in. Giving in is a sign we were wrong”.

“We prefer to be outside the Mystical Body of Christ, rather than in the Church from which salvation only comes”

I could write excuse after excuse. None matters. Accept the fault as yours and ask for forgiveness.

Your Abbott

 

[bear06]

GerardP;3422820:

That very interesting but irrelevant. The SSPX want the excommunications nullified. How does one get justice in matters like this other than to ask the authority to reverse it’s previous unjust decision?

What in blazes are you talking about?

QUOTE]

What I am talking about is what you are talking about. Blame your sin on everyone else. “The dog ate my homework”.

Excuses, excuses.

"My excommunication was the Church’s fault’. The ordination of the bishops was done out of necessity’

“We had to do it because the Church was going over the edge”.

"We were forced because Vatican 2 was overwhelmed by ‘modernists’ and ‘ecumenicists’.

"Our hand was forced because they were going to re-organize the liturgy.’

“Latin is so important to the Church - So, noone understands it, so what? It is beautiful”

“Rome will lift the excommunications and exhonorate us”

“Don’t give in. Giving in is a sign we were wrong”.

“We prefer to be outside the Mystical Body of Christ, rather than in the Church from which salvation only comes”

I could write excuse after excuse. None matters. Accept the fault as yours and ask for forgiveness.

Your Abbott

Uh, I’m really thinking that this conversation has left the realm of discussing something to a more personal tit for tat. While I can sympathize with some of your views on the SSPX, I think that you have overstepped your bounds by telling someone (especially someone you know only in a few posts) to ask for forgiveness.

 

[Derbingo]

Your Abbott;3422840:

Uh, I’m really thinking that this conversation has left the realm of discussing something to a more personal tit for tat. While I can sympathize with some of your views on the SSPX, I think that you have overstepped your bounds by telling someone (especially someone you know only in a few posts) to ask for forgiveness.

I didn’t believe that you personally were excommunicated. I am referring to the leadership of the SSPX who can lead everyone back to the one, true Church.

That is clear. If you personally are excommunicated, that is a public crime in Church law, not a mortal sin. Sin is none of anyone’s business. Crimes in the law are a matter of the public forum.

 

[bear06]

I didn’t believe that you personally were excommunicated. I am referring to the leadership of the SSPX who can lead everyone back to the one, true Church.

That is clear. If you personally are excommunicated, that is a public crime in Church law, not a mortal sin. Sin is none of anyone’s business. Crimes in the law are a matter of the public forum.

Hey Derbingo, just so it’s clear, my comments were addressed to Your Abbott. I’m not a member of the SSPX nor a Traditionalist and I’m relatively sure I haven’t been excommunicated. I also agree that the bishops of the SSPX are excommunicated. That said, telling someone to seek forgiveness (that would be Your Abbott) is not really in our jurisdiction. That would more be in the realm of a spiritual director duties.

 

[Dioscorus]

As Canon law changes, you really should read the actual documents regarding papal infallibility. You’re spouting papal worship here…

What is papal worship? I’ve never heard that before.

 

[latinmasslover]

Guess who has to approve the change?

You got it! The Pope.

BTW, do you actually understand Latin, so you know what they are saying up there?

Guess what? Canon law is still subject to change, not infallible, can be not quite right, allows for exceptions…need I go on?

I do know some Latin. I know a priest - in union with Rome - who is fluent in it; when there’s a question, I ask him and know I don’t get a false interpretation.

What do you mean by “what they are saying up there?”

 

[latinmasslover]

r u really supersillious?

thk so.

Uh, no, he’s just putting what the abbott said in perspective, making his claim more obvious for those who might not get it.

 

[latinmasslover]

What I am talking about is what you are talking about. Blame your sin on everyone else. “The dog ate my homework”.

Excuses, excuses.

"My excommunication was the Church’s fault’. The ordination of the bishops was done out of necessity’

“We had to do it because the Church was going over the edge”.

"We were forced because Vatican 2 was overwhelmed by ‘modernists’ and ‘ecumenicists’.

"Our hand was forced because they were going to re-organize the liturgy.’

“Latin is so important to the Church - So, noone understands it, so what? It is beautiful”

“Rome will lift the excommunications and exhonorate us”

“Don’t give in. Giving in is a sign we were wrong”.

“We prefer to be outside the Mystical Body of Christ, rather than in the Church from which salvation only comes”

I could write excuse after excuse. None matters. Accept the fault as yours and ask for forgiveness.

Your Abbott

Don’t forget the “I continued having sex with the Pope because he threatened to excommunicate me if I stopped.”

If someone has a gun, aims it at a little girl and says “I’m going to shoot that child,” and you shoot him, have you committed murder? Should you be punished? What if the other person’s gun wasn’t loaded? You murdered and should be punished, yes? Before making the obvious statement I’m sure you’re thinking, consider first the point I’m trying to make.

 

[latinmasslover]

What is papal worship? I’ve never heard that before.

Papal worship is the misunderstanding that Luther and most nonCatholics have regarding the papacy, which unfortunately some Catholics seem to have as well:

The Pope has absolute power on earth, everything he says is the Gospel truth, and to disobey in *anything *cuts you off from Christ and His Bride, the Church.

This is not the Catholic teaching, it never has been.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Papal worship is the misunderstanding that Luther and most nonCatholics have regarding the papacy, which unfortunately some Catholics seem to have as well:

The Pope has absolute power on earth, everything he says is the Gospel truth, and to disobey in *anything *cuts you off from Christ and His Bride, the Church.

This is not the Catholic teaching, it never has been.

According to a 1950 article in The American Ecclesiastical Review,

“It is perfectly certain theological teaching that the faithful are bound in conscience to give a sincere and truly inward assent to those doctrines which the Holy father presents to the Church through the medium of his encyclical letters, even when these doctrines are not set forth as infallibly certain statements.”

The article cites a number of sources dating back several centuries. The article is available here.

This principle does not only apply to encylicals, but to all teachings the Holy Father issues for the universal Church. Pastor Aeturnus at Vatican I said,

“2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”

Quotations could be multiplied. It has been Catholic teaching for a very, very long time that the faithful owe full submission of mind and will to the teachings of the Holy Father, whether or not he is speaking infallibly.

Guess what? Canon law is still subject to change, not infallible, can be not quite right, allows for exceptions…need I go on?

Canon law cannot be “not quite right,” if by that you mean it can be detrimental to the faith of the faithful. Pius VI declared that the opinion that “the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,” to be “false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.”

Gregory XVI wrote,

“…[they] state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church … [which] are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion… While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). … do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope (Encyclical Quo Graviora, October 4, 1833).

Pius IX taught in Mirari Vos that,

“It would beyond any doubt be blameworthy and entirely contrary to the respect with which the laws of the Church should be received by a senseless aberration to find fault with the discipline which she has established, and which includes the administration of holy things, the regulation of morals, and the laws of the Church and her ministers; or to speak of this discipline as opposed to certain principles of the natural law, or to present it as defective, imperfect, and subject to civil authority.”

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, on its article on disciplinary infalliblity, states,

[Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.

Peace and God bless