Archbishop Lefebvre canonized

  • Thread starter Thread starter latinmasslover
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
laudamus_te said:
No one wants to talk to an ignorant bully. Tone down your anger a bit, and please stop with the CAPS and !!!
Then maybe you can participate in an intelligent debate.
Click to expand...
Your saying that because you have no defense for your beloved Archbishop who blatantly disobeyed the vicar of Christ. Who cares if I use caps–BIG DEAL!!!------DEAL WITH MY ARGUMENTS!!! Either offer a valid argument (which I dont beleive you have any) for Lefebvre doing what he did or just admit that your are wrong----it is okay I have been wrong before----😛
 
knightbvm said:
You keep saying that but offer no facts-----please state some!!!-I am not attacking anyone personally (I may attack their arguments). JUST READ JOHN PAUL’S LETTER-----PLEASE READ IT!!! It even states, in the letter, that Archbishop Lefebvre was sent a warning, prior to the conscecrations, NOT TO DO WHAT HE DID------YET YOUR WONDER SAINTLY (AS YOU SAY) ARCHBISHOP DECIDED TO DO IT ANYWAY!!! ---------HMMMMMM!!! If you read The Pope’s letter you will be set straight --TRUST ME READ IT!!!

Here is an excerpt-----
3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)
  1. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.(5)
But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

A SAINT??? HARDLY!!! SAINTS DON’T ACT THAT WAY!!! WILL YOU JUST STOP WITH THIS LEFEBVRE STUFF PLEASE—
Click to expand...
Do you have me confused with someone else?

Your wild rantings have proved nothing other than you are ignorant of the facts. I wouldn’t want to be a defendant in your court…you would listen to the prosecution only and then bring down the sentence of guilty.
 
knightbvm said:
Your saying that because you have no defense for your beloved Archbishop who blatantly disobeyed the vicar of Christ. Who cares if I use caps–BIG DEAL!!!------DEAL WITH MY ARGUMENTS!!! Either offer a valid argument (which I dont beleive you have any) for Lefebvre doing what he did or just admit that your are wrong----it is okay I have been wrong before----😛
Click to expand...
I would guess the deal is – you come across as rude and obnoxious.
 
piouswoman said:
Do you have me confused with someone else?

Your wild rantings have proved nothing other than you are ignorant of the facts. I wouldn’t want to be a defendant in your court…you would listen to the prosecution only and then bring down the sentence of guilty.
Click to expand...
LOL----I have repeatedly asked you and others for an explanation as to why Lefebvre disobeyed the Holy father----hello–I am waiting for the defense to speak-------YOU GUYS JUST CANT SEEM TO ANSWER ME—

THe quote I gave is from Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei------READ IT----WAIT ILL HELP YOU WITH ANOTHER QUOTE FROM IT!!!

) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)

TAKE HEED PEOPLE–THE POPE IS SPEAKING!!!😛
 
knightbvm said:
LOL----I have repeatedly asked you and others for an explanation as to why Lefebvre disobeyed the Holy father----hello–I am waiting for the defense to speak-------YOU GUYS JUST CANT SEEM TO ANSWER ME—
Click to expand...
No, no one WANTS to answer you. You don’t appear to be worth the effort.
 
knightbvm said:
LOL----I have repeatedly asked you and others for an explanation as to why Lefebvre disobeyed the Holy father----hello–I am waiting for the defense to speak-------YOU GUYS JUST CANT SEEM TO ANSWER ME—

THe quote I gave is from Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei------READ IT----WAIT ILL HELP YOU WITH ANOTHER QUOTE FROM IT!!!

) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)

TAKE HEED PEOPLE–THE POPE IS SPEAKING!!!😛
Click to expand...
Here is a short history of the SSPX you might want to read:
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_iii_history_1.htm

You really need to read about your own CONCILIAR CHURCH, of which many if not most in the hierarchy are apostates. Brush up first of all on the TRUE DOCTRINES OF OUR ROMAN CATHOLIC FAITH and then enlighten yourself on the history of the Second Vatican Council, how it unraveled and the mess that has resulted. You might do all of that before you begin quoting doubtful churchmen.
Don’t expect anyone to come along and wrap it all up for you in a few paragraphs, it goes much deeper than that.
The days of blind obedience are over.
 
LilyM said:
At a risk of continuing to digress, could you provide a quote for that? I’ve got a book “Joan of Arc in her own words”, which I believe is a complete record of everything she’s recorded to have said, and have never come across anything like it.
Click to expand...
I have several books about her (my patron saint) and it’s not in any of them so directly. This information is from the actual trial.
 
One could easily argue that Joan of Arc could never have been canonized because she refused to submit to the Church regarding her Visions and she publicly called down the judgment of God on the Bishop.
Click to expand...
Back to my question, (when) if the Church were to declare the excommunication null, and canonize the good Archbishop, what would your response be?
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s not easy at all. Pope Calistus, the lawful authority, did not lift an excommunicaton, he said it never existed because the canonical process was flawed. It really doesn’t matter what we think about Joan of Arc, Lefebvre, etc. It only matters what the lawful authority says. So, one could try and argue it but they’d be quite wrong since they were not the lawful authority that could canonical impose the sentence nor were they the lawful authority that could rule on the sentence. The Church has already ruled on the sentence.
 
piouswoman said:
Here is a short history of the SSPX you might want to read:
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_iii_history_1.htm

You really need to read about your own CONCILIAR CHURCH, of which many if not most in the hierarchy are apostates. Brush up first of all on the TRUE DOCTRINES OF OUR ROMAN CATHOLIC FAITH and then enlighten yourself on the history of the Second Vatican Council, how it unraveled and the mess that has resulted. You might do all of that before you begin quoting doubtful churchmen.
Don’t expect anyone to come along and wrap it all up for you in a few paragraphs, it goes much deeper than that.
The days of blind obedience are over.
Click to expand...
I quoted the Holy Father John Paul II----and you again (as well as the others) can’t even begin to offer an explanation as to why Lefebvre blatantly disobeyed the Pope----I mean c’mon—I am begging to think you are dishonest-----even if certain hierarchy menbers were apostates it still doesnt mean Lefebvre can do whatever he wants----SORRY–HE WAS WRONG—WRONG WRONG WRONG----------!!! AND NONE OF YOU CAN EVEN OFFER I VALID EXPLANATION AS TO WHY!!!
 
piouswoman said:
Here is a short history of the SSPX you might want to read:
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_iii_history_1.htm

You really need to read about your own CONCILIAR CHURCH, of which many if not most in the hierarchy are apostates. Brush up first of all on the TRUE DOCTRINES OF OUR ROMAN CATHOLIC FAITH and then enlighten yourself on the history of the Second Vatican Council, how it unraveled and the mess that has resulted. You might do all of that before you begin quoting doubtful churchmen.
Don’t expect anyone to come along and wrap it all up for you in a few paragraphs, it goes much deeper than that.
The days of blind obedience are over.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “your own CONCILIAR CHURCH”? Aren’t we in the same Church as you?

As far as blind obedience goes…It’s quite funny that that is the same argument the pro-abortion crowd and pro-sodomy crowd use.:rolleyes:
 
bear06 said:
What do you mean by “your own CONCILIAR CHURCH”? Aren’t we in the same Church as you?

As far as blind obedience goes…It’s quite funny that that is the same argument the pro-abortion crowd and pro-sodomy crowd use.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What is funny is that you would even try to use that argument. One cannot be obedient to that which is contrary to the doctrines of our faith. It is that simple. And when those pro-aborts and pro-sodomites make false use the expression blind obedience, then just what are thy claiming not to obey? Abortion and sodomy have always been against Catholic Doctrine, Hence, they cannot use that argument. Honestly, that should be a good example to you of just how diabolically disoriented the chuch has become.
 
knightbvm said:
I quoted the Holy Father John Paul II----and you again (as well as the others) can’t even begin to offer an explanation as to why Lefebvre blatantly disobeyed the Pope----I mean c’mon—I am begging to think you are dishonest-----even if certain hierarchy menbers were apostates it still doesnt mean Lefebvre can do whatever he wants----SORRY–HE WAS WRONG—WRONG WRONG WRONG----------!!! AND NONE OF YOU CAN EVEN OFFER I VALID EXPLANATION AS TO WHY!!!
Click to expand...
Again, read BOTH sides of the history. It is sinful to pass judgement on another, and even more so to do it without any knowledge of the truth and a refusal to weigh both sides. This little excerpt speaks volumes as to the evil and unjust men who treated the Archbishop so shamefully.

“1975 starts with a large-scale press campaign against the Archbishop. Vandalism thickens the atmosphere around the seminary; graffiti, nocturnal phone calls, shooting of the windows, night trespassing. On February 13th, 3 cardinals interrogate Archbishop Lefebvre, and one of them, French Cardinal Garrone, calls him “a fool.” Against the provisions of canon law, the Society is invalidly suppressed May 6, 1975.”
 
knightbvm said:
ALL COWARDS SAY THAT!!!😛
Click to expand...
Maybe if you worded your questions in a manner befitting a Christian you would get an answer.

When Jesus was brought before fools He remained silent. Same thing is going on here. Ask your questions without the arrogance and then somebody will respect your intelligence enough to provide an answer.
 
latinmasslover said:
Maybe if you worded your questions in a manner befitting a Christian you would get an answer.

When Jesus was brought before fools He remained silent. Same thing is going on here. Ask your questions without the arrogance and then somebody will respect your intelligence enough to provide an answer.
Click to expand...
you can make all the excuses you want for not answering the simple fundamental question—why did Lefebvre blatantly disobey Pope John Paul II ? ----VALID REASONS!!!-NOT SIMPLY THAT HE DIDNT LIKE THE STATE OF THE CHURCH—BUT VALID REASONS FOR DISOBEYING----if you cant give them then just be quiet --please----the bottom line is that Lefebvre was a blatanly disobedient indiviudual THAT DOESNT DESERVE ANY MENTION OF SAINTHOOD-------MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIS SOUL !!!
 
knightbvm said:
I quoted the Holy Father John Paul II----and you again (as well as the others) can’t even begin to offer an explanation as to why Lefebvre blatantly disobeyed the Pope----I mean c’mon—I am begging to think you are dishonest-----even if certain hierarchy menbers were apostates it still doesnt mean Lefebvre can do whatever he wants----SORRY–HE WAS WRONG—WRONG WRONG WRONG----------!!! AND NONE OF YOU CAN EVEN OFFER I VALID EXPLANATION AS TO WHY!!!
Click to expand...
This isn’t a theological answer, but I think it can work to a degree. Why did he disobey? Everybody else did and nobody was punished. If a priest can molest children with a slap on the hand, why would the Archbishop think his little act of necessary disobedience to be wrong enough to be punished? In the Gospels, Jesus spoke very harshly in regards to those who scandalize children. The Archbishop did what he thought best, like St. Athanasius thought it best to defy the pope of his day regarding Arianism. Like St. Paul thought in necessary to stand up to St. Peter regarding his scandal. There is a time when obedience becomes a sin, don’t forget.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top