Archbishop Lefebvre canonized

[anthony022071]

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.

Athanasius denied the validity of his excommunication because he knew that Liberius did it under duress. Athanasius did not make himself the enemy of the pope.

Paul did not not break communion with Peter. He knew that Peter was the Head (Kephas). Paul criticized Peter over setting a bad example by eating separately with the Jews;it was not a criticism of Peter’s teaching on faith and morals.

 

[anthony022071]

Edited:

Athanasius denied the validity of the excommunication and the Arian formula which were signed,or supposedly signed,by Liberius,because he knew that Liberius was under duress. Athanasius did not make himself the enemy of the pope,or break communion with him or condemn him.

 

[bear06]

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

.
Actually, what I realllllllly find funny are those who think that their theories on what contradicts Tradition are correct.

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

 

[bear06]

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.”

Being treated poorly is hardly the evidence for right thinking. And who, exactly, is the person who decided that they were invalidly suppressed? It certainly wasn’t those with the authority to do so.

 

[bear06]

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.

Two wrongs don’t make a right and his decision to disobey had little to do with “the scandal”. And, to compare Athanasius to Lefebvre is comaring apples to oranges. Athanasius new full well that Liberius either didn’t sign the docs or did so under duress. I’ve never heard the SSPX or Lefebvre make these claims.

 

[MONKROCK]

(1.) The simple answer to why the Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops is because it was necessary, due to his age, to have bishops to ordain priests during this period of the Modernist crisis - much like the Arian crisis - as there were no orthodox seminaries left and only one other bishop in the world (Castro de Mayer) who would publicly support Tradition, and he was even older!

(2.) The Archbishop’s motivation to consecrate the bishops was that he considered the Church to be in a true “state of emergency”. The Archbishop did what he thought was necessary in order to preserve the true integrity of the Ministerial Priesthood, the Liturgy, the Faith, the Social Kingship of Christ, and all other things pertaining to it.

(3.) The Archbishop went ahead with the consecrations without the official papal mandate because - what many do not know - the Archbishop WAS given a papal mandate (but not a solid date) because Rome kept lying and playing the cat-and-mouse game it had been playing for 20 years, putting off the date in hope that the Archbishop would die.

Also, the Archbishop was only given permission to consecrate only 1 bishop. The Archbishop consecrated 4 bishops because he knew it would require at least 4 to sustain a Traditional clergy worldwide until the crisis would end. He would know since he was a Papal Delegate under Pope Pius XII and was at the time (and still could be today) considered the best missionary bishop of the 20th Century.

(4.) The reason why the Archbishop changed his mind after signing the Protocol agreement because he was given inside information that Rome was laying a trap. Traps we still have seen up until recent years.

Therefore…

(Consideration #1) The act of consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate is NOT a schismatic act but one of “disobedience” - in this case, one obeying The Church / God over Man - which is properly called obedience. The act of contradicting the infallible teachings of the previous Popes and Councils / God - which the Conciliar and post-Conciliar Popes did and still do - is called “disobedience”, but not formal schism nor necessarily heresy either.

(Consideration #2) Canon Law protects one who commits such a grave act of consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate from severe punishment because either (a.) he is right (which I think it is self-evident the Church was and is in a “state of emergency”) or (b.) even if he is wrong, he is not doing it out of malice or even the hint of schism (of which the Archbishop was EXPLICITLY clear! even proving it by not giving the Bishops jurisdiction and rejecting the Sedevacantist positions (as the Society still does).

(Consideration #3) Also, though there are other sources, Cardinal Hoyos - President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, which now according to Pope Benedict’s own words, exercises “the authority of the Holy See” – has affirmed that, after studying carefully what the SSPX members said and did, he has reached the present conclusion that “there is nothing heretical nor schismatical in their behaviour,” and says that the Society of St. Pius X is “not a schism” though acknowledging a “break”.

Fair enough. Neither party denies that the relationship between the Society and Rome is “irregular”. Yet, the irregular status of the Society only reveals the irregular behavior of Rome during and since the Council, even until now, and the inability of Rome to provide a safe and secure “regularity” for the Society, the Faithful under their care, or anyone who wants to be Catholic in the way one should be Catholic.

(Consideration #4) The recent Motu Proprio of His Holiness Pope Benedict proves the Archbishop was right all along regarding the perpetual right for priests to say the Traditional Roman Rite according the Missal codified by Pope Saint Pius V. All of the unjust punishment prior to consecrations was due to the Archbishops refusal to say the New Mass - which is also contrary to Canon Law! Think about that.

Pope Benedict has admitted the crisis within the Church is primarily die the so-called “Liturgical Reform” though still committed to the new ecumenism based upon “religious liberty” which are some of the key doctrinal issues yet to be resolved. However, on August 29, 2005, Pope Benedict spoke to Bishop Fellay about “Archbishop Lefebvre, this great man of the universal Church.”

There are countless proofs of Archbishop Lefebvre’s holiness, greatness as a Bishop, his orthodoxy, his charity, profound humility and sense of humor, and great courage. In fact, there were causes for his mother’s sainthood years before the consecrations.

Likewise, there are countless proofs of the errors, sins, and scandals of the post Conciliar Church enabled or ignored by the post-Conciliar Popes. Yet, we should not despair, as we see many such things were done by our first Pope in Sacred Scripture, and are there for our benefit. Should St. John have denied and abandoned Our Lord in His Passion because the Pope and the other Bishops in union with him did? The answer is No. Neither should have Archbishop Lefebvre.

Whether or not Archbishop Lefebvre will be canonized will not change the evidence of his heroic and saintly life. His case would be easier than St. Joan of Arc. So there is no reason it could not happen. In our minds who know the truth, it would seem to bring about so much good if the Archbishop would be canonized, but Divine Providence may have other plans. Maybe, like Our Lady, the Archbishop needs to remain hidden from those who do no have the eyes of faith to see.

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.” - Pope Saint Pius X

 

[Claudius]

This question is for all, but especially those who oppose the SSPX.

What will your reaction be when Archbishop Lefebvre is canonized?

Let me restate: What would your reaction be if he were to be canonized?

Is it possible that Arshbishop Lefebvre got into Heaven, well sure it is. Is it possible that he spent time in purgatory, sure it is. When such a time comes that the Church is convinced that Lefebvre is in Heaven then it would only make sense to cannonize him. There are lots of people that are in heaven that are not cannonized but if the Chruch really does have evidence of Archbishop Lefebvre being in heaven then we should cannonize him. This isn’t to say that I agree with Lefebvre, or support him, just that the Church should follow her own rules.

If we could imagine that the Church recieved evidence that Luther was finally in Heaven, then Luther should be cannonized. I don’t think that any such proof will be forthcoming even if Luther did make it to heaven but those are the rules. Catholics follow the rules.

 

[catharina]

Is it possible that Arshbishop Lefebvre got into Heaven, well sure it is. Is it possible that he spent time in purgatory, sure it is. When such a time comes that the Church is convinced that Lefebvre is in Heaven then it would only make sense to cannonize him. There are lots of people that are in heaven that are not cannonized but if the Chruch really does have evidence of Archbishop Lefebvre being in heaven then we should cannonize him. This isn’t to say that I agree with Lefebvre, or support him, just that the Church should follow her own rules.

If we could imagine that the Church recieved evidence that Luther was finally in Heaven, then Luther should be cannonized. I don’t think that any such proof will be forthcoming even if Luther did make it to heaven but those are the rules. Catholics follow the rules.

Catholics SHOULD follow the rules. One archbishop gave personal example that he didn’t follow the rules. As a result of his lack of faithfulness to the Church, he was excommunicated. He stood and said (by his actions): “I alone am holy and worthy and I oppose the Holy Father’s guidance and guidelines.” Case is closed. Those who suggest that one should study the ‘holy life’ of this man are suggesting that one study the ways of a man who was excommunicated, a man who brought divison and pain to the Church. Nothing more need be studied about him.

 

[Sure]

(Consideration #1) The act of consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate is NOT a schismatic act but one of “disobedience” - in this case, one obeying The Church / God over Man - which is properly called obedience. The act of contradicting the infallible teachings of the previous Popes and Councils / God - which the Conciliar and post-Conciliar Popes did and still do - is called “disobedience”, but not formal schism nor necessarily heresy either.

Both your points are incorrect here according to Church teaching.

“[N]o one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.”

-Ad Apostolorum Principis, Pope Pius XII

So, we know that it is an **excommunicable **offense.

“uch disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act”

-Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, Pope John Paul II

So, we know it is a schismatic act, as well.

(Consideration #2) Canon Law protects one who commits such a grave act of consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate from severe punishment because either (a.) he is right (which I think it is self-evident the Church was and is in a “state of emergency”) or (b.) even if he is wrong, he is not doing it out of malice or even the hint of schism (of which the Archbishop was EXPLICITLY clear! even proving it by not giving the Bishops jurisdiction and rejecting the Sedevacantist positions (as the Society still does).

The necessity question is clearly defined by the Church and does not hold at all. Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts whose job it is to interpret the law:

“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.”

• The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, PCILT, 1996

(

Consideration #3) Also, though there are other sources, Cardinal Hoyos - President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, which now according to Pope Benedict’s own words, exercises “the authority of the Holy See” – has affirmed that, after studying carefully what the SSPX members said and did, he has reached the present conclusion that “there is nothing heretical nor schismatical in their behaviour,” and says that the Society of St. Pius X is “not a schism” though acknowledging a “break”.

Except, the Ecclesia Dei Commission nor Card. Hoyos interviews constitute authoritative Church teaching. You might like what they say, but it does not overrule canon law, motu proprio’s or the authoritative interpretation of motu proprio’s.

“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.”

• The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, PCILT, 1996

(Consideration #4) The recent Motu Proprio of His Holiness Pope Benedict proves the Archbishop was right all along regarding the perpetual right for priests to say the Traditional Roman Rite according the Missal codified by Pope Saint Pius V. All of the unjust punishment prior to consecrations was due to the Archbishops refusal to say the New Mass - which is also contrary to Canon Law! Think about that.

Summorum Pontificum does not overrule or alter Ecclesia Dei in any way. SP confirms that missal of 1962 was not abrogated. A fact that is implied within Ecclesia Dei as it grants permission for priests to use that missal. It could hardly be granting permission to use an abrogated missal.

Your “considerations” do not line up with official Church teaching. You may of course believe that they are true, or that the Church “made a mistake”. But that does not change the fact that the Church has made clear authoritative legislative decrees which we, as faithful catholics, are bound to respect and follow. There is really no serious debate on any of these points. The law and authoritative interpretation of it are very clear.

 

[latinmasslover]

Athanasius denied the validity of his excommunication because he knew that Liberius did it under duress. Athanasius did not make himself the enemy of the pope.

Paul did not not break communion with Peter. He knew that Peter was the Head (Kephas). Paul criticized Peter over setting a bad example by eating separately with the Jews;it was not a criticism of Peter’s teaching on faith and morals.

The Pope cannot err in faith and morals (formally) and Archbishop Lefebvre never claimed that. He disagreed with the occasional bad example and the Pope’s personal opinions.

Excommunication is an excommunication, and an unjust excommunication means nothing. St. Joan of Arc’s was unjust, as was that of St. Athanasius, and (in my opinion) also the Archbishop’s.

Enemy of the Pope isn’t necessarily the enemy of God.

 

[manualman]

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.

Sheeples were our parents generation…do your homework.

Wow, anger, invective and name calling in the name of placing one’s own judgement about Tradition above that of the teaching hierarchy Christ himself established and promised “the gates of Hell will not prevail” against her. There never has been a time when the bishops were all pure and the papacy made 100% pure spiritual decisions in matters of politics and temporal power. Your examples of corruption are nothing new and can be found in the Church in ANY era of history. So your point either proves too much, or nothing at all.

Your posts indicate that you believe it proper for individuals to determine that the pope in union with the worldwide bishops CAN err in matters of faith and morals and decide for themselves the correct path where he went wrong. Whereas us “sheeples” stick with the promise Christ made.

Good luck with Luther’s strategy. Hasn’t worked out too well for the many who have tried it…

As for the hypothetical cannonization, sincere believers make earnest mistakes. I’d say its a practical impossibility for as long as the schism continues. Once resolved, it would not shock me to hear that a tremendously pious man who made a mistake or a few along the way was cannonized.

 

[latinmasslover]

I know what I am laking about and I am giving you the facts—his reasons for conscerating the Bishops are UTTTER BS!!! (SORRY TO BE SO BLUNT)–He mentions Assis and other things that he deems horrible. The Archbishop also claimed that this was bringing the Church to the brink of Apostacy–WELL YOU KNOW WHAT ARCHBISHOP THAT DOESNT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO DISOBEY THE POPE------SORRY!!! Just read Pope John Paul II letter Ecclessia Dei—hello??? Please post some of the Archbishops comments about why he did what he did—PLEASE I WELCOME THAT—LET’S TAKE THEM ONE BY ONE-----THAT WILL BE FUN stop praising a disobedient Archbishop like Marcel Lefebvre—PLEASE-------

:tsktsk:The way you bash a holy bishop is gross; more than what the sedevacantists do at their worst, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, however…

Thank you for enlightening us on this as though you were the Almighty, All-knowing God. I’ll keep these truths of yours in mind the next time God allows a “Pope Alexander VI;” if the offer’s made to this Italian you can guess where she’ll spend her nights (there’s no face so I’ll just say erotic smile) since disobedience is the highest sin imaginable and there’s never a reason to do it, ever.

BTW, please give calm, mature answers. Flipping out the way you do is a sign of desperation, it shouts “I HAVE NO VALID ARGUMENT!” or “I DON’T KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT, BUT LISTEN TO ME ANYWAY, I’M RIGHT!”

That is all you’re expressing by your posts. Not love for God, not love for the Church, but a love of being right. In case you’re not aware, that is the sin of pride. Read your posts before clicking “submit reply.”

 

[latinmasslover]

Catholics SHOULD follow the rules. One archbishop gave personal example that he didn’t follow the rules. As a result of his lack of faithfulness to the Church, he was excommunicated. He stood and said (by his actions): “I alone am holy and worthy and I oppose the Holy Father’s guidance and guidelines.” Case is closed. Those who suggest that one should study the ‘holy life’ of this man are suggesting that one study the ways of a man who was excommunicated, a man who brought divison and pain to the Church. Nothing more need be studied about him.

Following the rules can be sinful at times. He never said he was holier than the Pope. His example showed that he was not going to turn the Pope into a Golden Calf. Everything isn’t black and white, we have grey also.

Division and pain? I have to say this: what was John Paul’s response to the child molesting priests and the bishops who permitted it? Who spent time trying to clean up the Church, and who spent more time traveling the world? The Pope should be holier and wiser, but that’s not always the case. To say he is and never makes a mistake is to make him a god, which he isn’t.

 

[Nechasin]

This question is for all, but especially those who oppose the SSPX.

What will your reaction be when Archbishop Lefebvre is canonized?

Let me restate: What would your reaction be if he were to be canonized?

If, and that is an big IF, I would be happy for him. I’m pretty sure it won’t happen before the SSPX has been brought back into communion and obedience with Rome.

It will prove the point that we don’t know the limits of God’s Mercy and Grace and that we shouldn’t judge other peoples sin or perceived sin.

Having said that I won’t do anything special as a devotion to him.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I’ve never heard the SSPX or Lefebvre make these claims.

angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/3056/st.-athanasius

 

[pnewton]

You would do well not to speak ill of the dead.

Good point. Then why:

Sheeples were our parents generation.

and

Division and pain? I have to say this: what was John Paul’s response to the child molesting priests and the bishops who permitted it? Who spent time trying to clean up the Church, and who spent more time traveling the world? The Pope should be holier and wiser, but that’s not always the case.

I can not tell you how much negativity I have seen directed at John Paul II. Or does the advice about speaking ill of the dead only apply to the excommunicated?

As to the question, I do not believe it is necessary to respond as the title to this thread does not match the original post. On the topic of the canonization of AB Lefevbre, !!!

 

[latinmasslover]

Good point. Then why:

and

I can not tell you how much negativity I have seen directed at John Paul II. Or does the advice about speaking ill of the dead only apply to the excommunicated?

As to the question, I do not believe it is necessary to respond as the title to this thread does not match the original post. On the topic of the canonization of AB Lefevbre, !!!

I can’t tell you how many Catholics make the Pope out to be a god. According to many, he was immaculately conceived (well, only the popes since V-II opened). Get real! There is more hatred directed at the bishop who, like St. John, remained faithful, and more support any Apostle who, to a degree, ran away, simply because St. Peter ran.

Let’s say Pope Benedict declares the excommunication unjust or invalid, will your response change? Do you realize how ridiculous it will look to go back and forth on an issue because someone above you changes his mind. Ever hear of perseverence and remaining faithful? God never changes, but according to some here, He’s as hormonal as a pregnant woman.

You say the Pope is faithful in *everything *he says and does? or rather::crying: :crying: :crying: (over the ignorance of that claim). You (as in “you all” of the same opinion) bash on the trads for saying the Pope made a mistake, yet by your support of *every *word/action of the popes since V-II you say that all the other popes were wrong. You can’t have it both ways. He can err or he can’t (not infallibly, of course. and FYI, excommunications are *not *infallible).

 

[Sure]

I can’t tell you how many Catholics make the Pope out to be a god. According to many, he was immaculately conceived (well, only the popes since V-II opened). Get real! There is more hatred directed at the bishop who, like St. John, remained faithful, and more support any Apostle who, to a degree, ran away, simply because St. Peter ran.

Let’s say Pope Benedict declares the excommunication unjust or invalid, will your response change? Do you realize how ridiculous it will look to go back and forth on an issue because someone above you changes his mind. Ever hear of perseverence and remaining faithful? God never changes, but according to some here, He’s as hormonal as a pregnant woman.

You say the Pope is faithful in *everything *he says and does? or rather::crying: :crying: :crying: (over the ignorance of that claim). You (as in “you all” of the same opinion) bash on the trads for saying the Pope made a mistake, yet by your support of *every *word/action of the popes since V-II you say that all the other popes were wrong. You can’t have it both ways. He can err or he can’t (not infallibly, of course. and FYI, excommunications are *not *infallible).

Of course, the Pope can make a mistake. But, until reversed, his decision remains lawful and binding and we are morally obligated to respect and follow it provided that to do so does not violate moral law. In this case, holding that he is validly excommunicated is certainly not immoral, so we must abide by the judgement of the Church on this matter.

You bring up a good point, though. Would those of us who think Lefevbre committed a very evil action and was validly excommunicated rejoice at his canonization? I, for one, would rejoice. If the Church says he is in heaven, he is in heaven. At the same time, if he remains excommunicated his salvation remains doubtful, but we can always pray that God has mercy on him.

 

[pnewton]

I can’t tell you how many Catholics make the Pope out to be a god… You (as in “you all” of the same opinion) bash on the trads for saying the Pope made a mistake, yet by your support of *every *word/action of the popes since V-II you say that all the other popes were wrong. You can’t have it both ways.

I’m not complaining about the things said about John Paul II as I am pointing to the hypocracy of criticizing him, then calling foul when something bad is said about Lefevbre because it is speaking ill of the dead.

I also think there are threads enough about schism, excommunication and papal authority, so I’ll pass on that here.

I really think it to be so remote that someone like Lefevbre or Feeney will be canonized as to not be worth consideration. I put the odds up there with the canonization of Fr. McBrien.

 

[latinmasslover]

I’m not complaining about the things said about John Paul II as I am pointing to the hypocracy of criticizing him, then calling foul when something bad is said about Lefevbre because it is speaking ill of the dead.

I also think there are threads enough about schism, excommunication and papal authority, so I’ll pass on that here.

I really think it to be so remote that someone like Lefevbre or Feeney will be canonized as to not be worth consideration. I put the odds up there with the canonization of Fr. McBrien.

I personally do not agree with every word from the mouth of the Archbishop; I do not make him out to be infallible. That said, I do agree with him on most things, especially his faithfulness to tradition. He knew the consequences of his actions, but I trust his judgment because his first concern was the reverence for God, and second, the care of the flock entrusted to him. Third, spreading the teachings of God through His Church, whole and entire, to the whole world.

You feel the same way about his canonization as I do about the canonization of John Paul II, God rest his soul. Canonizations are not about simply declaring someone in heaven; they also say that this person lived a life worthy of imitating. Too many inconsistancies/scandals, verses one act of disbodience. Just my opinion.