Archbishop Lefebvre canonized

[TMC]

How would I react? I would be very surprised, and I expect I would be very old. I can’t imagine it would be even considered for a long time. Pius XII can’t get off the mark, even with the backing of the Congregation, and he’s been dead for fifty years. My guess would be that we would have to wait at least until such time as the majority of the upper hierarchy believed that he was right. I think we are pretty far from that.

Beyond surprised, I can’t imagine I would feel much one way or the other. I don’t really pay much attention to the naming of Saints. I couldn’t tell you the last ten Saints named for all the tea in China.

 

[latinmasslover]

I couldn’t tell you the last ten Saints named for all the tea in China.

Then try upping the stakes a little…how about for all the DIET PEPSI?:heaven:

 

[bear06]

The Pope cannot err in faith and morals (formally) and Archbishop Lefebvre never claimed that

.

Can you define formally and cite Church teaching on this. Again, just curious.

He disagreed with the occasional bad example and the Pope’s personal opinions

 

[bear06]

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.

Not moving on the child abuse scandal is personal error, not a Church teaching. Vatican II is a teaching of the Church. We’re comparing apples to oranges. I think we all agree that for whatever reason “THE scandal” occurred, it was not a good thing. So your “god” argument is incorrect.

 

[bear06]

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

Sorry, this was probably a miscommunication on my part. I never heard Lefebvre or the SSPX say that the current Holy Fathers promulgated anything or signed anything under duress. Don’t worry, I’ve endlessly heard them compare Lefebvre and Athanasius! I just think it’s silly to do so. Again, Athanasius new full well that the Pope had either not signed or signed under duress. The SSPX/Lefebvre has never claimed any of the current Holy Fathers to be in the same situation.

 

[Silver_Thread]

Those of us over 35may not see it. However, when everything shakes out, he will be recognized for the truth that he spoke about VII and those who hijacked it . Sadly, he’s already been betrayed within the SSPX. It ain’t over folks. There will be a cleansing in the Catholic Church and it ain’t gonna be pretty.

 

[cam100]

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.

You should try reading the book *All the Pope’s Men: The Inside Story of How the Vatican Really Thinks *by John Allen. I highly recommend it. I read it recently and I now have a much better understanding of why the vatican responded the way it did to the sexual abuse problem.

 

[bear06]

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.

Sigh! The same old canard. Why is this brought up? There are some who believe we don’t have a pope at all. And? Your little “pope is a god” line has nothing to do with ANY of the people in this conversation. This is only a diversion - intentional or not.

Let’s say Pope Benedict declares the excommunication unjust or invalid, will your response change?

Actually, it’s the same response as it’s always been. The pope, not us, is the arbiter of whether or not the canonization is valid or invalid.

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.

Prove that one.

You say the Pope is faithful in *everything *he says and does? or rather::crying: :crying: :crying: (over the ignorance of that claim).

This is the same ludicrous rant I’ve heard over an over. It’s not true in the least. I’ll ask. Does anyone here thinkt he Pope is infallible in everything he says and does? Zoinks. Really, if you believe that, you have a little trouble with reading comprehension.

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).

Again, give some evidence. Where have I said that this pope or that was wrong over a teaching of the Church?

Really, your whole world appears to be based on the hope that Lefebvres excommunication is overturned. Personally, I hope the excommunication is overturned. That would be wonderful! The difference between you and me is that my whole relationship with the Holy Father is not going to change regardless of whether or not it is. What if you are wrong? Your basing a large chunk of your life on the hope that the excommunication will be overturned. If I’m wrong, my world won’t even register a hiccup.

As far as Lefebvre goes even if unjustly excommunicated (which I doubt) the CE actually addresses this:

However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved.

Lefebvre never obeyed and certainly didn’t behave as one under the ban of excommunication.

 

[bear06]

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.

Bingo. You’ve pretty much described our feelings (in reverse, of course). We need to keep things in perspective. You are not making out Lefebvre to be a god and we are not making JPII (et. al.) to be gods either. And, we all hope that they are all in heaven. So what’s the fuss about?

 

[manualman]

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.
…

Poof! You’ve just vacated the very meaning of the concept of excommunication. Now under this new and radical definition, any individual bishop or even a layman can declare any excommunication to be invalid. Under this NON-traditional view of the topic, no-one can be excommunicated since those on the receiving end merely need to dispute its validity to make it meaningless.

Nice work.

 

[pnewton]

Those of us over 35may not see it. However, when everything shakes out, he will be recognized for the truth that he spoke about VII and those who hijacked it . Sadly, he’s already been betrayed within the SSPX. It ain’t over folks. There will be a cleansing in the Catholic Church and it ain’t gonna be pretty.

No one will see it. As time goes on all of Lefebvre’s doom and gloom emergency seems less plausible. The old liberal-modernist guard is aging and not being replaced. The election of Pope Benedict continues to move the Church back away from progressives and toward Her traditional roots. I do not see any great “cleansing” for this age. Time has restored equilibrium.

 

[manualman]

Time has restored equilibrium.

Now THAT is going a bit far. There’s still a plenty of mess and the remaining smoke ain’t all incense. But God will take care of it.

 

[pnewton]

Now THAT is going a bit far. There’s still a plenty of mess and the remaining smoke ain’t all incense. But God will take care of it.

I didn’t say there wasn’t still some mess. But the Church has always had one challenge or another. Modernism has its roots back to the nineteenth century and did not start with Vatican II. My point is that things seem to be moving in the right direction and not on a hurky-jerky pace.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.