Archbishop Lefebvre

[AlexV]

I love how you read my posts and conclude I “disavowed” Lefebvre.

I suggest a course in reading comprehension. I neither avowed nor disavowed “him”, because you can’t “disavow” a person…quite an ambiguous remark; you can disavow an action of a person, but not a person.

Perhaps such distinctions are too subtle for your preferred black-and-white dichotomies.

 

[catharina]

I love how you read my posts and conclude I “disavowed” Lefebvre.

I suggest a course in reading comprehension. I neither avowed nor disavowed “him”, because you can’t “disavow” a person…quite an ambiguous remark; you can disavow an action of a person, but not a person.

Perhaps such distinctions are too subtle for your preferred black-and-white dichotomies.

Well, I see your buddy WH is back. No problem.
People do disavow Lefbvre, those who clung to him as to God.
No need to enter into talk of idolatry though.

Meanwhile, you’ve “allowed” me to keep you in my prayers. I shall.

 

[AlexV]

Incoherence, muddled prose, bizarre reasoning, false accusations, wild, indeed hysterical leaps of logic…that about sums up Catharina’s posts.

 

[Four_Marks]

That you are well-intentioned is not under any dispute (as far as I’m concerned) at all.

You mentioned above that the words of consecration were not done away with. So, you realize that those words are not per accidens - yes?

Let’s start by addressing the issue of whether or not the innovation “for all men” has been sanctioned by the Holy See. Were the words of consecration, in effect, done away with?

Does this sound like a good starting point?

It occurs to me that you are correct in that the thread has spun off into to diverse directions. The issues that you raised in your two-parter need attention in seperate threads.

To avoid confusion, do you think I you start a new thread to deal with the “all men” issue and other proximate data?

 

[catharina]

I am wondering if one can hold this opinion and still remain in good accord with the Catholic Church. Here it is: One can support and believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was a great archbishop and did wonders for traditionalism, but he was totally wrong to ordain the four bishops without papal mandate. Also, one does not need to believe in what Vatican II said because it was Pastoral in nature. There were some good things said at Vatican II, but certainty some bad. I know some SSPXers and people who go to “indult” (i know that there is now not an indult, but for the sake of distinction) churches who hold to this opinion. They love the Holy Father and believe the Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong in the ordinations and one told me to read “I accuse the Council” and I am also wondering if this is an okay book to read. I have ordered it, but am hesitant to read it. Personally, I think Archbishop Lefebvre had a good heart and loved the church dearly, but went astray with the ordination. I pray that he is in heaven.

One more time for the OP.

Lefebvre was an archbishop. He could have done tremendous good for the Church. Instead he chose to act in schsim. His ‘de facto’ excommunication was declared and was no surprise to anyone faithful to the Chair of Peter.

 

[AlexV]

I didn’t know fidelity to Peter required that one have no emotion of surprise at a given action. Where exactly is that written in Canon Law?

 

[catharina]

I didn’t know fidelity to Peter required that one have no emotion of surprise at a given action. Where exactly is that written in Canon Law?

Nice attempt to distract by twisting my words but, in fact, law exists. When it is imposed, there is no surprise - unless one has serious doubts about the lawgiver. (Lawgiver being the Catholic Church in this case.)

**
“Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.”**

 

[Walking_Home]

One more time for the OP.

Lefebvre was an archbishop. He could have done tremendous good for the Church. Instead he chose to act in schsim. His ‘de facto’ excommunication was declared and was no surprise to anyone faithful to the Chair of Peter.

---

One more time for you:

Well I guess when someone is not fazed by being caught in contridiction by her own words —implying another is not faithful to Rome would be part of that same nature.

 

[catharina]

---

One more time for you:

Well I guess when someone is not fazed by being caught in contridiction by her own words —implying another is not faithful to Rome would be part of that same nature.

There’s no implication. Lefebvre broke with Rome and the Church declared it so. Logic. Ya’ gotta like it (and support it).

Carry on.

 

[Walking_Home]

Nice attempt to distract by twisting my words but, in fact, law exists. When it is imposed, there is no surprise - unless one has serious doubts about the lawgiver. (Lawgiver being the Catholic Church in this case.)

**
“Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.”**

---

It is not surprising that you introduce your own qualifications as to how one is to react to certain actions.

It is really getting quite disturbing and sad — how you’ve become a victim of your own mind.

 

[catharina]

---

It is not surprising that you introduce your own qualifications as to how one is to react to certain actions.

It is really getting quite disturbing and sad — how you’ve become a victim of your own mind.

I’m sorry if you feel so well qualified to pass judgment on me.
I stand with the Chair of Peter. Judge away.

(Do your best to get treatment for your “disturbance,” huh?)

 

[Four_Marks]

---

It is not surprising that you introduce your own qualifications as to how one is to react to certain actions.

It is really getting quite disturbing and sad — how you’ve become a victim of your own mind.

You are obviously an SSPX adherent - yes?

Could you please clearly explain how one whom you consider a valid pope, one whose Canon Law (1983 Code) you accept could not legitimately excommunicate Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre under “Canon 1382”?

 

[catharina]

You are obviously an SSPX adherent - yes?

Could you please clearly explain how one whom you consider a valid pope, one whose Canon Law (1983 Code) you accept could not legitimately excommunicate Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre under “Canon 1382”?

Hmmm. Thank you Fourmarks and Bravo.

You’re asking the question that he has never been willing to answer.

 

[catharina]

Again, Canon 1382:

**
“Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.”**

 

[AlexV]

I love how Catharina…a liar and an obfuscator…blithely leaps from topic to topic like a bee alighting now on this flower, now on that…moving all over and changing the premises at the same time.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m sorry if you feel so well qualified to pass judgment on me.
I stand with the Chair of Peter. Judge away.

(Do your best to get treatment for your “disturbance,” huh?)

---

You display a misunderstanding of what judging is. What I say is based on your own contributions— your own words.

Now —as to getting treatment- since you apparently cannot see/ will not see --how you say one thing-- then go on to deny you said it ---- seems your treatment is way overdue.

 

[catharina]

I love how Catharina…a liar and an obfuscator…blithely leaps from topic to topic like a bee alighting now on this flower, now on that…moving all over and changing the premises at the same time.

**You love actions that you perceive to be lies, from a liar? **

We are to be saddened by the percieved wrongdoing of others.

Wow. Dude. Seek help.

 

[Four_Marks]

Hmmm. Thank you Fourmarks and Bravo.

You’re asking the question that he has never been willing to answer.

Dear Catharina,

I’m asking him to demonstrate how his sedeplenist *** position is not a gross inconsistency***.

You should know that I believe that the Church is in a state of sede vacante. It is very obvious that you disagree with my position. However, I’m sure that you don’t see an inconsistency when I state that it is my belief that Archbishop Lefebvre was, in reality, not excommunicated.

I understand your motives in upholding what you believe to be the papacy. Your intention is praiseworthy. By the same token, please do not ascribe bad motives and ill intentions to those who disagree with you. I do not actually want to discuss sedevacantism with you. There is no value in it. You are a pious soul who does not need to be disturbed.

God Bless,

Four_Marks

 

[AlexV]

The sedevacantists (and I am not one) sometimes make more sense than Catharina, who accuses someone of numerous things and then denies they did it, citing the “evidence” of the very post where they did what they deny doing.

 

[Walking_Home]

You are obviously an SSPX adherent - yes?

Could you please clearly explain how one whom you consider a valid pope, one whose Canon Law (1983 Code) you accept could not legitimately excommunicate Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre under “Canon 1382”?

---

Do I belong and/or attend the SSPX — no. I just don’t believe in bashing the SSPX as some people seem to take every opportunity to do.