Archbishop Lefebvre

[cam100]

JReducation provided a good explanation. I’d like to comment on a few points from your quote as well:

But an ipso facto excommunication in which the actor was not guilty of a subjective mortal sin is also “as good as nonexistent”.

John Paul II did not excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre. He declared that he had incurred an ipso facto excommunication, which requires a subjective mortal sin.
…
If John Paul II would have actually excommunicated him, the SSPX would have less of an argument. Their only argument would be that it was unjust. But John Paul II did not excommunicate him. All he did was declare that he incurred an ipso facto excommunicated, which, as I have said, has so many “outs” in canon law that there is no way he actually incurred it…

Canon law has authority because it is backed by whatever pope holds office. Without that backing, canon law ceases to bind. In other words, the pope has complete authority over canon law and can dispense from or abrogate it. However, his support for it makes it binding, just as if he had initiated the laws himself.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s excommunication was dictated by canon law. Pope John Paul II expressed his upholding of the applicable law in this situation. He clearly warned the Archbishop that his actions would bring about excommunication. Thus he upheld that canon law in that situation. This is just as good as if he had initiated the excomunication himself.

Now, IF the pope had never commented on the situation, one could argue that maybe he didn’t uphold that law in this situation, or believe it didn’t apply, and therefore the excommunication never occurred. But the pope made it very clear that he upheld the excommunication.

The 1983 code of canon law provides so many “outs” for an ipso facto excommunication that no one who is honest and of their right mind will conclude that the Archbishop incurred it. He was acting to perserve the faith in a day of apostasy, which justifies the act… and even if it didn’t justify it, as long as he thought it did, he did not incur excommunication. If you haven’t read the applicable canon law (I think 1323) you should.

Yes, I’ve read Canon 1323. According the SSPX’s loose interpretation of that canon however, almost NO ONE could be guilty of violating canon law because probably everyone who violates it thinks that they are justfied. How many people intend to send themselves to hell by knowingly violating what they believe to be a valid and binding canon law? They probably all claim they’re in the right. But the pope is the judge of this, and Pope John Paul II judged the Archbishop to be in violation of canon law.

And regarding St. Athanasius: Things are always very clear when you are separated from the events by hundreds of years. All anyone knew at the time was that Athanasius was excommunicated by the Pope, condemned by a council of over 300 Bishops, banned from his dioces 4 times, and spent 17 years in exile. I

f you think his innocent was perfectly clear during that time, you are either under an illusion or not being honest.

Now, how do you know what each person of that time knew or didn’t know? St. Athanasius wrote about what he knew of the invalid excommunication and why it was invalid. We have his writings, so we know this. Thus he was justified. As far as other people, we don’t know how much they knew or who was guilty of what sins.

 

[stmaria]

=SFD;3168925]stmaria,

Well, Fr. Ratzinger has gotten it wrong here. He was a liberal at the Council, if you didn’t know. The pope ratifies the ecumenical council…until that happens, the council means little. When the Pope accepts a council, only then it becomes part of the infallible ordinary magisterium. The Council does not give the pope a “mandate”…the Pope is an absolute monarch!…but he is constrained by divine law and guided by the Holy Ghost. He can change any ecclesiastical law he wants…but the indefectibility of the Church assures us that he will never make laws that are impious or err in faith and morals.

The problem is that this very thing that cannot happen appears to have happened. That is the mystery.

You take the position that the Mass is an infallible discipline and then say . 'this very thing that cannot happen appears to have happened. That is the mystery." From your position you must be a sedevacantist. Right?

 

[SFD]

stmaria:

SFD:

Well, Fr. Ratzinger has gotten it wrong here. He was a liberal at the Council, if you didn’t know. The pope ratifies the ecumenical council…until that happens, the council means little. When the Pope accepts a council, only then it becomes part of the infallible ordinary magisterium. The Council does not give the pope a “mandate”…the Pope is an absolute monarch!…but he is constrained by divine law and guided by the Holy Ghost. He can change any ecclesiastical law he wants…but the indefectibility of the Church assures us that he will never make laws that are impious or err in faith and morals.

The problem is that this very thing that cannot happen appears to have happened. That is the mystery.
You take the position that the Mass is an infallible discipline and then say . 'this very thing that cannot happen appears to have happened. That is the mystery." From your position you must be a sedevacantist. Right?

Yes, the liturgy falls under disciplinary infallibility. This is what the moral unanimity of theologians teach and it is therefore classified as theologically certain. A Catholic must hold this position.

My position is derived from the reality of the situation and that reality must be viewed within the framework of Catholic teaching.

SFD

 

[Sure]

The 1983 code of canon law provides so many “outs” for an ipso facto excommunication that no one who is honest and of their right mind will conclude that the Archbishop incurred it. He was acting to perserve the faith in a day of apostasy, which justifies the act… and even if it didn’t justify it, as long as he thought it did, he did not incur excommunication. If you haven’t read the applicable canon law (I think 1323) you should.

I think you mean latae sentatiae excommunication. And this point was answered by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts in 1996 when they said:

“[D]oubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances. (cf CIC, can. 1323) 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.”

So that’s the authoritative interpretation…no necessity, excommunication stands.

They also say this which helps us to understand the status of the SSPX:

“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.”

Archbishop Lefebvre may have been a good man and, who knows, perhaps one day he might be canonized, but it would be in spite of his schismatic action and not because of it.

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

Pax et Caritas Post # 72…Absolutely Brilliant…God Bless You, Some day Abp Lefebvre will be a Saint just as St Athanasius, of that there is no doubt. God Bless You

 

[JReducation]

Pax et Caritas Post # 72…Absolutely Brilliant…God Bless You, Some day Abp Lefebvre will be a Saint just as St Athanasius, of that there is no doubt. God Bless You

Whether he is canonized or not is another question, at interesting one at that. The greatest question before us is whether those of us on this thread accept that no bishop has the athority to defy the Pope, regardlesss of their personal holiness.

And whether all of us understand that that no bishop may ever ordain without Papal authorization.

Because if we are still struggling with this question, then we are struggling with communion with Peter.

I’m not sure if this is very clearly stated.

Sorry, I have an ear ache.

JR

 

[pnewton]

Pax et Caritas Post # 72…Absolutely Brilliant…God Bless You, Some day Abp Lefebvre will be a Saint just as St Athanasius, of that there is no doubt.

Plenty of doubt exists in the world today. I think people who are still inside the Catholic Church have doubt.

 

[bear06]

The entire quote was unecessary. Everyone knows that Catholic Answers does not agree with the SSPX. That only adds weight to the quote I provided, in which even they admit that most historians now agree with the excommunication of Athanasius.

The entire quote is always necessary (or at least a link to it). Let’s look at what you responded to.

St. Athanasius wasn’t excommunicated. Historians disagree on whether Pope Liberius was forced to sign the document or whether the whole thing was a forgery. Either way, the excommunication could not be considered as coming from the pope, as it was either contrary to his will or completely forged. Thus no excommunication actually occurred. St. Athanasius’ writings indicate that he understood this, and acted accordingly.

Nothing you posted from CA contradicts the statement you responded to. There are historians that suspect forgery. There are others who suspect he was coerced. There are also some who think he wholeheartedly signed it. Whatever the case may be and whatever historians think, it hardly has to do with Lefebvre. There is no pope being coerced, exiled, tortured, etc.

 

[bear06]

Catharina,

Just curious as to why you separate out these popes from the others?

Btw, does it concern you at all that you don’t know who Pope Liberius is…yet feel free to dismiss it all. That’s arrogance…and ignorance.

SFD

Isn’t he the same guy Denzinger lists as St. Liberius and who St. Anastasius called heroic and orthodox? So, yes, I feel quite free to dismiss it all.

 

[bear06]

But an ipso facto excommunication in which the actor was not guilty of a subjective mortal sin is also “as good as nonexistent”.

John Paul II did not excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre. He declared that he had incurred an ipso facto excommunication, which requires a subjective mortal sin.

The 1983 code of canon law provides so many “outs” for an ipso facto excommunication that no one who is honest and of their right mind will conclude that the Archbishop incurred it. He was acting to perserve the faith in a day of apostasy, which justifies the act… and even if it didn’t justify it, as long as he thought it did, he did not incur excommunication. If you haven’t read the applicable canon law (I think 1323) you should.

If John Paul II would have actually excommunicated him, the SSPX would have less of an argument. Their only argument would be that it was unjust. But John Paul II did not excommunicate him. All he did was declare that he incurred an ipso facto excommunicated, which, as I have said, has so many “outs” in canon law that there is no way he actually incurred it…

And regarding St. Athanasius: Things are always very clear when you are separated from the events by hundreds of years. All anyone knew at the time was that Athanasius was excommunicated by the Pope, condemned by a council of over 300 Bishops, banned from his dioces 4 times, and spent 17 years in exile. I

f you think his innocent was perfectly clear during that time, you are either under an illusion or not being honest.

The Supreme Legislator is the one who rules whether or not there has been an excommunication. He has said there is. Now to get around this you’ll have to say that he is not the Supreme Legilator which might give you a little bit of a problem with Pastor Aeternus.

As far as Athanasius goes. St. Anastasius who reigned 33 years after Liberius had no trouble figuring it out. Apparently some people who lived at the time knew what was up.

 

[SFD]

Isn’t he the same guy Denzinger lists as St. Liberius and who St. Anastasius called heroic and orthodox? So, yes, I feel quite free to dismiss it all.

St. Liberius? He was the first Pope NOT to be canonised. Maybe we should dismiss you.

 

[bear06]

St. Liberius? He was the first Pope NOT to be canonised. Maybe we should dismiss you.

I think you’d be dismissing Henri 'Denzinger and St. Anastasius, not me.

 

[stmaria]

Whether he is canonized or not is another question, at interesting one at that. The greatest question before us is whether those of us on this thread accept that no bishop has the athority to defy the Pope, regardlesss of their personal holiness.

And whether all of us understand that that no bishop may ever ordain without Papal authorization.

I don’t know how anyone can honestly say that Canon 1323 does not apply to Archbishop Lefebvre
Canon 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

Clearly Archbishop Lefebvre was in grave fear. He had just witnessed Pope John Paul violate the First Commandment at Assisi.when he allowed pagans to pray to their false gods and voodo religions to pray to the devil.

He also believed that he was seeing the fulfilment of prophecy from our Holy Mother in the year 1634. He referred to this in his Consecration ceremony: !988 Consecration Sermon
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_v_1988_consecration_sermon.h

“Our Lady prophesied for the 20th century, saying explicitly that during the 19th century and most of the 20th century, errors would become more and more widespread in Holy Church, placing the Church in a catastrophic situation. Morals would become corrupt and the Faith would disappear. It seems impossible not to see it happening today…excuse myself for continuing this account of the apparition, but she speaks of a prelate who will absolutely oppose this wave of apostasy and impiety —**saving the priesthood **by forming good priests. I do not say that prophecy refers to me. You may draw your own conclusions. I was stupefied when reading these lines but I cannot deny them, since they are recorded and deposited in the archives of this apparition.”

He did what he did out of grave fear and for his love of the Church
from his Consecration speech:

" Thus, we find ourselves in a case of necessity. We have done all we could, trying to help Rome to understand that they had to come back to the attitudes of the holy Pius XII and of all his predecessors. Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself have gone to Rome, we have spoken, we have sent letters, several times to Rome. We have tried by these talks, by all these means, to succeed in making Rome understand that, since the Council and since aggiornamento, this change which has occurred in the Church is not Catholic, is not in conformity to the doctrine of all times.,Do not abandon the faithful, do not abandon the Church! Continue the Church! Indeed, since the Council, what we condemned in the past the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. How is it possible? We have condemned them: Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Modernism, Sillonism.3 All the errors which we have condemned are now professed, adopted and supported by the authorities of the Church."

 

[catharina]

**Finally back. This thread expploded with posts yesterday and I was too tired to deal with the volume last night. **

I’ve already prayed for the little one and added her (and you) to the list of people that I pray for. Please keep me in you prayers.

Here’s why…

I cannot approve or accept anything that is contrary to the faith. Therefore, it is impossible for me to accept that a Mass, which has no words of consecration, can be valid. That is contrary to what the Church teaches.

**I cannot pass judgment on Rome and the leadership of the Holy Father. I was raised with full awareness of those within the Church who would “correct” Rome. Both of my parents received early Holy Communion, thanks to the actions (edict) of Pope (Saint) Pius X. His call for early reception of the Eucharist was decried by naysayers within the Church; they thought they knew better than he did. My parents, born in 1916, were among the first generation to follow the new practice instituted by Pius X. So I was raised in a family that held profound devotion toward him. To see, now, his name and holiness, abused by those who would DEFY Rome is a sight that sickens me. Simple as that.

Second-guess the Pope? Who has the grace of Papal office EXCEPT the Pope? The behavior of those who seem to believe they “know better” is so contrary to my beliefs of what I consider to be faithfulnesss to the Church that the very name of Lefebvre distresses me. The man was warned. A part of my spirituality as a social worker is the teachings of Vincent de Paul and Louise de Marillac. She taught first and last, “be daughters of the Church.” I say, yes, ma’am. **

I also cannot accept a teaching that is so uncharitable as to claim that we should not seek to covert heretics and schismatics to the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. To do so, I would either have to reject what the Church teaches about heretics and schismtics, or I would have to be extremely uncharitable.

Since John Paul II taught these things, I hold him (at least) suspect of heresy. It would be the height of imprudence to blindly follow someone who taught things that are contrary to what the Church has taught.

**Since the V II Council, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have spoken to the need for evangelization; your words have no reference point for me. **

Indeed, but it is not fear of the Lord to follow someone who teaches contrary to what God Himself has revealed to us through His Church.

When we realize that it is impossible to be saved without the true faith, we will show our fear of God by holding fast to what the Church has always taught regardless of who teaches differently.

I was raised under the Communist threat: to be faithful to Rome. I remain so.

You may not realize this, but the Church is in a very great crisis.

**Clearly, these are difficult times with horrible attacks by the far Right and far Left. Hate to use those political terms, but I believe they apply here. Each side has gone a long way to attack the See of Peter. Neither will succeed. **

During the Arian crisis (when St. Athanasius and Pope Liberius lived) the vast majority of the Bishops fell into heresy. Fr. Jurgins, who wrote the book Faith of our Fathers, says that between 97 and 99% fell into heresy. St. Athanasius (who I mentioned earlier) was one of the few Bishops who held fast to the faith. For doing so, he was condemned by a council of over 300 Bishops, excommunicated by the Pope, banned from his diocese at least 4 times, and spent 17 years in exile.

That crisis prefigure what we are going through today.

Bishop Rudolph Graber of Regensburg: “What happened over 1600 years ago [at the time of the Arian heresy] is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria [the patriarchal see of St. Athanasius] is today the whole universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into silence of being ignored; killing, by assassination of character.”

If you are interesting in reading some quotes from the relatively few prelates (St. Basil, St. Gregory, St. Athanasius) who persevered during that crisis, here’s a link: traditio.com/tradlib/arians.txt

God Bless and don’t forget me in your prayers.

**I studied Theology formally for six years. I rever St. Athanatius. Yet I have no memory of Pope Liberius. Senior moment? Maybe - but I like to think that God is in charge of what my memory retains and that would be the proof of the goodness of the Church, not of her less-than-stellar members.

I stand with Rome. God bless you.**

 

[catharina]

Dear catharina,

I’m quite sorry to hear about the little one. I lost a very young niece last year.

Sympathy to your family on the loss of your niece.

I’ll certainly pray for her recovery. Now, you must admit that no one has “judged your soul”…nor judged your intellect. Nor should you worry about the judgments of mere men.

I refer you to Post # 75, by SFD. I have no fear of the judgments of man (or woman).

No one. But that’s not really all that relevant. My statements are based on Catholic sources…other than that, I am no one.

**Well then, why did you feel the need to comment on it? I was under the impression that you did care. **

The notion that anyone feels so bold that he would compare a current excommunicant with a canonized saint is appalling to me.

Oh, okay. I find that sometimes I must look at the Popes well before my time to know what the Church teaches.

**Already studied it. God has given me a full store of memories of the POSITIVES of Church History. Athanatius? Remember him well. Arianism (defeated)? Remember that too. Liberius? Mental void - and I don’t care! In my opinion, aging is a lovely process. **

Because you are wrong.

You surely meant to say that is your OPINION. Yes?

I’ve made no personal judgment of you. I only know what you said on a public forum.

In response to SFD’s (!) judgment. Post # 75

St. Peregrine, pray for the little one. ** Amen. **

Yours,
SFD

 

[pnewton]

I think you’d be dismissing Henri 'Denzinger and St. Anastasius, not me.

Take it as a badge of honor from the people who also dismiss Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict.

 

[catharina]

Whether he is canonized or not is another question, at interesting one at that. **The greatest question before us is whether those of us on this thread accept that no bishop has the athority to defy the Pope, regardlesss of their personal holiness.

And whether all of us understand that that no bishop may ever ordain without Papal authorization.

Because if we are still struggling with this question, then we are struggling with communion with Peter.**I’m not sure if this is very clearly stated.

Sorry, I have an ear ache.

JR

**
You stated it quite clearly. I fully agree with your statement.

Sorry about your earache**.

 

[latinmass]

Nobody has spoken specifically on canon 1323 and the Archbishop. This canon law seems clear, and the Archbishop had his right to stand for the almost 2000 years of dogma and tradition which is clear to all who can read.

 

[Sure]

Nobody has spoken specifically on canon 1323 and the Archbishop. This canon law seems clear, and the Archbishop had his right to stand for the almost 2000 years of dogma and tradition which is clear to all who can read.

I guess you missed post# 104. It contains a quotation from the Pontifical Council on the Interpretation of Legislative Texts in 1996 clarifying the Motu Proprio. It specifically mentions Canon 1323 and it is an authoritative Church document.

It all comes down to this: Lefebvre thought he had “necessity” and John Paul II and later the PCILT said: “No, he didn’t” because there is “never a necessity to ordain bishops without a papal mandate.” This is completely clear cut and this is the teaching of the Church.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Nobody has spoken specifically on canon 1323 and the Archbishop. This canon law seems clear, and the Archbishop had his right to stand for the almost 2000 years of dogma and tradition which is clear to all who can read.

Hmmm…so which of these do you think applies?

• Has not completed his 16th year
• was ignorant of the law
• was forced to act
• acted out of fear
• acted in self-defense
• lacked the use of reason
  The “defense” most commonly used when this canon is cited is that he acted out of fear. Yet this is inconsistent with the fact that the pope has the ultimate responsibility for the Church and he issued orders to Abp. Lefebvre with regard to his fears telling him not to proceed. Canonically this is not considered a valid defense (at least, not by the Vatican).

Deacon Ed