Archbishop Lefebvre

[latinmasslover]

Exuse me! I thought that was the role of Peter.

Are you saying that Peter was wrong and LeFebvre was right?

Peter was wrong when he tried to stop Christ from the Passion. He was wrong to draw a sword and start hacking.
He was wrong to deny Jesus three times.
He was wrong to not be present at the murder of his Master.
He was wrong when St. Paul (a subordinate bishop) rebuked him.

John, not Peter, was given the honor of caring for the Mother.
John, not Peter, rested on the heart of Jesus.
John, not Peter, was told who the betrayer was.
John, not Peter, was present at the murder of the Lord.

Why is it so impossible for some to believe that the above was all a one-time thing, never to be repeated?

 

[latinmasslover]

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

I’m rather curious as to when excommunications became infallible declarations within the Church.

The Pope saying there is no emergency doesn’t mean there’s no emergency just because the words were spoken by the Pope. Let us not forget the fact that Jesus called Peter Satan for going against the will of God, desiring the will of man? Archbishop Lefebvre is not a people-pleaser, his focus was always on the Lord. Certain popes, however, made decisions that were not in line with His teachings…decisions that were more in line with non Catholic relativists. Well intentioned perhaps, but so was Peter he tried to convince the Lord to not suffer the Passion; when he drew his sword in the garden.

 

[pnewton]

Peter was wrong when he tried to stop Christ from the Passion. He was wrong to draw a sword and start hacking.
He was wrong to deny Jesus three times.
He was wrong to not be present at the murder of his Master.
He was wrong when St. Paul (a subordinate bishop) rebuked him.

John, not Peter, was given the honor of caring for the Mother.
John, not Peter, rested on the heart of Jesus.
John, not Peter, was told who the betrayer was.
John, not Peter, was present at the murder of the Lord.

Why is it so impossible for some to believe that the above was all a one-time thing, never to be repeated?

The issue has never been a question of right or wrong but of authority. Despite Peter’s betrayal, not one wit of authority was taken from him b Christ.

 

[SFD]

The issue has never been a question of right or wrong but of authority. Despite Peter’s betrayal, not one wit of authority was taken from him b Christ.

Dogmatic Theology:

Objections:

Many facts from the Church’s history are adduced as objections to the infallibility of the pope. Here, only the main ones will be considered. In dealing with these facts, we are interested in one point only: whether the pope ever made a mistake when speaking ex cathedra.

1. Against St. Peter himself two objections are raised. First, he denied Christ on the night of His passion; secondly, he forced Gentile converts to adopt Jewish religious practices (see Gal. 2:11-14).

At the time of the passion Peter was not yet the supreme shepherd and teacher of the Church. Obviously, then, he could not act in that capacity at that time. As a private individual he sinned seriously, but he did not lose the faith.

The second objection is closer to the point, for Peter was then head of the Church. It is, however, a rather superficial argument against infallibility. When Peter deliberately separated himself from the Gentile way of life – so not to shock Judaic-Christians – he did act imprudently. He did cause some harm to the progress of the faith. (That is why St. Paul scolded him for it: he knew how much Peter’s example meant.) Whether Peter was acting in good conscience or not is not here our concern. One fact is abundantly clear: Peter by no means handed down any doctrinal decision on the matter. That is why Tertullian could write, “It was indeed a fault of conduct, but not of teaching” (De praescriptione 23).

1. Pope Liberius (352-366) is alleged to have betrayed St. Athanasius and the whole Catholic faith by signing the formula of Sirmia which was either Arian or semi-Arian in doctrine.

a. For the sake of argument let us grant that Liberius did actually sign this heretical document (some historians dispute the point). The mere signing of the document could not possibly be considered an ex cathedra decision. Even anti-Catholic critics admit that the pope, after two years of exile and captivity, only finally signed to release himself from persecution. Such circumstances,* far from showing that the pope intended to hand down a decision binding the universal Church, exclude any such intention.

• Basil of Ancyra the leader of a group which, though Catholic, disliked the term homoöusion, because of its misuse in a third century controversy, gained the emperor’s favor. He then endeavored to unite all the Catholics on the basis of a non-Nicene (but not anti-Nicene) formula. In the Catholic sense in which this was offered, and with an explanation making clear what he was doing, Liberius, still a captive, signed this. The forgeries of Arian pamphleteers are probably the original cause of the confusion around which the discussion centers. – Hughes, Popular History, op. cit., p. 53.

b. Even in the supposition that Liberius did sign his name to one of the formulae at Sirmia, the one he signed would have been the third formula (in the year 358). This formula was not in itself heretical. Even though the formula, by omitting the term homoousios made sacrosanct by the Council of Nicaea, contained a less accurate formulation of the Catholic faith and was consequently more acceptable to the semi-Arians; strictly speaking it was not erroneous.

c. Finally, a number of historians think there can be some real doubt whether Liberius actually signed or not. (15)

 

[latinmass]

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).
  So the pope can tell you if you have fear or not? This is not what canon law has stated. This is not grounds for excommunication, according to canon law. The real question here is why did the pope who prays with heretical groups and who kisses heretical books, punish one of our own for standing up for tradition? What would have been so bad about more bishops from a traditional group? This pope would rather excommunicate, and from what canon law states, excommunicate unfairly. The bottom line is that this “ecumenical” pope chose to kick out a good man for worshiping along the lines of tradition. The pope could have very well let the bishops be consecrated, but he chose to excommunicate tradition and choose to elevate heretical beliefs at Assisi.
  Deacon Ed

 

[Sure]

So the pope can tell you if you have fear or not? This is not what canon law has stated.

Actually, yes it is. The Pope is the Supreme Legislator according to Canon Law and tradition. It is up to the Pope to assess whether someone’s fear was enough to avoid the penalty of excommunication. He decided that the fear was not enough. The PCILT confirmed this fact in 1996. The decision stands and there is no appeal. The only way it can be reversed is by the Pope reversing it…don’t hold your breath on that one.

This is not grounds for excommunication, according to canon law.

Of course it’s not. He wasn’t excommunicated for being afraid. He was excommunicated for committing a schismatic act thus violating canon law which was based on Pope Pius XII’s Ad Apostolorum Principis. The facts are crystal clear, some just choose to ignore them - a form of Cafeteria Catholicism.

As for the Assisi stuff and the other things you mention…those are not relevant to whether or not Lefebvre was excommunicated and seem to be an attempt by you to muddle the issue.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…St. Athanasius… was excommunicated by Pope Liberius.

This claim is based upon dubious history. Athanasius never rejected the teaching of the Roman Pontiff or an ecumenical council, as Lefebvre did. The comparison is absurd.

Furthermore, the orthodoxy of Liberius is upheld by Pope St. Anastasius :The heretical African faction [of the Arian heresy] was not able by any deception to introduce its baseness because, as we believe, our God provided that that holy and untarnished faith be not contaminated through any vicious blasphemy of slanderous men — that faith which had been discussed and defended at the meeting of the synod of Nicea by the holy men and bishops now placed in the resting place of the saints… For this faith those who were then esteemed as holy bishops gladly endured exile, that is . . . Liberius, bishop of the Roman Church.”

(Pope St. Anastasius, Dat mihi plurimum, from art. 93 of the thirtieth edition of Denzinger’s, cited by Pete Vere, “My Journey out of the Lefebvre Schism - All Tradition Leads to Rome”, Envoy Magazine, Vol. 4.6)

Moreover, the Greek perspective of Liberius’ orthodoxy according to the Greek Menologium (liturgical text of the Greek church):[At the 27th September] The blessed Liberius, defender of the truth, was Bishop of Rome during the reign of Constantius. His zeal . . . . made him undertake the defence of the great Athanasius Then Liberius, who fought with his whole strength against the malice of the heretics, was exiled to Beræa in Thrace. But the Romans, who loved and honored him, remained faithful to him, and besought the Emperor to restore him. Liberius returned to Rome, where he died after wisely governing his flock." [cited by P.J. Harrold, “http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/librius1.htm”]The Alleged Fall of Pope Liberius,” American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.8, 1883, pp.529-49] Some Catholic scholars assert that Liberius indeed excommunicated Athanasius, but did so under duress. That this was an invalid excommunication is readily understood because once the source of duress was removed, neither Liberius nor Athanasius treated the excommunication as valid. So even if the dubious nature of this excommunication was true, how has this any comparison to Lefebvre’s excommunciation?

Lefebvre was forewarned of his excommunication beforehand. Pope John Paul II always held that Lefebvre was validly excommunicated. Furthermore, Pope John Paul II declared the excommunication of Lefebvre and the illicitly ordained bishops of his movement voluntarily, after giving them warning after warning. In essence, Lefebvre’s disobedience demanded the just censure voluntarily decreed by the lawful Vicar of Christ, Pope John Paul II.

 

[latinmass]

Sure, you are missing the point. All of these issues are entangled. They are not mutually exclusive. Look at the big picture. If there were no more bishops consecrated, then tradition would die. This is what forced the Archbishops hand, why else would the loving JP2 not allow a few bishops to be consecrated, but instead chose to excommunicate? The efforts to kill tradition have failed thanks be to God.

 

[Sure]

Sure, you are missing the point. All of these issues are entangled. They are not mutually exclusive. Look at the big picture. If there were no more bishops consecrated, then tradition would die. This is what forced the Archbishops hand, why else would the loving JP2 not allow a few bishops to be consecrated, but instead chose to excommunicate? The efforts to kill tradition have failed thanks be to God.

No, the issue is simple and clearcut. You don’t get to deliberately violate canon law to get a desired result. The end does not justify the means. And make no mistake, the Traditional Mass would not have died without Arch Lefevbre’s schism. It lived on because of the many faithful priests who worked obediently to continue tradition. It lives today IN SPITE of his schism and not because of it.

Your argument reminds me of when my kids point at each other and say, "well, he did such and such, " in an effort to escape blame. It’s silly and doesn’t fly here.

 

[cam100]

If there were no more bishops consecrated, then tradition would die.

Now, how could anyone know what would happen in the future? The pope forbade Archbishop Lefebvre from consecrating bishops at that particular time. He didn’t even tell the Archbishop to never consecrate traditional bishops, just to wait. If God wanted traditional bishops, He would find a way, one that didn’t hinge on the Archbishop’s disobedience in such a serious matter. God was not dependent on the Archbishop.

This is what forced the Archbishops hand, why else would the loving JP2 not allow a few bishops to be consecrated, but instead chose to excommunicate? The efforts to kill tradition have failed thanks be to God.

The Archbishop’s hand was not forced. Consecrating bishops in opposition to the pope’s will is a serious sin, so serious that canon law provides for automatic excommunication. The end does not justify the means. Now, the omission or postponing of a consecration of a bishop is NOT a sin, no matter if the bishop feels that the Church would benefit from the consecration. Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t have to go ahead with those consecrations.

 

[SFD]

No, the issue is simple and clearcut. You don’t get to deliberately violate canon law to get a desired result. The end does not justify the means. And make no mistake, the Traditional Mass would not have died without Arch Lefevbre’s schism. It lived on because of the many faithful priests who worked obediently to continue tradition. It lives today IN SPITE of his schism and not because of it.

Your argument reminds me of when my kids point at each other and say, "well, he did such and such, " in an effort to escape blame. It’s silly and doesn’t fly here.

Sure,

Of course, there are principles in the application of Canon Law; which is human law. There is the principle of Equity.

The reason theologians allow equity to be used harks back to our definition of law: an ordinance of reason for the common good. Indeed, theologians say that neglecting to apply equity when the common good is at stake is morally wrong. A person subject to the law may in certain cases, says Merkelbach, “act outside the letter of the law, to wit, when the letter of the law would be harmful to the common good.… Therefore in a case where the observance of the law would be harmful to the common good, it should not be obeyed.”6

This is also the teaching of St. Thomas, who says: “In certain cases to follow [a law] is against the equality of justice and against the common good which the law intends.… In such cases it is bad to follow the law; it is good to set aside its letter and follow the dictates of justice and the common good.”7

1. Summa Theol. Mor., 1:296. My emphasis.

1. Summa Theol. II–II.120.1.

SFD

 

[SFD]

cam100:

Now, how could anyone know what would happen in the future?

Cam,

But the real question is this…could he have thought it was necessary? I think it is certainly possible…the fact that no one can know the future supports this view.

SFD

 

[Sure]

Sure,

Of course, there are principles in the application of Canon Law; which is human law. There is the principle of Equity.

SFD

There is no sin or harm to the common good by refraining from consecrating bishops. None whatsoever. If the Pope were telling Lefevbre to do something intrinsically evil, that would be different.

 

[Sure]

Cam,

But the real question is this…could he have thought it was necessary? I think it is certainly possible…the fact that no one can know the future supports this view.

SFD

It doesn’t matter if he THOUGHT it was necessary for the excommunication not to apply. It has to be necessary in the view of the Church, unfortunately for him, it turns out that it wasn’t.

 

[SFD]

There is no sin or harm to the common good by refraining from consecrating bishops. None whatsoever. If the Pope were telling Lefevbre to do something intrinsically evil, that would be different.

There certainly was harm in not consecrating Bishops. You need Bishops to ordain priests. He was providing for that need. I know you disagree with that…but I think it was a valid concern for the Archbishop.

SFD

 

[cam100]

Cam,

But the real question is this…could he have thought it was necessary? I think it is certainly possible…the fact that no one can know the future supports this view.

SFD

Necessary in order for … what?

 

[Sure]

There certainly was harm in not consecrating Bishops. You need Bishops to ordain priests. He was providing for that need. I know you disagree with that…but I think it was a valid concern for the Archbishop.

SFD

I understand that he thought that and that you think that, but the ultimate decision rests with the Supreme Legislator who decided that it was not necessary. In fact, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts declared “there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff.”

 

[SFD]

I understand that he thought that and that you think that, but the ultimate decision rests with the Supreme Legislator who decided that it was not necessary. In fact, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts declared “there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff.”

But that statement cannot be made. We are speaking of human law here…there are always times when the would be an application of equity. You simply can’t say never.

SFD

 

[stmaria]

=cam100;3179255]Now, how could anyone know what would happen in the future? The pope forbade Archbishop Lefebvre from consecrating bishops at that particular time. He didn’t even tell the Archbishop to never consecrate traditional bishops, just to wait.

If God wanted traditional bishops, He would find a way, one that didn’t hinge on the Archbishop’s disobedience in such a serious matter. God was not dependent on the Archbishop./

How do you know God did not use Archbishop Lefebvre?

The Archbishop’s hand was not forced. Consecrating bishops in opposition to the pope’s will is a serious sin, so serious that canon law provides for automatic excommunication. The end does not justify the means

. .
His actions must be taken in context of the times. Was the First Commandment violated by Pope John Paul at Assisi? Lefebvre believed it was. This is what caused him grave fear. He believed that the what was happening was leading the Church into apostasy. Then there is the apparition. This is an approved apparition of the Church .And Our Blessed Mother predicted to ," put an end to such fatal times by sending to His Church the Prelate who will restore the spirit of His priests…" And whe predicted this would happen at the end of the 20th century which coincides with the time in question.
"
!988 Consecration Sermon
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_v_1988_consecration_sermon.htm“…there has never been a greater iniquity in the Church than Assisi, which is contrary to the First Commandment of God and the First Article of the Creed. It is incredible that something like that could have ever taken place in the Church, in the eyes of the whole Church —how humiliating…… the apparition of Our Lady of “Buen Suceso,” —of “Good Fortune,” to whom a large church in Quito, Ecuador, was dedicated… This apparition is thoroughly recognized by Rome and the ecclesiastical authorities…“This Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ is disappearing everywhere in the Conciliar Church. They are following roads which are not Catholic roads: they simply lead to apostasy….This is why we do this ceremony”

Our Lady of Good Fortune Quito Ecuador 1634
vaticaninexile.com/Prophecy/GoodFortune.html

“First meaning: at the end of the 19th century and for a large part of the 20th, various heresies will flourish …The precious light of the Faith will go out in souls because of the almost total moral corruption:…. The little number of souls keeping the Faith and practicing the virtues will undergo cruel and unspeakable sufferings;…. To escape being enslaved by these heresies will call for great strength of will, constancy, courage and great trust in God, all of which are gifts from the merciful love of My Divine Son to those He will have chosen for the work of restoration. To put to the trial the faith and trust of these just souls, there will come moments when everything seems lost and paralyzed, and just then comes the happy beginnings of the complete restoration…How many true vocations will be lost for lack of skillful and prudent direction to form them!
. . The innocence of childhood will almost disappear. Thus priestly vocations will be lost, it will be a real disaster. Priests will abandon their sacred duties and will depart from the path marked out for them by God. Then the Church will go through a dark night for lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over it with love, gentleness, strength and prudence and numbers of priest will lost the spirit of God, thus placing their souls in great danger.
Pray constantly…asking Our Father in Heaven… that He put an end to such fatal times, by sending to His Church the Prelate who will restore the spirit of His priests.
Upon this My beloved son, whom My Divine Son and I love with a predilection, we shall heap many gifts, of humility of heart, of docility to varying inspirations, of strength to defend the rights of the Church and of a heart with which he will, like anew Christ, take possession of the mightiest or men as of the lowliest, without scorning the least fortunate among them. With a wholly divine gentleness he will lead consecrated souls to the service of God in religious houses without making the Lord’s yoke weigh heavily upon them. He will hold in his hand the scales of the sanctuary for everything to be done in an orderly fashion for God to be glorified. This Prelate and Father will act as a counterweight to the lukewarmness of souls consecrated in the priesthood and in religion.”
.

 

[Sure]

But that statement cannot be made. We are speaking of human law here…there are always times when the would be an application of equity. You simply can’t say never.

SFD

Well, take that up with the canon lawyers at the PCILT there the one’s who made that determination.