Archbishop Lefebvre

[Walking_Home]

Do you consider John Paul II to be a better Pope that Pope Honorious - who was condemned as a heretic by a later Pope? If so, please explain why. And be sure to find out why Honorious was condemned as a heretic so you can respond in an informed manner. Here’s a link: newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

When reading that link, keep in mind the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans, which states that we are justified by faith alone. John Paul II signed this. Later, the Vatican had to come out with a “clarification” that reversed what teh documents said. You should also consider that John Paul II approved - as valid - a mass that had no words of consecration. He also approved a document stating that it is wrong to attempt to convert the schismatic and heretics Orthodox. Keep those points in mind when reading the article about Hornorous the heretic - and why he was condemned as a heretic.

And I’m curious why you only menioned post Vatican II popes in your list of Popes who you love. Is there a reason for that?

---

Just something to keep in mind. There is that group (the Neocatechumenals) who believe the Church had lost Her way and didn’t start back up until Vat II.

 

[cam100]

And don’t forget St. Athanasius. In his arrogance, he ignored the fact that he had been banned from his diocese 4 times and was excommunicated by Pope Liberius. He claimed that these were unjust action and ignored them. Can you believe such arrogance.
…

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.

This is different from Archbishop Lefebvre’s situation, in which the pope clearly expressed the existence of an excommunication.

 

[catharina]

---

Just something to keep in mind. There is that group (the Neocatechumenals) who believe the Church had lost Her way and didn’t start back up until Vat II.

… and thanks be to God, this is the first I’ve ever heard of them.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Just something to keep in mind. There is that group (the Neocatechumenals) who believe the Church had lost Her way and didn’t start back up until Vat II.

… and thanks be to God, this is the first I’ve ever heard of them.

---

Many,many people haven’t and this has worked towards the Neocatechumenals advantage. People are becoming “infected” with Neocatechumenal “thought” — without being aware of what it truely is and where it is coming from.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Excellent. Then I will continue to get ready for work where I, my belief system still quite intact after 62 years, will care for Baby Anneliese. Thank you for the prayers.

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.

Hope you can offer approval for my beloved Popes. Can’t imagine why you (or ANYBODY) seem/s to feel qualified to withhold it?

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 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.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

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.

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

 

[catharina]

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 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.

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.

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

Thank you for the prayers.

Yes, I’ll pray for you too.

Re rest of post, back to you later. I promise.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

---

Many,many people haven’t and this has worked towards the Neocatechumenals advantage. People are becoming “infected” with Neocatechumenal “thought” — without being aware of what it truely is and where it is coming from.

Didn’t this groups receive approval by John Paul II and company?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

---

Just something to keep in mind. There is that group (the Neocatechumenals) who believe the Church had lost Her way and didn’t start back up until Vat II.

Do they actually teach that?

 

[SFD]

My goodness. Thanks, I guess, for the very quick judgment of my soul and my intellect. Arrogance and Ignorance. My goodness.

Dear catharina,

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

Who are YOU?

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

I’m getting ready for work, caring for a baby who has cancer of the eyes (last 13 months). At the moment, right, I DO NOT CARE about the personal history of Pope Liberius. Got it? I don’t care.

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

The Popes I’ve named are the Popes I’ve known - in my own lifetime.

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

Why does it concern YOU what MIGHT concern ME?

Because you are wrong.

Digest this:
if you’re finished with your personal judgment of me, spare a prayer for the baby?

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

St. Peregrine, pray for the little one.

Yours,
SFD

 

[Walking_Home]

Didn’t this groups receive approval by John Paul II and company?

---

Yes. The Neocatechumenals really deceived the Pope. The founders paraded the Neocatechumenal adherents, the Neocatechumenal “priests” and the Neocatechumenal women going into the convents — in front of the Popes eyes as “proof” of the “fruits” this movement was producing. They consider themselves the fruit of Vat II — when in truth they are the “Spirit of Vat II”.

And Yes — they actually teach the Church went under early on (lost the Spirit) – until Vat II which started the Church back on the “right” track.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

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.

The following is taken from This Rock Magazine, who is not friend ot the SSPX:
This Rock:

Question: Was St. Athanasius, the “Defender of Orthodoxy,” wrongly excommunicated by a pope? A Traditionalist friend of mine says he was and that this gives credence to claims of the Society of St. Pius X that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was wrongly excommunicated as well.

Answer: For centuries scholars have debated the authenticity of the fours letters of Pope Liberius condemning Athanasius during the Arian persecution of the fourth century. The predominant opinion today is that they are genuine.

 

[cam100]

cam100;3172881:

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.

This is different from Archbishop Lefebvre’s situation, in which the pope clearly expressed the existence of an excommunication.

The following is taken from This Rock Magazine, who is not friend ot the SSPX:

Originally Posted by This Rock

Question: Was St. Athanasius, the “Defender of Orthodoxy,” wrongly excommunicated by a pope? A Traditionalist friend of mine says he was and that this gives credence to claims of the Society of St. Pius X that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was wrongly excommunicated as well.

Answer: For centuries scholars have debated the authenticity of the fours letters of Pope Liberius condemning Athanasius during the Arian persecution of the fourth century. The predominant opinion today is that they are genuine.

This was one of the two situations I mentioned above. And yes, St. Athanasius also indicated that he believed the documents to bear the pope’s real signature, but not be truly from the pope, as he was forced to sign them. Thus, they were as good as nonexistent.

 

[JReducation]

The bolded above is false. This is an issue of ecclesiastical law. Your entire argument falls with this one erroneous premise.

There are plenty of conciliar errors that are clearly “issues of faith and morals”…why is it that folks like you are stuck on the human law? What about Divine Law and the Faith?

Archbishop LeFebvre was defending the Faith…he was merely seeking to maintain the Faith and traditions of the Church and thus meet the demands of the faithful for the true sacraments and sound doctrine.

SFD

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

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

Are you saying that the Sacrament of Holy Orders is divorced from faith and dogma?

 

[JReducation]

It is not an issue of faith and dogma. It is about Canon Law. Archbishop Lefebvre believed that under Canon Law he had the right to do what he did.

 

[JReducation]

Pope Paul said the Mass IS NOT a Dogmatic definition.

THE MASS IS THE SAME
Pope Paul VI 1969
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6601119.HTM
“The Mass will be celebrated in a rather different manner from that in which we have been accustomed to celebrate it in the last four centuries, from the reign of St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, down to the present.
2. This change has something astonishing about it, something extraordinary. This is because the Mass is regarded as the traditional and untouchable expression of our religious worship and the authenticity of our faith.
6. The reform which is about to be brought into being is therefore a response to an authoritative mandate from the Church. It is an act of obedience. It is an act of coherence of the Church with herself. It is a step forward for her authentic tradition. It is a demonstration of fidelity and vitality, to which we all must give prompt assent.
7. It is not an arbitrary act. It is not a transitory or optional experiment. It is not some dilettante’s improvisation. It is a law. It has been thought out by authoritative experts of sacred Liturgy; it has been discussed and meditated upon for a long time. We shall do well to accept it with joyful interest and put it into practice punctually, unanimously and carefully.
9. The second question is: What exactly are the changes?

1. You will see for yourselves that they consist of many new directions for celebrating the rites. Especially at the beginning, these will call for a certain amount of attention and care. Personal devotion and community sense will make it easy and pleasant to observe these new rules. But keep this clearly in mind: Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result.
2. It is not so. Absolutely not. Above all, because the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. Their theological qualification may vary in different degrees according to the liturgical context to which they refer. They are gestures and terms relating to a religious action—experienced and living—of an indescribable mystery of divine presence, not always expressed in a universal way. Only theological criticism can analyze this action and express it in logically satisfying doctrinal formulas. The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects.

. "

When we say that the rites are not dogmatic, that is correct. The mass is greater than the sum of the parts. The mass is the celebration of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is a sacrament, the central sacrament of our faith. Therefore, it is dogmatic.

How we celebrate it, is the rite or ritual. That is subject to the authority of the Church. If you observe, there are two things that the Church does not have the authority to change. The mass must be celebrated by a male priest and the words of consecration must remain the same. That is part of our faith.

The movements, prayers and other elements in the ritual are subject to the authority of the Holy See.

Where this thread is taking a turn is that the authority of the Holy See is being called into question by many. The issue was LeFebvre, not the authority of Peter.

Peter can do whatever he wants as long as he teaches correct faith and morals. It is impossible for him not to do so. He’s infallible.

Those previous popes who were condemned by their successors fell into two categories, invalidly elected or their life was inconsistent with the faith of the Church.

If a pope makes a bet on the Super Bowl and loses, he’s a lousy football fan. His authority and infallibility remain untouched.

Hmm, I woner if Benny likes American football.

 

[JReducation]

This was one of the two situations I mentioned above. And yes, St. Athanasius also indicated that he believed the documents to bear the pope’s real signature, but not be truly from the pope, as he was forced to sign them. Thus, they were as good as nonexistent.

It is also a historical fact that Athanasius died in communion with Peter.

 

[bear06]

The following is taken from This Rock Magazine, who is not friend ot the SSPX:

Holy partial quoting with no link, Batman! Here’s the whole answer to that question:

Q: Was St. Athanasius, the “Defender of Orthodoxy,” wrongly excommunicated by a pope? A Traditionalist friend of mine says he was and that this gives credence to claims of the Society of St. Pius X that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was wrongly excommunicated as well.

A: For centuries scholars have debated the authenticity of the fours letters of Pope Liberius condemning Athanasius during the Arian persecution of the fourth century. The predominant opinion today is that they are genuine.** However that may be, in the context of your question their authenticity is irrelevant.**

The emperor Constantius, having embraced the Arian heresy, had Pope Liberius exiled, imprisoned, and tortured in an attempt to force him to accept Arianism and to condemn Athanasius, one of the few remaining orthodox bishops.

If the letters of condemnation are genuine, they were written under duress. Prior to his imprisonment, Liberius continually had defended Athanasius and the orthodox faith against the Arians. Many scholars believe the letters were in fact dictated by his captors in that they reverse almost word for word his previous letters of support for Athanasius.

As to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X, there is no parallel. Lefebvre was not excommunicated by decree of Pope John Paul II. In 1988 he was excommunicated automatically (latae sententiae) by the his own act of disobedience when he consecrated four bishops without the approval of the Pope–in fact, against the direct and clear command of the Pope not to do so.

Canon law, which Archbishop Lefebvre was quite familiar with, is quite clear on the issue: “A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop and the person who receives such a consecration from a bishop without a pontifical mandate incur an automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See” (CIC 1382).

catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9511qq.asp

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

This was one of the two situations I mentioned above. And yes, St. Athanasius also indicated that he believed the documents to bear the pope’s real signature, but not be truly from the pope, as he was forced to sign them. Thus, they were as good as nonexistent.

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.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Holy partial quoting with no link, Batman! Here’s the whole answer to that question:

catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9511qq.asp

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.

 

[JReducation]

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

John Paul II did not excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre. He declared that he had incurred an ipso facto exceommunication, 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.

What you say has validity. An ipso facto excommunicatiion is one in which you have done something, anything, that separates you from the Church, without the Church having to take further action. It is not a statement about whether or not you’re going to burn in hell.

The reason that John Paul and the Roman Curia held to this in LeFebvre’s case is because of his defiance. Defiance is serious business in any arena. Whether the Archbishop believed that he was acting in the best interest of the Church, there is no question. He did.

The Pope believed that he was not.

As Catholics, we have to submit to the higher of the two authorities.

If the Pope had let it slide, this is just an example, there still may have been an ipso facto excommunication, but the entire Catholic community would not have been involved in the debate as to who is right, the Archbishop or the Pope.

Once the Pope speaks on something and says that you must do this or may not do that, the Catholic community has only two choices. It must either bite the bullet and submit to the authority of Peter or go with the other side and hope for the best.

The authority of Peter cannot be questioned. I can question his ideas. But it’s like our homes. Once the parent says, “end of discussion. I’m the parent and you’re the child.” What authority does the child have? The child may have a very good argument, but has not the authority to enforce it. Either the child submits to the parent or if he/she is old enough, moves out.

In short, LeFebvre chose to move out and Peter was sorry to see him go, but was not going to bend on this issue. He chose to let him go. That’s his right as the Vicar of Christ.

If we want to build it into Church law that Peter has to be flexible, we’ll have to redefine the Petrine Privilege. That’s a debate that no one wants to touch, not even Protestants.