Archbishop Lefebvre

[Sure]

=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.

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

I believe the point of the Canon law is that God will decide who rightly feared as No Man even the Pope can determine anothers fear. I was attending a Traditional Mass at the time and can vouch that we were in mortal fear that we would have no more Bishops to confirm our [then future] children and consecrate new priests. Abp Lefebvre was quite old and ill, he couldn’t keep waiting while Rome fiddled and the church was burning. I am not claiming it is so, but assume the AntiChrist was in the seat of Peter when this happened. After Lefebvre dies the Pope [AntiChrist] deems Abp Lefebvres fear not worthy, and he is excommunicated. Now does that make a whit of sense, for the lay people to point to the Popes words as PROOF that the Abp did wrongly and has incurred the penalty.? BTW it has been mentioned here that Canon law which applies to All Catholics does not apply to the Pope, that he has supreme authority, and no law applies to him. I believe it has been taught that a House divided against inself Can Not Stand. For if Canon law does not apply to the Popes, whomsover they may be, then it is not a law at all. For 1 Pope can just do whatever he wants, and do a complete 180 on what was done before, a veritable merry-go-round of masses and rules in the “Church”…Kind of like what transpires in the Mass today…God Bless You ALL…

 

[SFD]

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

Sure,

What they (and you) are suggesting is that a principle used in applying Canon Law can be done away with by the law itself.

SFD

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

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.

JR

If, when you say “defy” you mean “disobey”, you are correct generally speaking, but not in all circumstances.

Obedience is a moral virtue, and like all moral virtue it is a balance point between two extremels: excess and defect. Obedience can be voilated in either direction; that is, by obeying when we should not, or by not obeying when they should. Contrary to what many people seem to think today, obedience is not an absolute.

Faith,on the other hand, is a theological virtue which is an absolute. When the faith is under attack, it is permissible to disoboey if that is what is necessary to protect the faith.

Now, I readily admit that it is an exception to the rule for a Bishop to be required to disobey the Pope in order ot protect the faith. After all, it is the Pope’s duty to guard and protect the faith. When the Pope fails in his duty, and rather than protect the faithful and the faith, he allows them to be destroyed by the wolves, and the Seminaries to be cess-pools of iniquity, something needs to be done.

Some people may think John Paul II was a “great” Pope, but I can’t imagine anyone who thinks he protected the purity of the faith. He was Pope for 26 years. During that time the Seminaries were thoroughly corrupt and he took not affective actions. At the same time, he allowed the Bishops to do all in their power to destroy the faith, while he did nothing. He invited members of virtually every false religion in the world - including an african witch doctor - to Assisi to join him in a prayer for “world peace”, not to mention giving each false religion a special room so that they could commit the mortal sin of false worship. While John Paul II was attempting to build a “civilization of love” with “all of the great religions of the world” the faith was being attacked from everyside and millions of Catholics were being led into heresy and perdition.

Thankfully God sent Archbishop Lefebvre - “the great Prelate” -who took action to defend the faith. Thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre the Mass was preserved and is now on its way back, and the 37 year lie that the old Mass had been abrogated has now been reversed. I can’t imagine the situation we would be in today if it wasn’t for Archbishop Lefebvre, who truly deserves the title “the great”.

Thank heavens for the good Archbishop who was willing to do what was necessary to preserve the true faith, the mass, and sacraments during the apostasy, when who should have protected the faith, for whatever reason, did not. It is not our place to judge them subjectively, but the objective facts are the objective facts.

 

[pnewton]

BTW it has been mentioned here that Canon law which applies to All Catholics does not apply to the Pope, that he has supreme authority, and no law applies to him. I** believe it has been taught that a House divided against inself Can Not Stand**.

This is why we must respect authority and not let each man (or archbishop) go his own way. It is a shame LeFebvre chose the path of division.

 

[JReducation]

I’m having a difficult time understanding several points. I’ll ask the question and explain my reasoning behind the question.

1. Why is this still a discussion? Canon Law is clear on several counts. Only the Pope can authorize the ordination of bishops, even though bishops have the power to ordain. They may not use those powers without the express consent of the Pope. Archbishop Lefebvre violated that law.
2. Does a Pope have to be sinless to retain his authority as Vicar of Christ? Christ’s parting question to Peter was, “Do you love me?” not “Are you sinless?”
3. How did we arrive at the conclusion that the Tridentine mass is essential to Christian Tradition? Christian tradition is the faith that the Church received from the Apostles and handed down generation through generation. The Tridentine mass may have been part of the practice of faith, but not the embodiment of faith.
4. Who said that the essence of the mass changed with Vatican II? The essential elements continue to be there, bread and wine, the words of consecration, a validly ordained priest, and the community of the faithful. It continues to be the same celebration of the Paschal Mystery as it always was, before we had the Tridentine Mass. The only thing that cannot be changed is the theology of the mass and the essentials: bread and wine, valid priest, words of consecration and communion of the faithful. This is still alive.
5. Who said that the Tridentine mass was the norm for the Catholic Church? It was never the norm for the entire Catholic Church. It was the norm for Western Catholicism. The Eastern Churches who are in union with the Church of Rome have their own rites, with the same essential elements as the Western Church. We also acknowledge the validity of the Eucharist and mass of the Orthodox Church. That is not Tridentine.
6. What is so difficult about Pope John Paul’s decree Ecclesia Dei, Parr

newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02ed.htm

In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience–which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy–constitutes a schismatic act. [Code of Canon Law, 751.] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1382.]

Finally, the happenings in Assisi have been brought up as justifications for Archbishop Lefebvre. But I believe they do not apply.

1. The Bishop of Assisi is the person who is ultimately responsible for what happens in his diocese. In most cases the Pope only interferes in the internal matters of the local Church if they are a matter of concern for the universal church, if the local bishop cannot handle it, or at his discretion.
2. The parishes in the old quarter of Assisi are all Conventual-Franciscan parishes. It is the custom of the Church that the Major Superior of a Religious Order is the Ordinary for his community. If there was some grave moral wrong occurring in the parishes in Assisi, it fell under the jurisdiction of the Minister General of the Brothers to deal with it. If he failed to do so, the local Bishop has the authority to demand action and to impose sanctions. Finally, if all else fails, the local Bishop has the right to appeal to the Holy See.

Has anyone seen or heard of any actions or sanctions by either the Bishop of Assisi or the Minister General of the Brothers? I’m not denying that something wrong happened. I’m wondering how responsible was the Church and how much was really under their control. The Church does not own the city of Assisi.

Could this have been the case in Assisi, where the Church had no jurisdiction? Maybe the Franciscan Brothers dealt with the issue or the local bishop. Maybe John Paul II supported their decisions for reasons unknown to the rest of us. The Church is not the US Govt. The Pope is a Regent. He does not have to explain himself, as other elected leaders do. It’s difficult for us to accept, but a fact nonetheless.

The Pope doesn’t have to justify himself. He didn’t justify his silence during the Holocaust. That came later. But the Church didn’t go to hell in a hand basket, because the Vatican didn’t confront Hitler.

In addition, the Archbishop’s fear did not authorize him to act as if he were the Pope.

We must trust Christ’s promise to Peter that he is infallible, despite the fact that he is a sinful mortal. If we deny Peter’s infallibility, we deny Christ’s promise.

 

[bear06]

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.

I thought it funny that all of the examples listed save for the last were before Pentacost. Also, I don’t remember Peter telling Paul to stuff it.

Anyways, here’s a good letter from Abbe Berger on the subject and a pertinate paragraph from it:

Pius XII to the Archbishop of Boston: “Those who expose themselves to the grave danger of opposing the Church must seriously reflect that once “Rome has spoken”, they may not disregard it even for reasons of good faith. Their bond with the Church and their duty of obedience are certainly stricter than they are for those who adhere to the Church “only by an unconscious desire”. They should understand that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused of culpable ignorance. They should therefore understand that the following principle applies to them without restriction: “Submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is necessary for salvation.”

whyiamacatholic.com/SSPX/Berger.htm

It’s not like Rome has not spoken on the subject. It’s a whole other ballgame when they do. One can no longer hang on to the claim of necessity or fear.

 

[SFD]

JReducation:

We must trust Christ’s promise to Peter that he is infallible, despite the fact that he is a sinful mortal. If we deny Peter’s infallibility, we deny Christ’s promise

JR,

The question is not whether or not the Pope is infallible (as Vatican I teaches it), but that the claimant is not a true pope. Nobody is saying he’s sinful…even mortal sins of a grave nature do not separate a man from the Church. A schismatic, heretic, or apostate is cut off however.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

JR,

The question is not whether or not the Pope is infallible (as Vatican I teaches it), but that the claimant is not a true pope.

Huh! LeFebevre was not a sedevacantists. Only a few have split down that road, so I do not think it applies to this issue. I even wonder if there are more people who think the Pope is not the Pope than think that they themselves are Jesus Christ. I have met a handful of the latter.

 

[bear06]

When we use the Peter/Paul scenario to compare Lefebvre and JPII, we are comparing apples to oranges. First of all Peter wasn’t giving a command to the faithful or the clergy. He was making a personal error. JPII did give and order to Lefebvre and he rejected it. It’s a completely different deal.

 

[bear06]

Here’s something else from Abbe Berger’s (remember, he was SSPX) letter. He quote heavily Pius XII:

Pius IX, “Quartus supra” (Jan. 6, 1873): “The Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who stubbornly resist her legitimate prelates, and especially the supreme Pastor, refusing to carry out their orders and even recognize their authority. It is as contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as to the perpetual and constant Tradition, for anyone to prove the catholicity of his faith and truly call himself Catholic when he fails in obedience to the Apostolic See… he who abandons the Chair of Peter, on which the Church is founded, falsely persuades himself that he is in the Church, since he who raises a chair against the Chair of Peter is already a sinner and schismatic.

All these declarations are so weighty that the conclusion must be that anyone who has been declared schismatic by the Roman Pontiff must wholly cease usurping the name of Catholic as long as he fails to recognize and expressly revere his full authority.

But as the neo-schismatics can gain no advantage… they excuse themselves saying that the sentence of schism and of excommunication against them… was unjust and, consequently, invalid. They have even gone so far as to say that they could not submit to the sentence for fear that the faithful, deprived of their ministry, might embrace the cause of the heretics. But these are arguments of a new kind, totally unheard of and unknown to the Fathers of the Church.”

Pius IX. “Quae in Patriarchatu” (Sept. 1, 1876): “What is the point of loudly recognizing the dogma of the supremacy of Peter and of his successors? What is the point of repeated declarations of Catholic faith and of obedience to the Apostolic See, when these fine words are belied in act? Is not rebellion made more inexcusable by the fact of recognizing obedience as a duty? Furthermore, does not the authority of the Holy See extend to the measures we have had to take in sanctioning them? Or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See, without submission and obedience — something which cannot he maintained without attacking the Catholic faith?.. It is a question of recognizing the authority of the Holy See, not only with regard to faith, but even with regard to discipline. He who denies this is heretical; he who recognizes this and stubbornly refuses to obey is worthy of anathema. Let those, therefore, who have strayed from the right path, envisaging things differently, hasten to return to the right way. Faith without charity is of no use.”

 

[SFD]

Huh! LeFebevre was not a sedevacantists. Only a few have split down that road, so I do not think it applies to this issue. I even wonder if there are more people who think the Pope is not the Pope than think that they themselves are Jesus Christ. I have met a handful of the latter.

Archbishop Lefebvre - An Address to Seminarians:

…Now these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with Protestants, animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-Catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258-1? In which case, I cannot see how it is possible to say that the Pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.

Now I don’t know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don’t know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying “there is no more Pope,” but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious.
I am not inventing this situation; I do not want it. I would gladly give my life to bring it to an end, but this is the situation we face, unfolding before our eyes like a film in the cinema. I don’t think it has ever happened in the history of the Church, the man seated in the chair of Peter partaking in the worship of false gods.

What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don’t know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope…

SFD

 

[JReducation]

When we use the Peter/Paul scenario to compare Lefebvre and JPII, we are comparing apples to oranges. First of all Peter wasn’t giving a command to the faithful or the clergy. He was making a personal error. JPII did give and order to Lefebvre and he rejected it. It’s a completely different deal.

I agree that Peter was not giving a command. That being said, I would use this example in this manner. Paul presents his argument in favour of the Gentiles. Peter rejects the idea, at first. However, Paul does not part company with Peter.

Paul went to the Council of Jerusalem to present his case to the Apostles. Now, observe how the tide turns in Act 15,7 " PETER got up and said to them ‘My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through MY mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.’ " This is both in the Catholic edition and the King James edition of the Bible. Peter proclaims his own primacy.

While it is true that Paul is the Apostles to the Gentiles, the scriptures declare that the Gentiles heard the gospel through the mouth of Peter. Obviously, Luke is makes a very clear effort to deliver a message to the reader. The message has two parts. 1) Salvation is also for the Gentiles and 2) the Gospel comes from the mouth of Peter, even when there is another instrument in the middle.

Luke points to the primacy of Peter. Paul defers to Peter by bringing his case before Peter. Peter exerts his authority, even over Paul and the other Apostles. Luke concludes with “the whole assembly fell silent, etc” (Acts 15, 12) Peter had spoken. Now the road was clear for Paul and Barnabas.

Originally, Peter’s idea regarding the Gentiles was mistaken. The Holy Spirit spoke through Paul. Christ’s promise is fulfilled. Peter declares what the Holy Spirit has revealed to him, using Paul as the instrument.

If Archbishop Lefebvre had been the instrument of the Holy Spirit, Christ’s promise would have been fulfilled as well. Peter would have been moved in the direction to which the Archbishop pointed.

In this case, Peter spoke contrary to what the Archbishop presented and the Archbishop defied him.

 

[pnewton]

Now I don’t know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic…So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly

Thanks. So your point is worthless. He never slipped into sedevacantism. Perhaps God took him to spare him Hell and this final separation from the Holy Catholic Church.

 

[JReducation]

Other than pray with non Catholics and non Christians at Assisi, what else did John Paul II do at Assisi or allow that made this such an issue?

I can’t imagine John Paul II at a Roman Orgy in Assisi. First of all, it’s the wrong city.

I have pulled my hairs trying to think of what in the world was so horrible that took place in Assisi, which directly involved John Paul II. I am empty-handed. Maybe I forgot. It’s been more than 20 years and I’m old.

I just want to get this Assisi issue out of the way, because it seems to muddle the waters in this discussion.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Arnobius]

SFD:

What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don’t know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope…

Or Lefebvre could have considered the possibility he was in error, and there was something he failed to understand about the nature of what happened. Perhaps he could have recognized that just as Feeney was certain he was right in his interpretations of the Past decrees of the Church, but was excommunicated because he was wrong; so too he was wrong in his interpretations, and erred in his pride in thinking he was right and others were wrong.

 

[SFD]

Thanks. So your point is worthless. He never slipped into sedevacantism. Perhaps God took him to spare him Hell and this final separation from the Holy Catholic Church.

No, pnewton, he recognised it as a lawful theological opinion and posited that he himself might someday be forced to hold it.

You can bait me all you want Mr. Newton…rest assured I won’t take it…the bait, that is

SFD

 

[pnewton]

No, pnewton, he recognised it as a lawful theological opinion and posited that he himself might someday be forced to hold it.

But never did. The difference is not bait. It is of all the importance in the world. The difference between embracing the Church and rejecting the Church is the difference between heaven and hell. My statement was a real possibility. Sometimes death is a mercy from God to protect us from our own wisdom.

 

[SFD]

But never did. The difference is not bait. It is of all the importance in the world. The difference between embracing the Church and rejecting the Church is the difference between heaven and hell. My statement was a real possibility. Sometimes death is a mercy from God to protect us from our own wisdom.

Rest assured that neither he nor I are “rejecting the Church” by holding a lawful theological opinion. Are you saying that one goes to hell for a mistake?

SFD

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In this case, Peter spoke contrary to what the Archbishop presented and the Archbishop defied him.

I agree.

Ironically Msgr. Lefebvre and his movement dissent with the voice of Peter, which is antithetical to the teaching of St. Pius X: “to demonstrate our love to the Pope it is necessary to obey him…there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope” (St. Pius X, allocution against dissenting priests, 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695]