Archbishop Lefebvre

[Arnobius]

I’m supporting your position. God doesn’t work the way that we work. We need to stop making up rules for God. Let him judge souls according to his justice and mercy.

You can’t damn a non-believer to hell and assume it’s ok to send Lefebvre to Heaven or the other way around.

I agree with you. People must be consistent. Preferably, they should be consistent with the Gospel. It only speaks of one Judge of souls.

Personally, I believe that it is not our place to decide who goes to hell or heaven. There is only one just judge. So far, he’s done a good job. Let him keep it.

Ah sorry. With all the sarcasm that floats around the thread, I mistook your comments as a condemnation. My mistake.

 

[cam100]

pnewton;3180534:

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.

SFD

I don’t think you can say that Archbishop Lefebvre embraced sedevcantism, and disobeyed the order from Pope John Paul II because he was sure JPII wasn’t really the pope. Do you have any evidence that indicates this was the Archbishop’s reason for the disobedience? I’m not aware of any. I know he toyed around with the idea of sedevacantism, but I’ve seen no indication that he embraced it and based his actions on it.

Remember that he even expelled the nine priests (who later became the sedevacantist SSPV) from the SSPX because they were sedevacantists and were acting in accordance with that belief.

 

[stmaria]

I notice that no one - not one single person - attempted to answer my earlier question: If “grave fear” (as judged by oneself) renders one’s excommunication invalid, then could Arch Milingo consecrate some bishops tomorrow without incurring excommunication??? Why not???

I’d love to hear the explanation.!

How can you possibly compare Archbishop Lefebvre with Archbishop Milango?
Archbishop Lefebvre wanted to retain the Traditional Mass. A Mass of countless saints and over 200 Popes.
Milingo renounced celebacy and wanted a married priesthood. He himself married in 2001 and yet was not excommunicated by Pope John Paul. Why not? He also was involved with the pagan sect of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon.
He did in fact consecrated four bishops in 2006. All four were married and members of "Old Catholic " churches.
He was excommunicated in 2006 for consecrating four married heretical bishops . But to compare him and Archbishop Lefebvre is an insult.

 

[Sure]

How can you possibly compare Archbishop Lefebvre with Archbishop Milango?
Archbishop Lefebvre wanted to retain the Traditional Mass. A Mass of countless saints and over 200 Popes.
Milingo renounced celebacy and wanted a married priesthood. He himself married in 2001 and yet was not excommunicated by Pope John Paul. Why not? He also was involved with the pagan sect of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon.
He did in fact consecrated four bishops in 2006. All four were married and members of "Old Catholic " churches.
He was excommunicated in 2006 for consecrating four married heretical bishops . But to compare him and Archbishop Lefebvre is an insult.

No. And perceived insults aside, let’s stay on point here. This is a very narrow and defined question. Can a bishop act against canon law out of “grave fear” (as defined by the bishop himself) and therefore not suffer excommunication? If you answer yes for Lefevbre, then you MUST answer yes for Milingo (not in the act he did previously, but a hypothetical act) or anyone else. The law applies equally.

This discussion gets to the heart of the matter - one cannot defend Lefevbre as invalidly excommunicated without opening a pandora’s box…a slippery slope to actions that ALL would agree are excommunicable. It is HIGHLY problematic if the only person who can judge necessity of “grave fear” is the individual who is acting.

 

[GerardP]

The really comical thing in all of this is that, if Pope John Paul II had been more “hardline” and less ecumenical, he would have declared the entire SSPX “anathema and damned” and warned the faithful under pain of excommunication not to attend their illicit and sacriligious Masses!

Had JPII or Paul VI for that matter been more hardline there would have been no necessity for the SSPX. It wouldn’t exist.

Lucky for the SSPX, JPII wanted a dialogue to bring them back, earlier Pope’s would have had none of it.

“Dialogue” is a laughable concept when it comes to JPII. He was a very substandard Pope and a dangerous man philosophically and theologically.

Thank you for posting those quotes. Anyone attempting to justify Lefebvre’s action has been thoroughly destroyed by the words of the Pope’s they admire most. The irony is rich!

You don’t seriously believe that St. Pius X wouldn’t have been horrified by the actions of JPII and if he’d been Pope when JPII was alive he’d have forbidden him from ordination or thrown him into a monastery for life. Only a dishonest legalism would try to beat LeFebvre with contextually robbed quotes from previous Popes.

I notice that no one - not one single person - attempted to answer my earlier question: If “grave fear” (as judged by oneself) renders one’s excommunication invalid, then could Arch Milingo consecrate some bishops tomorrow without incurring excommunication??? Why not???

Milingo did consecrate bishops. The Vatican has declared them invalid. Though they didn’t say why, it can only be due to the fact that Milingo (a famous exorcist) is either possessed or insane. So, the proper intention was missing.

But you knew this already. We’d discussed it in earlier threads. Why do you continue to trot out old arguments that have been shown to be false? Do you get paid to trash the SSPX?

I’d love to hear the explanation.

You’ve been told. Many times. Why the pretense?

This all comes down to simple cafeteria catholicism…the SSPX and their defenders are proportionalists who pick and choose what parts of Church law will be followed and what parts will be ignored. It is indeed a sad sickness and truly the work of the devil.

Nonsense. The very fact that you refuse to get into details about what schism really is. What the legalities really were, what true and false obedience is as taught by the Church is the sad sickness.

Quit retreading your broken down, false and dishonest arguments.

I personally am tired of reading them. Especially when it is so clear that you are afraid to really get into the meat of the argument.

Questions you won’t answer:

(eg. Are Popes irresistible in all things? At what point can a Pope be legitimately resisted? Are there examples from history? Can a Pope invalidly excommunicate someone? Does the Church teach that an invalid excommunication is to be ignored? and so on and so on…)

 

[Sure]

Gerard,

Go start a thread about John Paul II. We’re not talking about that here. Let’s keep this on point about Lefevbre’s excommunication.

Who judges “necessity”? The individual who acts? That makes canon law meaningless.

Of course Pope’s are irresistable. If a Pope asks you to do something intrinsically evil you must disobey him. Refraining from consecrating bishops isn’t evil in any way.

No, I don’t get paid to trash them. They are the work of the devil and I generally oppose the work of the devil.

 

[latinmasslover]

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.

So our duty is to follow like blind hogs while a pope goes his own way? I was under the impression that it was the duty of the Pope to safeguard the flock by standing by the teachings of Jesus Christ, not to scandalize the world by contradictory example.

 

[Sure]

So our duty is to follow like blind hogs while a pope goes his own way? I was under the impression that it was the duty of the Pope to safeguard the flock by standing by the teachings of Jesus Christ, not to scandalize the world by contradictory example.

“Dad, Dad, wait, but he did something really bad! Dad!!!”

 

[latinmasslover]

Gerard,

Go start a thread about John Paul II. We’re not talking about that here. Let’s keep this on point about Lefevbre’s excommunication.

Who judges “necessity”? The individual who acts? That makes canon law meaningless.

Of course Pope’s are irresistable. If a Pope asks you to do something intrinsically evil you must disobey him. Refraining from consecrating bishops isn’t evil in any way.

No, I don’t get paid to trash them. They are the work of the devil and I generally oppose the work of the devil.

I always thought of the devil as more of a modern relativist, not a demon who inspires reverence at the Holy Sacrifice, recitation of the Holy Rosary, prayer-penance-mortification, etc, etc, etc… One act of debatable schism with faithfulness to the constant teachings of the Church and holiness, over acts of false worship, false ecumenism (already condemned) in the name of a false peace? For me there is no comparison.

Is everyone aware that it is possible for a pope to be wrong? After all, he’s not God.

 

[latinmasslover]

“Dad, Dad, wait, but he did something really bad! Dad!!!”

???

 

[Sure]

I always thought of the devil as more of a modern relativist, not a demon who inspires reverence at the Holy Sacrifice, recitation of the Holy Rosary, prayer-penance-mortification, etc, etc, etc… One act of debatable schism with faithfulness to the constant teachings of the Church and holiness, over acts of false worship, false ecumenism (already condemned) in the name of a false peace? For me there is no comparison.

Is everyone aware that it is possible for a pope to be wrong? After all, he’s not God.

When a priest commits a mortal sin (as all SSPX priests objectively do) when he consecrates the very Body of Christ, you can bet that’s the work of the devil. When a priest says the words of absolution but is not actually absolving sins, you can bet that’s the work of the devil. Make no mistake the devil doesn’t only work through relativism or modernism…he gets you anyway he can.

Don’t you ever wonder why the most traditional friendly bishops are also the most hardline AGAINST the SSPX?

 

[GerardP]

Can a bishop act against canon law out of “grave fear” (as defined by the bishop himself) and therefore not suffer excommunication? If you answer yes for Lefevbre, then you MUST answer yes for Milingo (not in the act he did previously, but a hypothetical act) or anyone else. The law applies equally.

Yes. Excommunications must consist of mortal sin. Even if the bishop is wrong on the facts he must get a reduced punishment if his intention is not to separate from the Church. As in the case of Bishop Thuc’s later consecrations nobody can even figure out those consecrations but Thuc as far as I know was not excommunicated a second time. And Paul VI was very quick to lift the excommunication and penalties on Thuc, probably because he knew the dubious nature of an excommunication like that.

This discussion gets to the heart of the matter - one cannot defend Lefevbre as invalidly excommunicated without opening a pandora’s box…a slippery slope to actions that ALL would agree are excommunicable.

No. Opening a pandora’s box is exaggerating the limits of obedience to the Pope to turn him into an impeccable, infallible god and make him absolute in all things. This is why the Church has a magisterium. If the Pope teaches or acts against it, he can be resisted. As St. Paul said, “If WE or an angel of light preach a gospel different from that which we have given you, let him be anathema.”

If a bishop tries to consecrate bishops on the ground of “grave fear” because he needs to undermine a traditional rite, custom or mode of the Church that has existed throughout the history of the Church (eg. celibacy) he can be excommunicated for disobedience to Trent.

That is completely different from the persecution of archbishop LeFebvre for continuing to hand on the faith as handed on to him.

 

[Sure]

???

You are using the defense that it was okay for Arch Lefevbre to do something evil because other people were doing worse things. It doesn’t fly.

 

[latinmasslover]

You are using the defense that it was okay for Arch Lefevbre to do something evil because other people were doing worse things. It doesn’t fly.

Ah, thanks for clarifying, I read it wrong.

That was not the view I meant to express. Just a comparison of which is really more wrong; and not just what “other people” were doing, but what the Pope himself was doing.

 

[Sure]

Yes. Excommunications must consist of mortal sin. Even if the bishop is wrong on the facts he must get a reduced punishment if his intention is not to separate from the Church. As in the case of Bishop Thuc’s later consecrations nobody can even figure out those consecrations but Thuc as far as I know was not excommunicated a second time. And Paul VI was very quick to lift the excommunication and penalties on Thuc, probably because he knew the dubious nature of an excommunication like that.

That was under the code of 1917 which was slightly different. I disagree that excommunications must consist of mortal sin. They must consist of doing an objectively evil act…not necessarily sin.

No. Opening a pandora’s box is exaggerating the limits of obedience to the Pope to turn him into an impeccable, infallible god and make him absolute in all things. This is why the Church has a magisterium. If the Pope teaches or acts against it, he can be resisted. As St. Paul said, “If WE or an angel of light preach a gospel different from that which we have given you, let him be anathema.” If a bishop tries to consecrate bishops on the ground of “grave fear” because he needs to undermine a traditional rite, custom or mode of the Church that has existed throughout the history of the Church (eg. celibacy) he can be excommunicated for disobedience to Trent.

That is completely different from the persecution of archbishop LeFebvre for continuing to hand on the faith as handed on to him.

No…you missed it. The Pope can be resisted. But refraining from consecrating bishops is not an immoral act therefore there is no cause to resist. You didn’t answer: Who judges the “grave fear” the individual or someone else???

Lefevbre could have handed on the faith without consecrating bishops.

 

[latinmasslover]

When a priest commits a mortal sin (as all SSPX priests objectively do) when he consecrates the very Body of Christ, you can bet that’s the work of the devil. When a priest says the words of absolution but is not actually absolving sins, you can bet that’s the work of the devil. Make no mistake the devil doesn’t only work through relativism or modernism…he gets you anyway he can.

Don’t you ever wonder why the most traditional friendly bishops are also the most hardline AGAINST the SSPX?

If the SSPX is in fact demonic, then the Pope is obliged to reprimand anyone who attends their chapels…since no lay person is being excommunicated (as far as I know) for attending Mass at an SSPX chapel, my conclusion is that it’s not as bad as many would have us think.

One other thing: Friendly isn’t always a good thing.

 

[Sure]

If the SSPX is in fact demonic, then the Pope is obliged to reprimand anyone who attends their chapels…since no lay person is being excommunicated (as far as I know) for attending Mass at an SSPX chapel, my conclusion is that it’s not as bad as many would have us think.

One other thing: Friendly isn’t always a good thing.

I don’t mean demonic in the sense of “possessed”. I just mean influenced by. You could say the same about some of the terrible liturgical abuse that occurs…it’s obviously not the work of God (the abuse part anyway), but one could still theoretically attend the Mass there without sinning.

The faithful do excommunicate themselves if they attend the SSPX exclusively and in support of their schism.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard,
Go start a thread about John Paul II. We’re not talking about that here. Let’s keep this on point about Lefevbre’s excommunication.

I didn’t bring up JPII. You commented on him. I responded. You can’t keep JPII’s actions and lack thereof from LeFebvre’s. LeFebvre’s actions were only reactions to JPII’s and Paul VI’s scandalous behavior.

Who judges “necessity”? The individual who acts? That makes canon law meaningless.

Nonsense. It delineates the severity of the percieved infraction. You saying that all killings are the same and that self-defense is the same as murder.

Of course Pope’s are irresistable.

Only when speaking infallibly.

If a Pope asks you to do something intrinsically evil you must disobey him.

What is he resistible or irresistible then? What qualifies as intrinsically evil? What about conditionally evil? Can a Pope order you to do something conditionally evil?

Refraining from consecrating bishops isn’t evil in any way.

Yes it is. JPII was allowing the Church to collapse and tradition to be destroyed. 20 years of “dialogue” with LeFebvre while the smoke of Satan poured into the Church proved that. That’s malfeasance in High office by the Pope. By asking LeFebvre not to preserve tradition he ordered LeFebvre to participate in that malfeasance. That was evil especially while heretics were allowed to run rampant in the Church. Only a lunatic or the devil would deny this.

Pope Benedict keeps proving this by his example more than his words every day it seems.

No, I don’t get paid to trash them. They are the work of the devil and I generally oppose the work of the devil.

You are participating in the work of the devil that when you keep repeating lies that you have been objectively corrected on. The first time they were errors. Since then, they are objectively lies.

 

[latinmasslover]

That was under the code of 1917 which was slightly different. I disagree that excommunications must consist of mortal sin. They must consist of doing an objectively evil act…not necessarily sin.

No…you missed it. The Pope can be resisted. But refraining from consecrating bishops is not an immoral act therefore there is no cause to resist. You didn’t answer: Who judges the “grave fear” the individual or someone else???

Lefevbre could have handed on the faith without consecrating bishops.

The pope cannot judge the heart, he can’t know if the Archbishop was truly disobeying out of fear. If one examines the situation though, it’s obvious that he was. Was it approved by God? I do not know. Was God looking down favorably on the Archbishop and frowning on his excommunication? I believe so, but can’t say for certain. I do know that blind obedience in everything is foolish. I most certainly wouldn’t justify abandoning the Lord because “Peter went.” That’s my opinion anyway.

 

[latinmasslover]

I don’t mean demonic in the sense of “possessed”. I just mean influenced by. You could say the same about some of the terrible liturgical abuse that occurs…it’s obviously not the work of God (the abuse part anyway), but one could still theoretically attend the Mass there without sinning.

The faithful do excommunicate themselves if they attend the SSPX exclusively and in support of their schism.

I meant “influenced by” as well. I’m a naughty sspx girl, I attend the Novus Ordo, so there’s some agreement.

The faithful excommunicate themselves by attending the SSPX chapels when attending *for the purpose **of *defying the Pope. Slight difference.