Archbishop Lefebvre

[Sure]

Gerard,

First, I meant to say “Of course Pope’s are resistable.” I mistyped.

Who judges “necessity”?

That’s really all we need to know.

And I am not repeating lies. I am only repeating what is contained in Ecclesia Dei, the statement from the PCILT, and the code of canon law.

You are arguing from necessity when you go on and on about all the reasons Lefevbre just HAD to act. SO, who is the judge of that necessity???

 

[GerardP]

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.

Unless of course the excommunication is invalid and the schism is just a lie. In that case, the lies are the work of the devil and the SSPX priest is recieving added grace for the persecution (the fifth mark of the Church)

When a priest says the words of absolution but is not actually absolving sins, you can bet that’s the work of the devil.

Unless of course the Church supplies the jurisdiction for the benefit of the faithful.

Make no mistake the devil doesn’t only work through relativism or modernism…he gets you anyway he can.

The masterstroke of the devil was turning obedience to the Pope into disobedience to the faith.

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

Because the SSPX puts them to shame because they are liberals ultimately. Moderate but still liberals at best. They are either weak, wicked or hopelessly confused in the words of bishop Williamson.

Fr. Scott pointed out quite a few of Bishop Bruskewitz’ liberal mistakes and that’s why he doesn’t like the SSPX. Bishop Chaput sat in a car and watched the opening ceremonies of St. Isidore the Farmer’s Church. I hope he learned a thing or two.

 

[Sure]

Unless of course the excommunication is invalid and the schism is just a lie.

Again, argument by necessity…who is the judge of that necessity???

FYI…when you bash Bishop’s like Bruskewitz and Chaput, you destroy your credibility.

 

[GerardP]

QUOTE]Gerard,

First, I meant to say “Of course Pope’s are resistable.” I mistyped.

That’s good. What about conditionally evil actions? Can a Pope be resisted who orders something conditionally evil?

Who judges “necessity”?

The same person who must act out of necessity. You admit a Pope can be resisted, who judges when a Pope needs to be resisted?

That’s really all we need to know.

You already know. A Pope can be resisted. Why? Who judges when something is intrinsically or conditionally evil?

And I am not repeating lies. I am only repeating what is contained in Ecclesia Dei, the statement from the PCILT, and the code of canon law.

Milingo is not mentioned in any of those documents. Ecclesia Dei has grave errros in it. Canon law was selectively used against LeFebvre, which is another abuse of power by JPII. We can get into those details (again) if you wish.

You are arguing from necessity when you go on and on about all the reasons Lefevbre just HAD to act. SO, who is the judge of that necessity???

The same person who is the judge that a Pope can be resisted. Or do you have to get permission from the Pope to disobey him when he orders something immoral to be done?

You’ve already admitted a Pope can be resisted. Who is the judge of when he is to be resisted?

 

[Sure]

So, the one who acts is the judge of necessity? Wow. That’s highly problematic. That means I can go and violate canon law and avoid excommunication if I “feel” grave fear?

Well, there we have it, then. Utterly subjective necessity. Quite a funny concept for someone so traditional and conservative!

 

[GerardP]

Again, argument by necessity…who is the judge of that necessity???

See above. You know the answer. A Pope can be resisted.

FYI…when you bash Bishop’s like Bruskewitz and Chaput, you destroy your credibility.

Pointing out the liberalism of bishop’s is “bashing” them? Hardly. The fact is the “best” of the bishops are substandard. Bruskewitz lied about the SSPX against the policy of the Holy See regarding schism and participation of the laiety at SSPX chapels. He could hardly claim necessity. Fr. Scott points out Michael Davies’ assessment of the situation. Bruskewitz rather than admit his mistake “dug in his heels”

sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/Lincoln_diocese3.pdf

 

[GerardP]

So, the one who acts is the judge of necessity? Wow. That’s highly problematic. That means I can go and violate canon law and avoid excommunication if I “feel” grave fear?

You’re argument is against the canon law against itself. Does Canon law take the interior disposition of the accused into account or not?

Well, there we have it, then. Utterly subjective necessity. Quite a funny concept for someone so traditional and conservative.

Discernment is traditional. Wisdom, knowledge, understanding, counsel, fortitude etc. ever hear of them?

Your modernism is showing. You don’t believe a reasonable person can determine objective necessity. If a person determines something, it must be subjective in your eyes. Correct? You believe necessity is an issue of authority and not objective reality.

So you must come to the conclusion that the Pope is impeccable and irresistible.

Because you can’t resist a Pope without his judgement and permission on the resistance. Right?

 

[Sure]

Canon Law tells us necessity is a possiblity. It also tells us who the final judge is of that necessity. It’s not the acting individual, it’s the Supreme Legislator. The record is clear that the Supreme Legislator determined there was no necessity and the excommunication exists.

That’s really all there is.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… It is certainly within the realm of possibility for a Pope to deviate from the faith, teach heresy, and become a heretic.

I disagree. Ironically, the above claim is far from “traditional” Catholic view. It smacks more of modernism to me, and has much in common with Charles Curran and his like.

On the contrary, at the First Vatican Council, Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen cited St. Robert Bellarmine’s view within the official Relatio on the Proper Sense of the Proposed Doctrine of *Papal Infallibility, *prior to the vote on Pastor Aeternus (c. July 11, 1870):

“It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith."

[St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book 4, chapter VI, cited by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen at Vatican I, prior to the vote on Pastor Aeternus (c. July 11, 1870)]

The above was held as “most probable and common” by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church. Yet, some Catholics claiming to be “traditional” have departed from this “traditional” Catholic view, much like their modernists counterparts.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…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.

He was excommunicated because his actions were CRIMINAL. Pertinacious violation of canon law is a CRIME, and this particular crime warranted the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae in accordance with canon law. The internal disposition of his soul is not (and cannot be) judged by the Roman Pontiff. However, his crime can and was validly penalized.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

With regard to “disobeying out of fear,” this derives from the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas which states “necessity brings with it a dispensation.” However, it is misapplied to Lefebvre’s case.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, in regard to obedience to the law, he states, “it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful.” (Summa Theologica, II, 96, 6). Instead, he asserts “those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws.” Dispensation is certainly appropriate in times where it would be perilous to obey the law: “If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.” Nevertheless, “if it be a matter of doubt, he must either act according to the letter of the law, or consult those in power.”

“Necessity” in the sense that St. Thomas Aquinas describes above does not apply the Lefebvre’s case, because the peril was not “sudden.” He had time to refer the matter to higher authority. After higher authority rules on the matter, one cannot then claim “necessity” to violate the law. That’s not necessity…that’s outright defiance.

St. Gregory the Great affirmed: “sometimes for the sake of obedience we should lay aside the good we are doing…****obedience should be practiced, not out of servile fear, but from a sense of charity, not through fear of punishment, but through love of justice.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa, 104, 3)

MSgr Lefebvre clearly intended to commit a CRIME which carried a penalty of excommuncation *latae sententiae. *Then after having received the judgment from his superior, he disregarded the correction. May God have mercy upon his soul, because in accordance with traditional Catholic theology, he committed a most grievous sin. Indeed, necessity brings with it a dispensation, but using the principles described by St. Thomas Aquinas, Lefebvre should have "referred the matter to authority." He should have loved the pope.

 

[GerardP]

Canon Law tells us necessity is a possiblity. It also tells us who the final judge is of that necessity. It’s not the acting individual, it’s the Supreme Legislator. The record is clear that the Supreme Legislator determined there was no necessity and the excommunication exists.

That’s really all there is.

That is right out of Alice in Wonderland. You seriously don’t expect people to believe this rigorist, legalistic and tautalogical madness, do you?

But you admit the Pope can be resisted. Correct?

If the necessity is brought about by the Pope’s own misjudgement actions. And the Pope continues this by his misjudment, then you are saying the Pope is infallible in this judgement and can’t be resisted?

That is completely circular reasoning on your part.

 

[GerardP]

He was excommunicated because his actions were CRIMINAL.

Disobeying an immoral order from a Pope who is purposely allowing the Church to collapse is not a crime.

Pertinacious violation of canon law is a CRIME, and this particular crime warranted the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae in accordance with canon law.

No. That is simply not true. The facts show that LeFebvre believed that the crisis in the Church necessitated the consecrations. And history has proven him correct.

The internal disposition of his soul is not (and cannot be) judged by the Roman Pontiff.

Yet that is what is done in the lunacy of the document Ecclesia Dei. JPII continually passes judgement on LeFebvre’s internal disposition. He provides no proof for his own false accusations and committs scandal and calumny against the person of LeFebvre.

However, his crime can and was validly penalized.

Invalid and unjust. JPII is the responsible and guilty party in this affair.

 

[GerardP]

I disagree. Ironically, the above claim is far from “traditional” Catholic view. It smacks more of modernism to me, and has much in common with Charles Curran and his like.

On the contrary, at the First Vatican Council, Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen cited St. Robert Bellarmine’s view within the official Relatio on the Proper Sense of the Proposed Doctrine of *Papal Infallibility, *prior to the vote on Pastor Aeternus (c. July 11, 1870):

“It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith."

[St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book 4, chapter VI, cited by Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser of Brixen at Vatican I, prior to the vote on Pastor Aeternus (c. July 11, 1870)]

The above was held as “most probable and common” by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church. Yet, some Catholics claiming to be “traditional” have departed from this “traditional” Catholic view, much like their modernists counterparts.

That is not in the official, binding text of Pastor Aeternus, therefore one can and should by the lessons of history hold an opinion contrary to the “pious belief” that is also allowed.

Bellarmine as you did not believe Popes were irresistible.

 

[GerardP]

“Necessity” in the sense that St. Thomas Aquinas describes above does not apply the Lefebvre’s case, because the peril was not “sudden.”

“Sudden” is not the only qualifier. Nor is it absolutely necessary. The dispensation occurs when it would be perilous to obey the law. The consistent gamesmanship on the part of the heirarchy and the uncertainty of LeFebvre’s lifespan coupled with the self-evident crisis in the Church qualifies as appropriate. And further since the malfeasance was on the part of those in power. Aquinas’ prudent recommendation is null since those in authority are the cause of the crisis. His argument on obedience to superiors takes precedence.

He had time to refer the matter to higher authority. After higher authority rules on the matter, one cannot then claim “necessity” to violate the law. That’s not necessity…that’s outright defiance.

Hah! Nonsense. The problem is WITH the Pope and the heirarchy. ( Who is not a god by the way. )

St. Gregory the Great affirmed: “sometimes for the sake of obedience we should lay aside the good we are doing…obedience should be practiced, not out of servile fear, but from a sense of charity, not through fear of punishment, but through love of justice.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa, 104, 3)

Sometimes…not all the time and certainly not this time. St. Gregory himself would have been appalled at JPII.

MSgr Lefebvre clearly intended to commit a CRIME which carried a penalty of excommuncation latae sententiae.

LeFebvre intended to stop a CRIME…the attempted dissolution of the Catholic Church organization and was punished unjustly.

Then after having received the judgment from his superior, he disregarded the correction.

Because it was intrinsically invalid an act of malice and deliberately unjust.

May God have mercy upon his soul, because in accordance with traditional Catholic theology, he committed a most grievous sin.

No he didn’t. He protected the faithful from the wolves.

Indeed, necessity brings with it a dispensation, but using the principles described by St. Thomas Aquinas, Lefebvre should have “referred the matter to authority.” He should have loved the pope.

That’s just sentimental hogwash. He loved the Pope despite the Pope’s abuse. The Pope had a better friend in LeFebvre than he had in himself. The Pope should have loved God and not the naval gazing he so enjoyed. The Pope should have been a Pope and not derelict in his duty to protect the faithful and the deposit of faith.

The fact that due to a false sentimentality people pretend that JPII wasn’t a disaster for the Church doesn’t take away from the reality. The proof is in the fact that everytime Pope Benedict does something to restore the Church, the liberals cry out in pain, the trads thank God and the conservatives gasp a sigh of relief for some “strange” reason.

 

[SFD]

Pax et Caritas:

JReducation:

First, I apologize if you responded to me earlier and I missed your post.

Second, I will disagree that Pope John Paul II falls into the category of heretic. For example, what he said of the Eastern Orthodox Church makes sanse. There is no need to convert them, as they are Apostolic. The separaton between them and us has to do with the primacy of Peter. Therefore, the road to union is not through conversion, but through dialogue until an understanding of Peter’s prmacy is understood and accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church as it is by the Roman Church.

Your post made my point better than any of the quotes I provided. The Orthodox are both heretics and schismatics. They are heretics for many reasons, several of which are that they deny the Primacy of the Pope and Papal Infallibility. Those are truths that have been revealed by God and defined de fide. Anyone who rejectes either of those dogmas is indeed a heretic. The Orthodox reject both of them, many others, and all of the councils of the past 1,000 years.

Rejecting the Primacy of the Pope and refusing submission to him also makes them schismatics. They do not accept the authority of the Pope but refuse obedience on this or that point: they reject the Primacy outright.

It is de fide Church dogma that heretics and schismatics are not part of the Church, and as such will go to hell. If you need a quotes to back up what I just said, let me know. There’s plenty of them.

Don’t follow the wolves into perdition. God has allowed a great crisis to shake his Church, and most will be damned as a result.

You said there is no reason to convert the orthodox because they ae “apostolic”. If you mean that they have apostolic succession, that is true… but so does the SSPX.

Don’t you find it a little interesting that the wolves claim that the SSPX is in schism but not the Orthodox?

Please don’t let the wolves lead you to perdition with them.

I see that no one attempted to answer this…I wonder why?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

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

No one said they were infallible. In fact, an excommunication is a medicinal penalty designed to bring the one who has been excommunicated into line.

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.

The role of the pope is clearly spelled out in Scripture – he is to maintain unity and to build up the brothers. That means he is the one who decides if there is an emergency or not. He is the one who is responsible for the health and well-being of the Church. It is the responsibility of those in communion with him to bring issues to his attention. But once he has dealt with the issue it is no longer our prerogative to take action contrary to what the pope has decided. That’s what being in communion means. When we break communion with the pope we break communion with the Church and, by concomitance, with the Body of Christ. Not a good thing, in my opinion.

Deacon Ed

 

[bear06]

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

Lefebvre isn’t the arbiter of the law.

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

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

"Pax et Caritas:

… It is certainly within the realm of possibility for a Pope to deviate from the faith, teach heresy, and become a heretic.

I disagree. Ironically, the above claim is far from “traditional” Catholic view. It smacks more of modernism to me, and has much in common with Charles Curran and his like.

Then why would a Pope teach the following?

POPE PAUL IV: “In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind * is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling”(Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio ).

If it was impossible for a Pope to deviate from the faith, why would this Pope teach us that it is permitted to disobey if a Pope if he deviates from the faith? And why would Pope Adrian VI teach the followig:

POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523) “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sententiam).

POPE ADRIAN VI: "After his death [Pope] Honorius was anathematized by the Eastern Church. We must remember that he was accused of heresy, a crime which legitimizes the resistance of inferiors to superiors, together with the rejection of their pernicious doctrines. (Allocution III, Lect. In Conc. VIII, act. VII)

Now be honest, if you had lived during the reign of Pope John XXII who taught publicly that the souls of the saved would not possess the beatifiv vision until after the general judgment, you would have defended that error, wouldn’t you? Be homest.

And had you lived during the time of Pope Honorious, you would have agreed with him that Jesus only had one will, wouldn’t you?

In fact, I bet you agree with John Paul II that “the old Covenant has never been revoked by God”, don’t you? And you probably also believe that a Mass that has no words of consecration is valid, don’t you?

So, do you believe that a “mass” having no words of consecration is valid? After all, John Paul II thought it was and he signed a document confirming it.*

 

[bear06]

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

Now come on Sure. You know that they’ve all victims of legalism. They can;t possibly be following the teachings of previous popes!