Archbishop Lefebvre

[itsjustdave1988]

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

Sound’s like modernism to me. This is the exact same appeal to the subjective conscience “progressives” make.

The facts show that LeFebvre believed that the crisis in the Church necessitated the consecrations.

It doesn’t matter what Lefebvre “believed.” Luther “believed” many things as well, but that doesn’t justify criminal behavior. The “theory of justification by the errant conscience” is contrary to traditional Catholicism, and tactic of modernism. It appears Lefebvrists have learned to adopt such tactics.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas there are only two reasons to disobey ones superior: 1) the superior demans that which is contrary to higher authority, or 2) the superior demands something outside the scope of his authority. None of which were manifest in Lefebvre’s case. Furthermore, there was no “sudden” peril which the appeal to “necessity” could be justified.

JPII continually passes judgement on LeFebvre’s internal disposition.

Rubbish. Lefebvre’s crime was penalized latae sententiae. The Holy See merely affirmed the fact of his punishment.

 

[bear06]

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.

I always find this one a little puzzling. AB Lefebvre knew that the consecrations would mean automatic excommunication by the Church and did him anyway but didn’t intend to separate from the Church? What does this mean? He didn’t intend to separate, he just intended to commit and act that would cause a separation? Again, ROME HAS SPOKEN.

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.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

That is not in the official, binding text…

Quibbling. You oppose the traditional Catholic view held as “most common” and “most probable” by St. Robert Bellarmine. It is clear then that Modernism is running a-muck in Lefebvrist apologetics.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

“Sudden” is not the only qualifier. Nor is it absolutely necessary.

Ah, so in addition to rejected St. Robert Bellarmine’s teaching, you also reject St. Thomas Aquinas? Astonishing.

 

[GerardP]

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.

Correct and obviously this canonical power can be abused.

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.

A Pope doesn’t “decide” if there is an emergency or not. He can’t make them up out of thin air when there isn’t one and he can’t make one disappear because he says it’s not real. JPII did the latter.

He is the one who is responsible for the health and well-being of the Church.

And when he falters in his performance are you supposed to follow him in his errors?

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.

And when he refuses to deal with the issues and souls are at stake?

That’s what being in communion means.

Again, what about when he strays from the true path? Isn’t he to be rebuked if necessary?

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.

How about when the Pope tries to break communion with the Church’s past?

 

[bear06]

Only when speaking infallibly.

Where is this in Church teaching. Apparently Pius XII had a different theory.

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.”

Pastor Aeternus says the same thing. Ah, but what does he know?

 

[Margarite]

I think he may have been a man who thought he was doing good, but instead he did something horrible. He gave all the people who had the right ideas about reforming these people who took Vatican II over the edge and used people’s lack of knowledge about it to teach all sorts of horrible things.

Lefebvre was the one who took all the good people who could have helped us “Loyalists” to save the Church from the state it is now in. Now the stuggle for those of us who remained is so much the harder. My mom’s entire family (she is the eldest of 9) is in the SSPX and they are horrible to her because she is not with them. They have even told her that she is taking herself and her six kids (of whom I am the eldest) to hell. They are very much like the phariseees. It is their way or the highway. They do not believe that anyone outside the SSPX can go to heaven.

My aunts keep sending Modesty books to me. These books were written in the 1800’s so their idea of modesty is a little out dated: sleeves below the elbow, skirts down to the ankle, etc. Then they keep sending me to SSPX websites where they bash the pope. They say they love the pope, but they don’t. They think he is liberal.

My family loves the TLM, we wish we could go to a TLM every Sunday, but we can’t because we think that it is more important to stay in union with the Church that Christ started than to go to a mass that we like. We think that if we stay and fight we can make a difference, but think how much more of a difference we could make if the SSPX wasn’t stealing all the good people who are tired of the struggle.

You know the NO can be beautiful when done right like EWTN always does. It is not something evil and that is what the SSPX teaches.

My advice to the author of this thread is go to the EWTN website and ask one of the Question & Answer people what they think. Allot of them are cannon lawyers and they will know the right path to take.

 

[bear06]

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

) Supreme Legislator. Supreme Legislator. Supreme Legislator. My goodness. Does this mean nothing to you unless you agree with him?

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

Yes, because we all know that anyone who disagrees with the SSPX is automatically a liberal. Those liberal FSSP and Institue guys are the worst.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…** may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith**.

The pope can deviate from the faith. However, you also asserted that the pope can “teach heresy” or “become a heretic.” These are different things.

For instance, John XXII gave a sermon that was promoting incorrect teaching about the Beatific Vision of God. He recanted after much fraternal correction. However, a sermon is not the same as an exercise of the ordinary or solemn magisterium promulgated as an Acta Apostolicae Sedis addressed to the universal Church.

Consequently, many of his subordinates immediately (and rightly) contradicted his teaching. John XXII had the matter studied, and in the end, changed his view. This didn’t mean John XXIII pertinaciously taught heresy, though, either as a “person” or formally as Roman Pontiff. Nor did John XXII teach this as sententia certa, but was presenting it as speculative theology, which was not binding upon the faithful. This is far different than that which is promulgated as magisterial act of the Apostolic See to the universal Church, which by its very nature, demands assent.

Consequently, even the Holy Father may be corrected, or even opposed in his “bad example.” We may say “but, Holy Father” in order to provide fraternal correction. However, once the Holy Father examines the (name removed by moderator)ut of his subordinates and still formally and authoritatively promulgates a teaching, then it demands assent.

"For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[Lk 10:16] (cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis, 21).

"We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Questiones Quodlibetales, IX:8).

**Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman:
****"I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience." **[John Henry Newman “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman (1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26]
That’s “traditional Catholicism,” the dissident claims of Lefebvrists notwithstanding.

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?

I would have agreed with the authentic understanding of his teaching, articulated by his successor John IV (640-542) and the champion of orthodoxy against monothetilism, St. Maximus the Confessor, both of which defended the orthodoxy of Honorius.

Pope John IV explains that Honorius meant in his letter that there were not two contrary wills. Of course, the heretics used his letter to spread their error regardless of what was meant by Honorius, which is what his successor, Pope John IV had to contend with…

According to John IV:So, my aformentioned predecessor [Honorius] said concerning the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, that there were not in Him, as in us sinners, contrary wills of mind and flesh, and certain ones converting this to their own meanings suspect that he taught one will of His divinity and humanity which is altogether contrary to the truth" (D 253)Moreover, from the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article, the above defense of Honorius by Pope John IV is based upon “the witness of Abbot John Symponus, who wrote the letter for Honorius.”

**St. Maximus of Constantinople, called “the Confessor” also defended Honorius **in the same manner as John IV above in a letter to Marinus, a priest of Cyprus, saying that when he confessed one will of the Lord, the authentic meaning was that he denied Christ had a will of the flesh, of concupiscence. ***In defining Honorius, St. Maximus also appeals to the testimony of Abbot John Symponus, ******who wrote the letter for Honorius.

Your predictable use of the Lebvrist playbook is not convincing.

---

 

[bear06]

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

Again, you fail to understand, and I was hoping that you might actually read Pius XII that he is irresistable in more than just ex cathedra statements.

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”

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

John XXII gave a sermon that was promoting incorrect teaching about the Beatific Vision of God. He recanted after much fraternal correction. However, a sermon is not the same as an exercise of the ordinary or solemn magisterium promulgated as an Acta Apostolicae Sedis addressed to the universal Church.

Consequently, many of his subordinates immediately (and rightly) contradicted his teaching. John XXII had the matter studied, and in the end, changed his view. This didn’t mean John XXIII pertinaciously taught heresy, …

I never claimed that he did. I simply asked if you would have followed him into error, which, based on your reasoning in this thread, you would have. In fact, you would have claimed that those who corrected him were being disobedient… or worse.

Let’s test my theory: Do you agree with John Paul II that “the old covenant has never been revoked by God”, and that an “mass” with no words of consecration is valid?

 

[bear06]

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

You don’t really expect people to fall for this line of argument do you. Let’s throw in some big words and all arguments will be forgotten!

But you admit the Pope can be resisted. Correct?

 

[bear06]

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

What was this mysterious immoral order?

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.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I never claimed that he did. I simply asked if you would have followed him into error, which, based on your reasoning in this thread, you would have.

Rubbish.

In fact, you would have claimed that those who corrected him were being disobedient… or worse.

Rubbish.

You fail to distinguish that which was promulgated as Acta Aposotlicae Sedis to the universal Church as “sententia certa” and mere theological speculations of the pope.

I share the same criticism of John Paul II as is articulated by Fr. Brian Harrison here:
**Will Pope John Paul II Be Styled "the Great"?(This Rock: October 2003)

Yet, I obey the Vicar of Christ in accordance with the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Catherine of Sienna, et. al.
**
However, I understand clearly, based upon traditional Catholic teaching that the ecclesiastical discipline of the universal church, including universal canon law is infallible in the indirect and negative sense, which means that contrary to Lefebvrist claims, it cannot every be “harmful” or “dangerous” to the faithful. The contrary proposition being already condemned in the 18th century by Pius VI. Lefebvrism merely resurrected an erroneous proposition already condemned by TRADITIONAL Catholics.

 

[bear06]

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

Wow, Gerard. You’re outdoing yourself today! That’s a pretty horrible charge.

 

[Sure]

The pope can deviate from the faith. However, you also asserted that the pope can “teach heresy” or “become a heretic.” These are different things.

For instance, John XXII gave a sermon that was promoting incorrect teaching about the Beatific Vision of God. He recanted after much fraternal correction. However, a sermon is not the same as an exercise of the ordinary or solemn magisterium promulgated as an Acta Apostolicae Sedis addressed to the universal Church.

Consequently, many of his subordinates immediately (and rightly) contradicted his teaching. John XXII had the matter studied, and in the end, changed his view. This didn’t mean John XXIII pertinaciously taught heresy, though, either as a “person” or formally as Roman Pontiff. Nor did John XXII teach this as sententia certa, but was presenting it as speculative theology, which was not binding upon the faithful. This is far different than that which is promulgated as magisterial act of the Apostolic See to the universal Church, which by its very nature, demands assent.

Consequently, even the Holy Father may be corrected, or even opposed in his “bad example.” We may say “but, Holy Father” in order to provide fraternal correction. However, once the Holy Father examines the (name removed by moderator)ut of his subordinates and still formally and authoritatively promulgates a teaching, then it demands assent.

"For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[Lk 10:16] (cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis, 21).

"We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Questiones Quodlibetales, IX:8).

**Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman:
**"I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience." [John Henry Newman “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman (1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26]
That’s “traditional Catholicism,” the dissident claims of Lefebvrists notwithstanding.
I would have agreed with the authentic understanding of his teaching, articulated by his successor John IV (640-542) and the champion of orthodoxy against monothetilism, St. Maximus the Confessor, both of which defended the orthodoxy of Honorius.

Pope John IV explains that Honorius meant in his letter that there were not two contrary wills. Of course, the heretics used his letter to spread their error regardless of what was meant by Honorius, which is what his successor, Pope John IV had to contend with…

According to John IV:So, my aformentioned predecessor [Honorius] said concerning the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, that there were not in Him, as in us sinners, contrary wills of mind and flesh, and certain ones converting this to their own meanings suspect that he taught one will of His divinity and humanity which is altogether contrary to the truth" (D 253)Moreover, from the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article, the above defense of Honorius by Pope John IV is based upon “the witness of Abbot John Symponus, who wrote the letter for Honorius.”

St. Maximus of Constantinople, called “the Confessor” also defended Honorius in the same manner as John IV above in a letter to Marinus, a priest of Cyprus, saying that when he confessed one will of the Lord, the authentic meaning was that he denied Christ had a will of the flesh, of concupiscence. ***In defining Honorius, St. Maximus also appeals to the testimony of Abbot John Symponus, ******who wrote the letter for Honorius.

Your predictable use of the Lebvrist playbook is not convincing.

---

Wow. All I can say is wow.

Well done, good sir! :clapping:

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Rubbish.

Then why won’t you answer my question? It is a very simple question:

Do you agree with John Paul II that 1.) “the old covenant has never been revoked by God”, and 2.) that an “mass” with no words of consecration is valid?

 

[SFD]

itsjustdave:

For instance, John XXII gave a sermon that was promoting incorrect teaching about the Beatific Vision of God. He recanted after much fraternal correction. However, a sermon is not the same as an exercise of the ordinary or solemn magisterium promulgated as an Acta Apostolicae Sedis addressed to the universal Church.

Consequently, many of his subordinates immediately (and rightly) contradicted his teaching. John XXII had the matter studied, and in the end, changed his view. This didn’t mean John XXIII pertinaciously taught heresy, though, either as a “person” or formally as Roman Pontiff. Nor did John XXII teach this as sententia certa, but was presenting it as speculative theology, which was not binding upon the faithful. This is far different than that which is promulgated as magisterial act of the Apostolic See to the universal Church, which by its very nature, demands assent.

Dave,

Please notice what Pope John XXII did when he was accused of heresy, and he was indeed, MATERIALLY, “guilty”. He moved to investigate the matter, as in any doctrinal controversy, by means of the Cardinals and theologians. This showed he was not pertinacious in error. Paul VI, JPII, and now Benedict XVI, by acting otherwise, prove their pertinacity. They have completely ignored all attacks on their orthodoxy.

SDF

 

[SFD]

Then why won’t you answer my question? It is a very simple question:

Do you agree with John Paul II that 1.) “the old covenant has never been revoked by God”, and 2.) that an “mass” with no words of consecration is valid?

Dave,

Why don’t you answer the question?

SFD

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Dave,

Why don’t you answer the question?

SFD

He won’t answer the question for two reason: 1.) He knows deep down inside that we are right. We are simply saying what he fears to say. Since he fears it so much, he does not want to face it. Therefore, he lashes out at us for stating the obvious. And 2.) because if he answers that question he will be forced to either admit to believing the contrary of what the Church teaches, or else have to admit that John Paul II taught some very serious errors on some extremely basic points. That’s why he won’t answer.