Archbishop Lefebvre

[itsjustdave1988]

… Paul VI, JPII, and now Benedict XVI, by acting otherwise, prove their pertinacity.

Ridiculous. All you have is a suspicion of heresy. Suspicion of heresy is not the same as manifest heresy. You make the error of presuming Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict are pertinacious heretics (something that is impossible according to TRADITIONAL CATHOLICISM, IAW St. Robert Bellarmine). You cannot prove your conclusion by citing your own conclusion.

While we have the right, indeed the obligation to the kind of fraternal correction which St. Paul gave to St. Peter or St. Catherine gave to Pope Gregory, if you hold to traditional Catholicism then the pope “will not be judged by anyone.” [cf. St. Nicholas i, AD 865, Denz 330-333, St. Leo X, AD 1053, Denz 353, Clement VI, AD 570g, ad 1351]. Prior papal decrees confirm that not “by all the clergy, nor by religious, nor by the people will the judge be judged…"The first seat will not be judged by anyone” [Denz 330-333]

Consequently, I conclude that only the existing pope may judge himself erroneous (as was the case with John VII), or be so judged by a successor pope. This is the only manner a pope has ever been condemned in Catholic history. It is only by obstinantly rejecting the admonition of one’s lawful superior can one be considered “pertinacious.”

Lefbvrists seem to arrogate to themselves which can only authentically be papal authority.

Consequently, when a successor POPE declares Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI to be pertinacious heretics (something we all know will never happen, because St. Robert was RIGHT about this being impossible), then I will give my assent to what the POPE formally and authoritatively declares. Until then, the mere accusation of heresy has no authoritative value.

I’ve cited traditional Catholicism to prove that the Pope cannot become a heretic. The only way in which the Lefebvrist claim can be true is if they REJECT TRADITIONALISM.

I find this rather untraditional approach toward Catholicism to be absurd.

Instead, I hold firm to what St. Catherine of Sienna said was true, that it is a “deceit of the devil” to believe there can be what St. Thomas Aquinas called “indiscreet obedience” to the Roman Pontiff.: “*For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.” *(St. Catherine of Siena, Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza)"
I furthermore hold to what POPE ST. PIUS X affirmed:“If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For **however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.” (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)
You can oppose traditional Catholicism as expressed by this holy pope and the holy saints quoted above all you like, but for me and my household, we cannot. I must be authentically traditional in my Catholic faith. Therefore I hold that Lefebvrism is contrary to traditional Catholicism and reject it for the good of my soul, and contend against it for the good of all souls.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I can answer the questions if you like, but it seems a departure from the theme of the thread. It would be better to take it to *another thread *that discusses the “suspicion of heresy” charged against John Paul II by Lefebvrists, contrary to traditional Catholicism as cited by St. Robert Bellarmine, which views it impossible for the pope to be a heretic.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I can answer the questions if you like…

I like. Please answer the question. After reading your answer we can take it to another thread if a response is necessary.

 

[GerardP]

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

I don’t reject either. I reject your missapplication of their teaching.

 

[GerardP]

Where is this in Church teaching. Apparently Pius XII had a different theory.
Pastor Aeternus says the same thing. Ah, but what does he know?

Read your own quote:

It is a question of** recognizing **the authority of the Holy See, not only with regard to faith, but even with regard to discipline.

Pius IX is not promoting absolute obedience.

Recognizing the authority of the Holy See means being able to discern what is legitimate and what is abusive. It amazes me how so many people do not actually read the documents that they cite.

Pastor Aeternus calls for “True” obedience. Not false or servile obedience.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I like. Please answer the question. After reading your answer we can take it to another thread if a response is necessary.

Let’s take the first one: the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked.

In his allocution to the Jewish community of West Germany at Mainz, on November 17th, 1980, John Paul II stated “the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked”.

What do you contend he means by this statement, and what dogma is he being accused of contradicting?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Let’s take the first one: the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked.

In his allocution to the Jewish community of West Germany at Mainz, on November 17th, 1980, John Paul II stated “the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked”.

What do you contend he means by this statement, and what dogma is he being accused of contradicting?

Now please answer the other simple question: Do you agree with John Paul II that a Mass containing no words of consecration is valid?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Now please answer the other simple question: Do you agree with John Paul II that a Mass containing no words of consecration is valid?

Wait a sec…one issue at a time. The “suspicion” implied here is that John Paul II obstinantly doubted or denied some dogma with regard to his statement about the old covenant. Let’s deal with that thoroughly first. What do you think was the basis of his supposed “heresy?” Do you know the context of his statement, or are you simply jumping to conclusions? Can you cite the “dogma” either of papal pronouncement or councilar decree with which he is supposedly in denial?

 

[SFD]

itsjustdave:

SFD:

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

Ridiculous. All you have is a suspicion of heresy. Suspicion of heresy is not the same as manifest heresy. You make the error of presuming Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict are pertinacious heretics (something that is impossible according to TRADITIONAL CATHOLICISM, IAW St. Robert Bellarmine). You cannot prove your conclusion by citing your own conclusion.

Dave,

You have missed the point of my post. Look at the entire quote this time. I said, “He moved to investigate the matter” and by this he showed he was not pertinacious. His orthodoxy was questioned, and rightfully so, because his heresy was MATERIALLY a fact. He was not pertinacious because he investigated the charge and then corrected himself. If he would have ignored these charges he would have shown pertinacity.

SFD

 

[stmaria]

Bear, Dave, Sure or anyone else. If you were at Assisi in 1986 and 2002 and Pope John Paul asked you to take the African animists, the Shinto sect and the Zorastrians to their rooms where they could pray to the devil for peace what would have done? Would you have assisted in taking down all of the crucifixes or helped in covering them up? Would you have been obedient or would you have refused his request?

Associated Press report: wayoflife.org/fbns/popesstrange.htm

The medicineman of the Crow Indians spirit worshippers], Chief John Pretty-on-Top, offered to cast out evil spirits. Many came forward, among them a young Franciscan monk.
“In a chapel down the road, the head of the Zorastrian church in Bombay prayed before a fire that symbolized his God.
“Next door, six turbanned Sikhs–all Italian converts–sat chanting their prayers in the lotus position to gramophone music.
“At an old Roman temple, shoeless Moslems sat on prayer mats.
“In the gardens outside, a Shinto sect called Tenrikyo, in black kimonos, swayed to temple music.
“African animists, their togas the envy of any designer, invoked the spirits of trees and plants to come to the aid of peace

Time Magazine 1986
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962783-1,00.html
Two tribal animists from Africa intoned, “Almighty God, the Great Thumb we cannot evade in tying any knot, the Roaring Thunder that splits mighty trees, the All-Seeing Lord up on high who sees even the footprints of an antelope on a rock mass here on earth . . . you are the cornerstone of peace.” Smoking a ceremonial peace pipe, John Pretty-on-Top, a Crow Indian medicine man from Montana in full-feathered headdress, recited, “O Great Spirit, I raise my pipe to you, to your messengers the four winds, and to mother earth, who provides for your children . . . I pray that you bring peace to all my brothers and sisters of this world.”

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Wait a sec…one issue at a time.

No problem, we will do one issue at a time, but please give me your yes or no answer to the second question before we proceed to the back and forth.

I was well aware that my first question had some “wiggle room” whereas the second doesn’t. Therefore, before we start wiggling, please either answer the second question, which merely requires a simple “yes I agree”, or “no I don’t”.

 

[JReducation]

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.

Actually, it is the teaching the Catholic Church that the Orthodox are schismatic, but not heretical.

The belief of John XXIII, Pual VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI is that they do not need to have the Gospel preached to them, because they have already received it.

What needs to be settled is the issue of the Primacy of Peter.

In fact, Lefebvre simply joined the ranks of the Orthodox Church.

Now we have two churches have to be brought to the table, probably more.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I can answer the questions if you like, but it seems a departure from the theme of the thread.

You still have not answered either question. Your only response was a question back to me. I’ll propose both questions again. all that is required is a yes or no answer:

THE QUESTIONS THAT ITSJUSTDAVE1988 WILL NOT ANSWER:

Do you agree with John Paul II that

1.) “the old covenant has never been revoked by God”;

2.) that an “mass” with no words of consecration is valid?

A simple yes or no will suffice. And keep in mind, I have not claimed that either of them is an error. I just asked if you believe them.

 

[GerardP]

Lefebvre isn’t the arbiter of the law.

He never claimed to be. He just did the right thing. Eventually a Pope will correct JPII.

I think we were talking Pius XII, not X.

I was talking about Pius X.

The same set seems to pop up after every council.

Guilt by association. You’d have to claim that Vatican II was as binding as Trent and Vatican I which is simply not the case.

There’s no dishonest legalism.

Sure there is. The refusal to acknowledge the existence of the problem of JPII and the tautology of saying that JPII altered reality with his “judgement.”

There is, however, a constant repetitive history that many post-conciliar popes have had to deal with.

Until John XXIII, they had to deal with heresy. That all stopped when the Church let her defenses down because of liberal popes.

The deal with the same mentality and what Pius XII addressed is what the current Vatican is dealing with.

False.

Please, I can’t speak for anyone else but this is has been done to death.

Well, 2+2=4 has been done to death as well and it’s still true.

You repeatedly saying it didn’t happen doesn’t make it so.

No. Whether I repeat it or not the truth is, that it didn’t happen.

So, tell us, what do you think of Pius XII quotes? They were pretty darn specific when it comes to the “grave fear” argument. Thankfully they’ve been the reason for many leaving the SSPX.

“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.

Opposing policies and malfeasance on the part of the Pope is not “opposing the Church” it’s defending the Church.

“Submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is necessary for salvation.”

Submission doesn’t mean servile obedience.

The charges of “you’re scared” are getting trite. Again, just because you say it, doesn’t make it true.

Don’t worry about it.

What is true is that Rome has spoken.

Platitudes. Rome has not spoken with finality.

Again, done. The pope I can tell the Holy Father I don’t want shredded wheat for breakfast.

How about shredded doctrine? How about shredded theology? How about shredded Catholicism?

Depends on what it is. You refuse to clarify. This isn’t an all or nothing question which is probably why people don’t answer it often.

Okay then, turn it around. At what point CAN’T a Pope be resisted? If you can delineate that, then we know the other answer. If you can’t, you don’t even know Catholicism.

What are YOUR examples from history?

St. Paul is the easiest one. “I resisted him to his face.” What does resist mean? Polycarp resisted St. Anicetus on the uniformity of rites. St. Irenaeus opposed St. Victor intransigently on the Asian rite. The unprecendented factor is JPII invalidly excommunicating a man for defending the most venerable rite in the Church.

I’m not coming up with one where a saint has refused the command of a pope who wasn’t in exile Can you give me some?

No. But I also can’t come up with a Pope who refused to defend the Church in a time of crisis in the way JPII didnt’.

Well, we’ve already gone over the whole Athanasius and Joan episodes. They wouldn’t really count as concrete proof that it has occured in history. So let me ask this, what papal excommunications have been proven to be invalid. Again, I’m not saying they’re not in existence, I’m just asking to further the conversation.

I believe Stephen’s declarations of excommunications and invalidity in the Formosus trial was declared invalid.
Theologically the Pope can and has invalidly excommunicated people. People don’t get “sprung” from Hell because a Pope excommunicated them and was later reversed.

Maybe you could quote the Church teaching on the matter. I’m not quite sure where this one is either. It would seem that if the Holy Father was the excommunicator that it could not be ignored since he is the Supreme Legistlator.

Look up excommunication in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It’s right there in black and white about validity and invalidity.
But something else, I’m seeing is disturbing.

What infallibility does legislating something give to a judgement? I don’t get the connection between legislating a law and somehow being the perfect judge.

Now again, how about those Pius XII quotes?

Done.

 

[SFD]

I can answer the questions if you like, but it seems a departure from the theme of the thread. It would be better to take it to *another thread *that discusses the “suspicion of heresy” charged against John Paul II by Lefebvrists, contrary to traditional Catholicism as cited by St. Robert Bellarmine, which views it impossible for the pope to be a heretic.

Dave,

If you read Bellarmine, he does not say that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a pope to fall into heresy. He says it is NOT a certainty. That’s why he goes on to treat the pope-heretic question.

He goes on to say that if a pope would fall into heresy, he would cease to be pope…and for that reason and that reason only…he may be judged by the Church.

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope * in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate , and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’*

SFD

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Actually, it is the teaching the Catholic Church that the Orthodox are schismatic, but not heretical.

A heretic is anyone baptized person that rejects a de fide dogma of the Church.

Baltimore Catechism:

*Q. 1171. Will the denial of only one article of faith make a person a heretic?

A. The denial of only one article of faith will make a person a heretic and guilty of mortal sin, because the Holy Scripture says: “Whosoever shall keep the whole law but offend in one point is become guilty of all.”*

The Orthodox reject many dogmas. That makes them heretics.

 

[GerardP]

Actually, it is the teaching the Catholic Church that the Orthodox are schismatic, but not heretical.

That’s incorrect. They don’t believe in the Filioque, they deny papal infallibility and I believe they allow limited divorce.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

The term “heretic” really applies only to a Catholic who rejects one or more of the teachings of the Church. The expression “post baptismal” found in canon law is interpreted to mean a Catholic. If one has never held a position then one cannot be called a heretic for not holding such a position. This is why the Church does not consider the Orthodox or Protestants to be heretics – unless, of course, they embraced that faith tradition after leaving the Catholic Church.

Deacon Ed

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave,

You have missed the point of my post. Look at the entire quote this time. I said, “He moved to investigate the matter” and by this he showed he was not pertinacious. His orthodoxy was questioned, and rightfully so, because his heresy was MATERIALLY a fact. He was not pertinacious because he investigated the charge and then corrected himself. If he would have ignored these charges he would have shown pertinacity.

SFD

I understood you the first time. We simply disagree at to what constitutes “pertinacity.” Even if John XXII held fast to his view because for some reason he thought his view was “more probable,” he would have been well within his right as a theologian to do so. This matter was still among “free opinion” because it was not yet a matter that had been authoritatively decided by the Apostolic See.

So, even if he disagreed with his subordinates, his disagreement would not therefore prove pertinacity, as it was not manifest that that this was de fide dogma.

He would have been wrong (like St. Thomas Aquinas with regard to the immaculate conception), but being wrong theologically speaking is not the same thing as being pertinacious nor heretical because that involves manifest obstinancy to higher authority regarding matters de fide.

When his subordinates contended against his teaching, Pope John XXII wrote (to King Philip IV, November 1333) that as long as the Holy See had not given a decision on the matter, then the theologians were free to disagree with him on the matter. Mere theological opinion of one’s subordinate does not have sufficient authoritative force to make “pertinacity” manifest.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The term “heretic” really applies only to a Catholic who rejects one or more of the teachings of the Church. The expression “post baptismal” found in canon law is interpreted to mean a Catholic. If one has never held a position then one cannot be called a heretic for not holding such a position. This is why the Church does not consider the Orthodox or Protestants to be heretics – unless, of course, they embraced that faith tradition after leaving the Catholic Church.

Deacon Ed

This is really sad, but does confirm what has been said in this thread about the wolves deceiving the sheep.

A heretic is any baptized person that rejects a truth revealed by God. It might be that a Protestant or an Orthodox or a Catholics is only a material heretic for rejecting a dogma, but that is for God to determine.

One of the tricks used by the Liberals to deceive is to nullify the objective by focusing on the subjective… and the subjective is something we have no ways of knowing.

Any baptized person who reject even one dogma of the faith is objectively a heretic.

This crafty error of the modernists (focusing on the subjective which is the area that can’t be seen, and completely ignoring the objective) has produced the confusion we have today. The result is completely sincere Catholics who are totally misled, confused, and don’t even realize it. Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX where the undiluted faith is maintained “whole and inviolate”.