Archbishop Lefebvre

[Four_Marks]

It’s more a matter of fact, than right. The Church has changed.

If Peter rose from the dead and walked into a Tridentine mass who would not recognize it.

There were no such communities as religoius orders in the early church, we have thousands today.

There was no Canon Law, today it exists.

The language of the liturgy in its early days was the language of the people. Later it became Latin for the Western world and remained the languge of the people for eastern Europe and the eastern nations.

The Eucharist was originally celebrated in people’s homes. There was no such thing as a parish. There were no church buildings.

Even the vestments have changed. Our priests’ vestments are a combo of pagan Roman vestments worn in the Roman temple and some worn by the Jewish high priests. Have you noticed that bishops still wear a kippah (Jewish) and a chasuble (sp?) Roman?

Church is even organized as a sovereign state, not just a faith community. Vatican City is a sovereign state and the Pope is the Regent.

Even the idea of a host instead of a loaf of bread is a new introduction into the liturgy.

Marriage was declared a sacrament long after the apostles were gone.

Today we have a Bible. There was no Bible during the lifetime of the Apostles. Faith was handed down by oral tradition and letters. The only written work at the time was the Torah.

Like these many thing change as time passes. The essential remains the same, which is the faith in the Paschal Mystery and everything that ties into that such as sacraments, morality and dogma have not changed.

The externals change all the time. That’s the way life is.

Ok, I see what you are saying. But, what change are you attempting to justify by making your above statement? Pardon me, I’ve come to the party a bit late, and, admittedly, have not read all of your posts.

So, the question is: what change/s in particular are you attempting to support by your above statement? Changes in the Mass?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I was tyring to say that the Council of Trent was one of many councils. We have to take the entire history of salvation as a whole.

Is there anyone here who only accepts the council of Trent, or consideres it more authoritative than any council that preceeded it? I haven’t quoted the council of Trent one time in this thread or even mentioned it.

If you are bringing up the council of Trent because of the Traditional Mass, it needs to be said that the Traditional Mass did not originate at that council. Pius V simply made one missal for all to use. At the time, there were slight variations. He eliminated the slight variations and canonized the Missal. The
Traditional Mass goes back to the earliest years of the Church. It didn’t originat with Trent as many seem to think

: "I was dismayed by the prohibition of the old missal, since nothing of the sort had ever happened in the entire history of the liturgy. The impression was even given that what was happening was quite normal. The previous missal had been created by Pius V in 1570 in connection with the Council of Trent; and so it was quite normal that, after four hundred years and a new council, a new pope would present us with a new missal. But the historical truth of the matter is different. Pius V had simply ordered a reworking of the Missale Romanum then being used, which is the normal thing as history develops over the course of centuries.

Many of his successors had likewise reworked this missal again, but without ever setting one missal against another. It was a continual process of growth and purification in which continuity was never destroyed. There is no such thing as a “Missal of Pius V”, created by Pius V himself. There is only the reworking done by Pius V as one phase in a long history of growth.

JReducation:

Finally, we must also remember our vocation to love. Character assasination as do those who accuse John Paul II and other popes of being heretics is a serious violation of charity, when there is no support of such claims.

The College of Bishops does not support such claims, have they questioned the Holy Father’s fidelity to the truth./.quote]

I don’t think I have called John Paul II a heretic, but the fact is, many people now adhere to error due to what John Paul II said and did. That is the reality of the situation. Maybe he didn’t mean these things in a heretical way, but that is what they sounded like and as such many people who followed his teaching are now in serious error.

Let’s not forget that the church has built-in safeguards for such problems.

Give me an example of those safeguards. For example, what safeguard would come into play if a Pope approved a Mass as valid that had no words of consecration?

We are not living in normal days. That is what we need to realize. We are living in a tremendous crisis (which has been predicted over and over again). The hierarchy does not defend the faith, but instead often attacks it. The wolves are in charge of the Church as a just punishment from God for our sins. The sooner we realize it the better.

That being said, there are signs of hope. Our new Pope seems to be doing what he can to restore the faith. He admitted publicly that the deception perpetrated by the hierarchy for 37 years that the old Mass was forbidden was just that - a deception. We should all applaud him for having the courage to admit the truth.

He has also seen to it that the another 37 year lie has also been corrected. Most of the people in this thread who are arguing agaist those on my side, believed that “for all” was actually the correct interpretation of “pro multis”. They based this erroneous belief on the teachings of the hierarchy for the past 37 years. Even though it was exactly contrary to what the Church had always taught, they blindly followed the blind in that error and condemned those who stood for the truth. Try doing a search for “pro multis” and read what they said before Rome finally admitted the truth. See how those who were standing for the truth were persecuted.

Thankfully, the Pope admitted to the error which is in the process of being corrected. Those who were ridiculed all those years rejoiced when the truth came out, while the others were left looking like this

There does seem to be a change in the air, which should give us all reason for hope. There is still a long long way to go, but at least there are some signs for hope.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Marriage was declared a sacrament long after the apostles were gone.

All seven sacraments go back to the apostles.

Ephesians 5:31-32: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church”.

Council of Trent: Canon i, Sess. XXIV: “If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema.”

 

[catharina]

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…

**

IMO, your words are horrifying and the fact that you carry such thoughts around with you and feed them to others is more horrifying. In addition you mis-state FACTS.

Timeline:

after receivning warnings re his intentions, nonetheless
on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre, together with Bishop
de Castro Mayer, consecrates four bishops.

July 1, 1988 Cardinal Gantin states that the threatened
excommunication has been incurred. He adds that the
consecrations were a schismatic act and threatens
excommunication of anyone who supports them.

July 2, 1988 Pope John Paul II reiterates Cardinal Gantin`s
accusation of schism and threatens general excommunications
of its adherents.

In March 1991, Bishop Lefebvre died while still excommunicated.**

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Pax et Caritas,

Thanks for providing the links I was looking for.

With regard to the Congregation’s conclusion “this Anaphora can be considered valid.” I disagree that the Anaphora is valid. I believe it lacks the necessary “form” to be valid. Yet, this document is an exercise of the governing authority of the Church, not the Church’s magisterial authority. It maintains (incorrectly in my view) that Catholics “can” consider this Anaphora to be valid.

I appreciate your admission that you disagree with this document which disagees with absolutely everything the Church has ever taught on the subject. And how do you justify this disagreement? You justify it by basing yourself on what the Church has always taught; yet when a Traditonalists does the same on other points it is you who produces quotes stating that we must believe ALL that the Church teaches. Remember those quotes you like to use?

Yet now it is you yourself who these quotes apply to. You reject a teaching of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, headed by Cardinal Ratzinger who is now our Pope, and which was signed by John Paul II The Great Himself?

And you attempted to justify this by lessening the authority of this document claiming it was merely an excersize of the governing authority, rather than the magisterial authority? But Dave, surely you are familiar with the following quote since I just copied and pasted it from one of you old posts:

First Vatican Council, Session 4 (18 July 1870): “Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world”.

Do you realize that by rejecting that document you standed condemned by the teaching fo Vatican I? Dave, this is very serious. You have taken it upon yourself do disagree with the congregation for the doctrine of the Faith and the Pope himself simply because they taught contradicts what the Church has always taught? Just think how violently you react when Traditionalists do the same… and for the same reason.

Here’s another quote from one of your old posts:

Pius IX: “we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withold assent and obedience to those judgements and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and it rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.” (Pius IX, Encyclical Quanta Cura (1864), Denzinger 1698)

Don’t you realize that you are rejecting a governing document of the Pope himself - the Vicar of Chist? Here’s a few more quotes that I got from one of your previous posts:

St. Pius X: “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 are withholding intellectual assent to a decision of the Congregation of the doctrine of Faith and the Pope himself.

Now, how are you any different than the SSPX who rejects religious liberty, or other novel teaching that were condemned before Vatican II, yet are taught by the hierarchy today?

The whole time that you have been criticizing the Traditionalists for resisting novel teachings of John Paul II, you yourself have been secretly doing the same. No wonder you didn’t want to answer that question.

 

[Arnobius]

So, Pax et Caritas, now you use the Tu Quoque to justify your own disobedience?

While one may debate the level of problem with itsjustdave1988’s statement, the SSPX and the Sedevacantists stand condemned by your quotes, leaving the Ultramontanists as the true Catholics

Matthew 7:3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

So, Pax et Caritas, now you use the Tu Quoque to justify your own disobedience?

Now, if you are going to call me disobedience, your going to have to tell me in what I am disobedient. That way I can consider what you say and possibly amend, if need be. So please tell me how I am disobedient.

 

[Arnobius]

Now, if you are going to call me disobedience, your going to have to tell me in what I am disobedient. That way I can consider what you say and possibly amend, if need be. So please tell me how I am disobedient.

If you reject the authority of the Church under the Pope in favor of a group led by people in a state of excommunication, you are in a state of disobedience.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

If you reject the authority of the Church under the Pope in favor of a group led by people in a state of excommunication, you are in a state of disobedience.

I do not reject the authority of the Church for a group of people in a state of excommunication. Please, tell me how I am disobedient. Specific examples, please. And if you don’t have any, you really need to take back the charge.

 

[Arnobius]

I do not reject the authority of the Church for a group of people in a state of excommunication. Please, tell me how I am disobedient. Specific examples, please. And if you don’t have any, you really need to take back the charge.

You’ve indicated your belief that certain Popes were guilty of heresy.
Such as here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3166166&postcount=29
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3172925&postcount=85
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3166111&postcount=24

Repudiate that here and now unconditionally and I’ll withdraw my statement. Otherwise, it stands

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You’ve indicated your belief that certain Popes were guilty of heresy.

Repudiate that here and now unconditionally and I’ll withdraw my statement. Otherwise, it stands

I am simply following the teaching of a Pope.

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)

Do you reject that teaching of Pope Adrian? What about Pope Leo II who declared at a council that Pope Honorious was a heretic?

Do you desagree with these treachings of the Popes? Maybe it is you who is disobedient? So tell me, do you accept the teaching of Pope Leo II and Pope Adrian? If not, why not? How do you justify this intellectual dissent?

Do we have another case of the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[pnewton]

I am simply following the teaching of a Pope.

Today we play pick-a-pope? We can choose which to follow and which to reject as heretics, kind of like Protestants and books of the Bible.

BTW - I noticed you switched something. Authority and teaching are not interchangeable. Not one of the popes you mentioned still hold a position of authority by virtue of them being dead. Their teaching, however, live on, as long as one understands the level of the teaching and the context.

BTW - Any links to those statements?

 

[Arnobius]

I am simply following the teaching of a Pope.

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)

Do you reject that teaching of Pope Adrian? What about Pope Leo II who declared at a council that Pope Honorious was a heretic?

Do you desagree with these treachings of the Popes? Maybe it is you who is disobedient? So tell me, do you accept the teaching of Pope Leo II and Pope Adrian? If not, why not? How do you justify this intellectual dissent?

Do we have another case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Not at all. These cases do not make Pope John Paul II a heretic.

Notice of course that the condemnations were certainly not done by a schismatic bishop, so your charge remains unproven

And my statement stands.

EDIT: Incidenally, Pax, can you provide me with a full text of these statements by Pope Hadrian VI, or did you merely do quote mining with no sense of the original context?

 

[AlexV]

The WHOLE problem with this oft-repeated, tedious thread is the idea in some circles that the pope…correction, the current pope…is always right.

If you read the 1962 Breviary for Epiphany, you will read some choice words of Leo and Gregory on the Jews that are hardly in accord with Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate. Those words of Leo and Gregory have been in the Breviary of the Roman Rite for centuries.

So were Leo and Gregory right, but only until Nostra Aetate contradicted them?

If so, why did Summorum Pontificum say you could celebrate Matins on January 6 with words that are demonstrably in disagreement with Nostra Aetate?

You can’t have it both ways. Either the Fathers Leo and Gregory were right, FOR ALL TIME, or they were wrong, FOR ALL TIME.

Or, of course, you can be a little less knee-jerk and a bit more mature in your Catholic thinking and recognize that you don’t have to assent to every last thing a pope says.

It’s certainly easier than twisting oneself into knots to defend such highlights of the Johannine papacy as kissing the Koran.

Would Pius X have kissed a Koran? What about Pius XI, who spoke of the “darkness of Islam” until John XXIII decided to remove the words from the liturgy?

John Paul II did not teach the same thing as his predecessors on the Jewish covenant. Someone was right, and someone was wrong.

 

[Arnobius]

The WHOLE problem with this oft-repeated, tedious thread is the idea in some circles that the pope…correction, the current pope…is always right.

And others assume certain popes are always wrong.

Of course I find that when one actually reads the old documents in context of the whole document, we discover that often the problem is in the interpretation.

Thus far, everything I have seen from the “Pope John Paul II was a heretic” crowd is based on quote mined statements that don’t stand up to a careful reading.

 

[AlexV]

We all have opinions. I think Pius XII was a fabulous pope. I think John XXIII was fabulous: he solemnly decreed that Latin must be kept, that seminary faculty who couldn’t teach in Latin needed to be let go, that women shouldn’t enter the sanctuary, blah blah blah…I think Paul VI was an unmitigated disaster for the Roman Rite…I think John Paul II was an immense improvement who inherited a nightmare from the long years of Paul’s Hamlet-like reign…but he was a philosopher, not a liturgist. And Benedict was/is right: the crisis is about the liturgy.

Benedict is the dream of the new millenium. Where John Paul set up a complicated mess of “indults”, Benedict said what many others had been saying since 1970: the liturgy was never abrogated. There are no more “Ecclesia Dei indults”, because that which was never abrogated needs no indult.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The WHOLE problem with this oft-repeated, tedious thread is the idea in some circles that the pope…correction, the current pope…is always right.

If you read the 1962 Breviary for Epiphany, you will read some choice words of Leo and Gregory on the Jews that are hardly in accord with Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate. Those words of Leo and Gregory have been in the Breviary of the Roman Rite for centuries.

So were Leo and Gregory right, but only until Nostra Aetate contradicted them?

If so, why did Summorum Pontificum say you could celebrate Matins on January 6 with words that are demonstrably in disagreement with Nostra Aetate?

You can’t have it both ways. Either the Fathers Leo and Gregory were right, FOR ALL TIME, or they were wrong, FOR ALL TIME.

Or, of course, you can be a little less knee-jerk and a bit more mature in your Catholic thinking and recognize that you don’t have to assent to every last thing a pope says.

It’s certainly easier than twisting oneself into knots to defend such highlights of the Johannine papacy as kissing the Koran.

Would Pius X have kissed a Koran? What about Pius XI, who spoke of the “darkness of Islam” until John XXIII decided to remove the words from the liturgy?

John Paul II did not teach the same thing as his predecessors on the Jewish covenant. Someone was right, and someone was wrong.

I agree with most of what your saying, but you don’t think any of this in any way has any effect on Papal Infallibility? Personally, such thoughts make it seem the only possible course is sedevacantism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[AlexV]

No, the solution is understanding that the doctrine of papal infallibility has a very limited and specific scope.

 

[catharina]

The WHOLE problem with this oft-repeated, tedious thread is the idea in some circles that the pope…correction, the current pope…is always right.

If you read the 1962 Breviary for Epiphany, you will read some choice words of Leo and Gregory on the Jews that are hardly in accord with Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate. Those words of Leo and Gregory have been in the Breviary of the Roman Rite for centuries.

So were Leo and Gregory right, but only until Nostra Aetate contradicted them?

If so, why did Summorum Pontificum say you could celebrate Matins on January 6 with words that are demonstrably in disagreement with Nostra Aetate?

You can’t have it both ways. Either the Fathers Leo and Gregory were right, FOR ALL TIME, or they were wrong, FOR ALL TIME.

Or, of course, you can be a little less knee-jerk and a bit more mature in your Catholic thinking and recognize that you don’t have to assent to every last thing a pope says.
It’s certainly easier than twisting oneself into knots to defend such highlights of the Johannine papacy as kissing the Koran.

Would Pius X have kissed a Koran? What about Pius XI, who spoke of the “darkness of Islam” until John XXIII decided to remove the words from the liturgy?

John Paul II did not teach the same thing as his predecessors on the Jewish covenant. Someone was right, and someone was wrong.

Not necessarily.
One can be even more mature and recall the Book of Isaiah re God as He is revealed to us:

"Isaiah
Chapter 12

1 On that day, you will say: I give you thanks, O LORD; though you have been angry with me, your anger has abated, and you have consoled me.

2 God indeed is my savior; I am confident and unafraid. My strength and my courage is the LORD, and he has been my savior.

3 With joy you will draw water at the fountain of salvation,

4 and say on that day: Give thanks to the LORD, acclaim his name; among the nations make known his deeds, proclaim how exalted is his name.

5 Sing praise to the LORD for his glorious achievement; let this be known throughout all the earth.

6 Shout with exultation, O city of Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel!"

Maybe Popes are on the short list for notification of change?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Not at all. These cases do not make Pope John Paul II a heretic.

Of course those cases don’t make John Paul II a heretic and I never said they did.

Notice of course that the condemnations were certainly not done by a schismatic bishop, so your charge remains unproven

I don’t know what charge you are talking about. This is what you said: “You’ve indicated your belief that certain Popes were guilty of heresy.”

I responded by showing that Popes themselves have accused other Popes of heresy.

And my statement stands.

But your statement was that I was disobedient, yet you haven’t told me how I am disobedient.

Incidenally, Pax, can you provide me with a full text of these statements by Pope Hadrian VI, or did you merely do quote mining with no sense of the original context?

I think the quotes speak for themselves, but I’ll see if I can locate the entire document.