Archbishop Lefebvre

[SemperFidelis]

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

Perhaps it is time I understand this Dogma better. I have studied many other Dogmas of the Church to such an exhaustive extent, perhaps it’s time for one more.

 

[catharina]

“Now, we see as in a glass, darkly.
Then, we shall see … .”

 

[AlexV]

I will say this, though.

The whole list of usual John Paul II attacks…the Koran kissing, Assisi, the sign of the tilac, the bare-breasted lectors…all of which I deplore thoroughly and intensely…do not bother me as much as one thing he did more than once.

He would sometimes omit the word “Filioque” from the Nicene Creed at a Roman Rite Mass.

Huh? Come again? Is that word in brackets and marked optional in the Missale Romanum HE promulgated in 2002?

No, of course not. It’s required.

Oh…wait…he’s the Pope…he can do that, right?

Well, no. He can’t. He is a custodian of what he inherited.

 

[pnewton]

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…

Sure you can. A pope does not have to speak for all eternity. They can speak on current issues and matters of discipline. By the very nature that society changes, there are some things that must change. Otherwise, we would not need apostolic succession, which by the way, means the past popes authority is passed on to the next.

Also, it is not that I think the pope is always right. I just believe that he is always authoritative. There is a huge difference. I am no fan of defying the pope, whether it be AB Lefebrve or the AB of California deciding for himself that the MP is too divisive.

 

[Arnobius]

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

I must say I am curious what you think i actually believe. Do you think I believe all Popes were impeccable?

 

[AlexV]

Well, when Leo and Gregory spoke about the Jews, they weren’t talking about “discipline” and they weren’t talking about a “current event” or “issue”.

And even if they were, what they said on the Jews is part of the liturgy of the church. It conflicts seriously with Nostra Aetate and the statement of both Paul and John Paul on the Jews.

Oh well.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

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?

None at all. Vatican I defined the limits of Papal Infallibility and neither John Paul II or Paul VI taught a heresy within those parameters.

Personally, such thoughts make it seem the only possible course is sedevacantism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

The only way a Pope will fall from his office is if he becomes a notorious public heretic. Simply being a heretic is not enough. He would have to become a public and notorious heretic.
catholicencyclopedia:

HERESY "Additional penalties to be decreed by judicial sentences: Apostates and heretics are irregular, that is, debarred from receiving clerical orders or exercising lawfully the duties and rights annexed to them; they are infamous, that is, publicly noted as guilty and dishonoured. This note of infamy clings to the children and grandchildren of unrepented heretics. Heretical clerics and all who receive, defend, or favour them are ipso facto deprived of their benefices, offices, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

What a lot of Sedevacantists don’t understand is that a Bishop who falls into heresy (and who is therefore cut off from the soul of the Church) actually remains a member of the “body” of the Church and thus retains his jurisdiction unless and until either a sentence is passed for he goes so far as to become a notorious public heretic.

If a Pope is weak in faith, and strays here and there, that is not enough for him to lose his office. And simply doing scandelous things such as kissing the koran isn’t enough. They certainly give scandal, but it is not enough for him to lose his office.

Remember that God punished his people with bad leaders… and as sinful as we are today, we cannot complain about out punishment. We should feel extremely fortunate that we have the faith in this day of apostasy. That is a very great gift.

I’ve been really impressed with you. I will rejoice the day you become a Catholic. Please send me an e-mail when it happens. And don’t be surprised if the devil unleashes one final attack on you, as he did with Augustine. In fact, you ought to be bracing for it. You are going to be a great member of the Church and I think the devil knows it.

 

[pnewton]

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.

Thanks for laying out your thoughts like that. You gave me something new to think about.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I must say I am curious what you think i actually believe. Do you think I believe all Popes were impeccable?

What made you ask me that?

 

[Arnobius]

What made you ask me that?

Because you keep citing Hadrian VI as if it was a refutation of what I believe

 

[AlexV]

Exactly.

John Paul II gave a ring to the fake archbishop of Canterbury.

A ring is a symbol of episcopal authority.

A clear message was given.

Now did John Paul II say that the layman he gave the ring to was validly consecrated bishop?

No. He didn’t. That would have been public heresy.

Did he think the layman was a bishop? Who knows, who really cares. The point is, he didn’t say he was validly consecrated when, in reality, he’s a layman, no matter what John Paul thought.

So no, no public or manifest heresy. But we can certainly argue that giving laymen episcopal rings is…scandalous.

 

[Arnobius]

Exactly.

John Paul II gave a ring to the fake archbishop of Canterbury.

A ring is a symbol of episcopal authority.

A clear message was given.

Now did John Paul II say that the layman he gave the ring to was validly consecrated bishop?

No. He didn’t. That would have been public heresy.

Did he think the layman was a bishop? Who knows, who really cares. The point is, he didn’t say he was validly consecrated when, in reality, he’s a layman, no matter what John Paul thought.

So no, no public or manifest heresy. But we can certainly argue that giving laymen episcopal rings is…scandalous.

That is certainly a meaning, but by no means the only meaning. Unless established it was for this purpose, we ought to consider the possibility it meant something else.

 

[AlexV]

And eventually rationality and reason must speak.

Why do we given episcopal rings?

To honor bishops and symbolize their role.

If a layman thinks he’s a bishop but he’s not, do you give him an episcopal ring?

Nope.

 

[AlexV]

And for those who want to twist into pretzels to justify everything a pope did, let’s return to my other example.

John Paul omitted the word “Filioque” more than once from a Roman Rite liturgy.

Justified? Never.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Because you keep citing Hadrian VI as if it was a refutation of what I believe

No, I was quoting him in defense of myself. I was actually wondering if there was some miscommunication.

I thought you said I was “disobedient” because I stated somewhere that there had been some heretical Popes in the past. I wasn’t sure if I said that or not, but in order to defend myself I quoted Pope Adrian who taught what I was accused of saying - which I thought you were using as your evidence tha I was “disobedient”.

Of course that really doesn’t pertain to obedience (to obeying something), but to either a correct or an incorrect thought.

But anyway, that is why I quoted Pope Adrian.

Were we on two different wave lenghts?

 

[Arnobius]

No, I was quoting him in defense of myself. I was actually wondering if there was some miscommunication.

I thought you said I was “disobedient” because I stated somewhere that there had been some heretical Popes in the past. I wasn’t sure if I said that or not, but in order to defend myself I quoted Pope Adrian who taught what I was accused of saying - which I thought you were using as your evidence tha I was “disobedient”.

Of course that really doesn’t pertain to obedience (to obeying something), but to either a correct or an incorrect thought.

But anyway, that is why I quoted Pope Adrian.

Were we on two different wave lenghts?

I suspect we were on different wavelengths. Perhaps I misinterpreted you, but your rhetoric led me to believe you were a member of a schismatic group. If that was wrong I will withdraw that.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

And eventually rationality and reason must speak.

Why do we given episcopal rings?

To honor bishops and symbolize their role.

If a layman thinks he’s a bishop but he’s not, do you give him an episcopal ring?

Nope.

And we have to keep in mind how misleading these actions were. He probable meant well, but he left a trail of destruction behind him by confusing a generation of Catholics who were completely ignorant of the faith. Like they say, actions speak louder than words.

Those who knew the faith could sometimes twist his words and actions so that they could be reconciled with what the Church teaches, but those who did not know their faith well (99% of the Catholics) were misled.

Being a nice guy is fine, but the faith must be protected. It is better to offend some people while protecting the faith, than trying to be everyones friend and causing confusion.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I suspect we were on different wavelengths. Perhaps I misinterpreted you, but your rhetoric led me to believe you were a member of a schismatic group. If that was wrong I will withdraw that.

I attend Mass during the week celebrated by a 93 year old diocesean priest. I like to brag that he can still genuflect with no hands. He gets around as well as a 70 year old in good shape.

I do attend an SSPX Church from time to time on Sundays (about 2 times a month), but not exclusively. Actually, the SSPX Church I attend is not served by an SSPX Priest, but by a Benedictine.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I just noticed that this thread has 22 pages. I wonder what the record is?

 

[Arnobius]

I attend Mass during the week celebrated by a 93 year old diocesean priest. I like to brag that he can still genuflect with no hands. He gets around as well as a 70 year old in good shape.

I do attend an SSPX Church from time to time on Sundays (about 2 times a month), but not exclusively. Actually, the SSPX Church I attend is not served by an SSPX Priest, but by a Benedictine.

All right, since I was in error in assuming you were a schismatic I will withdraw the disobedience claim since it was based on that assumption.

Of course I still disagree with the claims of those people who say Pope John Paul II was heretical