Archbishop Lefebvre

  • Thread starter Thread starter TantumErgo90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AlexV said:
Slander, Catharina. Blatant slander. Who are the “separatists” and how dare you decide who is a separatist/schismatic?
Click to expand...
Far better you slander me than you slander a Pope. Take up your argument re separatists with this fellow:

"Today, 11:31 am
VARC
New Member Join Date: December 29, 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 98

Re: Archbishop Lefebvre
(Quote:
Originally Posted by catharina
If I understand you correctly, you’re implying that the Lefebvre separatists are the faithful and the faithful are idolators. Is that it?)

I am stating that the Lefebvrist separatists are faithful to the catholic religion as it was believed and practiced before the council. And the others are faithful to the Pope to the point of abandoning the practices of thier church that stood for over 1000 years prior. You decide which is more important."

A separatist is a separatist. They who exist as such know it. I need not define them nor name them. By their fruits you shall know them. Have they stepped away from Rome to follow Lefebvre? Then they are separated.
 
Yes but you seem oblivious to the fact that by following Paul VI you have seperated yourself from the traditional practice of the catholic religion. One might call you the seperatist.
 
I didn’t a slander any pope, Catharina. You have either falsely accused me and/or lied about me.
 
The facts remain the same. All of this debate about tradition and change isn’t changing anything.

What are we trying to accomplish here, to answer the original question that was posted, play a game just to kill a few boring hours in the day or try to show the other person that “I’m right and you’re wrong.”

Refer to the Apologist Forum if you want explanations of each document and declaration made by the Church since its birth.

The fact is that the Pope ordered one of his bishops not to ordain. The bishop disobeyed. Tradition also has it that the pope is the final authority on this matter. Through his disobedience, the bishop incurred excommunication.

The church did not do anything that it did not have a right to do. The pope has the right to excommunicate. If you want to question that right, take it up with him. Stop pulling out documents that most people here do not understand, that you’re quoting out of context, and that even the poster is not qualified to interpret.

As to the final question, do you go with tradition or the pope? Obviously, you obey. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Lefebvre is not the Church’s Messiah. We already have one. He is not the Holy Spirit, we have one of those too. He is not the head of the church. We have one of those too.

If like the first Peter, other Peters take twists and turns, the Holy Spirit will act, just as he has in the past. We’ve had other difficult periods in our history and we’re still here.

Get back to the fact. Lefebvre was excommunicated by his disobedience. Some people seem to want to justify that disobedience. So bei it. Justify away. It won’t lift the excommunication.

You can attack the pope all you want and he will remain the pope until proven otherwise.

Why do some people seem to find it so necessary defend Lefebvre? No one said he was an evil man or his followers. He disobeyed in what the pope considered a grave area and he was excommunicated. the pope has the right to make that call.

This is not Washington, where we can debate whether Bush had the right to send troups to Iraq and if we disagree we vote in the next election for someone who is on the other side of the issue. This is the Church a MONARCHY. The debate will change nothing.

The only ones who can change anything is the Pope and those whom he delegates. He did not delegate Lefebvre to ordain bishops. It’s that simple. In fact, he ordered him not to do so.

As to defending tradition, obedience to Peter’s authority dates back to the Acts of the Apostles.
vatican.va/holy_father/index.htm
If one has questions about tradition and papal authority, why not write your local bishop or speak to your diocesan canonist. That’s what I did and actually received a response. They will take the time to do this.

Here is a blog where you can ask a very orthodox cardinal of the Church these questions.

cardinalseansblog.org/

Here is the Vatican’s official site with lots of answers

vatican.va/holy_father/index.htm
 
AlexV said:
Slander, Catharina. Blatant slander. Who are the “separatists” and how dare you decide who is a separatist/schismatic?
Click to expand...
Finished my errands, home again and here I am.

Now, re this:

“Quote:
Originally Posted by VARC
I take it you have no problem with the pope abandoning the traditional sacraments of the church. What a pity. The most important aspect of the christian religion in your eyes is papal authority. Nothing is more sacred to you.”
Code: 
Quote from catharina"
You are sadly mistaken if you believe you know anything about me. (Incidentally, the word "Christian" is capitalized.) Go and taunt a separatist. There seem to be some of them posting in this thread.)"
As I said, there SEEM to be some (separatists) posting in this thread. That remains MY opinion. Your opinion might be that it doesn’t seem that way to you. That would be YOUR opinion.

Instead, you say: “Slander, Catharina. Blatant slander. Who are the “separatists” and how dare you decide who is a separatist/schismatic?” (!!!) So I responded ‘better than you slander me than a Pope.’ Where did I say you slandered a Pope, dear boy? No where. I said if you feel the need to slander, go right ahead and slander me. Better me than a Pope. Get it? Yet?

Has anyone ever accused you of fuzzy thinking?
 
VARC said:
Yes but you seem oblivious to the fact that by following Paul VI you have seperated yourself from the traditional practice of the catholic religion. One might call you the seperatist.
Click to expand...
Of course with the institution of the Tridentine Missal of 1570, mandated the suppression of some older rites that predated it.

Moreover you put yourself in opposition to Pastor Aeternus:
Chapter 3.
  1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
  1. 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.
  2. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].
  3. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
  4. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]
  5. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.
  6. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
  7. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
  8. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
If the Pope had no right to do the changes he did, you must conclude Pastor Aeternus is false as it is not limited to the infallible statements of the Pope alone.
 
VARC said:
Yes but you seem oblivious to the fact that by following Paul VI you have seperated yourself from the traditional practice of the catholic religion. One might call you the seperatist.
Click to expand...
One might call me anything he/she chooses yet you have agreed with me that those who follow Lefebvre are, in fact, separatists.
 
I have what I consider a legitimate question for those who want to defend traditional liturgy with their lives. Obviously, that’s not everyone in this thread, only some. Please take this question as it is meant, a genuine curiosity.

The liturgy that traditionalists want to preserve is that of the Western Church. We know that the Eastern Churches have had a different liturgy from the birth of the Church. We know that all of the declarations made by councils from Jerusalem to Vatican II, regarding liturgy applied to the Western Church, not the Eastern Churches. There have been separate documents and decrees that deal explicitly with the Eastern liturgy. They even haven a section of Canon Law just for them. By Eastern Churches I’m referring to those that are communion with the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Churches.

My question is, are the Eastern Churches wrong because they never adopted the Western liturgy that traditionalists defend so passionately? If this is the only valid form of liturgy, how do traditionalists view the fact that the Eastern Churches are still in communion with and part of the Catholic tradition? If they are in the right and are not bound to the traditional liturgical celebration of the Western Church, then why can’t the Western Church adopt new forms of liturgical celebration that preserve the integrity of the liturgy?

I’m not saying that in adopting new forms of liturgical celebration old ones have to be abolished. I have no authority to do that, anymore than the authority to introduce new forms of celebration.

This is an honest question.
 
JReducation said:
I have what I consider a legitimate question for those who want to defend traditional liturgy with their lives. Obviously, that’s not everyone in this thread, only some. Please take this question as it is meant, a genuine curiosity.

The liturgy that traditionalists want to preserve is that of the Western Church. We know that the Eastern Churches have had a different liturgy from the birth of the Church. We know that all of the declarations made by councils from Jerusalem to Vatican II, regarding liturgy applied to the Western Church, not the Eastern Churches. There have been separate documents and decrees that deal explicitly with the Eastern liturgy. They even haven a section of Canon Law just for them. By Eastern Churches I’m referring to those that are communion with the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Churches.

My question is, are the Eastern Churches wrong because they never adopted the Western liturgy that traditionalists defend so passionately? If this is the only valid form of liturgy, how do traditionalists view the fact that the Eastern Churches are still in communion with and part of the Catholic tradition? If they are in the right and are not bound to the traditional liturgical celebration of the Western Church, then why can’t the Western Church adopt new forms of liturgical celebration that preserve the integrity of the liturgy?

I’m not saying that in adopting new forms of liturgical celebration old ones have to be abolished. I have no authority to do that, anymore than the authority to introduce new forms of celebration.

This is an honest question.
Click to expand...
I do have a rather sublime devotion to the Mass in Latin because I was raised with it and it’s beautiful. Yes, I still am devoted to it although I haven’t attended a Mass celebrated in Latin for decades. Nothing within the Church has EVER indicated that there is any problem with my having such a devotion. Many of us old enough to have such memories quite likely share in the same devotion. I’ve never known any Catholic to say “thank goodness we’re done with Latin.”
 
JReducation said:
My question is, are the Eastern Churches wrong because they never adopted the Western liturgy that traditionalists defend so passionately? If this is the only valid form of liturgy, how do traditionalists view the fact that the Eastern Churches are still in communion with and part of the Catholic tradition? If they are in the right and are not bound to the traditional liturgical celebration of the Western Church, then why can’t the Western Church adopt new forms of liturgical celebration that preserve the integrity of the liturgy?
Click to expand...
Traditionalists do not dislike Novus Ordo just because it’s different from TLM. As you say, the Eastern rites are different yet liturgically sound. The problem arises from oversimplification and loss of reverence and beauty.

Cursory research will yield details:
traditioninaction.org/religious/m002rpMisunderstandingMass.htm
novusordowatch.org/mass.htm
traditionalmass.org/versus/

These are just Google hits and probably barely scratch the surface. They should provide some insight to your question. Good luck.

Pax.
 
AlexV said:
I didn’t a slander any pope, Catharina. You have either falsely accused me and/or lied about me.
Click to expand...
By the way, Alex, any time you feel ready to retract your statement about me (post quoted), feel free to jump up and down and do so.
 
VARC said:
Catholics never considered the traditional rite of mass a just another discipline that could be cast away. It was the great pearl of their religion something very sacred to them
Click to expand...
Not true. It has been changed. It has not been unchanged for the past 2000 years. If it can be changed at all, then it is changeable, and thus a discipline.
 
VARC said:
Yes but you seem oblivious to the fact that by following Paul VI you have seperated yourself from the traditional practice of the catholic religion. One might call you the seperatist.
Click to expand...
This is the same arguement the Orthodox use. But the better traditition is that where the Bishop of Rome is, there is the Catholic Church. This even predates Latin in the Mass.
 
catharina said:
I do have a rather sublime devotion to the Mass in Latin because I was raised with it and it’s beautiful. Yes, I still am devoted to it although I haven’t attended a Mass celebrated in Latin for decades. Nothing within the Church has EVER indicated that there is any problem with my having such a devotion. Many of us old enough to have such memories quite likely share in the same devotion. I’ve never known any Catholic to say “thank goodness we’re done with Latin.”
Click to expand...
Catharina:

Thank you for your response. I have participated in many Latin masses and to me they’re beautiful, maybe because I speak the language fluently. That also helps. I also love the beauty of it. In fact, the last mass which I celebrated in Latin was Midnight Mass at the Vatican Christmas 1999. The Holy Father presided, of course, and a very good friend of mine from university, who in 1999 worked in one of the congregations in Rome got me third row tickets for the mass. For security, you must have tickets.

The Latin and the hymns, etc etc was beautiful. But my question about the Eastern liturgies is honest. I have also celebrated liturgy with Melchites and it’s beautiful. But it’s not the Tridentine mass.

Thanks for your kind response.

JR
 
Markstorm said:
Traditionalists do not dislike Novus Ordo just because it’s different from TLM. As you say, the Eastern rites are different yet liturgically sound. The problem arises from oversimplification and loss of reverence and beauty.

Cursory research will yield details:
traditioninaction.org/religious/m002rpMisunderstandingMass.htm
novusordowatch.org/mass.htm
traditionalmass.org/versus/

These are just Google hits and probably barely scratch the surface. They should provide some insight to your question. Good luck.

Pax.
Click to expand...
Mark:

Thanks for taking the time to find those site for me. I’m going to read them. I can appreciate people feeling that something beautiful and reverent has been lost or is missing. I have to add, that I have seen very beautiful and reverent liturgies too.

Once again, thank you.

JR
 
I’m getting frustrated here, because one side of this argument keeps batting around the word tradition as if the Western Liturgy was the ONLY tradition of the Church. The Eastern liturgy is an older tradition than the Tridentine mass and in communion with the Catholic Church. Why don’t we just all adopt that if we really want tradition?

Only two people have attempted to answer my question about the Eastern tradition vs the western tradition. Vs may not be a good choice of words, but I can’t think of another right now. If anyone can, feel free to change my poor wording. 🙂
 
Perhaps the problem has to do with some (e.g., the Lefebvre separatists) confusing the meanings of the words “Tradition” and “tradition.”
 
JReducation said:
I’m getting frustrated here, because one side of this argument keeps batting around the word tradition as if the Western Liturgy was the ONLY tradition of the Church. The Eastern liturgy is an older tradition than the Tridentine mass and in communion with the Catholic Church. Why don’t we just all adopt that if we really want tradition?

Only two people have attempted to answer my question about the Eastern tradition vs the western tradition. Vs may not be a good choice of words, but I can’t think of another right now. If anyone can, feel free to change my poor wording. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes. Your right! The Western Liturgy isn’t the only liturgy that’s traditional. The Eastern Liturgy is traditional, and most traditional Catholics like the Eastern Liturgies, in fact so much so that they would choose it over the Novus Ordo any day of the week if that was all that was available, myself included. No traditional Catholic I know want’s the East to replace their liturgies with the TLM. Most in fact, applaud the East for largely keeping their liturgies in tact. Both the Eastern Rites and the Western Rites have their traditional liturgies, and both go back a long way historically speaking. However, this is something the Novus Ordo will never have the luxury of having. It’s valid, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a novel invention that has absolutely no historical precedent.
 
SemperFidelis said:
Both the Eastern Rites and the Western Rites have their traditional liturgies, and both go back a long way historically speaking. However, this is something the Novus Ordo will never have the luxury of having. It’s valid, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a novel invention that has absolutely no historical precedent.
Click to expand...
Semper,

Thank you for your response. It is sensible. I left above a little bit of your post that I didn’t quite understand. Can you restate it differently, please.

That would be helpful.

Thanks,
JR
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top