J
- Status
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Well dudette — with you speaking of elevating “tradition” above faith on an Arch. Lefebvre thread – it comes back to the SSPX
V
VARC
Guest
No I wasn’t agreeing with you. Sorry to confuse you. I used the term separatist because that’s the term that you used. I guess I should have used “quotes”.
V
VARC
Guest
You really don’t get it. No I don’t believe that the Easterners should give up their liturgical tradition. I don’t believe that the Roman rite is “the only valid form of liturgy”. The East has their tradition and if any of their bishops tried to take away their beloved Liturgy of St John Chrysostom I’m sure there’d be hell to pay. The traditions that nutured the faith of christians is of immeasurable value. To take the traditional liturgy away from christians East or West is a spritual abuse of eccesial power. Hope that helps.
A
AlexV
Guest
The pope doesn’t “excommunicate” anyone. They excommunicate themselves. The pope doesn’t have the power to run around excommunicating people. They excommunicate themselves.
A
AlexV
Guest
But it’s amazing how if a traditionalist thread is left open long enough some Easterners will descend to start their arrogant and thinly veiled claims that the East is really the superior liturgical home, etc., etc.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Why should there be a “traditionalist” church sui ierus? There is only one Western Church, and it is headed by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. There is no such thing as “traditionalist” vs “liberal” bishops, either you believe in the Catholic faith and are a Catholic, or you aren’t. I myself am particularly sick of hearing the labels some camps describe themselves as and putting others out of that said label. It only serves as another divider in our church… which is what happened already with the schism of the SSPX.
With the new Motu Proprio there is absolutely no need for the SSPX to still be in schism, they choose to remain in an awkward canonical state. Rome has already conceited plenty… it is time for the disobedient to come home to Rome!
It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever for there to be two churches sui ierus which both use the same rite; (the latin church uses both the ordinary form of the roman liturgy and the extraordinary form of the roman liturgy).
A
AlexV
Guest
Rome hasn’t “conceited” a thing…the pre-conciliar liturgy was NEVER ABROGATED. If that’s the case, it needs no indult. That’s what SP was all about…acknowledging a reality some of us have been saying for years, while others have been treating the pre-conciliar liturgy as if we should be ashamed of it.
J
JReducation
Guest
The issue of this thread is not whether the pre-conciliar liturgy, to use your language was abrogated.
The OP was whether one could agree with Archbishop Lebvre and also agree that he was excommunicated.
The answer to that question is yes. You can agree with his passion and what he considered his mission. You cannot agree with his defiance of the reigning pope. It was as a result of that defiance, not the liturgy, that he incurred excommunication. The liturgy and other concerns were the issues why he disobeyed. The disobedience was the reason for the excommunication.
While it is true that John Paul II had reservations about the use of the Tridentine Mass, he did not excommunicate Lefebvre over that.
As to the ordination of the four priests to the episcopacy, there was a post, above, that referred to it as invalid. This was not the case. The Vatican never called it invalid, it referred to the ordination as illicit. A bishop has the sacramental power to ordain another bishop. There is not question about validity. This was the Vatican’s concern. By ordaining bishops with Apostolic succession, you are “creating” for lack of a better word, a schismatic church, such as what happened in the East with the Orthodox.
Though I’m not inside Benedict’s head (not sure I’d want to be) I would think that at this point his hope and prayer would be to see those bishops submit to the authority of Peter, so as to bring home those who broke away with the apostolic see.
As to your statement about the arrogant Eastern Christians asserting their claim that their liturgy is “orthodox” etc. I’m paraphrasing, because I don’t have the window open. It has always been the belief of the Roman Catholic Church that the Eastern Churches, both Unat and Schismatic, have liturgical orthodoxy and validity. There is no arrogance if they were state the obvious.
I hope that I didn’t misunderstand what you meant. If I did, I apologize.
J
JReducation
Guest
You’re right. I did not comprehend what you had said. Thank you for the clarification.
I agree with you that if someone were to make changes to the Eastern liturgy, they would probably be very upset.
As to whether it’s an abuse of power, I would say that it depends on the reasons for the change. It would be silly to deny that there have been abuses of power in the church or that there can be.
That being said, one has to look at the reasons, before calling it an abuse of power.
C
catharina
Guest
Yup. Guess you should have used quotes.
Nonetheless you didn’t confuse me;
instead you accused me - of being a separatist.
Guess you were confused.
J
jj2011
Guest
Licinio Rangel was a priest of Campos who was consecrated a bishop, after the death of Bishops Lefebvre and Castro Meyer, by some of the four who were consecrated in 1988.
After the Society of St. John Vianney was declared regularized, Mgr Rangel was recognized by Rome as a bishop and he participated as co-consecrator of his successor, Bishop Fernando Rifan.
These facts remove any doubt about a validity issue.
J
JReducation
Guest
Thanks for sharing this JJ. I didn’t know about this bishop, but I do know that ordination of a bishop by another bishop, even a renegade bishop, is valid. It happened in my diocese. One of our priests, unfortunately, broke with the Church to start an African American Catholic Church and found an Eastern Orthodox bishop to ordain him bishop. But your report has removed one obstacle.
Maybe we can bring this thread to a close by dealing with the real question. Can those who wish to do so sympathize with Msgr. Lefebvre and also accept that he was legitimately excommunicated.
I don’t see why not as long as what you’re agreeing with is his desire to preserve certain traditions such as the Tridentine Liturgy. There were many bishops who wanted to preserve it. Some proposed what we now have, a Latin liturgy and a vernacular liturgy. These men were not excommunicated. What you cannot agree with his his defiance of Peter, because that’s an endorsement that anyone who feels strongly enough about something can defy Peter. What does that do to the unity of the Church? Chaos!!!
The excommunication was not incurred by Msgr Lefebvre’s desire to concerve the Tridentine liturgy or other traditions. It was incurred by disobedience and abusing his episcopal powers. Even his criticisms of the pope did not bring down the hammer of excommunication.
I do not believe that this is disrespectful to the memory of the Archbishop. It’s a historical and legal fact.
To put it another way, the Archbishop cannot excommunicate the pope. That’s a little difficult to do. Therefore, his supporters cannot claim that the legitimate Church rested on the Archbishop and that the pope had placed himself outside the Church. That would mean that pope would have been placed outside the Church for following his predecessors. In which case, you would have to argue that the chair of Peter was empty since the time of John XXIII. Even the Archbishop did not believe this to be the case. He toyed with the idea, but in the end, never declared this to be the case, as far as I know. Someone else may know something different.
F
Four_Marks
Guest
Congratulations!
You’ve hit on the “crux” of the matter here.
That being: The inconsistent, illogical “position” of the SSPX. I can easily demonstrate that the SSPX disobey Benedict XVI in matters which a valid pope cannot be disobeyed. The SSPX claim to be “recognizing and resisting”, but they are just plain “disobeying” one whom they claim is a valid pontiff.
On the one hand, they send cases to “Rome” regarding reducing priests to the lay state, but on the other hand they have set up their own “marriage tribunals” to dissolve Catholic’s marriages. They claim to have been able to set up their own apostolate, providing the sacraments, operating marriage tribunals etc.using epikeia. But there is NO absence of the “lawgiver”. He is, according to them, sitting right there in Rome. If JPII was a valid pontiff, he certainly had the power to excommunicate members of the SSPX.
Now, my position. In reality the SSPX are not excommunicated, because JPII was NOT a valid pontiff. This removes the difficulty for the those who believe that the Church is in a state of sede vacante, but the overwhelming obstacle remains for those who claim to adhere to Benedict XVI while continuing to disobey his legitimate commands. Their “position” is a “middle of the road” position which is unprecedented in the history of the Church. Unprecedented, unless they can show you a time when a single-claimant pope was disobeyed/rejected (in the serious matters that they disobey) while the transgressors still remained Catholics. Their “partial subjection” unfortunately smacks of schism. It would, in the meantime before excommunication, be considered great scandal. The truly sad thing is, their “recognizing and resisting” is an effort to demonstrate they they are the exact opposite of schismatics. They fail to see that the only logical position is either full and unequivocal submission to BXVI or sede vacante.
P
pnewton
Guest
But this opens up a whole new can of worms and inconsistencies.
F
Four_Marks
Guest
Really? Such as?
J
JReducation
Guest
I’ve been saying this all along, but few people have been listening. But thanks for the congrats anyway
I guess I shouldn’t smile, because it’s very sad. You’re right, this is a schism. Therefore, the Archbishop and his followers have incurred excommunication, as sad as that is to admit about any one, especially a bishop.
The only logical step if for their bishops to step back and make their profession of faith again and renew their vow of obedience to the Holy Father. Even that, will only bring back their bishops. The other members of the “new church”, because that’s what it is, have to come back individually.
There is one provision in Canon Law for this. The Holy Father can lift the excommunication, while still maintaining that they are not in full communion with the Church. This was done with the Eastern Orthodox.
What this means, in practice, is that the Church recognizes their apostolic heritage and succession, that it recognizes the validity of their sacraments, and that it also recognizes that the members of that church have not voluntarily severed their ties with the Church, but they are separated by circumstances beyond their control.
In the case of the Orthodox Churches, this is easier, because the schism is 1,000 years old. Today’s Orthodox Christians were born into that church. They really have not voluntarily severed their ties with the Chair of Peter. Their circumstance is not of their doing. They have to engage in a process of prayer and discernment with us. Together we pray that the Holy Spirit will open the eyes of the blind.
In the case of the SSPX, those who broke the ties with the Chair of Peter are alive and hopefully well. You don’t have several hundred generations born into the schism, so that you can cover them under the umbrella of involuntary assent. There was voluntary consent to the separation.
This means that their bishops will have to come home first and persuade their flock to follow. I hope they do so soon, before this becomes as big and as difficult as the situation in the East.
We just have to pray.
J
JReducation
Guest
I think the can or worms and inconsistencies is that either you declare that you believe in Sede Vacantis, which you then have to prove. You just don’t stand on the corner and state that the Chair of Peter is empty and try to find someone who wants to occupy it. There is a traditional process for this to be proven. Otherwise, every nut job in town can declare it.
The other side is that you accept that the Chair is rightfully occcupied, in other words, we have a legitimate Pope and accept that you have broken ties with him, which translates into ipso facto excommunication.
It’s like people who marry, divorce and remarry and claim that they do not believe in the Church’s “policy” on remarriage. Well, they have admitted that there is a legitimate Church with whom they disagree. They have admitted that they have acted contrary to the Church’s teaching on marriage. Therefore, they have excommunicated themselves by virtue of their admission to the above.
You can’t recognize that Benedict or whoever it is at the time, is a legitimate reigning pope and at the same time say that you do not recognize his authority. He’s either legitimat or he’s not. If you claim that he’s not, prove it. If you accept that he is legitimate, then his authority comes with the office.
There is no such thing as something being valid and void simultaneously. That’s illogical.
The can of worms is on the side of the SSPX, not on the side of the Vatican. The pope does not have to prove his legitimacy. His electors claim that they cast their votes freely, with full knowledge and with a clear conscience that they were choosing the man that God inspired them to choose. His detractors have to prove that the electoral college made a mistake. I’d like to see anyone take on that challenge.
Let’s see we would have to prove that several hundred cardinals were mislead at the election of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. That’s five electoral colleges in a row. Wow!
I think I’ll stick with the pope is who he says he is, even if I don’t always agree with him.
PS Benedict the XVI is not my favorite pope, so far. Maybe he’ll grow on me. I didn’t like John Paul II until I met him. Then I realized that there was a deep holiness to the man. When I looked at him through the eyes of the press, he didn’t stir a great deal of warmth inside me. When I shook his hand and we looked at each other, I felt that I was truly in the presence of a mystic.
Two years later, I attended midnight mass at the Vatican and again I could see his mysticism as he prayed the Eucharistic prayer. The look in his face and the sound of his voice told you that he was physically there, but that his spirit was at a higher plain than mine was. I can’t speak for others there. I can witness to having see it with my own eyes, as I sat three rows in front of him. His devotion and his depth as he held the Eucharist in his hand told you that this truly was Peter holding the Body and Blood of his Saviour.
I have no doubts as to his legitimacy. I share that for those who can be helped by the experience of an eye-witness to JPII’s holiness and love for the Eucharist.
F
Four_Marks
Guest
Dear JReducation & pnewton,I’ve been saying this all along, but few people have been listening. But thanks for the congrats anyway
I guess I shouldn’t smile, because it’s very sad. You’re right, this is a schism. Therefore, the Archbishop and his followers have incurred excommunication, as sad as that is to admit about any one, especially a bishop.
The only logical step if for their bishops to step back and make their profession of faith again and renew their vow of obedience to the Holy Father. Even that, will only bring back their bishops. The other members of the “new church”, because that’s what it is, have to come back individually.
There is one provision in Canon Law for this. The Holy Father can lift the excommunication, while still maintaining that they are not in full communion with the Church. This was done with the Eastern Orthodox.
What this means, in practice, is that the Church recognizes their apostolic heritage and succession, that it recognizes the validity of their sacraments, and that it also recognizes that the members of that church have not voluntarily severed their ties with the Church, but they are separated by circumstances beyond their control.
In the case of the Orthodox Churches, this is easier, because the schism is 1,000 years old. Today’s Orthodox Christians were born into that church. They really have not voluntarily severed their ties with the Chair of Peter. Their circumstance is not of their doing. They have to engage in a process of prayer and discernment with us. Together we pray that the Holy Spirit will open the eyes of the blind.
In the case of the SSPX, those who broke the ties with the Chair of Peter are alive and hopefully well. You don’t have several hundred generations born into the schism, so that you can cover them under the umbrella of involuntary assent. There was voluntary consent to the separation.
This means that their bishops will have to come home first and persuade their flock to follow. I hope they do so soon, before this becomes as big and as difficult as the situation in the East.
We just have to pray.
I realize that you are “leading lights” on this forum.
I’ll be blunt with you. I don’t need to post here, especially if you are going to ignore my posts, ignore elements of my posts or paint the picture entirely with your brush.
Let me make it very plain, again. I don’t believe that the SSPX have been excommunicated. Why? A lawful pope didn’t pronounce the excommunication. Tell me right now - is a Catholic who believes (for very good reasons) that we are in a state of sede vacante welcome to express his/her views on this forum? Will they be treated fairly, or attacked with facile arguments and then suppressed? Tell me please, because I need to know before I begin to spend time on here.
Thus far, pnewton has studiously ignored a two-part post of mine on another thread, and you’ve failed to answer my question regarding “changes”. All since January 9. I’d like Mr. P. Newton to go through each and every example I’ve given and show me how those examples do not equate to heresy and apostasy on the part of JPII. For the sake of truth, please make an attempt. I’m interested in dealing with the truths of the Catholic Faith, interpreted in the correct manner. I’m not into psuedo-intrepretation, and I’m quite sure that you aren’t either. I’m not into petty ad hominem and tu quo que arguments, and I’m sure that you aren’t either.
JReducation, please explain to me what changes in the liturgy you think are legitimate.
I believe you want the truth to prevail. We have a common goal. I know you are both articulate and intelligent individuals, so let’s discuss the issues in a fair manner, which includes addressing all each other’s points in a non-obfuscating manner.
Thank you.
J
JReducation
Guest
PART ONE
Four,
I’m dividing this into two parts as it does not fit into one response and taking the liberty of truncating your post for the same reason.
Thank you for calling our attention that you have been ignored. I for one apologize, if I have been guilty of such. It is not my intention. To be honest, this thread has gone in so many directions that it is often difficult to keep track of every direction and every argument presented.
I will offer a simple response and hope that this can begin to help the healing process. To claim that the chair of Peter is vacant is not a small claim. Even though an individual may be convinced in his or her heart that this is the case, it has to be taken before a council of bishops and only they have the authority to declare that such is the case. This has been the process for dealing with such claims for centuries.
To date, no one has taken such a claim before the Roman Curia, while there may be good people as yourself who believe this, it is not official until the Roman curia decides that such is the case. They have the final authority to declare that a papal election is invalid or that a pope has committed such a grave act against the faith that he can no longer reign as pope.
My suspicion is that the reason why such has not happened is not because there have not been such claims, but because the Roman Curia does not view them as valid enough to consider them and convoke a Council of Bishops. In other words, the bishops, as a body, are satisfied that John Paul II was validly elected and that he has committed no grave violations against the faith to warrant such an investigation, much less a vote of no confidence.
As to the changes in the liturgy, all of the changes made by Vatican II were approved by the legitimate authorities. That is, they were discussed in Episcopal councils and committees who after discussing them and making their suggestions, signed their names to them and presented them to Pope Paul VI for final approval. According to tradition and Canon Law, this is the proper process and these are the legitimate authorities to make such changes.
While I agree that many changes upset many people and that many other people abused the message and the rules of liturgical reform, these do not impugn the pope in any way. The changes that Paul VI and his successors approved retained the theological meaning of the liturgy, the essential elements of the liturgy, those being: the words of consecration, bread and wine, a validly ordained priest , the intent to continue what was begun at the Las Supper, the communion of the faithful, and the intrinsic celebration of the Paschal mystery. Not a single one of those elements was disturbed or changed.
- Status