Archbishop Lefebvre

[JReducation]

FOUR – PART II

What was allowed to be changed is what Canon Law and theology calls the accidens. Accidens are those elements that are part of the Liturgy, but are not essential. While these accidens may help the faithful in many spiritual ways, in themselves they are not the mass nor are absolutely necessary for a valid mass. There were many accidens modified or completely done away with. Some examples of these are: altar facing the wall, the exclusive use of Latin, the order of the readings, the words of the Eucharistic prayer, but not the words of consecration. Some prayers were added and some were taken away. Also, lay ministers were introduced into the celebration of the liturgy.

In addition to these changes two other elements were added. A liturgical celebration that was comprehensible for children, which has all the essential elements, but the only difference being that the children have a more active part in the liturgy though a series of prayers that they respond to throughout the liturgy. Another element that was added was the greeting of peace at the end of the Lord’s Prayer.

None of these new elements changes the essentials. The essentials are untouched. Unfortunately, the Tridentine mass has suspended for a while, but is being reintroduced with some changes, such as the priest facing the people.

The liturgical books were reorganized so that the scriptures are read in their entirety over a three year period. Also, the prayers of the mass and the prayer of the Liturgy of the hours were reorganized so that they flow from each other, as both are part of the proper tradition of the Church’s liturgical life and had drifted apart.

The Liturgy of the Hours and the Mass were did not resonate with each other as they did in antiquity. This was due, in part, to the fact that the Council of Trent worked on establishing a common order for the mass and left the Liturgy of the Hours untouched. I do not know why this was so, since traditionally they were always in harmony. In other words, there was a thread that followed through the day beginning with Matins in the middle of the night, continuing with Lauds before the first mass of the day, reaching its high point a the Eucharistic celebration and continuing throughout the day with the other hour until the close of day with Complime.

There was a pastoral need to bring the entire liturgy into synch, if I may use such a word: the liturgy of the hours, the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist.

All of this was done for the spiritual good of the Church.

Therefore, it is very difficult for a Council of Bishops to convene with the intention of scrutinizing a pope or popes who have acted to bring the liturgy into a harmonious balance for the sake of the Church and to better express the faith of the Church, especially when nothing of the essential elements that have been part of the mass since before Trent, were changed.

You may continue to believe that John Paul II was not a legitimate pope, but you will have to submit your suspicions to the Sacred Curia and then submit to their judgment on the matter. Only they can make that determination.

Imagine what chaos we would have if every individual or group had the power or authority to declare the chair of Peter vacant. That is not what you nor I want for the Church, not if we truly love her. If your feelings are so strong on this matter and you have enough support, I suggest that you approach your local bishop with this concern. All of these matters must begin at the level of the local church. If the Ordinary of your diocese believes that there is just cause, he then submits the matter to the Sacred Congregation of Bishops. If they believe there is just cause, they convene a council of bishops and hearings begin.

Unless this process happens, we must accept the authority of the pope and trust in the promise of Christ that he will never allow his Church to fall into hell. It may sin and has done so in the past, but it will also rise above sin.

Also remember that in modern time, when communication is so fast and much simpler than a century ago. There is little that a pope can do without notice of the entire community of bishops. If there were reasons to suspect John Paul II of any wrong against our holy faith, it would have been noticed by many bishops very quickly.

I hope this helps a least a little. Please forgive my typos, as my eyes are very tired.

God bless you always,

JR

 

[pnewton]

Thus far, pnewton has studiously ignored a two-part post of mine on another thread,.

That is because I have already studied the arguement and discarded it as internally inconsistant before I even became Catholic. I would not be Catholic today if I thought there was a ghost of a chance that sedevacantism was anything more than the Catholics version of a fringe, like I was familiar with as a Baptist (Fred Phelps, for example). If you chose not to post here because I do not care to engage in every reading assignment you give, the do not post. I never cared for lengthy post anyway, especially when they are cloned from other sites I wouldn’t visit in a million years.

How do I know that? I tried to search some of the quotes and amazing, they seemed to only be linke to sedevacantist or schismatic sites. I am no fool that will fall to the stupid propaganda of the sedevacantist. One thing I am very familiar with is the muddying of the waters. As I said on the appropriate thread for this post. When one has neither the law or the facts on their side, that is the only way to make a point.

Finally, I could care less that you do not like me ignoring your derailment of this thread. This thread is not about sedevacantism, but about Lefebvre, who is not a sedevacantist. You are only looking for another platform to promote your agenda.

If you do not like the way we post here, remember that this is a Catholic forum, not a sedevacatist forum. We acknowledge the authority of the Holy See and the pontiff. Of course attacks against our family will not be well received. This should be no surprise.

 

[Four_Marks]

That is because I have already studied the arguement and discarded it as internally inconsistant before I even became Catholic. I would not be Catholic today if I thought there was a ghost of a chance that sedevacantism was anything more than the Catholics version of a fringe, like I was familiar with as a Baptist (Fred Phelps, for example). If you chose not to post here because I do not care to engage in every reading assignment you give, the do not post. I never cared for lengthy post anyway, especially when they are cloned from other sites I wouldn’t visit in a million years.

How do I know that? I tried to search some of the quotes and amazing, they seemed to only be linke to sedevacantist or schismatic sites. I am no fool that will fall to the stupid propaganda of the sedevacantist. One thing I am very familiar with is the muddying of the waters. As I said on the appropriate thread for this post. When one has neither the law or the facts on their side, that is the only way to make a point.

Finally, I could care less that you do not like me ignoring your derailment of this thread. This thread is not about sedevacantism, but about Lefebvre, who is not a sedevacantist. You are only looking for another platform to promote your agenda.

If you do not like the way we post here, remember that this is a Catholic forum, not a sedevacatist forum. We acknowledge the authority of the Holy See and the pontiff. Of course attacks against our family will not be well received. This should be no surprise.

Firstly, pnewton, you’ve studiously ignored my contentions yet again, and that is very telling.

You’ve just assumed that “they are cloned from other sites”. No, you’ve gotten it very wrong. They were taken from a published paper. Your personal preference: “I never cared for lengthy post anyway, especially when they are cloned from other sites I wouldn’t visit in a million years.”, belies your unwillingness to look for the truth. I laid it all out for you, citing chapter and verse, as it were. The **real objection is that cannot refute. ** You are fooling no one.

Yes, I gave you the references to JP II’s shenanigans, which you can source from your own Church. So, no excuses about not being able to find them please. That is just farcical! Naturally you don’t wish to engage in what you’ve conveniently termed a “reading assignment”. Reason: you cannot refute that particular "reading assignment.

No, no dear pnewton, I haven’t given you sedevacantist propaganda, rather I’ve given you concrete examples straight from JP II’s own mouth, so to speak.. Yes, doubtlessly you are familiar with “muddying of the waters”. But, the only mud to H2O factor here, is you attempting to brush off the content of my previous posts. Now, you’ve started with an inference that I’m stupid, and that is ad hominem.

I have both the law and irrefutable facts on my side, and you simply saying I don’t doesn’t change the reality, my friend. But I’m not interested in dealing with obstinate obfuscators, and you appear to be as such.

Excuse me my friend, but JReducation didn’t mind what you’ve falsely termed my “derailment of this thread”. And your agenda is to suppress the truth, it seems. And I wasn’t talking about you ignoring me in this thread, but in the Pius XI thread. Please get your facts straight.

I don’t like the way YOU post, not others. You are continually posting what you think are cute and clever snappy remarks about fellow Catholics. What you are not doing, is addressing the points made by others in a scientific manner. You are happy to discuss sedevacantism, but only within the parameters of substanceless, judgemental, trite fluff that doesn’t address the issues.

 

[AlexV]

The real issue is if you stay in “schism” long enough you become “separated brethren”, and Rome says “schism” isn’t the appropriate word to use (e.g., Protestants, Orthodox).

 

[catharina]

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?

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

The Pope declared the obvious: Lefebvre had incurred excommunication.

 

[catharina]

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).

Answer to the latest question. Active in schismatic choice. Ink is barely dry on the document. The Eastern have an “inherited” faith.

 

[catharina]

The real issue is if you stay in “schism” long enough you become “separated brethren”, and Rome says “schism” isn’t the appropriate word to use (e.g., Protestants, Orthodox).

Answer to the latest question. Lefebvre separatists are active in schismatic choice. Ink is barely dry on the document.

The Eastern have an “inherited” faith.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Answer to the latest question. Lefebvre separatists are active in schismatic choice. Ink is barely dry on the document.

Catherina,

What would you think of a Bishop who had been excommunicated by the Pope, condemned by a council of 300 Bishops, banned from his diocese four times, and spent 17 years in exile? That Bishop was St. Athanasius.

If you would have lived in his day, what do you think you would have said about him? Do you think you would have supported him and his followers, or would you have condemned them as excommunicated schismatics, which it appeared that they were?

The actions of St. Athanasius were justified due to the unusual circumstances he found himself in (the faith itself was under serious attack from within the Church). The exact same thing is happening today. Just as the wolves were in charge of the Church during the days of St. Athanasius, so too are they today.

Faith is greater than obedience; thus, when it is a matter of protecting the faith, disobedience is justified. That is the situation today. The seminaries are completely corrupt. Heresy and impurity are the norm. The good must “stay under the radar” in order to get ordained. The good are run off. Archbishop Lefebvre was not just defending the Mass, but the faith that goes along with it.

You may not be able to understand this, but that is the reality of the situation. The Pope, whose job it is to protect the faith, did nothing to correct the situation. Unlike Pope Pius X who removed any Seminarian instructor who was the least bit tainted with modernism, and even excommunicated those who would not renounce the error, John Paul II the great took no effective actions, and as such the Seminaries became cesspools of iniquity, thus producing heretical and corrupt Priests.

Archbishop Lefebvre responding by setting up real seminaries that produced real priests. It was done with all necessary approval. The Liberals didnt’t like Seminaries that produced real Preists, which is why he was persecuted.

There was a saying in the days of St. Athanasius. It was “Athanasius contra mundum” which means “Athanasius against the world”, since he was virtually alone in his fight for the faith. We have a similar situation today with Archbishop Lefebvre.

Just as many were unable to see that Athanasius’ actions were justified and good in those days, so too is it today with Archbishop Lefebvre. History always repeats itself.

 

[AlexV]

Catharina is ready to condemn Lefebvre, but she cries “slander” when someone dares to point out that John Paul II omitted a key word from the Creed.

She accused me of slander, which is false witness and symptomatic of a hysteria over any criticism of the pope, even the mere recounting of what he actually did with no speculation as to motive.

I agree with Silvio Cardinal Oddi, who visited Lefebvre’s grave in 1991. He prayed silently, rose, and said “Merci, Monseigneur.”

 

[catharina]

Catherina,

What would you think of a Bishop who had been excommunicated by the Pope, condemned by a council of 300 Bishops, banned from his diocese four times, and spent 17 years in exile? That Bishop was St. Athanasius.

If you would have lived in his day, what do you think you would have said about him? Do you think you would have supported him and his followers, or would you have condemned them as excommunicated schismatics, which it appeared that they were?

**Interesting choice of words. Condemn? I condemn no one. That job is God’s, not mine. In regard to the Church and Athanatius, I hope I would have stayed faithful to Church teaching since that is my job as assigned by Christ Our Lord. Any difficulties suffered and experienced by St. Athanatius were put right. We have that fact as history.

History also gives us Lefebvre as excommunicated. We have that fact as history. **

The actions of St. Athanasius were justified due to the unusual circumstances he found himself in (the faith itself was under serious attack from within the Church). The exact same thing is happening today. Just as the wolves were in charge of the Church during the days of St. Athanasius, so too are they today.

Faith is greater than obedience; thus, when it is a matter of protecting the faith, disobedience is justified. That is the situation today. The seminaries are completely corrupt. Heresy and impurity are the norm. The good must “stay under the radar” in order to get ordained. The good are run off. Archbishop Lefebvre was not just defending the Mass, but the faith that goes along with it.

You may not be able to understand this, but that is the reality of the situation. The Pope, whose job it is to protect the faith, did nothing to correct the situation. Unlike Pope Pius X who removed any Seminarian instructor who was the least bit tainted with modernism, and even excommunicated those who would not renounce the error, John Paul II the great took no effective actions, and as such the Seminaries became cesspools of iniquity, thus producing heretical and corrupt Priests.

Archbishop Lefebvre responding by setting up real seminaries that produced real priests. It was done with all necessary approval. The Liberals didnt’t like Seminaries that produced real Preists, which is why he was persecuted.

There was a saying in the days of St. Athanasius. It was “Athanasius contra mundum” which means “Athanasius against the world”, since he was virtually alone in his fight for the faith. We have a similar situation today with Archbishop Lefebvre.

Just as many were unable to see that Athanasius’ actions were justified and good in those days, so too is it today with Archbishop Lefebvre. History always repeats itself.

Some of those who stand with Lefebvre and his separatists claim Pope John Paul II to be a renegade Pope. Others claim the same going back to and including Pope Paul VI. I’m reminded only of Our Lord asking the Apostles if they would leave Him. Their answer: “Lord, to whom (shall) would we go? YOU have the words of eternal life.” I’m completely satisfied that Our Lord expects to find me faithful to the chair of Peter. I expect no private revelation - nor should I expect one - that would tell me otherwise, that would tell me to follow a cult leader who would take me away from union with Rome - even if such a person seemed to espouse some of my prefernces. My faith is far too precious for me to second-guess it as a matter of my personal tastes.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Catharina is ready to condemn Lefebvre, but she cries “slander” when someone dares to point out that John Paul II omitted a key word from the Creed.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out a fact of what was done in public, which is objectively wrong. Every Priest (including the Pope) is bound to follow the rubrics. The Pope can change them if he would like, but while they are on the books he must follow them.

According to Jimmy Akin, breaking the rubrics was nothing new for John Paul II public masses.

Jimmy Akin: “…liturgical law was disregarded regularly at John Paul II’s major celebrations of the liturgy” jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/10/vaticans-top-li.html

Of course, as usual, Jimmy Akin placed the blame on someone other than John Paul II.

 

[catharina]

Catharina is ready to condemn Lefebvre, but she cries “slander” when someone dares to point out that John Paul II omitted a key word from the Creed.

She accused me of slander, which is false witness and symptomatic of a hysteria over any criticism of the pope, even the mere recounting of what he actually did with no speculation as to motive.

I agree with Silvio Cardinal Oddi, who visited Lefebvre’s grave in 1991. He prayed silently, rose, and said “Merci, Monseigneur.”

Much as you repeat it (and wish it were so?) I have never accused you of slander - although you have accused me of “slander -BLATANT slander.” I’ve no interest in your opinion of me. I would be interested to know if you stand as a Lefebvre separatist, only because you tend to sound like one. If you are one, then it would seem that you have turned your back on the chair of Peter.

 

[Walking_Home]

Much as you repeat it (and wish it were so?) I have never accused you of slander - although you have accused me of “slander -BLATANT slander.” I’ve no interest in your opinion of me. I would be interested to know if you stand as a Lefebvre separatist, only because you tend to sound like one. If you are one, then it would seem that you have turned your back on the chair of Peter.

---

Quote=catharina
A-V and P-C,
Has Almighty God requested your assistance and given you special graces and tasks in your duties that would lead you to slander a Pope. Are you imagining you can read the intentions (soul) of another? Terribly “funny” this is being stated in a Lefebvre thread. No surprise though.

Quote=catharina
Originally Posted by AlexV
YOU used the word slander. Not I.

To impute evil to the motivations of another’s actions and to spread that idea is to approach/announce slander.

 

[catharina]

Catharina is ready to condemn Lefebvre, but she cries “slander” when someone dares to point out that John Paul II omitted a key word from the Creed.

She accused me of slander, which is false witness and symptomatic of a hysteria over any criticism of the pope, even the mere recounting of what he actually did with no speculation as to motive.

I agree with Silvio Cardinal Oddi, who visited Lefebvre’s grave in 1991. He prayed silently, rose, and said “Merci, Monseigneur.”

Gallop on back to this Post. **

"Yesterday, 2:47 pm
catharina
Senior Member Join Date: September 16, 2007
Posts: 1,033

Re: Archbishop Lefebvre

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexV
Slander, Catharina. Blatant slander. Who are the “separatists” and how dare you decide who is a separatist/schismatic?

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.”

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?

---

Last edited by catharina : Yesterday at 2:54 pm. Reason: clarity"**

 

[catharina]

---

Quote=catharina
A-V and P-C,
Has Almighty God requested your assistance and given you special graces and tasks in your duties that would lead you to slander a Pope. Are you imagining you can read the intentions (soul) of another? Terribly “funny” this is being stated in a Lefebvre thread. No surprise though.

Quote=catharina
Originally Posted by AlexV
YOU used the word slander. Not I.

To impute evil to the motivations of another’s actions and to spread that idea is to approach/announce slander.

Lovely that you would attempt to step in with your view. I asked a few simple questions, such as: “Has Almighty God requested your assistance and given you special graces and tasks in your duties that would lead you to slander a Pope?”

He still hasn’t answered.

Can you answer for him?
Help yourself.

Perhaps he’s on a secret mission from God, huh?

 

[AlexV]

YOU raised the slander accusation, Catharina, as anyone with a remotely competent knowledge of reading comprehension could discern from the thread. YOU raised the issue that I had allegedly “imputed evil” to a pope’s actions, which I never did.

You owe me an apology.

 

[catharina]

---

Quote=catharina
A-V and P-C,
Has Almighty God requested your assistance and given you special graces and tasks in your duties that would lead you to slander a Pope. Are you imagining you can read the intentions (soul) of another? Terribly “funny” this is being stated in a Lefebvre thread. No surprise though.

Quote=catharina
Originally Posted by AlexV
YOU used the word slander. Not I.

To impute evil to the motivations of another’s actions and to spread that idea is to approach/announce slander.

Or perhaps there is no secret mission from God and no attempt to slander a Pope. Perhaps? I’ve no idea; he hasn’t answered yet. Maybe you can answer for your little buddy? Otherwise, why are you “answering” at all? (Are you an echo regarding me and an approach to slander? Oh my goodness. Bizarre.)

 

[catharina]

YOU raised the slander accusation, Catharina, as anyone with a remotely competent knowledge of reading comprehension could discern from the thread. YOU raised the issue that I had allegedly “imputed evil” to a pope’s actions, which I never did.

You owe me an apology.

Alex, dear, FOCUS.

Read Posts 474 and 476 and answer the question. OK?

 

[AlexV]

Quit the patronizing vocatives, Catharina. They do not help your cause.

YOU accused me of slandering a pope. I did not.

YOU accused me of “imputing evil” to a pope’s actions. I did not.

 

[catharina]

Quit the patronizing vocatives, Catharina. They do not help your cause.

YOU accused me of slandering a pope. I did not.

YOU accused me of “imputing evil” to a pope’s actions. I did not.

Please get a grip. Jumping up and down in hysterics does not become you.

I asked: “Has Almighty God requested your assistance and given you special graces and tasks in your duties that would lead you to slander a Pope. Are you imagining you can read the intentions (soul) of another?”

You answer “No” and I say “Oh goodie. Then I guess you have no intentions of slandering a Pope.” You answer “Yes” and I say “Oh really?”

Honestly, it’s NOT all about YOU, Alex.