Archbishop Lefebvre

[Four_Marks]

What exactly does “choose Lefebvre” mean legally?

Sorry, charges as serious as schism require a wee bit more buttress and foundation than a vaguery like “choose Lefebvre”.

As for Cardinal Castrillon, he is the pope’s official spokesman for Lefebvre matters.

Dear Alex V and all other apologists for the SSPX and SSPX adherents,

I think you should immediately disabuse yourselves of the notion that Catharina is asking for anything other than for you to explain the gross inconsistencies of the priestly society of Saint Pius the Tenth.

For starters, explain clearly to Catharina how the SSPX can:

(1) Invoke epikeia, (which is invoked in the absence of the lawgiver) to justify their apostolate - providing sacraments to the faithful etc. - when the lawgiver is sitting right there in Rome?

(2) Conduct their own marriage tribunals, yet send cases to Rome for reducing priests in the society to the lay state?

(3) Claim that Benedict XVI is a valid pontiff, but disobey him in matters which constitute schism without Catharina perceiving it as the sin of schism?

Now you have two choices here. Either “put up or shut up”.

Please understand that Catharina, in this case, is giving you the correct Catholic response, and nothing else.

Kindest Regards,

Four_Marks

 

[AlexV]

Excuse me. I am now an “apologist” for the SSPX? That’s quite a leap.

I am not explaining ANYTHING to Catharina until I get an apology for her false accusations of slander and imputation of evil intent to John Paul II.

 

[catharina]

Thank you, Four Marks.

For once, even the secular press got it right:

"Lefebvre’s Followers Warned They Risk Excommunication

Published: July 3, 1988
LEAD: The Vatican warned adherents of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre today that they risk excommunication if they continue to follow the traditionalist prelate’s movement.

The Vatican warned adherents of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre today that they risk excommunication if they continue to follow the traditionalist prelate’s movement.

In a statement, Pope John Paul II today appealed to followers of the rebel Archbishop to ‘‘remain united with the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church.’’

Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated in Econe, Switzerland, on Thursday, causing the first schism in the Roman Catholic Church since 1870, were automatically excommunicated."

This year that warning turns 20 yrs old!

 

[catharina]

Again, Four Marks, yes. The sin of schism is the sin of schism.

As for A-V, I doubt he can explain anything to anyone.
I’m not wirting for any explanations from him.

When I first asked for one, he accused me of “jumping up and down in hysterics.” Cute? No. Offensive? Yes. It’s been all downhill from there.

 

[Four_Marks]

I have responded to many of your posts. I do not respond to all. I started trying to find context for some of the quotes. The first three I looked up through google came back to SV sites exclusively. This could be coincidence. The only reason I mention this a second time is to give others a good way of testing the waters I have always posted the same way. You are only the second person to object. I make no secret of the fact that those who reject our Holy Father and seperate from him, I believe to be separate from the Church and thus no longer Catholic. Again, where the Bishop of Rome is there is the Catholic Church. So, no, I do not consider you and your fellow SV’s to be Catholic.

As to my opinion of the “Wacky World of Sedevacantism”, (This, BTW, is CA’s term they use in This Rock a few years back. They had on the cover a pope made out of Mr. Potatohead.)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3180607&postcount=65

I used the term “sharks” to describe you because I believe you to undermine the Catholic Church and feed on the weak.

Dear pnewton,

Gosh! I really wish you’d cease with your continual assumptions. I’m not SSPV, nor do I have an affiliation with them.

Context for the quotes? What? They are straight from JP II. Go look them up from “Church” documents. I’ve given you all of the places where you’ll find them. Places such as: Redemptor Hominis, Osservatore Romano, Homily, in Santa Maria in Trastevere, Catechisi Tradendae, Dignitatis Humanae etc.

quote:“I make no secret of the fact that those who reject our Holy Father and seperate from him, I believe to be separate from the Church and thus no longer Catholic.”

Good, I make no secret of the fact that JPII (for one) fell into apostasy and was no longer a Catholic, let alone a valid pontiff. I’ve given you some examples of this absolutely apparent apostasy. Would you like some more? Woops! I forgot, you haven’t addressed, in any manner, the initial examples that I posited.

I use the term “full of hot air, but light on hard theology” to describe you. Again, address the examples I’ve given, or seen by the spectators to have avoided the the irrefutable.

In closing, I have no doubt that you are well-intentioned, but you wont win an argument by denying the truth.

 

[AlexV]

There will always be those who think the pope isn’t the pope, and there will always be obfuscators who think it’s slanderous and an imputation of evil simply to state what the pope did.

 

[Arnobius]

There will always be those who think the pope isn’t the pope, and there will always be obfuscators who think it’s slanderous and an imputation of evil simply to state what the pope did.

Or maybe they object to the presentation that is done to imply that the only possible conclusion is “heresy” without the consideration it is the claimant’s own interpretation that errs.

For all the claims of “simply stating what the Pope did,” I find the problem is that there is an assumption that there was a break of Sacred Tradition as opposed to the possibility of changing disciplines or a simple mistake or even a different intent than the one given by those who wish to indicate the “possibility of heresy.”

 

[AlexV]

Did I say John Paul was a heretic? NOPE.

Leaving out the word Filioque in a ROMAN Rite Mass isn’t mere “discipline” that can whimsically be changed at the pope’s whim.

In any case, in 2002 John Paul promulgated “his” Roman Missal. It has the Filioque. It doesn’t make it optional.

Catharina hysterically charged me with slander and imputation of evil. That’s unacceptable and offensive, and based in hysterical fantasy and not anything I posted.

 

[catharina]

Or maybe they object to the presentation that is done to imply that the only possible conclusion is “heresy” without the consideration it is the claimant’s own interpretation that errs.

For all the claims of “simply stating what the Pope did,” I find the problem is that there is an assumption that there was a break of Sacred Tradition as opposed to the possibility of changing disciplines or a simple mistake or even a different intent than the one given by those who wish to indicate the “possibility of heresy.”

Quite well said.

 

[AlexV]

Funny, Catharina, I thought you were done with this thread. Another lie?

 

[Arnobius]

Did I say John Paul was a heretic? NOPE.

Leaving out the word Filioque in a ROMAN Rite Mass isn’t mere “discipline” that can whimsically be changed at the pope’s whim.

In any case, in 2002 John Paul promulgated “his” Roman Missal. It has the Filioque. It doesn’t make it optional.

Catharina hysterically charged me with slander and imputation of evil. That’s unacceptable and offensive, and based in hysterical fantasy and not anything I posted.

In my previous post you took offense to above…

Did I mention any names?
Did I say one of these was definitively the answer?
Did I mention your feud with other members?

NOPE.

I was merely pointing out the fact that some people express situations, promoting it in a way where if we accept their reasoning there can only be one conclusion, when in fact there are certainly other options.

While you may not intend to say certain popes are heretical, your rhetoric at times leads us to believe it is your belief.

If you do not like that, consider a moderation there.

 

[AlexV]

I prefer dealing with posted reality, not rhetorical guesses and leaps. Like Catharina, you see accusations of heresy where none were made. The clear progression of thought that you leapt into was what I had posted and Catharina’s outrageous leaps to slander and imputation of evil, as well as her solemn declaration that certain posters (me, Walking Home) are separated from Rome.

 

[Arnobius]

I prefer dealing with posted reality, not rhetorical guesses and leaps. Like Catharina, you see accusations of heresy where none were made. The clear progression of thought that you leapt into was what I had posted and Catharina’s outrageous leaps to slander and imputation of evil, as well as her solemn declaration that certain posters (me, Walking Home) are separated from Rome.

You prefer dealing with “posted reality” yet you fail to recognize your own leaps of conclusion.

OoooKaaaayyyy…

 

[AlexV]

I said a pope left out the “Filioque” more than once at a Roman Rite Mass, despite there being no option to do so in the Missale Romanum of 2002 (or any edition prior).

Leap all you want. Catharina was WAY out of line accusing me of “slander” and “imputation of evil motives” to the pope for simply recording a fact.

 

[Arnobius]

I said a pope left out the “Filioque” more than once at a Roman Rite Mass, despite there being no option to do so in the Missale Romanum of 2002 (or any edition prior).

Leap all you want. Catharina was WAY out of line accusing me of “slander” and “imputation of evil motives” to the pope for simply recording a fact.

Here’s a few suggestions…

1. How about leaving your feud with Catarina out of your dealing with me? I have no interest in that.
2. How about reading all the possibilities I mentioned in the post about the filioque: change of tradition, mistake, different intent than ones imputed; instead of believing I said “He had the option” which I never said.

 

[catharina]

You prefer dealing with “posted reality” yet you fail to recognize your own leaps of conclusion.

OoooKaaaayyyy…

… and that’s the way that goes.

Anyway, I think it’s both lovely and helpful that both you and Four Marks, strangers to me, decided to state the obvious regarding where overblown rhetoric has been used - and is still being used.

In regard to Lefebvre, he took upon himself an act that led to his excommunicattion. Any implications that JP II was an evil renegade in the matter of Lefebvre are futile.

 

[AlexV]

Who made those “implications”, Catharina?

Are you still living in fantasy land? The land of incoherence and false accusations?

 

[catharina]

Another new thread regarding schismatic groups returning to Rome:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=211513

 

[LatinOnlyPlease]

. .

The really comical thing in all of this is that, if Pope John Paul II had been more “hardline” and less ecumenical, he would have declared the entire SSPX “anathema and damned” and warned the faithful under pain of excommunication not to attend their illicit and sacriligious Masses!

Lucky for the SSPX, JPII wanted a dialogue to bring them back, earlier Pope’s would have had none of it.

Bear06,

Thank you for posting those quotes. Anyone attempting to justify Lefebvre’s action has been thoroughly destroyed by the words of the Pope’s they admire most. The irony is rich!

I notice that no one - not one single person - attempted to answer my earlier question: If “grave fear” (as judged by oneself) renders one’s excommunication invalid, then could Arch Milingo consecrate some bishops tomorrow without incurring excommunication??? Why not???

I’d love to hear the explanation.

This all comes down to simple cafeteria catholicism…the SSPX and their defenders are proportionalists who pick and choose what parts of Church law will be followed and what parts will be ignored. It is indeed a sad sickness and truly the work of the devil.

God bless!

 

[JReducation]

I hope everyone here realizes that THIS DEBATE IS A BIG COMPUTER GAME AND NOTHING MORE.

First, unless you hold a position of authority in the infrastructure of the Catholic Church, you can sit here for years and claim that Lefebvre was a saint and John Paul II a nut job or vis a vis and it won’t matter. The people who have the authority to make such pronouncements and judgments are neither reading CAF nor interested in reading CAF.

CAF IS NOT AN OFFICIAL AGENT OR ORGANIZATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It is a private lay organization, with the approval of some bishops, where people can share their opinions and hopefully learn something from each other. In reality, CAF IS A PRIVATE NON PROFIT CORPORATION legally detached from the Catholic Church. By legally we are speaking in terms of civil and canon law. It is not run and operated by the Catholic Church.

If you really want your concerns to be heard by the Church, in a forum where someone with authority will listen, I suggest that you take them to your local diocese or an official Church organism. You may also write to

Catholic Answers
P. O. Box 199000
San Diego, CA 92159

If they can’t help you, they may be able to tell you who can.

If you just want to rant and complain, knock yourself out. But beware that all you’re going to get are arguments upon arguments, not solutions. Most posters here are not theologians or canon lawyers. Many of the posts here fall into that domain of qeustioning.

If you’re looking for a debate, you’ve come to the right place. If you’re looking for solutions, this is not the place.

I have been following this thread for a while. Not only is it off course, the worse part is that the posters don’t seem to care that it’s off course.

As to the allegations that John Paul II committed sins against the Catholic faith, since CAF is not an official organism of the Catholic Church, nothing is going to come from posting those allegations here, except to argue and debate. In addition, as I said to Four, if there were sufficient reason to believe that such is the case, the Roman Curia and the bishops of the world would have noticed it and acted on it. In this age of instant communication, such as TV and radio, it is difficult for such sins to fly under the radar. Even though there have been some bishops, such as Lefebvre, who protested and made certain claims about John Paul’s behaviour, their case was too weak to move the Roman Curia or the opinion of the world’s bishops.

In essence, those few who feel this strongly have three choices:

1. Accept that this is the Pope and that the majority of Catholics, including Church authorities are comfortable with him.
2. Leave the Catholic Church.
3. Continue to present your case before the appropriate ecclesiastical tribunals until you get a hearing.
   As far as this thread is concerned, I will not sit here and argue theology, unless it’s with a legitimate theologian. I will continue to repeat my response to the original post, which had nothing to do with John Paul’s behaviours and beliefs, but with the beliefs and excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre.

The question was clear. Can one respect or even admire him for his defence of the traditional pastoral practices, etc.? Yes you can. Can one follow him? Only to the extent allowed by the Church.

The Archbishop was excommunicated for defying an order from the Pope, a serious order. Did the pope have the authority to excommunicate? Yes he did.

Until you take it to an ecclesial tribunal and council at the universal level, the authority remains in place.

Can the excommunication be lifted by Benedict or any future pope? Yes, but don’t hold your breadth. Benedict is as much a conservative as Lefebvre was, maybe more so. It was Benedict’s boss who declared that the Archbishop incurred excommunication. It was Benedict who did the theological research. His Congregation was responsible for matters of the faith.

For those who want to condemn the actions of John Paul II, you should condemn Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger for complicity. It was his job to counsel the pope on matters of faith.

Having said this, GO PLAY KIDS!