Archbishop Lefebvre

[LatinOnlyPlease]

If the Curia and Bishops are just as heretical [they seem to be] they certainly aren’t going to attack the Pope they just voted in several years ago. They knew he was an extreme modernist when they elected him, he is doing exactly what they want him to do. That is the major problem, the only people standing up to the heresy are the Traditionalists…God Help us all, Dominus Vobiscum

 

[catharina]

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!

JReducation -
I think your conclusion was worth repeating so I’ve done so.

 

[SFD]

Benedict is as much a conservative as Lefebvre was, maybe more so.

JReducation,

This is very funny. Even Ratzinger said that he has not changed. He was a liberal at Vatican II (this is a fact). He was personal theologian to Cardinal Frings at the Council and a former student of Fr. Rahner.

He was a liberal at the Council. That all very clear when one reads Fr. Wiltgen’s book, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.

We’re debating facts here, JR…no one is making any declarations.

SFD

 

[JReducation]

JReducation,

This is very funny. Even Ratzinger said that he has not changed. He was a liberal at Vatican II (this is a fact). He was personal theologian to Cardinal Frings at the Council and a former student of Fr. Rahner.

He was a liberal at the Council. That all very clear when one reads Fr. Wiltgen’s book, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.

We’re debating facts here, JR…no one is making any declarations.

SFD

Some people are debating facts and some are even responding to the OP. Most people are just arguing and insulting each other.

 

[JReducation]

If the Curia and Bishops are just as heretical [they seem to be] they certainly aren’t going to attack the Pope they just voted in several years ago. They knew he was an extreme modernist when they elected him, he is doing exactly what they want him to do. That is the major problem, the only people standing up to the heresy are the Traditionalists…God Help us all, Dominus Vobiscum

Now you’ve taken this to another level. The Electoral College was not led by the Holy Spirit.

This raises an important question, when do we know that the Electoral college is led by the Spirit and when is it not?

Who decides this?

 

[JReducation]

JReducation,

This is very funny. Even Ratzinger said that he has not changed. He was a liberal at Vatican II (this is a fact). He was personal theologian to Cardinal Frings at the Council and a former student of Fr. Rahner.

He was a liberal at the Council. That all very clear when one reads Fr. Wiltgen’s book, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.

We’re debating facts here, JR…no one is making any declarations.

SFD

I studied Karl Rahner’s works for four years in graduate school and didn’t find anything new in them. He didn’t sound so liberal to me. He sounded very Germanic. The only new thing that I found in Rahner was his language. The conepts were repetitions of Thomistic Theology. In fact, Aquinas was his favourite theologian, which made sence since they were both Dominicans.

If you want liberal go read Bonaventure, Alphonsus Ligouri, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa, Vincent de Paul, John Baptiste de La Salle, Catherine of Siena.

 

[Arnobius]

I studied Karl Rahner’s works for four years in graduate school and didn’t find anything new in them. He didn’t sound so liberal to me. He sounded very Germanic. The only new thing that I found in Rahner was his language. The conepts were repetitions of Thomistic Theology. In fact, Aquinas was his favourite theologian, which made sence since they were both Dominicans.

If you want liberal go read Bonaventure, Alphonsus Ligouri, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa, Vincent de Paul, John Baptiste de La Salle, Catherine of Siena.

Don’t forget the innovations of St Pius X… lowering the age of reception of the Eucharist to seven, placing Confimation after the first Holy Communion, ordering the revision of Canon Law (finished 1917… why it is called the Pio-Benedictine Code)

 

[JReducation]

Don’t forget the innovations of St Pius X… lowering the age of reception of the Eucharist to seven, placing Confimation after the first Holy Communion, ordering the revision of Canon Law (finished 1917… why it is called the Pio-Benedictine Code)

I almost forgot about good ol’ Pius X. He was considered a liberal. Not only did he lower the age for reception of the Eucharist, but he also justified it by referring to the Eastern rites where the sacraments of initiation are received at birth and yet, he raised the age for confirmation. I initially found that logic a little confusing. I later came to realize that it had to do with Mystical Theology rather than Sacramentology. If you follow Sacramentology, Confirmation and Baptism belong together. However, Mystical Theology has always been attentive to the developmental stages of the spirit.

While the canon law was being revised, the Churches of the East asked that their canons not be changed, because the proximity between them and the Orthodox was of great importance to the reunification of the Eastern churches, not the Romanization, but reunification, Pius agreed. He genuinely wanted the Unat churches to serve as the bridge to the Orthodox church. Even before the ecumenism of the 1960s, Pius was already making concessions that would allow the Orthodox Church to draw closer to Rome, without becoming Roman Catholic, but by uniting with the Eastern Church. That took a lot of convincing of some Cardinals and bishops in the Western Church.

 

[bear06]

The pope doesn’t “excommunicate” anyone. They excommunicate themselves. The pope doesn’t have the power to run around excommunicating people. They excommunicate themselves.

OK, I’ve been trying to wade through hundreds of posts here (I leave for a day and the whole thing explodes!) but the Church does say that the Pope (as well as others) can excommunicate. We also say that the Church has the right to excommunicate. Maybe you’re thinking of an automatic excommunication like Lefebvre’s when committing a certain act the person is automatically excommunicated.

III. WHO CAN EXCOMMUNICATE?
Excommunication is an act of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the rules of which it follows. Hence the general principle: whoever has jurisdiction in the forum externum, properly so called, can excommunicate, but only his own subjects. Therefore, whether excommunications be a jure (by the law) or ab homine (under form of sentence or precept), they may come from the pope alone or a general council for the entire Church; from the provincial council for an ecclesiastical province; from the bishop for his diocese; from the prelate nullius for quasi-diocesan territories; and from regular prelates for religious orders. Moreover, anyone can excommunicate who, by virtue of his office, even when delegated, has contentious jurisdiction in the forum externum; for instance, papal legates, vicars capitular, and vicars-general. But a parish priest cannot inflict this penalty nor even declare that it is incurred, i.e. he cannot do so in an official and judicial manner. The subjects of these various authorities are those who come under their jurisdiction chiefly on account of domicile or quasi-domicile in their territory; then by reason of the offence committed while on such territory; and finally by reason of personal right, as in the case of regulars

.

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Well the cardinal who is appointed by the pope to be in charge of all SSPX issues says the priests and laity (at least) aren’t in schism. I trust him more than an internet ranter.

The thing that bothers me about this point is that it so often seems to be used by those who would deny the excommunication of Abp. Lefebvre; they trot out Cdl. Castrillon Hoyos’ opinion on the state of schism, but then ignore the fact that he is unequivocal about BB. Lefebvre, de Castro Mayer, Williamson, et al. having been excommunicated. So are we to defer to His Eminence’ opinion on all matters concerning the SSPX, or might we take his position on the state of schism (which differs from that of the dicastery competent to render legal interpretation here) with the same grain of salt with which the disputers of the excommunications seem to take his opinion?

---

Look, this thread has run down so many rabbit holes that it’s hard to believe it hasn’t been closed down, but I would like to talk about the actual topic of the thread: not the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not Pope John Paul II’s liturgical abuses and imprudent actions, not whether Rome is sede vacante, but about whether one can admire Abp. Lefebvre while disagreeing with his “schismatic act.” I would like to give my two cents that will perhaps stray a bit from that topic in a strict sense but hopefully remains within the ambit of the Abp., his excommunication, and the position in which I feel this places him.

First off, I’m inclined to believe the Abp. did, at least in large part, feel justified in what he did. Not having lived through the time but having grown up with its after-effects I can certainly see how one might have been thrown end over end by what happened in the Church. Much of it was done out of ignorance (though in many cases probably culpable ignorance) and some was probably done out of outright evil. It had to be resisted. But do I admire Abp. Lefebvre’s resistance? That’s hard to say. The principle of maintaining traditional liturgy, catechetics, priestly formation, popular piety, etc. is all fine and good, but His Excellency’s methods seem to have derailed rather early. We all tend to talk about the excommunications of 1988, but I think it would be safe to say that the Abp. had been “rogue” for 13 years prior to that. I put the “rogue” in quotes because it’s a loaded term, but it conveys much of the substance of the situation. The Abp. and his priests were all, IIRC, at that point suspended while they continued to operate a non-recognized seminary for a religious society that, canonically, had ceased to exist. All the clerics ordained by the Abp. knew they were suspended. Were these suspensions just? Were they immune to legal loopholes? I don’t know enough and they’re not the main subject, but I think it sets up a trajectory. I can’t support the Abp. because I think he’d been on the path of defiance long before excommunication was ever brought to the table.

What about the excommunication, then? Is grave fear a legitimate defense? Even assuming we can disregard the PCILT on this one, I don’t think an innocent Abp. Lefebvre took the right course of action. As the PCILT said, if this state of fear existed it would have to be “verified objectively.” Take a parallel sort of legal issue: marriage. I am in a putative marriage. I know I simulated when taking my vows and the sacrament was invalid. Until this is adjudicated by a legitimate tribunal, however, I am not free to marry (can. 1085-2). No priest is free to witness my marriage. Despite the fact that my putative marriage is invalid, I must first verify that before being free to proceed with marriage.

Let’s apply this to Abp. Lefebvre: He is declared excommunicated latae sententiae. He and all the priests of the SSPX remain suspended, as they have been for the past 13 years. The proper course of action is to abide by that sentence while preparing to verify your exculpatory fear in a canonical process. I am unaware of the Abp.'s attempt to do this. I would love to hear of how the Abp.'s attempts to be reconciled were undertaken from his end. It seems, however, and I would love to be proven wrong on this, that he, believing himself in the right, simply decided to ignore his excommunication, and proceeded to go about the business of the SSPX.

cont…

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

That doesn’t convey to me a desire to remain united to Holy Mother Church, and thus I don’t see what I’m supposed to be admiring. Tradition was not going to die if Abp. Lefebvre did not ordain bishops. Tradition is, after all, the dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church, which all the priests of the SSPX were still free to teach regardless of which Mass they celebrated. If someone tried to suppress the Catholic faith, they had ways of seeking redress. What may have been in danger of dying is the traditional Roman Rite, but no one’s really in a position to make good ahistorical speculations about that. The “Agatha Christie indult” was 17 years old by the time Abp. Lefebvre ordained his brother bishops. It seems, then, that individuals other than Abp. & co. were working to preserve the rite.

In the end, while I do not agree with Four Marks about the validity of Benedict XVI’s papacy, I do think he speaks truly in saying that the position of the SSPX is inconsistent. I would love to say more, but as I’m really trying to stay close to the perceived topic of the thread I’ll leave things at that for now.

 

[bear06]

Oh my! I’ve figured out why we have 570 posts. Seriously, there must have been hundreds of “I know you are but what am I posts” back and forth. It’s embarrassing. I’m seeing why a lot of the serious discussion people have left this one. It would be nice if this thread was merciful put out of its misery. I think Alex has made a valiant effort to do so. I believe he started about 200 posts ago! I can never understand why people don’t just ask the moderator to shut it down rather than launch the back and forth personal attacks. What a profound waste of time!

 

[pnewton]

I can never understand why people don’t just ask the moderator to shut it down rather than launch the back and forth personal attacks.

PLEASE!! It 's not like the OP hasn’t been answered.

 

[catharina]

Andreas Hofer, I agree with your conclusions about the archbishop. Any one person who decides he must “save the Church” must do so in compliance with both the Catechism and Canon Law. Lefebvre engaged in many rogue activities, as you pointed out, and he did so for a long time. I think that the Church was quite patient with him.

 

[AlexV]

Interesting how a person who has posted that being a Protestant isn’t the end of the world and who makes the questionably conclusive remark that you Catholicism is probably the best of the choices of Christian denomination certainly feels the need to undescore over and over what a “rogue” Archbishop Lefebvre was.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I almost forgot about good ol’ Pius X. He was considered a liberal.

Was he a liberal Doctrinally like Karl Rahner? Karl Rahner was in many people’s opinions quite the modernist. He was a Jesuit gone awry like most of the Jesuits of the day (“anonymous Christian” anyone?). St. Pius X, along with Bl. Pius IX did more to fight modernism than any other Pope. He was stern and straightforward, and would never use the amibigious “language of Vatican II” that the two most recent Popes have been so quick to use (less so in the case of Benedict XVI). St. Pius X would’ve have never allowed for such ambigious language in teaching the Dogmas of the Church, and he is most definitely not anywhere close to being of the same mold as Karl Rahner.

 

[Arnobius]

Was he a liberal Doctrinally like Karl Rahner? Karl Rahner was in many people’s opinions quite the modernist. He was a Jesuit gone awry like most of the Jesuits of the day. St. Pius X, along with Bl. Pius IX did more to fight modernism than any other Pope. He was stern and straightforward, and would never use the amibigious “language of Vatican II” that the two most recent Popes have been so quick to use (less so in the case of Benedict XVI). St. Pius X would’ve have never allowed for such ambigious language in teaching the Dogmas of the Church, and he is most definitely not anywhere close to being of the same mold as Karl Rahner.

But it does demonstrate that not all reforms mean Liberal Modernism. The allegation that someone is manifestly holding to or supporting a heretical view (as some posters have alleged) is something to be proven, not assumed (called Begging the Question)

The fact is the acts of St Pius X were quite radical for the day and do not seem so now merely because we have had them for around 100 years at this point.

As to what St Pius X would or would not have allowed in regards to Vatican II is merely speculation on your part

 

[SemperFidelis]

But it does demonstrate that not all reforms mean Liberal Modernism. The allegation that someone is manifestly holding to or supporting a heretical view (as some posters have alleged) is something to be proven, not assumed (called Begging the Question)

Yes, but I both think we can agree Karl Rahner and St. Pius X are not of the same mold Doctrinally, as most are quick to see the modernism of one Karl Rahner.

The fact is the acts of St Pius X were quite radical for the day and do not seem so now merely because we have had them for around 100 years at this point.

Yes, but Doctrinally, he was very much the conservative, something once again, Karl Rahner is definitely not.

As to what St Pius X would or would not have allowed in regards to Vatican II is merely speculation on your part

True, but I highly doubt he’d give in to the ambigious language that has so plagued the post-Vatican II Church. You can call it speculative, and it is, but I’ll still stand by that.

 

[pnewton]

FYI - I think in our day and time “liberal” has developed a negative connotation that is unnecessary. Theological liberals can be a vital part of the Church’s doctrinal development. Only the recent advent of modernism has merged the two meanings together when they are not necessary. Society today, with its wealth of information, instant communication and exponential technological growth require that we have those who condider the changing needs of the Church. The job of the Pope (like Pius X) is to weigh the forces of change against the forces of stability and allow an appropriate amount of chang for the times.

I personally do not like change. All the reason more that I am thankful for those who keep us from growing stagnant.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Interesting how a person who has posted that being a Protestant isn’t the end of the world and who makes the questionably conclusive remark that you Catholicism is probably the best of the choices of Christian denomination certainly feels the need to undescore over and over what a “rogue” Archbishop Lefebvre was.

Since I, however, have not made these indifferent assertions, might you trouble to offer a response to my post bearing the dreaded word in quotes?