Modernism isa heresy as well.
You may have a point. Did Lefebvre think that the majority of Bishops were modernists?? He would have to have strong credible evidence. Remember, opposing the traditional Mass isnt modernism, however I am willing to concede you have a point.
I have just returned from a N.O. Mass, which is fully valid and as efficacious in the sight of the Father as anyother from of the Holy Sacrifice. I much prefer the Old Rite, which I attend occasionally and not regularly as it is difficult to get to. I understand that the N.O. is not modernism, but its far from our Catholic heritage which I have grown to love recently.
I don’t think we need to discuss what Bishop Lefebvre’s reasons were for doing this. As people have pointed out before, we can’t know what was going on in his head when he decided to break with Rome.
Wow, good comment. What if Lefebvre had obeyed? Would God have stepped in and acted in some way that Lefebvre’s action made impossible? If he had left room for God to act…
There is an important difference here. St Pio had bound himself by a vow of obedience to his Franciscan Superior. The Religious Life has often been described as the simplest and most direct route to Heaven. The Religious, as a penance, voluntarily places his free will in the hands of his superior. Unless he is ordered to commit a direct sin, he then merits double: for the act itself, and for the obedience. If he is commanded something that is unhelpful or harmful (without being actually sinful) then it is his superior, not himself, who will be taken to account at the Judgment. A Religious has no responsibilities except to keep his vow.* But a Religious is barred from marriage and family.* The marriage Vow would militate against such a Vow of obedience. the parent is the prime educator and protector of their children (and the husband, the protector of his wife). Parents are not under a vow of obedience to their priest or bishop, because they have other, primary, responsibilities.
I was in school when Pope Pius XII was alive, & remember the whole sequence of events, including the dismay when the Vatican refused to reveal the Third Secret. I will not maintain that all was well with the Church in 1959. But the Modernist heresy – that ‘synthesis of all heresies’ – was still an underground movement. After 1965, the wreckers had gained many of the levers of power. By the 1970s it was no longer possible to find a diocesan syllabus for schools that still taught the Catholic Faith unmixed with heresies. As a teacher, I know the dreadful state that things were in. Remember that Mgr Lefebvre had actually gone into retirement in 1970, when young men sought him out for spiritual formation because they simply could not find a seminary that was teaching the Faith entire and integrally. Mgr Lefebvre undertook to give them a year of spirituality, but found out immediately that what they needed was the simple catechism – things had already gone that far. I do have a close relative who was in a seminary at about that time, and they were simply mocking the Faith. They threw him out ‘to learn about the world’ for two years – but before he came back, they had gone out of business. Closed down.
…But that’s not the case. it is an excommunicable offence unless the person believes that there is a State of Necessity.
But Liberius’ excommunication of St. Athanasius was done under duress, so the excommunication was null and void to begin with.
Was it known by all at the time that the excommunication was null and void to begin with or did that relatively important piece of news come out at a later date?
That defence cannot hold. Otherwise, no pronouncement whatsoever would be safe from a later retraction on those grounds. In matters of the Faith, we are expected to prefer martyrdom. No other papal decree has ever been nullified on the grounds that it was under duress.
Yes, actually, it was indeed known. St. Athanasius knew from the beginning that Pope Liberius had been tortured, threatened, etc. by the Arians into excommunicating him. LIberius was really weak anyway, so it’s not like it came as a shock.
Oh yes it can hold! It’s a well-known fact that the excommunication of St. Athanasius was done as a result of coercion on the part of the Arians. We’re talking about that papal pronouncement and no other. Besides, you seem to forget that we’re comparing the situation of St. Athanasius vs. Pope Liberius with that of Archbishop Lefebvre vs. Pope John Paul II. Lefebvre’s excommunication wasn’t under duress.
Problem – Pope John Paul II didn’t commit any unjust action against Archbishop Lefebvre.
Who’s judging Archbishop Lefebvre? No one. We may judge his actions as wrong, but that’s not the same as judging a person. I know very well that there were huge problems in the Church (still are), and so Archbishop Lefebvre did what he thought was best. But just because he thought it was best doesn’t automatically make it so.