Reading Open Letter to Confused Catholics by Lefevbre

[carlos19]

I don’t think I ever thought myself as a traditional Catholic but I guess that is what I am. Since I returned to the Church, the way mass is celebrated at some parishes bothered me. It seemed irreverent. At times even priests in homilies said things that are considered outside the realm of historical Catholic teaching. I posted about it on this forum.

What brought me back to the Church was the Eucharist and everything that it is. I found it hard to reconcile the real presence of our Lord and some of the things that I see at mass. From this forum, I discovered the different rites of the church including the DL and TLM. I went to a DL and I thought it was absolutely beautiful. I went to a TLM and I thought I was in heaven. I am not against the NO, and heck I never even heard of the SSPX until about two or three months ago.

Two days ago, I bought a book by Lefevbre, a name I heard associated with the SSPX. This book titled Open letter to Confused Catholics is phenomenal. I agree with everything that I have read thus far. No wonder the TLM touched me so deeply. In it I found the true reverence that our Lord in the Eucharist truly deserves.

Bishop Lefevbre wrote about how post vatican II Catholics were never catechised as they should have been because the pillars of the past were discarded. I see now in the church everything he wrote about. The way the tabernacle has been put away in a corner. The Extraordinary ministers, the music, the lack of reverence. He has captured everything that I was feeling.

I am not against the NO. I like the vernacular, but the way I have seen it celebrated does not compared to the TLM.

I also bought a 1962 missal just so that I could familiarize myself with the old mass. The prayers…my God…the prayers are unbelievably deep and spiritual. How could we have ever let go of this mass!!!

The book is available on amazon, the kindle edition is about 6 dollars. I am not condoning schism or anything like this or even the abolishment of the NO. If Rome says its legitimate then it is legitimate but this revert is going traditional.

 

[Stylites]

The book is available on amazon, the kindle edition is about 6 dollars.

Does he try to justify in the book why he was excommunicated? Traditional Catholics generally avoid literature which promotes division and schism.

 

[TrueLight]

I don’t think I ever thought myself as a traditional Catholic but I guess that is what I am. Since I returned to the Church, the way mass is celebrated at some parishes bothered me. It seemed irreverent. At times even priests in homilies said things that are considered outside the realm of historical Catholic teaching. I posted about it on this forum.

What brought me back to the Church was the Eucharist and everything that it is. I found it hard to reconcile the real presence of our Lord and some of the things that I see at mass. From this forum, I discovered the different rites of the church including the DL and TLM. I went to a DL and I thought it was absolutely beautiful. I went to a TLM and I thought I was in heaven. I am not against the NO, and heck I never even heard of the SSPX until about two or three months ago.

Two days ago, I bought a book by Lefevbre, a name I heard associated with the SSPX. This book titled Open letter to Confused Catholics is phenomenal. I agree with everything that I have read thus far. No wonder the TLM touched me so deeply. In it I found the true reverence that our Lord in the Eucharist truly deserves.

Bishop Lefevbre wrote about how post vatican II Catholics were never catechised as they should have been because the pillars of the past were discarded. I see now in the church everything he wrote about. The way the tabernacle has been put away in a corner. The Extraordinary ministers, the music, the lack of reverence. He has captured everything that I was feeling.

I am not against the NO. I like the vernacular, but the way I have seen it celebrated does not compared to the TLM.

I also bought a 1962 missal just so that I could familiarize myself with the old mass. The prayers…my God…the prayers are unbelievably deep and spiritual. How could we have ever let go of this mass!!!

The book is available on amazon, the kindle edition is about 6 dollars. I am not condoning schism or anything like this or even the abolishment of the NO. If Rome says its legitimate then it is legitimate but this revert is going traditional.

Carlos,

You might want to ask the moderator if it is okay to discuss specific points of interest in the book that can generate discussion. It’s always good to check ahead of time when it comes to anything SSPX related.

Having said that, if you really would like an in depth discussion, CAF is probably not the best place as you can see already.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Carlos,

Having said that, if you really would like an in depth discussion, CAF is probably not the best place as you can see already.

Agreed. I can see trouble ahead. I think Fisheaters would be more open to this and you would get a good discussion.

 

[carlos19]

Didn’t think out would be a problem…so moderators pardon me if I goofed on the rules. not read about the schism part but I do know about it from reading this board. I just Japan to agree with what I have read thus far.

 

[TrueLight]

Agreed. I can see trouble ahead. I think Fisheaters would be more open to this and you would get a good discussion.

LOL I wanted to say this, but I refrained.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

LOL I wanted to say this, but I refrained.

 

[TrueLight]

Didn’t think out would be a problem…so moderators pardon me if I goofed on the rules. not read about the schism part but I do know about it from reading this board. I just Japan to agree with what I have read thus far.

Just PM Thomas Casey if you want to discuss a specific point.

 

[carlos19]

What’s fish eaters? Some kind of Catholic cuisine board

 

[carlos19]

I I should have checked them out for Lent recipes

 

[Melchior_1]

Fisheaters is another Catholic website with a message board. Their moderation style is different from here, and as a result the conversations tend to get a bit more heated due to some of the more controversial opinions being allowed to be presented.

 

[catholicanne]

Why is SSPX a controversial issue?

 

[catholicanne]

No need to answer. I Googled it.

 

[carlos19]

They must have decided to separate at some point. But I don’t think their beliefs are outside of orthodox catholicism. So it must have been a move on their part. But I don’t know why it would be controversial.

 

[carlos19]

I am going to google to…I just know a little from what it written on caf

 

[Vouthon]

My favourite part of this book by Archbishop Lefebvre, which I do think he gets correct despite some of his other views on religious freedom and Vatican II in general (which are suspect to my eyes):

"…There are three ways of receiving baptism: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit…The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church…"

- (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)

Jews, atheists, Baha’is, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims etc. can attain to salvation if they are spiritually speaking joined to the Catholic Church as informal members through implicit baptism by desire which consists in following the Will of God as known to one’s conscience.

I cannot understand why some other Traditionalist Catholics have such restrictive and nearly Feeneyite views on EENS when Archbishop Lefebvre explains it in perfect accordance with the Orthodox teaching of the Magisterium.

I do appreciate what he wrote above. He clearly had a good grasp of the Church’s teaching on EENS

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

What’s fish eaters? Some kind of Catholic cuisine board

A traditionalist website. Lots of information about devotions, liturgy, doctrine, etc. And they have a forum where members can express themselves freely. I have learned a lot there although I don’t participate in discussions.

 

[TrueLight]

For anyone who wants to read those statements in context, read the section on Ecumenism.

… If all religions are of equal value, he could very well work out his salvation with Buddhists or Protestants. He is running the risk of losing faith in the true Church. This in fact is what is suggested to him. They want to submit the Church to natural law; they want to put it on the same footing with other religions. They refuse to say–even priests, seminarians and seminary professors–that the Catholic Church is the only Church, that she possesses the truth, that she alone is able to lead men to salvation through Jesus Christ. “The Church is only a spiritual leaven within society, but the same as other religions; a bit more than the others, perhaps…” They sometimes grant it a slight superiority, if you press them.

If this is the case, then the Church is merely useful; she is no longer indispensible. She is only one of the means of salvation.

We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”–a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.

Yet nothing, in fact, has changed; nothing can be changed in this area. Our Lord did not found a number of churches: He founded only One. There is only one Cross by which we can be saved, and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not been given to others. To His Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given all graces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity is distributed except through her.

Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.

But at the cost of what difficulties do people in those countries where Christianity has not penetrated come to receive baptism by desire! Error is an obstacle to the Holy Ghost. This explains why the Church has always sent missionaries into all countries of the world, why thousands of them have suffered martyrdom. If salvation can be found in any religion, why cross the seas, why subject oneself to unhealthy climates, to a harsh life, to sickness and an early death? From the martyrdom of St. Stephen onwards (the first to give his life for Christ, and for this reason his feast is the day after Christmas), the Apostles set out to spread the Good News throughout the Mediterranean countries.

Would they have done this if one could be saved by worshipping Cybele or by the mysteries of Eleusis? Why did Our Lord say to them, “Go and preach the Gospel to all nations?”

It is amazing that nowadays certain people want to let everyone find his own way to God according to the beliefs prevailing in his own “cultural milieu.” A bishop once told a priest who wanted to convert the little Muslims, “No, teach them to be good Muslims; that will be much better than making Catholics of them.” I am assured and know for certain that before the Council the Taizé community wanted to abjure their errors and become Catholics. The authorities said to them, “No, wait. After the Council you will be the bridge between Catholics and Protestants.” Those who gave this reply took on a great responsibility before God, because grace comes often only at a given moment; it may perhaps not come again. At the present time the brethren of Taizé are still outside the Church, sowing confusion in the minds of the young people who visit them.

I have spoken of the conversions which have abruptly fallen in countries like the United States–where they used to amount to 170,000 a year–and Great Britain and Holland. The missionary spirit has faded away…

 

[Vouthon]

For anyone who wants to read those statements in context

If my memory serves me right, in context Lefebvre explains that there are no Protestant, Buddhist etc. Churches in heaven and that these people are not saved by their religion but only through spiritual membership in the Catholic Church, the one true religion. Again he is completely correct.

“…Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that…The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth…”

• (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics)

Amen! Again he is completely spot on.

He is completely in accordance with Holy Mother Church in this respect.

 

[Lancer]

The title of his book is a real “Truth teller”…makes me chuckle at us humans…we sure love them apples…yes I’ll have another bite please. Thank you.

Pax Christi