Salvation of Archbishop Lefebvre ?

[latinmasslover]

It is amazing how you can support the Archbishop when he was blatantly disobiedient to the Pope, and the Pope even stated so in Ecclessia Dei. The Archbishop’s reasons are totally subjective and totally indefensible. How can he be a holy (not saying anything about his eternal fate) example when he blatantly disobeyed the Pope? I mean if he can conscecrate Bishops (without permission) just because he believed that he was preserving tradition then we are all in trouble. This would create a huge “slippery slope” for other Bishops. Not to mention if some of you would simply read Pope John Paul II’s Ecclessia Dei you would see clearly the mind of ther Holy Father on this subject.
I mean the reasons Lefebvre gave are ridiculous. His conscious told him to do so!!! He was preserving tradition!!! please!!!

It is no excuse and he was no example. Yet some of you keep praising him. I cant understand why.

Nothing amazing about it, excommunications are not infallible.

John Paul II has shown poor judgment in tradition. He granted an Indult for the Latin Mass, something that could only be done if the Latin Mass was truly abrogated. Pope Benedict XVI has said that the Latin Mass never was outlawed. Therefore, the “Indult” is ridiculous; the pope should’ve known better.

I have read Ecclesia Dei *rolls eyes. * What of it? If it held any true moral weight, the Pope would forbid all associations with the SSPX, which he hasn’t done.

The Archbishop’s actions were indefensible? I say praying in a synagogue for the coming of the Messiah is indefensible; participating in a dancing Mass, saying that only priests should touch the sacred vessels, but allowing Communion in the hand. The Scriptures do not praise the double-tongued. When one goes from pleasing God first, to pleasing everybody else, there’s a problem. The Archbishop put God first. So, what’s the problem?

 

[terillmorris]

Nothing amazing about it, excommunications are not infallible.

John Paul II has shown poor judgment in tradition. He granted an Indult for the Latin Mass, something that could only be done if the Latin Mass was truly abrogated. Pope Benedict XVI has said that the Latin Mass never was outlawed. Therefore, the “Indult” is ridiculous; the pope should’ve known better.

I have read Ecclesia Dei *rolls eyes. * What of it? If it held any true moral weight, the Pope would forbid all associations with the SSPX, which he hasn’t done.

The Archbishop’s actions were indefensible? I say praying in a synagogue for the coming of the Messiah is indefensible; participating in a dancing Mass, saying that only priests should touch the sacred vessels, but allowing Communion in the hand. The Scriptures do not praise the double-tongued. When one goes from pleasing God first, to pleasing everybody else, there’s a problem. The Archbishop put God first. So, what’s the problem?

LOL your funny!! Just listen to yourself!!! The POpe can do all these things (they may be bad judgments or personal sins) and that is between him and God. The Archbishop is not permitted to disobey the Pope even if he believes the Pope is wrong about these other matters. The Archbishop didnt put God first. If the Archbishop would have put God first he would have obeyed the Vicar of Christ.
Hate to break this to you, but Bishops arent permitted to disobey the Pope just because they dont like some things the Pope is doing—sorry!!! Stop defending disobedience!!!

 

[Sure]

John Paul II has shown poor judgment in tradition. He granted an Indult for the Latin Mass, something that could only be done if the Latin Mass was truly abrogated. Pope Benedict XVI has said that the Latin Mass never was outlawed. Therefore, the “Indult” is ridiculous; the pope should’ve known better.

This is incorrect. An abrogated missal cannot be used even with an indult. The indult was a clear indication that the Missal of 1962was NOT abrogated. Pope John Paul II knew this and that is why he granted indults and set up the Ecclesia Dei commission. Priests were restricted in the use of the missal, but were able to secure a celebret for that missal through Ecclesia Dei.

I have read Ecclesia Dei *rolls eyes. * What of it? If it held any true moral weight, the Pope would forbid all associations with the SSPX, which he hasn’t done.

Well, you didn’t read it very closely. You missed the part where he says:

“5. (c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the **grave duty **of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of **ceasing their support in any way **for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”

Maybe it’s just me but “ceasing support in any way” sounds like forbidding association to me.

 

[terillmorris]

This is incorrect. An abrogated missal cannot be used even with an indult. The indult was a clear indication that the Missal of 1962was NOT abrogated. Pope John Paul II knew this and that is why he granted indults and set up the Ecclesia Dei commission. Priests were restricted in the use of the missal, but were able to secure a celebret for that missal through Ecclesia Dei.

Well, you didn’t read it very closely. You missed the part where he says:

Maybe it’s just me but “ceasing support in any way” sounds like forbidding association to me.

I agree 10000000000000000000% !!! I mean defending the Archbishop is just ridiculous!!! He was clearly clearly wrong. I mean the defense is really childish actually. “I dont like that the Pope is allowing communion in the hand, praying with other religions, etc etc etc—so I am gonna disobey a Church law that carries the penalty of automatc excommunication.------” Unbelievable!!!

 

[catharina]

After reading an article in a very good traditional Catholic Magazine I am disturbed that the writer stated that as Archbishop Lefebvre disobeyed a direct order from Pope John Paul 11 not to consecrete priests as bishops, he was excommunicated.

I MODIFIED YOUR STATEMENT TO THE LIMITS ABOVE STATED. YOU ARE TO UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THAT STATEMENT. Any change that might have occured at the moment of his death - repentance - is unknown to us.

 

[catharina]

I agree 10000000000000000000% !!! I mean defending the Archbishop is just ridiculous!!! He was clearly clearly wrong. I mean the defense is really childish actually. “I dont like that the Pope is allowing communion in the hand, praying with other religions, etc etc etc—so I am gonna disobey a Church law that carries the penalty of automatc excommunication.------” Unbelievable!!!

Agree completely. Every day that someone says Lefebvre was so holy, I’m shocked all over again. The last official statement we’ve heard is that Lefebvre was excommunicated. Then he died.As Lefebvre was warned prior to the announcement of his excommunication, so others are being warned:~~~ “5. (c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.” ~~~Such others who choose disobedience can consider themselves to be excommunicated - without any notice from Rome.

 

[terillmorris]

Agree completely. Every day that someone says Lefebvre was so holy, I’m shocked all over again. The last official statement we’ve heard is that Lefebvre was excommunicated. Then he died.As Lefebvre was warned prior to the announcement of his excommunication, so others are being warned:~~~ “5. (c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.” ~~~Such others who choose disobedience can consider themselves to be excommunicated - without any notice from Rome.

Nice!!! I was just going to post that from the Holy Father’s letter Ecclessia Dei------the Holy Father says you cant support Lefebvre’s movement “in any way.” Please I urge everyone who hasnt read the first part of Ecclessia Dei (the part dealing with the Archbishop is at the very begining of the Mot Proprio) PLEASE DO SO!!!

 

[latinmasslover]

LOL your funny!! Just listen to yourself!!! The POpe can do all these things (they may be bad judgments or personal sins) and that is between him and God. The Archbishop is not permitted to disobey the Pope even if he believes the Pope is wrong about these other matters. The Archbishop didnt put God first. If the Archbishop would have put God first he would have obeyed the Vicar of Christ.
Hate to break this to you, but Bishops arent permitted to disobey the Pope just because they dont like some things the Pope is doing—sorry!!! Stop defending disobedience!!!

Sometimes obedience to a man means disobedience to God. The excommunication was a cowardly action. There are numerous examples of this, just read up on some of our popes.

 

[latinmasslover]

Maybe it’s just me but “ceasing support in any way” sounds like forbidding association to me.

Yet Pope Benedict does not agree. Who’s right?

 

[latinmasslover]

I agree 10000000000000000000% !!! I mean defending the Archbishop is just ridiculous!!! He was clearly clearly wrong. I mean the defense is really childish actually. “I dont like that the Pope is allowing communion in the hand, praying with other religions, etc etc etc—so I am gonna disobey a Church law that carries the penalty of automatc excommunication.------” Unbelievable!!!

Don’t blame the Archbishop; the Pope lost his credibility on his own.

 

[catharina]

~The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.~ To stand against the Pope is to stand against the Church. I can’t figure out why people aren’t appalled to find themselves taking an anti-Church position.

 

[latinmasslover]

My trust is placed in the Lord and His teachings, not people. To stand against the Pope is not to stand against the Church if the Pope is at odds with the Church. I am not a Nazi, I do not blindly obey the passing whims of the current authority. My loyalty lies with the Father who doesn’t play on words, the Son who died to “bear witness to the TRUTH,” and to the Holy Ghost who is NOT a double-tongued woman with mood-swings.

 

[bear06]

Nothing amazing about it, excommunications are not infallible.

John Paul II has shown poor judgment in tradition. He granted an Indult for the Latin Mass, something that could only be done if the Latin Mass was truly abrogated. Pope Benedict XVI has said that the Latin Mass never was outlawed. Therefore, the “Indult” is ridiculous; the pope should’ve known better.

I have read Ecclesia Dei *rolls eyes. * What of it? If it held any true moral weight, the Pope would forbid all associations with the SSPX, which he hasn’t done.

The Archbishop’s actions were indefensible? I say praying in a synagogue for the coming of the Messiah is indefensible; participating in a dancing Mass, saying that only priests should touch the sacred vessels, but allowing Communion in the hand. The Scriptures do not praise the double-tongued. When one goes from pleasing God first, to pleasing everybody else, there’s a problem. The Archbishop put God first. So, what’s the problem?

What you are ignoring is that, regardless of whether or not the excommunications were unjust or invalid, the SSPX should be acting as if they are. So, they either were justly and validly excommunicated making them wrong or they were unjustly and invalidly excommunicated but won’t behave as if they are and they are wrong. Either way, they are wrong.

This is from the pre-VII Catholic Encyclopedia in the Excommunication article under Effects of Invalid or Unjust Excommunication. Please note that this deals with those who think they were unjustly or invalidly excommunicated which is the claim of the SSPX.

In chapter xxviii, de sent. excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God’s judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence. Consequently, a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. **However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved. **Such a case seems practically impossible nowadays.

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

 

[GerardP]

What you are ignoring is that, regardless of whether or not the excommunications were unjust or invalid, the SSPX should be acting as if they are. So, they either were justly and validly excommunicated making them wrong or they were unjustly and invalidly excommunicated but won’t behave as if they are and they are wrong. Either way, they are wrong.

This is from the pre-VII Catholic Encyclopedia in the Excommunication article under Effects of Invalid or Unjust Excommunication. Please note that this deals with those who think they were unjustly or invalidly excommunicated which is the claim of the SSPX.

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Whoa! Did you purposely ignore the article you cited or did you just not read it carefully.

Just prior to what you’ve posted is this:

Effects of Invalid or Unjust Excommunication
An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin (cap. ii, de const., in VI).

Now, why did you skip that information?

 

[stmaria]

It is amazing how you can support the Archbishop when he was blatantly disobiedient to the Pope, and the Pope even stated so in Ecclessia Dei. The Archbishop’s reasons are totally subjective and totally indefensible. How can he be a holy (not saying anything about his eternal fate) example when he blatantly disobeyed the Pope?

I mean if he can conscecrate Bishops (without permission) just because he believed that he was preserving tradition then we are all in trouble.

You are over simplifying the situation. The Consecraton of the Bishops was not decided upon over night. This was not an easy decision for Archbishop Lefebvre. Read his consecration sermon.

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_v_1988_consecration_sermon.htm

 

[bear06]

Whoa! Did you purposely ignore the article you cited or did you just not read it carefully.

Just prior to what you’ve posted is this:

Now, why did you skip that information?

Nice highlighting, did you bother to look at the part you didn’t highlight? The info wasn’t necessary when you look at part you didn’t highlight.

Effects of Invalid or Unjust Excommunication
An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin (

So let’s, again, follow up the part you forgot to highlight.

In chapter xxviii, de sent. excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God’s judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence. Consequently, a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved. Such a case seems practically impossible nowadays.

 

[latinmasslover]

What you are ignoring is that, regardless of whether or not the excommunications were unjust or invalid, the SSPX should be acting as if they are. So, they either were justly and validly excommunicated making them wrong or they were unjustly and invalidly excommunicated but won’t behave as if they are and they are wrong. Either way, they are wrong.

This is from the pre-VII Catholic Encyclopedia in the Excommunication article under Effects of Invalid or Unjust Excommunication. Please note that this deals with those who think they were unjustly or invalidly excommunicated which is the claim of the SSPX.

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

You mean Rome didn’t undo that statement also?!

Tough call, maybe I can debate that a little later…I guess it’s a good thing that I’m not the Archbishop or any of the bishops he ordained, so I don’t have to worry either way. All I can say is “state of emergency.” An excommunicated priest on the sinking Titanic can absolve. This isn’t quite the same thing, a rather pathetic comparison actually (give me a breake, I should’ve been in bed four hours ago!:yawn: )

Even still, the current Pope doesn’t forbid our attending their Masses. I personally am going to go to where the priest will lead me to God and there’s more of a chance of finding that priest in the SSPX than the average parish. I’m not saying non-SSPX priests aren’t good…my last confessor/spiritual direct (and current one) are very pro - JPII, - V-II, and Novus Ordo, but VERY othodox. Of course, they’re both from Colombia. Maybe I should move down there. ha.

 

[catharina]

My trust is placed in the Lord and His teachings, not people. To stand against the Pope is not to stand against the Church if the Pope is at odds with the Church. I am not a Nazi, I do not blindly obey the passing whims of the current authority. My loyalty lies with the Father who doesn’t play on words, the Son who died to “bear witness to the TRUTH,” and to the Holy Ghost who is NOT a double-tongued woman with mood-swings.

Since Our Lord said we are to find the Holy Spirit guiding the Church throught the successors of Peter, I have no problem finding the Father, Son and Holy Spirit within the Church. To deny the Papacy is to deny a central belief of the Catholic faith; it is an action that makes someone something other than a devout, faithful Catholic. Spre us, Oh Lord.

 

[GerardP]

Nice highlighting, did you bother to look at the part you didn’t highlight? The info wasn’t necessary when you look at part you didn’t highlight.

So let’s, again, follow up the part you forgot to highlight.

This is hilarious. I suppose you think an excommunication isn’t null and can be ignored unless the Pope says, “I’m issuing an excommunication that is null.”

…"when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent,"

JPII’s motive for declaring that LeFebvre excommunicated himself was manifestly incorrect and inconsistent. No on sane would think that there is and was no crisis. No one would take simple disobedience because of the crisis and turn it into “implied schism”

JPII ultimately did admit when in 2002 he coined the term “silent apostasy” that had afflicted the Church and reflected that he had not been strong enough in his governance of the Church (a serious understatement)

So, JPII’s own admissions validate LeFebvre’s recognition of the state of emergency.

Add that to B16’s statement that the TLM had never been abrogated despite the lies told by bishops and priests and the silences of the Popes and one must conclude that LeFebvre was persecuted in a manner that was manifestly incorrect and inconsistent.

Secondly, you are applying the protocol for an unjust excommunication against LeFebvre. The excommunications were null

 

[GerardP]

Since Our Lord said we are to find the Holy Spirit guiding the Church throught the successors of Peter, I have no problem finding the Father, Son and Holy Spirit within the Church. To deny the Papacy is to deny a central belief of the Catholic faith; it is an action that makes someone something other than a devout, faithful Catholic. Spre us, Oh Lord.

Disobeying the Pope is not denying the papacy. Obedience is subordinate to justice and all the virtues are only virtue when practiced in the truth.

History proves that the Popes are not always good sucessors of St. Peter and unless they are speaking with Peter’s voice, we cannot give absolute assent to what they say. It must be considered by the well-formed conscience of the Catholic.

It was the well-formed consciences of Catholics that dissented from the teaching of John 22nd when he incorrectly stated from the pulpit that no one will see the beatific vision until after the general judgement. He was opposed, told he was wrong and thank God later recanted when he was close to death.