Salvation of Archbishop Lefebvre ?

[latinmasslover]

What else might I be allowed to assume? I’m not a sedevacanist or anything close to that. I know that the Holy Father has the authority to declare and to enforce excommunication(s). I know that only a future Pope could rescind such an action and Pope Benedict XVI is not even hinting at such a thing.

How can anyone who imagines himself or herself to be “in the Church” believe or imagine otherwise?

And what would your opinion be if, say the next pope, were to declare John Paul II excommunicated for certain scandelous actions? You wouldn’t have any opposition, correct?

 

[bear06]

What does the word “manifest” mean?

It more matters who sees it manifest. You see incorrect and inconsistent, I (and so far the past two Magisterium’s)don’t. I hope, for your sake, you are correct. That said, one isn’t incorrect and inconsistent simply for disagreeing with Lefebvre. This argument really can only get circular from here with you charging inconsistency and incorrectness and me saying you are wrong. You’ll might have a canonical study proving your point and I have one for mine.

It’ll be quite interesting to see what happens if the excommunications are held as valid by the subsequent Magisteriums. I wonder how many have to go by before a light goes on?

 

[bear06]

And what would your opinion be if, say the next pope, were to declare John Paul II excommunicated for certain scandelous actions? You wouldn’t have any opposition, correct?

Uh, excommunications can only be imposed on the living so you’re presenting an impossibility. Really, I suggest reading this article. It’s an oldie but a goodie:

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

 

[latinmasslover]

Uh, excommunications can only be imposed on the living so you’re presenting an impossibility. Really, I suggest reading this article. It’s an oldie but a goodie:

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Didn’t Pope St. Sergius excommunicate Pope Honorius? The Church did away with this too? Let’s say it didn’t. What would the response be to his excommunication?

 

[thistle]

Didn’t Pope St. Sergius excommunicate Pope Honorius? The Church did away with this too? Let’s say it didn’t. What would the response be to his excommunication?

If the Church excommunicates someone we should simply accept it and if the Church later lifts such an excommunication then that should be accepted too.

 

[latinmasslover]

If the Church excommunicates someone we should simply accept it and if the Church later lifts such an excommunication then that should be accepted too.

Since the status of an excommunication can change, do you suggest we ignore the truth because those in authority say so?

 

[SFD]

It more matters who sees it manifest.

Why?

SFD

 

[bear06]

Didn’t Pope St. Sergius excommunicate Pope Honorius? The Church did away with this too? Let’s say it didn’t. What would the response be to his excommunication?

I’d read up on Sergius and Honorius here. newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Did the Church do away with what? Who’s excommunication? The church teaching is that

This is from the pre -Vatican II Catholic Encyclopedia:

Since excommunication is the forfeiture of the spiritual privileges of ecclesiastical society, all those, but those only, can be excommunicated who, by any right whatsoever, belong to this society. Consequently excommunication can be inflicted only on baptized and living persons.

 

[bear06]

Why?

SFD

If I say the sky is manifestly blue and you say the sky is manifestly yellow, one of us is holding an opinion not consistent with the Truth. Only the right one matters. Unfortunately “manifest” is subjective here although one of us has it right. Ah well, we’ll both have confirmation of who is right sooner than we’d like!

 

[terillmorris]

I really am amazed at some people here!!! Truly amazed!!! Just because excommunications can sometimes be invalid that doesnt mean anything. Look at Lefevbre’s circumstances. He was told specifically not to consecrate the Bishops until the Vatican gave him permission. He went ahead and did that anyway. THe Vicar of Christ said that he is excommunicated and his was a schismatic act. His reasons are extremely subjective.
Lefevbre’s reasons: (in a nut shell)

1. I believed I was preserving tradition. This was necessary given the state of the Church. Why do you believe this? because I dont like the new mass. communion in the hand, guitar masses, etc
2. My concious tells me this is right, so I dont incur excommunication.

If a liberal were to use this reasoning you guys would be all over him. Saying he cant on his own decide these things independently of the Pope. Yet because your beloved Archbishop did it it is okay!!! unbelievable. The bottom line is that he was dead wrong and shouldnt have done what he did and he sinned (objectively speaking) very gravely and publicly------------

 

[SFD]

Just because excommunications can sometimes be invalid that doesnt mean anything. Look at Lefevbre’s circumstances. … His reasons are extremely subjective.

1. I believed I was preserving tradition. This was necessary given the state of the Church. Why do you believe this? because I dont like the new mass. communion in the hand, guitar masses, etc

This is a straw man, terillmorris…do you even know what Lebebvre was concerned with? What he said during the Council and shortly thereafter? It wasn’t just “abuses”…although I wouldn’t completely discount abuses…those things were and are extremely damaging to souls. You seem to forget that “the salvation of souls is the supreme law”.
REPLY OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE TO CARDINAL OTTAVIANI ONE YEAR AFTER THE COUNCIL:

In response to a query made by Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Holy Office), Archbishop Lefebvre, then Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, made these comments about the immediate and disastrous effects of the Second Vatican Council.

Rome
20 December 1966

Your Eminence,

Your letter of July 24, concerning the questioning of certain truths was communicated through the good offices of our secretariat to all our major superiors.

Few replies have reached us. Those which have come to us from Africa do not deny that there is great confusion of mind at the present time. Even if these truths do not appear to be called in question, we are witnessing in practice a diminution of fervor and of regularity in receiving the sacraments, above all the Sacrament of Penance. A greatly diminished respect for the Holy Eucharist is found, above all on the part of priests, and a scarcity of priestly vocations in French-speaking missions: vocations in the English and Portuguese-speaking missions are less affected by the new spirit, but already the magazines and newspapers are spreading the most advanced theories.

…]

It would seem that the reason for the small number of replies received is due to the difficulty in grasping these errors which are diffused everywhere. The seat of the evil lies chiefly in a literature which sows confusion in the mind by descriptions which are ambiguous and equivocal, but under the cloak of which one discovers a new religion.

Whereas the Council was preparing itself to be a shining light in today’s world (if those pre-conciliar documents in which we find a solemn profession of safe doctrine with regard to today’s problems, had been accepted), we can and we must unfortunately state that:

In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.

The transmission of the jurisdiction of the bishops, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last ends, etc. On all these fundamental points the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous texts of the Council on these truths will henceforward permit doubt to be cast upon them.

The consequences of this have rapidly been drawn and applied in the life of the Church:

Doubts about the necessity of the Church and the sacraments lead to the disappearance of priestly vocations,

Doubts on the necessity for and nature of the “conversion” of every soul involve the disappearance of religious vocations, the destruction of traditional spirituality in the novitiates, and the uselessness of the missions,

Doubts on the lawfulness of authority and the need for obedience, caused by the exaltation of human dignity, the autonomy of conscience and liberty, are unsettling all societies beginning with the Church—religious societies, dioceses, secular society, the family. Pride has as its normal consequence the concupiscence of the eyes and the flesh. It is perhaps one of the most appalling signs of our age to see to what moral decadence the majority of Catholic publications have fallen. They speak without any restraint of sexuality, of birth control by every method, of the lawfulness of divorce, of mixed education, of flirtation, of dances as a necessary means of Christian upbringing, of the celibacy of the clergy, etc.

Doubts on the necessity of grace in order to be saved cause baptism to be held in low esteem, so that for the future it is to be put off until later, and occasion the neglect of the sacrament of Penance. Moreover, this is particularly an attitude of the clergy and not the faithful. It is the same with regard to the Real Presence: it is the clergy who act as though they no longer believe by hiding away the Blessed Sacrament, by suppressing all marks of respect towards the Sacred Species and all ceremonies in Its honour.

Doubts on the necessity of the Church, the sole source of salvation, on the Catholic Church as the only true religion, emanating from the declarations on ecumenism and religious liberty are destroying the authority of the Church’s Magisterium. In fact, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis.

Thus, driven to this by the facts, we are forced to conclude that the Council has encouraged, in an inconceivable manner, the spreading of Liberal errors. Faith, morals and ecclesiastical discipline are shaken to their foundations, fulfilling the predictions of all the Popes.

…]

Marcel Lefebvre,

Titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia,
Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost.

SFD

 

[terillmorris]

This is a straw man, terillmorris…do you even know what Lebebvre was concerned with? What he said during the Council and shortly thereafter? It wasn’t just “abuses”…although I wouldn’t completely discount abuses…those things were and are extremely damaging to souls. You seem to forget that “the salvation of souls is the supreme law”.

First I think you should be quiet because you admitted to me in private that if you agree that JPII was the legitimate Pope than he was indeed wrong-------I have read all of that what you just quoted and it amounts to THE SAME subjective arguments—the Archbishop’s arguments are just what i said earlier- “I dont like this” so I am gonna disobey—
Your argument about salvation of souls is more of the same-"-I think these things lead to loss of souls so therefore I disobey----"PROTESTANISM!!!
you cant give one legitimate reason for the Archbishop to disobey–NOT ONE!!!
SFD

 

[SFD]

terillmorris:
You’ve gotten so many factual things wrong terillmorris…this doesn’t surprise me at all. I said that if he believed JPII was a true pope…and had no doubts about it…he would be wrong. That’s what I told you. But either JPII was a true pope of he was not. If he was not…then the point is moot anyway. The truth is that I don’t care what you think and I will no longer give any consideration to anything you say. You may have the last word.

SFD

 

[terillmorris]

You’ve gotten so many factual things wrong terillmorris…this doesn’t surprise me at all. I said that if he believed JPII was a true pope…and had no doubts about it…he would be wrong. That’s what I told you. But either JPII was a true pope of he was not. If he was not…then the point is moot anyway. The truth is that I don’t care what you think and I will no longer give any consideration to anything you say. You may have the last word.

SFD

your just backing down because you have been called on it—it is blatantly obvious (and you know you admitted this in private to me)
that if the Archbishop believed that John Paul II was the Pope he(the archbishop) was clearly wrong—I mean there is no valid excuse for what he did-------his excuse are just indefensible—AND YOU KNOW IT!!! Why do you guys wanna defend a disobiedent Archbishop !!! stop!!! he was no saint!!! saints obey the Pope even when it might be painful!!!

 

[GerardP]

It more matters who sees it manifest.

No. If the Pope didn’t see it manifest and “it” is real, then it is manifest whether the Pope sees it or not.

You see incorrect and inconsistent, I (and so far the past two Magisterium’s)don’t.

There haven’t been “two Magisteriums” in the recent past, there have been two Pontificates. There is one Magisterium, the perennial Magisterium of the Church. The Pope invokes the Magisterium and is bound by it.

I hope, for your sake, you are correct. That said, one isn’t incorrect and inconsistent simply for disagreeing with Lefebvre.

And one isn’t schismatic for disobeying a Pope that wouldn’t lift a finger to preserve the Catholic faith. The auto-demolition of the Church was “the new Springtime.” Utter madness. The Pope before JPII (Paul VI, not JPI) and the Pope after him both acknowledge "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church, " and “How much filth there is in the Church” and “The Church is like a boat that is sinking.”

This argument really can only get circular from here with you charging inconsistency and incorrectness and me saying you are wrong.

No. It involves building a case for each of our positions based on facts. But you tend to ignore the facts and just get back to denial, legalisms and labeling.

My objective acknowledgment of the crisis in the Church and JPII’s lack of action when it came to defending the Church is real.

Your denial of these claims have no supporting arguments and are completely subjective and not grounded in reality.

You’ll might have a canonical study proving your point and I have one for mine.

Get past the canonical study. That is only a mechanism for interpreting events and facts that happen in the real world. You don’t adjust the real world to suit the canons.

It’ll be quite interesting to see what happens if the excommunications are held as valid by the subsequent Magisteriums. I wonder how many have to go by before a light goes on?

Again, there are no “subsequent Magisteriums” The great schism lasted through several generations of Popes and anti-Popes. The generations of Vatican II will probably have to die out and lose power before the clergy gradually regains its footing and disposes of the modernist accretions. Of course, many souls will probably be lost by then.

 

[GerardP]

I really am amazed at some people here!!! Truly amazed!!! Just because excommunications can sometimes be invalid that doesnt mean anything.

Uh…yes it does. If excommunications were infallible then there would be no argument. The fact is excommunications can be invalid and in the case of LeFebvre it was.

Look at Lefevbre’s circumstances.

What specifically have you read on the subject?

He was told specifically not to consecrate the Bishops until the Vatican gave him permission.

Is that all? No other factors? Boy, you know nothing.

He went ahead and did that anyway.

Why? Do you actually know any of the background on this?

THe Vicar of Christ said that he is excommunicated and his was a schismatic act.

You know what else the Vicar of Christ did a few generations ago? The Vicar of Christ, the Patriarch of the West, the Servant of the Servants of God, The Supreme Pontiff had the rotting corpse of his predecessor, The Vicar of Christ, Patriarch of the West, Servant of the Servants of God, Supreme Pontiff, dug up from his grave, dressed in papal robes and put it on trial. He had a deacon stand there and provide answers for the corpse. The Supreme Pontiff then declared invalid all of the actions of the previous pope. He had his body desecrated and thrown in a hole and later tossed in the river.

Funny, what Vicars of Christ are capable of isn’t it? Adding one off the papal titles to a papal crime doesn’t give it credibility.

His reasons are extremely subjective.
Lefevbre’s reasons: (in a nut shell)

1. I believed I was preserving tradition. This was necessary given the state of the Church. Why do you believe this? because I dont like the new mass. communion in the hand, guitar masses, etc

Why don’t you actually quote LeFebvre? I remember a few years ago, when I took Patrick Madrid to school over this issue, I pointed out that one of his cheapest tactics in his books was never to actually provide a quote or a resource stating the actual words of his target of attack. Instead,he resorted to recasting and telling the readers what “SSPX proponents” say, and ultimately what they think.

It’s a cheap, deceptive and intellectually dishonest mode of attack.

1. My concious tells me this is right, so I dont incur excommunication.

So does the Canon law.

If a liberal were to use this reasoning you guys would be all over him.

Liberals aren’t Catholic. LeFebvre was completely Catholic. JPII had no right to suppress Catholics and promote liberals. He had the power but not the right.

Saying he cant on his own decide these things independently of the Pope.

Do you need the Pope to tell you 2+2=4? Falacious appeals to authority are not the means by which Catholics debate things. Jesus didn’t appeal to the authority of the Scriptures to teach the pagan Greeks. He appealed to natural reason.

Liberals don’t acknowledge the authority of the Pope. Conservatives believe in a false authority of the Pope that makes following a man greater than following God. The first Pope, St. Peter warned against this.

Yet because your beloved Archbishop did it it is okay!!!
unbelievable.

(This is actually you projecting your own false obedience to the Pope: "If the Pope says so, it’s gotta be right! " )

It’s not okay because it was the archbishop who did something.
**It’s okay because the archbishop did the right thing. **

The bottom line is that he was dead wrong and shouldnt have done what he did and he sinned (objectively speaking) very gravely and publicly-----------

No. The bottom line is that the Church was and still is, in crisis, and the Pope didn’t protect the flock. The archbishop was asked by the faithful to help and he did. Do you think the Pope was never asked to Champion us? JPII was busy sneaking out of the Vatican for skiing junkets we recently found out.

If the Popes had taken the lead and fought for the Church and the faith and the truth, the archbishop would have been his greatest supporter. He already was his greatest supporter whether the Pope knew it or not. But no, the Popes had to elevate Walter Kasper to Cardinal, Roger Mahoney to Cardinal, they had to have lunch with Hans Kung. They had to stand around with leaders of false religions carrying a stupid plant, looking like a fool in front of the world.

 

[bear06]

I said that if he believed JPII was a true pope…and had no doubts about it…he would be wrong.

And this is really the crux of the matter although I’m not really sure “doubts” is the proper term to use. They either believe he is or believe he is not. Having doubts should determine their behavior. For instance, someone may internally question an article of Faith for whatever reason. He’d only be a heretic if he acted on the doubt. Lefebvre acted on whatever he believed.

 

[GerardP]

Uh, excommunications can only be imposed on the living so you’re presenting an impossibility. Really, I suggest reading this article. It’s an oldie but a goodie:

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

The Pope could declare that it was a latea sententiae excommunication, undeclared at the time it was committed.

That would be a case of someone having been right in the sight of the Church and not in the sight of God while they were living.

 

[bear06]

your just backing down because you have been called on it—it is blatantly obvious (and you know you admitted this in private to me)
that if the Archbishop believed that John Paul II was the Pope he(the archbishop) was clearly wrong—I mean there is no valid excuse for what he did-------his excuse are just indefensible—AND YOU KNOW IT!!! Why do you guys wanna defend a disobiedent Archbishop !!! stop!!! he was no saint!!! saints obey the Pope even when it might be painful!!!

Could I please request that we stop airing what was said in private? The rest of us have no way of verifying it and it might have been said in private for a reason.

 

[GerardP]

I said that if he believed JPII was a true pope…and had no doubts about it…he would be wrong.

No. That is untrue. Disobedience does not always indicate schism. The Pope is not absolutely irresistible in all circumstances and especially in matters where the faith is endangered.

“Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God; therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica IIa-IIae, Q.104