Salvation of Archbishop Lefebvre ?

[terillmorris]

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.

What specifically have you read on the subject?

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

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

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.

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.

So does the Canon law.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

GeraRD your funny!!! I sent you a private message to speak to you on the phone about this—because i believe I could utterly destroy your arguments–there is no way you can defend Lefebvre’s actions–but you ignored me—It is laughable, in my opinion, that you could ever set Pat Madrid straight about this (id love to see that) --anyway–your arguments are basically that there is /was a crisis so the Archbishop could do what he did—excuse me? who says there was a crisis? and who decides that? you cant aNSWER THAT !!! all you can do is offer subjective statements like “communion in the hand. guitar masses, fals ecumenism etc–” to say there was a crisis–guees what? that still doesnt prove a crisis exists that warrants disobiedence----you know if we talked one on one I would call you on it and never let you off the hook–so you won’t talk to me----

 

[Walking_Home]

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!!!

---

Once again terillmorris – by the above you reflect a lack of integrity. It is a very detrimental attribute for a seminarian to have.

 

[bear06]

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

Sorry, Gerard. Just because someone sees the sky as manifestly plaid doesn’t mean it is so. This is my point. What matters is what is true. One of us sees it one way and one of us sees it another. One of us has the truth and we’ll find out sooner than we’d like who it is! (Sorry SFD, I think you just heard that one).

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.

 

[SFD]

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.

Doubts as to his legitimacy. I believe the quotes I provided show that quite clearly.

They either believe he is or believe he is not.

Or they are not sure…and withold judgment on the question of his legitimacy.

Having doubts should determine their behavior.

I agree…although I realise it’s only due to a “typo”.

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.

No, that is incorrect. He can be a heretic but not yet public. He still sins mortally against the Faith…it is not a crime until it becomes public and affects the common good.

quote=CE on Ecclesiastical Censures Censures latæ sententiæ (of sentence pronounced) are incurred ipso facto by the commission of the crime; in other words, the delinquent incurs the penalty in the very act of breaking the law, and the censure binds the conscience of the delinquent immediately, without the process of a trial, or the formality of a judicial sentence. The law itself inflicts the penalty in the moment when the violation of the law is complete. this kind of penalty is especially effective in the Church, whose subjects are obliged in conscience to obey her laws. If the crime be secret, the censure is also secret, but it is binding before God and in conscience; if the crime be public the censure is also public; but if the secret censure thus incurred is to be made public, then a judicial examination of the crime is had, and the formal declaration (declaratory sentence) is made that the delinquent has incurred the censure.
[/quote]

Lefebvre acted on whatever he believed.

Yes, he did.

SFD

 

[bear06]

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.

Yep. This is true. He can only declare that he was excommunicated latae sententiae while he was living. He cannot actually excommunicate him.

 

[SFD]

Yep. This is true. He can only declare that he was excommunicated latae sententiae while he was living. He cannot actually excommunicate him.

Which proves that not all latae sententiae excommunications are declared as such by the Church…a heretic who is ipso facto excommunicated is not necessarily declared so by the Church.

SFD

 

[terillmorris]

---

Once again terillmorris – by the above you reflect a lack of integrity. It is a very detrimental attribute for a seminarian to have.

Why did i demonstrate a lack of integrity? because I challenged somone on something they said to me in private?

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post

Once again terillmorris – by the above you reflect a lack of integrity. It is a very detrimental attribute for a seminarian to have.

Why did i demonstrate a lack of integrity? because I challenged somone on something they said to me in private?

---

You have answered your own question.

 

[terillmorris]

---

You have answered your own question.

lol–funny--------i am honest if someone is dishonest i call them on it–sorry

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home

You have answered your own question.

lol–funny--------i am honest if someone is dishonest i call them on it–sorry

---

I really don’t think it is funny – to divulge info received in private. As I said prior—it reflects a lack of integrity—therefore what you have to say becomes untrustworthy.

 

[terillmorris]

---

I really don’t think it is funny – to divulge info received in private. As I said prior—it reflects a lack of integrity—therefore what you have to say becomes untrustworthy.

well I believe that you should be honest in private as you should be in public- we arent talking about a situation where he asked me not reveal what he said–we are talking about a conversation where he stated a certain situation and his opinion—if you have nothing to hide you should have no problem with it----unless he asked me me to not reveal any of his comments I dont see the problem

 

[SFD]

lol–funny--------i am honest if someone is dishonest i call them on it–sorry

I think that Walking Home is saying that you should assume rather that you may have misunderstood…before you call someone dishonest.

Are you going to tell everyone how you thought I was GerardP and sent me a PM challenging on my beliefs against baptism of blood and desire?

Are you going to tell them that you accused me of making an argument against the conciliar church based on “communion in the hand”? When I said no, I never made such an argument…you told me I certainly did. Then I said, “find it then”. Oh…you said, “I guess I was mistaken”.

You’re a little on the emotional side there terillmorris…I think it affects your arguments. You tend to fly off the handle and get things wrong…you are rash in your judgments of others.

Take this however you want…but rest assured it was intended as a constructive criticism.

SFD

 

[bear06]

No, that is incorrect. He can be a heretic but not yet public. He still sins mortally against the Faith…it is not a crime until it becomes public and affects the common good.

Gotta make this quick but one is not a heretic for simply having a question or even a doubt about an article of Faith. One is a heretic if they refuse the Church’s ruling on it. In other words someone can say “Wow, I don’t see how the Real Presence can be true and I’m having trouble wrapping my head around that one but he Church says it is so it is”.

 

[Walking_Home]

well I believe that you should be honest in private as you should be in public- we arent talking about a situation where he asked me not reveal what he said–we are talking about a conversation where he stated a certain situation and his opinion—if you have nothing to hide you should have no problem with it----unless he asked me me to not reveal any of his comments I dont see the problem

---

Try to wiggle out of it as you may. Private conversations are private.
For a would be priest – this is detrimental attribute to have.

 

[bear06]

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.

Just to be clear. That isn’t my quote, it’s SFD’s.

 

[bear06]

Which proves that not all latae sententiae excommunications are declared as such by the Church…a heretic who is ipso facto excommunicated is not necessarily declared so by the Church.

SFD

I think that you’d also need to study canonical form for excommunications.

 

[SFD]

Gotta make this quick but one is not a heretic for simply having a question or even a doubt about an article of Faith. One is a heretic if they refuse the Church’s ruling on it. In other words someone can say “Wow, I don’t see how the Real Presence can be true and I’m having trouble wrapping my head around that one but he Church says it is so it is”.

No, you are speaking of a person who is not a heretic at all. Neither a wrong belief nor pertinacious will is present.

A heretic willfully denies a de fide doctrine. That’s all that is required. But you must understand what willful means.

For a serious sin to be a mortal sin it requires full consent of the will. Heresy is a mortal sin against the Faith…it must be willful to be mortal…not accidental nor out of ignorance.

SFD

 

[terillmorris]

I think that Walking Home is saying that you should assume rather that you may have misunderstood…before you call someone dishonest.

Are you going to tell everyone how you thought I was GerardP and sent me a PM challenging on my beliefs against baptism of blood and desire?

Are you going to tell them that you accused me of making an argument against the conciliar church based on “communion in the hand”? When I said no, I never made such an argument…you told me I certainly did. Then I said, “find it then”. Oh…you said, “I guess I was mistaken”.

You’re a little on the emotional side there terillmorris…I think it affects your arguments. You tend to fly off the handle and get things wrong…you are rash in your judgments of others.

Take this however you want…but rest assured it was intended as a constructive criticism.

SFD

actualy i am not emotional at all—i told you i had you confused with someone else----i admitted that to you privatley and would have no problem doing it publicly—but your statments to me privatley dealt with the very subject at hand–whether Lefebvre was justified? and you clearly admitted he was wrong if he believed that JPII was Pope–you and I were talking about this on the phone—which I have always thought was much better than talking here-- that is why i always offer that to people who disagree with me–my arguments were so strong you had to admit that Lefebvre was wrong if he believed JPII was Pope–that is probably why you refuse to talk to me again on the phone because you know you will be exposed—id love to talk to you again about sedvacantism

 

[SFD]

actualy i am not emotional at all—i told you i had you confused with someone else----i admitted that to you privatley and would have no problem doing it publicly—but your statments to me privatley dealt with the very subject at hand–whether Lefebvre was justified? and you clearly admitted he was wrong if he believed that JPII was Pope–you and I were talking about this on the phone—which I have always thought was much better than talking here-- that is why i always offer that to people who disagree with me–my arguments were so strong you had to admit that Lefebvre was wrong if he believed JPII was Pope–that is probably why you refuse to talk to me again on the phone because you know you will be exposed—id love to talk to you again about sedvacantism

So you got me confused with someone else…I had to correct you several times before you believed me.

And you claimed I made a certain argument…I said I did not. You insisted that I did. I made you check it…and you then admitted you got it wrong.

Now I tell you I never said what you claimed I said…but you are sure I am dishonest. The only problem is…you are wrong again.

You admitted the first two instances after some argument…but you won’t let go of this mistake. Because it’s to your benefit…or so you think.

You got it wrong again, terillmorris. Of course, the first time you got it wrong you were known as “knightbvm”.

SFD

 

[catharina]

actualy i am not emotional at all—i told you i had you confused with someone else----i admitted that to you privatley and would have no problem doing it publicly—but your statments to me privatley dealt with the very subject at hand–whether Lefebvre was justified? and you clearly admitted he was wrong if he believed that JPII was Pope–you and I were talking about this on the phone—which I have always thought was much better than talking here-- that is why i always offer that to people who disagree with me–my arguments were so strong you had to admit that Lefebvre was wrong if he believed JPII was Pope–that is probably why you refuse to talk to me again on the phone because you know you will be exposed—id love to talk to you again about sedvacantism

terrill, i realize you might be young but time will take care of that (unless you die young). One of the most helpful truths announced on these forums was your revelation that sfd had admitted to being a sede. That established fact meant so much to me since finally, the divided reasoning presented in a number of his posts (in the sede thread) fit into a context that made (at least) some sense. One more time, I thank you for your honesty. I also remember that you were castigated then for not being “confidential” about the info that sfd had given to you. The stated implication was that you were unworthy for the priesthodd and would soon be ordained only to violate the seal of the confession. Ridiculous. Offensive. LUDICROUS.Keep the faith!