Salvation of Archbishop Lefebvre ?

[SFD]

terrill, i realize you might be young but time will take care of that (unless you die young).

What an odd thing to say.

One of the most helpful truths announced on these forums was your revelation that sfd had admitted to being a sede.

That’s because he was new to this forum and didn’t know that I held the sesdvacantist position. He should have figured it out by my posts…but he’s not as informed as he thinks he is.

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.

I’m really not surprised that you couldn’t see that either.

One more time, I thank you for your honesty.

He’s mistaken…not “honest”.

I also remember that you were castigated then for not being “confidential” about the info that sfd had given to you.

It’s really not about confidentiality…its about accuracy. It was inaccurate…he has a history of being mistaken.

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!

I think rather his rash judgment is a greater fault here.

SFD

 

[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

---

This has nothing to do about what SFD relayed to you. It is apparent you have a weakness in retaining what is said to you via private modes of communication.

 

[Aramis]

Is this Orthodox liturgy, or Eastern Rite Catholic? Either way, I’m assuming that this was not based on a papal proclamation, so it doesn’t have the same authority as a canonization performed by the pope.

Both.

And neither.

The Eastern understanding was that one went to hell, and theosis continued, as one sought the road out of hell to heaven, findable only via grace given by God. (This escapable part of the classic Eastern view of Hell is directly comparable to the Classic Western Purgatory.)

So, since Arius was not in heaven (having died in a state of mortal sin AND Anathema), he had to be in hell, since the purgatory concept was alien to the time.

The terminology there was retained into Catholic usage, even tho’ Eastern Catholics are required to believe there is a state and/or place which is neither heaven, hell, nor earth, and is called purgatory.

Modern teaching is that we know of only one soul condemned to hell, and that is not a Human, but an Angel: Lucifer. And that is known via Jewish Tradition. We know that prior to Christ, yes, mortals died and went to hell. Christ opens the gate and leads them out, or at least many of them… But aside from the ones named, either in the Gospels or in the Canonization & Beatification lists, we do not know who is in purgatory, heaven, or hell…

 

[bear06]

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

Well silly, that’s what I orginally said! Simply questioning isn’t heresy. Acting on it is a whole other ballgame.
Nighty-night! :yawn:

 

[JReducation]

The issue here is simple. As to who should or should not be ordained bishop canon law is very clear.

Can. 378§2. The definitive judgment concerning the suitability of the one to be promoted pertains to the Apostolic See.

Even the holiest of bishops cannot violate this without incurring excommunication. The ordination of a bishop is subject to papal authority.

That being said, excommunication is a statement about the person’s relationship with the Church. In a nutshell, it means that the person is no longer part of the temporal Church until he or she submits to the requirements for reintegration.

An excommunication is not a declaration concerning the state of a person’s soul or his salvation. The Church is very respectful in that area and so should the rest of us. We should let Archbishop Lefebvre rest in peace and pray for him. Prolonging this debate regarding his excommunication is not going to change history. It only causes more division.

As to the claims that John Paul II acted unfairly or the suggestion that he even acted maliciously will not be tolerated by the Church, especially by Benedict XVI who happens to believe that John Paul II is in Heaven and is open to the idea of a fast path to his canonization. If you want trouble with Benedict XVI, go ahead and suggest that John Paul II acted maliciously. But remember what he said about JPII at his funeral. He was convinced that John Paul was in heaven looking down on the Church. He has repeated this after his election as pope. There is talk of appointing a Promoter of the Cause for John Paul’s canonization within the next year or two.

JR

 

[catharina]

The issue here is simple. As to who should or should not be ordained bishop canon law is very clear.

Can. 378§2. The definitive judgment concerning the suitability of the one to be promoted pertains to the Apostolic See.

Even the holiest of bishops cannot violate this without incurring excommunication. The ordination of a bishop is subject to papal authority.

That being said, excommunication is a statement about the person’s relationship with the Church. In a nutshell, it means that the person is no longer part of the temporal Church until he or she submits to the requirements for reintegration.

An excommunication is not a declaration concerning the state of a person’s soul or his salvation. The Church is very respectful in that area and so should the rest of us. We should let Archbishop Lefebvre rest in peace and pray for him. Prolonging this debate regarding his excommunication is not going to change history. It only causes more division.

As to the claims that John Paul II acted unfairly or the suggestion that he even acted maliciously will not be tolerated by the Church, especially by Benedict XVI who happens to believe that John Paul II is in Heaven and is open to the idea of a fast path to his canonization. If you want trouble with Benedict XVI, go ahead and suggest that John Paul II acted maliciously. But remember what he said about JPII at his funeral. He was convinced that John Paul was in heaven looking down on the Church. He has repeated this after his election as pope. There is talk of appointing a Promoter of the Cause for John Paul’s canonization within the next year or two.

JR

In full agreement with this, JR,
since it fully reflects Church Teaching and Church History.

 

[GerardP]

As to the claims that John Paul II acted unfairly or the suggestion that he even acted maliciously will not be tolerated by the Church, especially by Benedict XVI who happens to believe that John Paul II…Cause for John Paul’s canonization within the next year or two. JR

B16 knows all too well how JPII could act maliciously and unfair, there is a well known incident of him browbeating Card. Ratzinger in public because Ratzinger told him something was wrong. Ratzinger was reduced to tears by JPII’s withering temper. Archbishop Dziwisz was also fond of browbeating our current Holy Father and making it public.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050606/ai_n14656037/pg_1

Of course, for political purposes and his respect for the office, B16 is not going to do what he should do and reprimand JPII posthumously, but he probably believes that would scandalize the very badly catechized faithful. And since JPII lowered the respect that the papacy gets, B16 will probably have to leave it to a successor to condemn many of JPII’s actions.

Chris Ferrara’s recent article in support of B16’s efforts shows just how much “cleaning up” after JPII B16 is engaging in.

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2008-0131-peter_and_the_wolves.htm

That is why, these days, the pages of The Remnant are filled, not with opposition, but with expressions of support for the Pope. For over the past year the early signs of a continuing disaster have given way to multiplying reasons to believe that the Pope recognizes even more clearly what he recognized as Cardinal Ratzinger—the failure of the aggiornamento—and that he knows it must be undone. At a time of diabolical disorientation in the Church, this Pope, at long last, is making serious and truly historic moves in the direction of a restoration that, mirabile dictu, have earned him the world’s nearly hysterical opposition, instead of the applause so generously bestowed upon his predecessor. The pattern of recent events is undeniable:

· the Motu Proprio, a fulcrum on which world history will undoubtedly turn;

· the Pope’s directive to correct the mistranslation of “pro multis” as “for all” in the Novus Ordo consecration formula, and the mistranslation of “Credo” as “we believe” in the Creed;

· the removal of Piero Marini as master of ceremonies at the Vatican and the abolition of his ludicrous and appalling “papal liturgies;”

· the repeal of John Paul II’s liberalization of the rules for the papal conclave, returning to the traditional requirement of a 2/3 vote;

· the coming issuance of new and stricter rules for beatification and canonization, accompanied by the near shut-down of the “saint-making factory” that operated during the prior pontificate (a stupefying 483 saints in 27 years, as compared with 14 canonizations overseen by Benedict since his election nearly three years ago);

· the Pope’s express recognition of the Institute of the Good Shepherd’s right—the right of all Catholics—to engage in “constructive criticism” of Vatican II, thereby implicitly confirming that the Council documents have deficiencies warranting criticism (deficiencies the Pope himself critiqued as Cardinal and Father Ratzinger);

· the papal admonition to the new head of the Jesuits that “total adhesion to Catholic doctrine” is expected of the order;

· the Pope’s wearing of the miter of Blessed Pius IX and his return to the usage of a papal throne, instead of the upholstered chair favored by his predecessor;

· the Pope’s celebration of Mass versus Deum in the Sistine Chapel;

· the consistent references to Benedict as “Supreme Pontiff;”

· the Pope’s abstention from the “ecumenical liturgies” and other ecumenical and interreligious spectacles of which the last Pope was so fond;

· the absence of any “cult” of Benedict, who shuns the limelight, yet is attracting more Catholics to his audiences than John Paul II did;

· the dramatic reduction in papal travel to mass events of dubious accomplishments;

· the abandonment of all references to Vatican II as a “renewal,” “springtime,” “New Pentecost” and so forth;

· the urgent petition of Anglican clergy representing 400,000 Anglicans for a return to communion with Rome, submitted directly to Benedict rather than the worse-than-useless Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, because the Anglicans know that Benedict is favorable to the reunion and hope to avoid a roadblock by the Vatican bureaucracy;

· a major thaw in relations with the Orthodox that is clearly the result of the Motu Proprio;

· the Vatican’s call for an international revival of Eucharistic adoration to combat the now-admitted crisis in the priesthood, with the project, launched December 8, to highlight the Virgin Mary’s special role as the mother of every priest.

And, almost as important as the Motu Proprio, an entire encyclical on the supernatural virtue of hope, Spe Salvi, that says nothing, absolutely nothing, about Vatican II and even passes over in silence the Council’s very document on hope, Gaudium et Spes.

 

[catharina]

B16 knows all too well how JPII could act maliciously and unfair, there is a well known incident of him browbeating Card. Ratzinger in public because Ratzinger told him something was wrong. Ratzinger was reduced to tears by JPII’s withering temper. Archbishop Dziwisz was also fond of browbeating our current Holy Father and making it public.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050606/ai_n14656037/pg_1

Of course, for political purposes and his respect for the office, B16 is not going to do what he should do and reprimand JPII posthumously, but he probably believes that would scandalize the very badly catechized faithful. And since JPII lowered the respect that the papacy gets, B16 will probably have to leave it to a successor to condemn many of JPII’s actions.

Chris Ferrara’s recent article in support of B16’s efforts shows just how much “cleaning up” after JPII B16 is engaging in.

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2008-0131-peter_and_the_wolves.htm

How utterly bizarre that you would post things without a shred of documentaion. Re this: “there is a well known incident of him browbeating Card. Ratzinger in public because Ratzinger told him something was wrong. Ratzinger was reduced to tears by JPII’s withering temper.” Where is your source, or better yet your multiple sources?

As for the late Holy Father’s aide, now Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwsz, are you making a case that the aide’s “reported” rage at then-Cardinal Ratzinger was launched in the name of the Pope?

The article you do link is from a London newspaper and the London press (and throne) is not well-known for any accurate reporting and/or supporting of the Vatican and historical events.

What are you thinking??? May God have mercy on you.

 

[GerardP]

How utterly bizarre that you would post things without a shred of documentaion.

It was reported in Fr. Malachi Martin’s 1990 book, “The Keys of this Blood” unfortunately, I don’t have the book onhand currently. However you can look it up in the index.

As for the late Holy Father’s aide, now Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwsz, are you making a case that the aide’s “reported” rage at then-Cardinal Ratzinger was launched in the name of the Pope?

No. But the later event by Dziwsz mirrors exactly the behavior that Fr. Martin attributed to JPII and the reaction by Ratzinger was the same. Dziwsz obviously knew that JPII was capable of abusing the current Holy Father and was obviously willing to engage in that behavior himself.

The article you do link is from a London newspaper and the London press (and throne) is not well-known for any accurate reporting and/or supporting of the Vatican and historical events.

Amazing. You demand citations and then trash whatever citations are presented. Based on nothing.

What sources will you accept? If you can’t supply a threshold, then stop asking for them.

What are you thinking??? May God have mercy on you.

Please spare me your feigned “scandal” and "horror. " The people on this forum that have a totally perverted understanding of the papacy and absolutely no real knowledge of Church politics and papal behavior throughout the history of the Church should really do some research before they are “offended” and fainting when someone says the Pope did some bad things.

 

[catharina]

It was reported in Fr. Malachi Martin’s 1990 book, “The Keys of this Blood” unfortunately, I don’t have the book onhand currently. However you can look it up in the index.

No. But the later event by Dziwsz mirrors exactly the behavior that Fr. Martin attributed to JPII and the reaction by Ratzinger was the same. Dziwsz obviously knew that JPII was capable of abusing the current Holy Father and was obviously willing to engage in that behavior himself.

Amazing. You demand citations and then trash whatever citations are presented. Based on nothing.

What sources will you accept? If you can’t supply a threshold, then stop asking for them.

Please spare me your feigned “scandal” and "horror. " The people on this forum that have a totally perverted understanding of the papacy and absolutely no real knowledge of Church politics and papal behavior throughout the history of the Church should really do some research before they are “offended” and fainting when someone says the Pope did some bad things.

Sources? I do not have any reason to believe the news as delivered by “Copyright 2005 Independent Newspapers UK Limited” nor do I have any reason to believe any reports attributed to Malachi Martin. Do I consider him to be a worthy “source?” No.

As for your dramatic and ridiculous use of the words “offended” and “scandal” and “horror,” I’ll point out that those are words that YOU have chosen, not words that I used.

As for this by you: “The people on this forum that have a totally perverted understanding of the papacy and absolutely no real knowledge of Church politics and papal behavior throughout the history of the Church should really do some research before they are “offended” and fainting when someone says the Pope did some bad things.” Can’t imagine why you’re aiming at “people on this forum” since you’re on this forum also; however I know that I began the study of the Catholic faith in 1950 and have continued with studies in Theology until the present. Go aim your empty guns at someone else. Not a word you say could impress me as truth.

 

[GerardP]

What sources will you accept? If you can’t supply a threshold, then stop asking for them.

Sources? I do not have any reason to believe the news as delivered by “Copyright 2005 Independent Newspapers UK Limited” nor do I have any reason to believe any reports attributed to Malachi Martin. Do I consider him to be a worthy “source?” No.

As I thought. You can’t supply a threshold.

As for your dramatic and ridiculous use of the words “offended” and “scandal” and “horror,” I’ll point out that those are words that YOU have chosen, not words that I used.

And those words are accurate descriptions of your hystrionics. Your use of triple question marks and the somber “May God have mercy on you.” I’ll take God’s mercy for my sins, but for pointing out the truth and a truth that has been evident in the Church for its entire history? c’mon.

As for this by you: “The people on this forum that have a totally perverted understanding of the papacy and absolutely no real knowledge of Church politics and papal behavior throughout the history of the Church should really do some research before they are “offended” and fainting when someone says the Pope did some bad things.” Can’t imagine why you’re aiming at “people on this forum” since you’re on this forum also; .

I’m on this forum, that is correct. But I’m not **a person that has a totally perverted understanding of the papacy **and papal behavior throughout the history of the Church.

however I know that I began the study of the Catholic faith in 1950 and have continued with studies in Theology until the present.

I have no reason to believe that you have actually studied the Catholic faith since 1950. 58 years and you exhibit no understanding of the papacy? I’m doubtful.

Go aim your empty guns at someone else. Not a word you say could impress me as truth.

Obviously, your emotions dictate the validity of what facts you will or will not accept. 2+2=4 when you ‘feel’ that 2+2=4. But if you “feel” that 2+2 does not equal 4, then that is valid as well.

You demand sources for statement that you a priori believe to be untrue based on your false understanding of the papacy. This is demonstrated by your rebuke of me for not posting sources and then trashing the sources and also your melodramatic “May God have mercy on you.”

When the sources are given, you refuse to give them any creedence, even a hesitant possibility with a prejudice towards the Pope’s benefit would be indicative of a fair Catholic mind.

I know that you will reject anything that would pop the bubble that you’ve built up regarding the percieved superhuman, impeccable and immaculate Popes that have reigned recently. Contradictions will be dismissed, scandalous behavior justified, neglect, malfeasance, imprudent behavior, litrugical abuse will be glossed over and justified.

So, I’m not going to attempt to appease the unappeasable.

 

[JReducation]

I mentioned above that Benedict XVI favours the idea of beginning the canonization process of John Paul II. Anyone who knows Mystical Theology will remember some of these events from the history of the saints.

St. Teresa of Avila:

1. She said that she rather live with a scholar than a saint, because saints were temperamental and difficult to live with.
2. She was famous for browbeating her nuns and friars into submission. She dismissed John of the Cross as her confessor and spiritual director.
3. Was canonized and made a Doctor of the Church

Alphonsus Ligouri:

1. Founded the Redemptorists.
2. Was later dismissed from the Congregation because he was obnoxious and lost his temper every time the clerics changed something in the rule, even though Church Law said that the General Chapter has the authority to modify and interpret the rule of the a religious congregation of Pontifical Right.
3. He was canonized and made a Doctor of the Church

Francis of Assisi:

1. After his term as Superior General and a new Superior General was elected he overruled the new Superior, which is not allowed by Church Law and by the Constitution of the Order.
2. When Brother Elias, his successor, allowed the Brothers to build a library and a house Francis climbed on the roof and tore off the shingles one by one and had to be physically stopped.
3. Forbade those Brothers who were priests from using the title Father. The prohibition was later rescinded by a Pope and has since been put back into force. Now the Franciscans can no longer call themselves Franciscan Fathers, but must use Franciscan Brothers or Franciscan Friars.
4. Prohibited the ordination of priests except for the use of the community.
5. To this day, Franciscan Friars who are priests may only serve in ministries that are approved by their major superior, regardless of what the Bishop wants. Canon Law protects their right to do so. Most lay people don’t know this.
6. He eventually decided that he would not live in the friary and moved to a cave in Mt. Laverna where he died.
7. The Church canonized him and gave him the title MIRROR OF PERFECTION.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta:

1. Would browbeat her sisters.
2. Accepted a donation of money that had been stolen. When she found out that the money had been stolen she refused to give it back on the grounds that it had been used for the poor and she had not stolen it. Which was true, she was innocent of the theft; but it ruffled many feathers.
3. Made a public statement that she was happy for Princess Diana that she was out of a bad marriage that made the Princess very happy. She did not commit a sin, but ruffled many feathers.
4. When the Archbishop of New York gave her sisters a house for their work and mother Teresa arrived for the consecration of the house, she had the sisters tear out the carpeting, throw out all of the furniture that the Archbishop had paid for. It was all dumped into a back alley behind the house. She did not commit a sin, but it ruffled the Archbishop’s feathers.
5. She has been beatified and a dispensation was given to accelerate the canonization.

Blessed William Chaminade:

1. Founded the Marianists Brothers.
2. Allowed some Brothers to become priests.
3. Prohibited any Brother who is a priest from holding any office of authority in the congregation.
4. Ordered the congregation to keep the number of priests to a minimum.
5. The Church asked him to allow the priests to take over parish ministries. He declined. He said that his brothers were to engage in education and that his priests were for the needs of the congregation and of their schools. The Vatican accepted, even though bishops were asking for more priests.
6. He has been beatified.

Peter:

1. Denied Jesus three times and is made the Shepherd of the universal church and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

Regardless of what John Paul II may have done or not done. None of it is a sin or points to a sinful life.

Benedict XVI is not only a good man, but also a good theologian. He knows the difference between sinfulness and the personality of mystics. It is not secret that John Paul II was a mystic and that mystics can be very difficult to deal with, because their actions are often a result of their deeper union with God which is not always explainable.

Mystical Theology would support that John Paul II was definitely a mystic and Benedict the XVI, though not a Mystical Theologican hismelf, is surrounded by very good ones.

Let’s stop defending Archbishop Lefebvre at the expense of John Paul II. That’s not charitable. Those who want to defend the Archibishop may do so, but on his own merits, not at the expense of another person’s reputation and saintliness.

Please don’t tell me that it’s the right of the laity to discern a person’s saintliness, because it’sn not. That’s whay the Church has a commission for the causes of saints.

JR

 

[catharina]

I mentioned above that Benedict XVI favours the idea of beginning the canonization process of John Paul II. …

Let’s stop defending Archbishop Lefebvre at the expense of John Paul II. …

JR

One has to wonder why anyone would pretend to praise a man by means of insulting the name of a recent Pope. Also I’ll add that we are well-advised to refrain from even defending the name of Ar. Lefebvre until (and unless) the Church is able to decide to forgive or nullify his disobedience. An announcement of that would have to come from the Pope.

 

[terillmorris]

Let’s not get off the subject. The bottom line is that Lefebvre was told not to consecrate Bishops without Papal permission. He was sent a letter warning him not to do it. Canon Law clearly says he would be excommunicated if he violated the law. The only excuse he gave (summarized) was that he had to to preserve the tradition of the Church. The Pope clearly condemned his act as a schismatic act, and clearly stated that the Archbishop was excommunicated. Yet some of you still keep on defending him-----even though objectively speaking he committed a mortal sin and was excommunicated----can someone please give one reason, just one which would justifiy what Lefebvre did—just give your strongest reason—and then we can take them one by one—

 

[catharina]

…

So, I’m not going to attempt to appease the unappeasable.

Good. At last a glimmer of wisdom from you.

Nothing could make me offer a preference for the excommunicated Lefebvre over His Holiness Pope John Paul II. If Rome (a Pope) ever speaks to it, I’ll pay attention. How anyone can play this dangerous game with himself/herself (defending Lefebvre) is beyond me.

 

[catharina]

I mentioned above that Benedict XVI favours the idea of beginning the canonization process of John Paul II. Anyone who knows Mystical Theology will remember some of these events from the history of the saints.

St. Teresa of Avila:

1. She said that she rather live with a scholar than a saint, because saints were temperamental and difficult to live with.
2. She was famous for browbeating her nuns and friars into submission. She dismissed John of the Cross as her confessor and spiritual director.
3. Was canonized and made a Doctor of the Church

Alphonsus Ligouri:

1. Founded the Redemptorists.
2. Was later dismissed from the Congregation because he was obnoxious and lost his temper every time the clerics changed something in the rule, even though Church Law said that the General Chapter has the authority to modify and interpret the rule of the a religious congregation of Pontifical Right.
3. He was canonized and made a Doctor of the Church

Francis of Assisi:

1. After his term as Superior General and a new Superior General was elected he overruled the new Superior, which is not allowed by Church Law and by the Constitution of the Order.
2. When Brother Elias, his successor, allowed the Brothers to build a library and a house Francis climbed on the roof and tore off the shingles one by one and had to be physically stopped.
3. Forbade those Brothers who were priests from using the title Father. The prohibition was later rescinded by a Pope and has since been put back into force. Now the Franciscans can no longer call themselves Franciscan Fathers, but must use Franciscan Brothers or Franciscan Friars.
4. Prohibited the ordination of priests except for the use of the community.
5. To this day, Franciscan Friars who are priests may only serve in ministries that are approved by their major superior, regardless of what the Bishop wants. Canon Law protects their right to do so. Most lay people don’t know this.
6. He eventually decided that he would not live in the friary and moved to a cave in Mt. Laverna where he died.
7. The Church canonized him and gave him the title MIRROR OF PERFECTION.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta:

1. Would browbeat her sisters.
2. Accepted a donation of money that had been stolen. When she found out that the money had been stolen she refused to give it back on the grounds that it had been used for the poor and she had not stolen it. Which was true, she was innocent of the theft; but it ruffled many feathers.
3. Made a public statement that she was happy for Princess Diana that she was out of a bad marriage that made the Princess very happy. She did not commit a sin, but ruffled many feathers.
4. When the Archbishop of New York gave her sisters a house for their work and mother Teresa arrived for the consecration of the house, she had the sisters tear out the carpeting, throw out all of the furniture that the Archbishop had paid for. It was all dumped into a back alley behind the house. She did not commit a sin, but it ruffled the Archbishop’s feathers.
5. She has been beatified and a dispensation was given to accelerate the canonization.

Blessed William Chaminade:

1. Founded the Marianists Brothers.
2. Allowed some Brothers to become priests.
3. Prohibited any Brother who is a priest from holding any office of authority in the congregation.
4. Ordered the congregation to keep the number of priests to a minimum.
5. The Church asked him to allow the priests to take over parish ministries. He declined. He said that his brothers were to engage in education and that his priests were for the needs of the congregation and of their schools. The Vatican accepted, even though bishops were asking for more priests.
6. He has been beatified.

Peter:

1. Denied Jesus three times and is made the Shepherd of the universal church and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

Regardless of what John Paul II may have done or not done. None of it is a sin or points to a sinful life.

Benedict XVI is not only a good man, but also a good theologian. He knows the difference between sinfulness and the personality of mystics. It is not secret that John Paul II was a mystic and that mystics can be very difficult to deal with, because their actions are often a result of their deeper union with God which is not always explainable.

Mystical Theology would support that John Paul II was definitely a mystic and Benedict the XVI, though not a Mystical Theologican hismelf, is surrounded by very good ones.

Let’s stop defending Archbishop Lefebvre at the expense of John Paul II. That’s not charitable. Those who want to defend the Archibishop may do so, but on his own merits, not at the expense of another person’s reputation and saintliness.

Please don’t tell me that it’s the right of the laity to discern a person’s saintliness, because it’sn not. That’s whay the Church has a commission for the causes of saints.

JR

JR, also, thanks for the quick review of the mystical theologians. Before you joined the site, a number of Lefebvrists stated that St. Teresa could not be a Doctor of the Church (acc to one of their renegade bishops) because she’s female. They seem to have a penchant for re-writing the rules to suit themselves. Guess that’s obvious.

The “Doctor of the Church” title was the issue. They also want to rid the Church of the other sainted women who’ve received the title: Catherine of Siena and Therese of Lisieux.

 

[anthony333777]

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

HOOYAAA!

 

[terillmorris]

HOOYAAA!

Ignore the truth? what truth? The truth the the Archbishop had no valid reason at all to disobey the vicar of Christ—oh wait!!! he had a reason- he believed the Church was in crisis—o ok I guees he was justified—please!!! stop defending this man!!!

 

[catharina]

HOOYAAA!

If the day should come when Hoya is allowed to overturn a Pope’s decree, whether JP II or B XVI, I’m certain we’ll be informed of that unprecendented change - by the Pope.

 

[JReducation]

JR, also, thanks for the quick review of the mystical theologians. Before you joined the site, a number of Lefebvrists stated that St. Teresa could not be a Doctor of the Church (acc to one of their renegade bishops) because she’s female. They seem to have a penchant for re-writing the rules to suit themselves. Guess that’s obvious.

The “Doctor of the Church” title was the issue. They also want to rid the Church of the other sainted women who’ve received the title: Catherine of Siena and Therese of Lisieux.

The title Doctor of the Church comes from a very ancient Latin term Docere, which means to teach. Its English equivalent would be Docent. It has two meanings: a scholar and a leader. There is nothing in Church law that says that a woman cannot be a teacher of truth or a scholar or a leader in theological circles. These women were true teaches on the Spiritual Life.

Teresa, Catherine and Therese were declared Doctors because what they wrote and taught were truths of Mystical Theology that could safely be taught to and embraced by Catholics.

Whoever believes that the Holy Spirit cannot reveal truth through a woman has a serious problem. The Word of God entered the world through a woman. The first to proclaim the risen Christ were women.

The reason why women didn’t get this title was because it was a “good ol’ boys club.” The Church realized that this made no sense and that it was depriving the faithful of truths that could help advance the cause of the Church and failing to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit does speak to us through women as well as men.

The fear that some people had was that this could lead to ordination of women. But that fear is unfounded. A Doctor of the Church is a teacher of the faith. Teaching is a very different ministry from Holy Orders. It is true that those ordained teach, but they have other functions. Generally, Bishops are theologians. Very few deacons and priests are theologians. They have training in theology, that’s different. A physician is a Doctor of Medicine, but very few are Doctors of Medical Science. In other words, they’re not medical scientists. The same applies to theologians and clerics.

The Doctors are theologians, male or female.

JR