Salvation of Archbishop Lefebvre ?

[catharina]

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

Yes, of course, and thank you for explaining it so well. The one who was/is teaching against it is one the four excommunicated with M. Lefebvre. I chose to let those names slip right out of my memory - but Catherine, Teresa and Therese? I love THEM dearly!

 

[stmaria]

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—

The reasons for Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecration of the four Bishops spans over 20 years. It wasn’t just about the New Mass. It would be impossible to list everything that caused Lefebvre to believe that he had no choice but to consecrate the Bishops.

At Vatican II he saw theologians Karl Rahner, John Courtney Murray and Yves Congar, who had been censored by Pius XII,
helping to write the Vatican II documents.
In 1965 Pope Paul shut down the Commission to write the New Mass for almost two years because it had become known that an experimental Mass, done without the approval of Pope Paul, had taken place. Abuses were report thoroughout Europe about other experimental Masses. Archbishop Lefebvre was concerned that Pope Paul had lost control of the commission to write the New Mass.
In 1965 communion in the hand and the laity distributing
communion began without approval
Inter-communion with Protestants started occuring. Again Levebvre was shocked at what he as witnessing.
In December 1966 the French weekly *Paris Match *published some photographs of home Eucharistic celebrations that violated all the liturgical regulations…
A great scandal was caused in 1967 when Pope Paul VI authorized Barbara Olson, an American Presbyterian, to receive Holy Communion at her marriage to a Catholic.
In 1972 Pope Paul made his infamous “smoke of Satan” speech.
In 1975 Archbishop Bugnini, who oversaw the writing of the New Mass, was removed from his position By Pope Paul
for “suspicion” of being a Freemason.
In 1986 Pope John Paul held a prayer gathering at Assissi where he allowed pagan religions to pray for peace in a Catholic Church. Lefebvre believed that Pope John Paul had vilolated the First Commandment.
Archbishop Lefebvre knew of an approved apparition of Our Lady from 1634 in which she states

“at the end of the 19th century and for a large part of the 20th, various heresies will flourish on this earth which will have become a free republic. The precious light of the Faith will go out in souls because of the almost total moral corruption: in those times there will be great physical and moral calamities, in private and in public… My communities will be abandoned; they will be swamped in a fathomless sea of bitterness, and will seem drowned in tribulations. How many true vocations will be lost for lack of skillful and prudent direction… The innocence of childhood will almost disappear. Thus priestly vocations will be lost, it will be a real disaster. Priests will abandon their sacred duties and will depart from the path marked out for them by God. Then the Church will go through a dark night** for lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over it with love, gentleness, strength and prudence and numbers of priest will lost the spirit of God, thus placing their souls in great danger. …Pray constantly, cry out unwearingly and weep unceasingly with bitter tears in the depths of your heart, asking Our Father in Heaven, for love of the Eucharistic Heart of My Most Holy Son, for His Precious Blood, so generously shed and for the profound bitterness and sufferings of His Passion and death, that He have pity on His ministers and that He put an end to such fatal times, by sending to His Church the Prelate who will restore the spirit of His priests. **”
This Prelate and Father will act as a counterweight to the lukewarmness of souls consecrated in the priesthood and in religion. "

Archbishop Lefebvre believed that he might be that prelate.

And of course there was the ongoing rejection of Vatican II and its declarations on Religious Liberty, Ecumenism and Collegiality. He saw that belief in the Real Presence was at all time lows, Mass attendance by Catholics, especially in Europe, were at the crisis point. The priesthood was shrinking. Semaniaries were being closed.
These are just a few of the events over a 20 year period that gave Archbishop Lefebvre the belief that he had no choice but to consecrate the Bishops for the sake of the Church.

Was he right? I’m not in a position to say but I do understand his thinking when it is all put into context of a 20 year event.

 

[JReducation]

The reasons for Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecration of the four Bishops spans over 20 years. It wasn’t just about the New Mass. It would be impossible to list everything that caused Lefebvre to believe that he had no choice but to consecrate the Bishops.

At Vatican II he saw theologians Karl Rahner, John Courtney Murray and Yves Congar, who had been censored by Pius XII, helping to write the Vatican II documents.

They had also been exhonerated by Paul VI. Whatever deficit Pius XII found in their writing was obviously corrected. Woytyla and Ratzinger were also on that team.

In 1965 Pope Paul shut down the Commission to write the New Mass for almost two years because it had become known that an experimental Mass, done without the approval of Pope Paul, had taken place. Abuses were report thoroughout Europe about other experimental Masses. Archbishop Lefebvre was concerned that Pope Paul had lost control of the commission to write the New Mass.

Paul VI corrected the problem. Ovbiously he was very much in control.

In 1965 communion in the hand and the laity distributing
communion began without approval

This is not heresy. And it was approved by the local Conferences of Bishops. They have certain powers until rescinded by the Holy See.

A great scandal was caused in 1967 when Pope Paul VI authorized Barbara Olson, an American Presbyterian, to receive Holy Communion at her marriage to a Catholic.

Benedict XVI gave communion to Tony Blair before he was Catholic. He said it was the charitable thing to do. He also welcomed Blair into the Church without demanding that Blair recant his position on abortion or gay marriage. His response has been that Blair needs time to make progress in the faith.

In 1986 Pope John Paul held a prayer gathering at Assissi where he allowed pagan religions to pray for peace in a Catholic Church. Lefebvre believed that Pope John Paul had vilolated the First Commandment.

Praying for peace is not a sin, regardless of who prays or where they pray. They prayed at the Mother House of the Franciscan Order. It is not a parish. The Franciscan are a religious order of Pontifical Right. Canon Law says that the bishops can only exercise those judicial powers over religious houses of Pontifical Right as is authorized by canon law. They may not interfere in the internal affairs of the house. The site was chosen specifically, because Francis had opened the doors for prayer between his Brothers and Muslims in the 13th century. This was in his legacy to the Brothers, which was never refuted or disputed by any pope or council.

Archbishop Lefebvre believed that he might be that prelate.

He based his belief in a private revelation that has never been declared worthy of belief by the Holy See.

And of course there was the ongoing rejection of Vatican II and its declarations on Religious Liberty, Ecumenism and Collegiality. He saw that belief in the Real Presence was at all time lows, Mass attendance by Catholics, especially in Europe, were at the crisis point. The priesthood was shrinking. Semaniaries were being closed.
These are just a few of the events over a 20 year period that gave Archbishop Lefebvre the belief that he had no choice but to consecrate the Bishops for the sake of the Church.

All of these issues were being addressed by Cardinal Ratzinger.

Was he right? I’m not in a position to say but I do understand his thinking when it is all put into context of a 20 year event.

I believe that he was mistaken. I do not judge his soul. His heart may have been in the right place, but his judgement was faulty.

Hope this helps.

JR

 

[terillmorris]

The reasons for Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecration of the four Bishops spans over 20 years. It wasn’t just about the New Mass. It would be impossible to list everything that caused Lefebvre to believe that he had no choice but to consecrate the Bishops.

At Vatican II he saw theologians Karl Rahner, John Courtney Murray and Yves Congar, who had been censored by Pius XII,
helping to write the Vatican II documents.
In 1965 Pope Paul shut down the Commission to write the New Mass for almost two years because it had become known that an experimental Mass, done without the approval of Pope Paul, had taken place. Abuses were report thoroughout Europe about other experimental Masses. Archbishop Lefebvre was concerned that Pope Paul had lost control of the commission to write the New Mass.
In 1965 communion in the hand and the laity distributing
communion began without approval
Inter-communion with Protestants started occuring. Again Levebvre was shocked at what he as witnessing.
In December 1966 the French weekly *Paris Match *published some photographs of home Eucharistic celebrations that violated all the liturgical regulations…
A great scandal was caused in 1967 when Pope Paul VI authorized Barbara Olson, an American Presbyterian, to receive Holy Communion at her marriage to a Catholic.
In 1972 Pope Paul made his infamous “smoke of Satan” speech.
In 1975 Archbishop Bugnini, who oversaw the writing of the New Mass, was removed from his position By Pope Paul
for “suspicion” of being a Freemason.
In 1986 Pope John Paul held a prayer gathering at Assissi where he allowed pagan religions to pray for peace in a Catholic Church. Lefebvre believed that Pope John Paul had vilolated the First Commandment.
Archbishop Lefebvre knew of an approved apparition of Our Lady from 1634 in which she states

“at the end of the 19th century and for a large part of the 20th, various heresies will flourish on this earth which will have become a free republic. The precious light of the Faith will go out in souls because of the almost total moral corruption: in those times there will be great physical and moral calamities, in private and in public… My communities will be abandoned; they will be swamped in a fathomless sea of bitterness, and will seem drowned in tribulations. How many true vocations will be lost for lack of skillful and prudent direction… The innocence of childhood will almost disappear. Thus priestly vocations will be lost, it will be a real disaster. Priests will abandon their sacred duties and will depart from the path marked out for them by God. Then the Church will go through a dark night** for lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over it with love, gentleness, strength and prudence and numbers of priest will lost the spirit of God, thus placing their souls in great danger. …Pray constantly, cry out unwearingly and weep unceasingly with bitter tears in the depths of your heart, asking Our Father in Heaven, for love of the Eucharistic Heart of My Most Holy Son, for His Precious Blood, so generously shed and for the profound bitterness and sufferings of His Passion and death, that He have pity on His ministers and that He put an end to such fatal times, by sending to His Church the Prelate who will restore the spirit of His priests. **”
This Prelate and Father will act as a counterweight to the lukewarmness of souls consecrated in the priesthood and in religion. "

Archbishop Lefebvre believed that he might be that prelate.

And of course there was the ongoing rejection of Vatican II and its declarations on Religious Liberty, Ecumenism and Collegiality. He saw that belief in the Real Presence was at all time lows, Mass attendance by Catholics, especially in Europe, were at the crisis point. The priesthood was shrinking. Semaniaries were being closed.
These are just a few of the events over a 20 year period that gave Archbishop Lefebvre the belief that he had no choice but to consecrate the Bishops for the sake of the Church.

Was he right? I’m not in a position to say but I do understand his thinking when it is all put into context of a 20 year event.

Again it is more of the same. He didnt like things that the Pope was doing so he disobeyed—I mean i read your post–and throughout it i had to say to myseLf(as I read each argument) WHO CARES? So what if the Pope was messing up? still you cant disobey him!!! YOU CANT-----BUT THE ARCHBISHOP DID—SORRY HE WAS WRONG!!!

 

[seekerz]

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!!!

I agree with your post. Even the Lord Jesus himself recognized the authority of the Jewish priests (He sent a healed man to show himself to the priests and preached that people should obey religious leaders even while not imitating them). If God could not only take human form, but submit to the authority of imperfect sinful humans, who are we to disobey the authority of the Church He instituted just because we don’t like what they’re doing?

Do we forget His promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail…?

 

[catharina]

Maria, As I’ve said previously when you and others raised the point of this vision it’s a fact that M. Lefebvre ascribed to himself an interpretation that flies in the face of all orthodoxy. In fact the Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the following (just as it taught it in the old and retired Batimore Catchism during my days in Catholic grammar school): that Revelation is first of all the Church’s; after that, one might consider private revelations IF such do not contradict Scripture. M. Lefebvre clung to a revealtion that presented an opportunity to defy the words of Our Lord in Scripture: " … the gates of hell shall not prevail against" His Church founded on Peter." Lefebvre takes a private revelation, garbs it in his private interpretaion and makes, of himself, a new Savior. ~~~ from the Catechism: Catechism of the Catholic Church: 66 The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.~~~ In other words: Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such revelations. ~~~

 

[drtwhite]

Remember, history is written by the “victors,” not the “vanquished.”

 

[catharina]

Remember, history is written by the “victors,” not the “vanquished.”

Are you suggesting that Jesus Christ broke His promise and allowed the Church to be vanquished by defilers? If so, the Mormons would like to meet you and convert you ASAP.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Again it is more of the same. He didnt like things that the Pope was doing so he disobeyed

There’s a difference between true and false obedience. Here’s some important Church figues on obedience, which most assuredly relate to the situation Archbishop Lefebvre found himself in:
St. Thomas Aquinas:

There being an imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, Saint Paul, who was a subject of Saint Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glosa of Saint Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2,14), ‘Saint Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects’.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

• St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church
• Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104

Dietrich von Hildebrand:

All disciplinary authority, all obedience to a bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the Holy Church. Obedience to the bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teaching of the Holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to pluralism in questions of faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances.

• Prof. Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Devastated Vineyard (Chicago, 1973), pp. 3-5

St. Robert Bellarmine:

Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.

St. Robert Bellarmine:

When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence of excommunication which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted, without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See.

St. Augustine:

Peter accepted with holy and pious humility the useful observation Saint Paul had made, inspired by the freedom of love, thus leaving for posterity a rare example for them not to despise being corrected by their inferiors whenever they have strayed from the right way.

Dom Prosper Gueranger:

When the shepherd turns into a wolf, it behooves the flock to defend itself in the first place. Doctrine normally flows from the bishops down to the faithful people, and subjects should not judge their chiefs. But, in the treasure of Revelation, there are certain points that every Christian necessarily knows and must obligatorily defend.

Cardinal Juan de Torquemada:

Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states (De Consuetudine) that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed.

—I mean i read your post–and throughout it i had to say to myseLf(as I read each argument) WHO CARES?

Who cares? The sake of souls is at stake and you ask who cares? The Church is in the biggest crisis it has ever been in. Only the Arian Crisis compares, and the situation of today’s Church is arguably graver. If you don’t think this is the case, then you are blind.

So what if the Pope was messing up?

So what? The Pope can mess up, but it is quite unfortunate when he does as souls are at stake. And you ask so what? Perhaps your priorities are disheveled.

still you cant disobey him!!! YOU CANT

This is clearly contrary to the above quotes I posted. The Church has never taught blind obedience to the Papacy at all costs.

 

[seekerz]

This is clearly contrary to the above quotes I posted. The Church has never taught blind obedience to the Papacy at all costs.

Wrong. The Church has always taught that the Pope is Christ’s Vicar on earth through whom God visibly guides the Church. Are you suggesting that obedience is optional or that the Pope is at odds with Christ? The quote below would declare you mistaken on both counts.

Mystici Corpori, an encyclical of Pope Pius XII, says this:

On the contrary, our Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the “little flock” [60] Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into Heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; [61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.

 

[JReducation]

There’s a difference between true and false obedience. Here’s some important Church figues on obedience, which most assuredly relate to the situation Archbishop Lefebvre found himself in

I cut out the quotes, because it is very long, but not because it is bad.

Of all those citations that you posted, how many of them have become official teaching of the Church? How many of them are in Canon Law?

We must remember that Aquinas, Augustin, Bonaventure, Teresa, Catherine, and Therese, just to name a few are all Doctors of the Church, but they are not the teaching Magisterium. Some of what they wrote the Church never adopted. Some of what the Church adopted it later dropped.

Canon 333 explicitly says that a decree of the Pontiff may not be appealed or questioned.

We have to discuss this point using what is current law in the Church. The Doctors are good resources that the Church uses. But not everything that the Doctors wrote became Church law or Church teaching.

They were proclaimed Doctors because they were teachers par excellence, through their writing and their lives. The one Doctor whom you left out who was part of the teaching Magisterium of the Church is Bonaventure.

Bonaventure has a completely different take on obedience from Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas also expressed doubts as to the Immaculate Coneption, while Bonaventue defended it.

Aquinas promoted that reason sheds light on faith. Bonaventure said that the heart sheds light on faith.

It is good to know the Doctors of the Church and what they wrote. But it is equally important to know which part of what they wrote became official teachings of the Church and what was accepted by the Church as theological positions that were not in conflict with the faith. Those theological positions are just that, theology, not law.

When speaking of Archbishop Lefebvre the question is a juridical question, not a theological question. Does a bishop have the authority to ordain another bishop without the consent of the Pope?

Canon Law says he does not have that authority, even though such ordination is valid because he does have the episcopal power to do so.

I don’t believe that the validity of the ordinations is in question. There is no question among Church jurists regarding the canon that regulates the ordination of bishops. Even jurists who are sympathetic to M. Lefebvre are saddened by the fact that he violated the law.

I would also respectfully suggest that you quote the warnings that Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II sent to M. Lefebvre. If we’re going to be fair, we must present both sides of the issue. Those letters made some very important points.

JR

 

[SFD]

There’s a difference between true and false obedience. Here’s some important Church figues on obedience, which most assuredly relate to the situation Archbishop Lefebvre found himself in:
St. Robert Bellarmine:

Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior.

This quote is taken out of it’s context:

Bellarmine is talking about a morally evil pope who gives morally evil commands.He has been asked about a pope who unjustly attacks someone, disturbs the public order, or “tries to kill souls by his bad example.” In his reply he says “it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders.”

The context of the statement is a debate over the errors of Gallicanism. Protestant and Gallican arguments that the Church or the pope should be subject to a king or a general council: "Argument 7. Any person is permitted to kill the pope if he is unjustly attacked by him. Therefore, even more so is it permitted for kings or a council to depose the pope if he disturbs the state, or if he tries to kill souls by his bad example.”

Bellarmine is justifying “resistance” by kings and prelates, not by individual Catholics.The Gallican position that Bellarmine refuted maintained that it is permitted “for kings or a council” to depose a pope. Nothing about individual priests or laymen there.

The meaning here is clear from Cajetan’s chapter 27. "Secular princes and the prelates of the Church,” he says, have many ways available for arranging “resistance or an obstruction to an abuse of power ”.

SFD

 

[JReducation]

Semper:

I have to apologize for one thing that I said in my post. After I posted I reread your post and realized that I had mispoke. Augustine, Torquemada and Bellarmine were bishops and therefore part of the Magisterium.

However, not all of their writing became part of the deposit of faith. Much of it was used to support the deposit of faith, this is true. And some of it was also rejected. For example, it was Bellarmine who delivered the censure of Galileo and Copernicus that was later recanted by the Holy See.

Aquinas was a Dominican Brother and van Hildebrand a lay man.

Sorry for my error.

JR

 

[GerardP]

Nothing could make me offer a preference for the excommunicated Lefebvre over His Holiness Pope John Paul II.

Yes of course, Pope worship. Making the Pope into a god.

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.

Yes. It is beyond you.

 

[seekerz]

Yes of course, Pope worship. Making the Pope into a god.

Those words sound so familiar. I heard them all the time growing up. I’ll give you a hint: hey didn’t come from Catholics…So I guess now we get to the crux of the matter.

What exactly is your relationship to the Catholic Church? What is your opinion of Pope Pius XII? Has he been worshipped as a ‘god’ too. What was his opinion of the pope’s role? Please enlighten us.

 

[catharina]

Yes of course, Pope worship. Making the Pope into a god.

Yes. It is beyond you.

I thank God that He has kept me from the idolization of the Lefebvrists. God is so merciful to me, a sinnee. Blessed be God forever and ever.

 

[JReducation]

To Catherina: Yes of course, Pope worship. Making the Pope into a god.

Yes. It is beyond you.

Gerard:

Your response to Catherina was rude. You have every right to express your opinion, whatever that may be. But you have no right to come into this thread or any other thread and accuse someone of “pope worship.” That is an insult and will not be tolerated.

Also, your other statement “beyond you” is an insinuation that the other person is ignorant, because she does not agree with you. Such blatant disrespect for another poster deserves no further attention. What it shows is not a desire to engage in a charitable dialogue with fellow believers, but a desire to shove your beliefs down the other person’s throat. When they refuse to accept it you stoop to the level of insult.

I am ashamed to see that you call yourself a Catholic in your profile, because such behaviour is beneath a Catholic. When have you seen the great saints insult and demean others?

If you wish to engage in a serious dialogue with anyone on this thread, you are always welcome to do so. But I will not sit quietly while you violate the most fundamental tenet of Catholicism, which is charity.

How dare you justify your defence of truth by violating charity? Have you not taken a close look at the saints? Holiness is not achieved through bullying. It is achieved through love.

Contrary to what you may believe, the one virtue that the Holy Catholic Church esteems above all else is Love and what makes saints is their love of God and neighbour. Love of is not selective. It is not reserved only for those who agree with us, but it is for all people.

Christ loved the woman caught in adultery, the Samaritan woman and those who crucified him as much as he loved his mother and his disciples.

It behoves anyone who is alleging to defend the Church to behave in a manner that is consistent with the sanctity of the Church.

When you decide that you are going to behave in a charitable manner toward others, please let us know. I for one would welcome a grace-filled dialogue. A dialogue that insults and demeans is not one where Christ is found. It is divisive and not worthy of engaging in.

Peace!

 

[Aramis]

**I don’t believe that the validity of the ordinations is in question. **There is no question among Church jurists regarding the canon that regulates the ordination of bishops. Even jurists who are sympathetic to M. Lefebvre are saddened by the fact that he violated the law.

(emphasis mine)

JR: the excommunication of Fellay, et al, refers to them as priests, not as bishops. So, it could be seen that JP II himself may not have considered their ordinations to the episcopacy valid, or may have chosen to doubt that the forms were followed correctly.

It’s weak evidence, but it is important in that they were excommunicated the moment they agreed to be ordained a bishop by Lefebvre without papal permission… so at the very least, they were never Catholic bishops, since they left the public church before their illicit ordination, simply by agreeing to it.

 

[SFD]

(emphasis mine)

JR: the excommunication of Fellay, et al, refers to them as priests, not as bishops. So, it could be seen that JP II himself may not have considered their ordinations to the episcopacy valid, or may have chosen to doubt that the forms were followed correctly.

It’s weak evidence, but it is important in that they were excommunicated the moment they agreed to be ordained a bishop by Lefebvre without papal permission… so at the very least, they were never Catholic bishops, since they left the public church before their illicit ordination, simply by agreeing to it.

“At the very least”…You draw the strongest conclusion based on “weak evidence” and then call it “the very least”?

This is nonsense. Can you give us some argument based on sound Sacramental Theology?

SFD

 

[catharina]

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.

Gerard, while it seems clear that the very root of your faith is under assault by doubt, don’t bother adding my studies to your quandry. I entered Catholic grammar school in 1950, received a degree from a Catholic university in the 1960s and formally studied Canon Law in the late 1980s. That you doubt is quite clear, but please, do the math.