Salvation of Archbishop Lefebvre ?

[stmaria]

=

JReducation;3354285]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.

Joseph Ratzinger was the consulting theologian for Cardinal Frings at Vatican II and he was a member of the liberal European Alliance that gained control of the Council. I have never read that he and Woytyla had been censored by Pius XII.

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

How did Pope Paul correct the problem of the Consilium ? He shut it down for almost 2 years. Seemed Bugnini and Father Wagner had gone to far in the reform. **The Mass of the Constitution **had already been promulgated coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/ yet they continued without permission. Cardinal Cicognani the Secretary of State sent a memo to Bugnini in an effort to gain control. “I have the duty of informing you that since the Consilium in now studying the entire Ordo Missae…His Holiness wishes to know what kind of revision is being undertaken…His Holiness wishes the Consilium to exercise great caution both in organizing experiments in this area and, above all, in proposing innovations; the Holy See must be given timely notice of everything, so that under the responsibility and authority of His Holiness, it may study any possible changes proposed for the rite of celebration of the divine sacrifice.” *Reform of the Liturgy *by Annibale Bugnini

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 They have certain powers until rescinded by the Holy See.

Communion in the hand , in 1965, was an abuse. It had not been approved by the Conferences of Bishops at that time… Pope Paul sent Father Bugnini and Bishop Willebrands to have the practice stopped. Pope Paul’s request to end communion in the hand was ignored.

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.

And you believe that this is right? Communion to a Protestant is only to be given in grave situations.Before Vatican II it was a mortal sin. Did you also approve when President Bill Clinton was given communion in Africa in 1998 with approval from the Bishop? This was of course while he as having his adulterous affair.
“whoever eats of the lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned;” [Pope Pius IX Amantissimus # 3]

“Whoever eats the lamb outside of this house is unholy. Those who were not in the ark of Noah perished in the flood.” [Pope Gregory XVI Commissum Divinitus #4 ]

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.

To what god is a pagan praying to? Pagans can only pray to the devil.
Time Magazine 1986 Prayer Day at Assissi.
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962783-1,00.html
Two tribal animists from Africa intoned, “Almighty God, the Great Thumb we cannot evade in tying any knot, the Roaring Thunder that splits mighty trees, the All-Seeing Lord up on high who sees even the footprints of an antelope on a rock mass here on earth . . . you are the cornerstone of peace.” Smoking a ceremonial peace pipe, John Pretty-on-Top, a Crow Indian medicine man from Montana in full-feathered headdress, recited, “O Great Spirit, I raise my pipe to you, to your messengers the four winds, and to mother earth, who provides for your children . . . I pray that you bring peace to all my brothers and sisters of this world.”

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

It is an approved apparition.

All of these issues were being addressed by Cardinal Ratzinger

.
Yes. Religious Liberty and Ecumenism are the major roadblock between the SSPX and the Church.

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.

I believe that Lefebvre acted out of grave fear that while the Church cannot be destroyed, it can be corrupted. If the following canons do not apply to Lefebvre, when would they apply?
Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear,** even if only relatively grave**, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:
/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

 

[catharina]

=
Joseph Ratzinger was the consulting theologian for Cardinal Frings at Vatican II and he was a member of the liberal European Alliance that gained control of the Council. I have never read that he and Woytyla had been censored by Pius XII.

Maria, for starters, return to Post 123. You have mis-read JR's comment re certain bishops. The exchange was this:from maria: 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. From JR: 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.

 

[latinmasslover]

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!!!

Why do I hear more Catholics these days defend Judas but damn the Archbishop?

Keep in mind that the Archbishop was not condemned for any of his teachings, but for **one **act of disobedience. Oh my! You have a lot of nerve condemning a man for doing what he sincerely believed to be right. He did not compromise the Church or God. That was a certain other bishop who shall remain unnamed.

You condemn him for an act against the wishes of the Pope, a pope who compromised the Faith, thus setting a Protestant example (in some cases, not all).

This is why we use the term “Pope worship,” because some Catholics overlook the truth and side with the boss.

Anyone who says that breaking a law is always a sin is a fool. God acknowledges exceptions, as does the Church. An abuse of power is what the excommunication was, nothing more.

 

[latinmasslover]

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.

hooya: aka: right on!

 

[Aramis]

“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

I’m basing said argument on Canon Law. Agreeing to be ordained illicitly IS an automatic excommunication. Therefore, at the very least, they were never Catholic bishops.

It appears supported by the fact that John Paul II excommunicated the priests Bernard Fellay, et al, rather than the bishops Fellay, et al…

In any case, they are excommunicated, and are functioning as bishops, which precludes non-penitential return…

 

[GerardP]

Gerard:

Your response to Catherina was rude.

It was measured according to her wisecrack to me. I’m sure she can handle a retort to her comments. Otherwise, she wouldn’t have made it.

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.

No. It’s not an insult. It’s a fact. There is a false cult of worship surrounding the papacy fostered by the “conservatives” It’s not Catholic and it’s not even reasonable.

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.

Funny how selective you can be. "At last, a glimmer of wisdom from you. " is not disagreeing with me. What do you call it?

Catherina wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP .

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

Good. At last a glimmer of wisdom from you.

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.

No. You’ve plainly got it wrong. I don’t need to convince anyone of my views, but when they can’t issue a reasoned rebuttal they inevitably start hurling insults. The fact that I occasionally pick up a pebble and toss back should be a lesson to them to stick to an honest debate.

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?

St. Jerome, St. Pius X, St. Padre Pio, St.John Chrysostom, Christ himself called the religious leaders of his day “Vipers” “Whited Sepulchres on the outside and full of dead men’s bones on the inside.” Do you think he was trying to win them over with honeyed words?

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 about exercising a little justice and aiming your flamethrower at the instigators of the squabble?

How dare you justify your defence of truth by violating charity?

It is a charitable rebuke.

Have you not taken a close look at the saints? Holiness is not achieved through bullying. It is achieved through love.

True Charity is not some mealy mouthed love nor is it allowing someone else to make a doormat out of you. Catharina and others decide to muddy the waters when they lose their arguments on merit. So, it descends into an Irish Brawl. Best to make them work for it, since the last thing they are interested in is the truth.

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.

And what is the highest form of love? Letting someone wallow around in their ignorance? No. the highest form of Love is telling someone the plain truth that will help them get to Heaven.

Playing “nice-nice” when a good bucket of ice water may be necessary is not “charity”

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.

Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise.

When you decide that you are going to behave in a charitable manner toward others, please let us know.

I allow others to establish the rules for engagement. Treat me with respect and I’ll do the same. Take a swipe at me, and I’ll take one back if that seems prudent. There is a spirit of combat that is integral to being part of the Church Militant.

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!

I hope you’ll revisit this thread and recant your rather lopsided and sanctimonious rebuke. But I have no expectations of any of the people opposing me to be reasonable or to do reasonable things.

The most extreme of them don’t rebutt any points answered and they certainly don’t have the class to concede a point. They just ignore them as if they didn’t occur and continue to look for grist for their grindstones of hate.

The truth is the last thing they want to hear. The agenda is to end all support for Archbishop LeFebvre. They do not care if he was correct. If necessary, certain Catholic teachings go out the window. And LeFebvre must go because he stood for the Catholic faith. Whether they consciously or unconsciously imbibe in this mentality is another matter that I can’t comment on.

 

[GerardP]

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.

But Malachi Martin had a far superior education than you did. He had multiple doctorates, spoke 12 languages fluently, studied at Louvain, Oxford, Jerusalem, he taught at the Ponfitical Biblical Institute.

Why should I believe your credentials mean anything when you won’t admit even a possibility of reliability to someone that had better credentials than many Popes?

hmmm…could it be bias and prejudice on your part?

 

[catharina]

But Malachi Martin had a far superior education than you did. He had multiple doctorates, spoke 12 languages fluently, studied at Louvain, Oxford, Jerusalem, he taught at the Ponfitical Biblical Institute.

Why should I believe your credentials mean anything when you won’t admit even a possibility of reliability to someone that had better credentials than many Popes?

hmmm…could it be bias and prejudice on your part?

How fitting that you’ve ended your most recent charitable post with another insult. We have very different ideas of charity. That Malachi Martin became divisive about the Second Vatican Council is of far more interest to me than his education or my own. If you imagine that he would have stood with Lefebvre, maybe so.

 

[SFD]

I’m basing said argument on Canon Law. Agreeing to be ordained illicitly IS an automatic excommunication. Therefore, at the very least, they were never Catholic bishops.

Why? Cite your sources.

It appears supported by the fact that John Paul II excommunicated the priests Bernard Fellay, et al, rather than the bishops Fellay, et al…

To what point is this?

In any case, they are excommunicated, and are functioning as bishops, which precludes non-penitential return…

They are bishops…they have no jurisdiction however…only supplied jurisdiction.

The validity of a Sacrament is dictated by Sacramental Theology. Matter, Form, and Intention. Look it up.

SFD

 

[catharina]

… The agenda is to end all support for Archbishop LeFebvre. They do not care if he was correct. If necessary, certain Catholic teachings go out the window. And LeFebvre must go because he stood for the Catholic faith. Whether they consciously or unconsciously imbibe in this mentality is another matter that I can’t comment on.

The only true fact is that Lefebvre was excommunicated as a schismatic by the Pope who had every authority, right and responsibility to declare it so. Lefebvre stood for and stands for his own desires and perceptions rising above the Law of the Church. What is non-essential is any support for Lefebvre.

 

[marymonde]

Vatican 2 pronounced in Dignitatis Humanæ:

1. A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man. And the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty

It goes on to say:

1. This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom…[T]he right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.
2. Religious bodies also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word…In addition, **it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious bodies should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity… **

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If we are looking at Lefebvre in the light of this Vatican 2 document, he should be accorded to be “judged” in the same light as non-Catholic’s. If Vatican 2 gave the green light to protestants, atheists, etc. to believe and follow their consciences, even in heretical error, shouldn’t the same be afforded to anyone on this earth, even the Archbishop? After all, he is a human person, with dignity, as any other on this earth.

 

[catharina]

Vatican 2 pronounced in Dignitatis Humanæ:

1. A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man. And the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty

It goes on to say:

1. This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom…[T]he right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.
2. Religious bodies also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word…In addition, **it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious bodies should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity… **

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If we are looking at Lefebvre in the light of this Vatican 2 document, he should be accorded to be “judged” in the same light as non-Catholic’s. If Vatican 2 gave the green light to protestants, atheists, etc. to believe and follow their consciences, even in heretical error, shouldn’t the same be afforded to anyone on this earth, even the Archbishop? After all, he is a human person, with dignity, as any other on this earth.

You can’t possibly be suggesting that M. Lefbvre was a non-Catholic so, no, this wider net could not apply to him. He was, and was to remain, a lifelong Catholic.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.