Society Pius X, Lefebvre, Seminary Studies!!!!!

[terillmorris]

Hi all I am currently studying Theology at Saint Charles Borromeo seminary in Philadelphia. We are currently discussing the subject of Archbishop Lefebvre in my systematic theology class (this peeked my interest because the last couple of days there have been posts on here about Lefebvre).

We have discussed and examined the issue quite closely over the last three weeks. We have come to certain conclusions and Id like to share them here.

1. The 1983 Code of Canon Law in canons 1382 and 1364 explicitly states that someone who consecrates a Bishop without Papal permission is excomunicated automatically.
2. Archbishop Lefebvre did not have permission when he consecrated the four priests as bishops.
3. Pope John Paul II clearly states in Ecclesia Dei that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act and incurs the penalty of automatic excommunication.
4. The Pope also says that the Archbishop, in effect, denies the Traditional teaching of obedience to the Vicar of Christ. The Holy Father aslo says that the Archbishp in effect denies the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
5. THe Pope also states and warns the faithful not to support the Archbishop’s movement in any way or they to will suffer excommunication.

Ok now how about Lefebvre’s arguments for doing what he did.

We came to the following conclusions:

1. Lefebvre’s arguments were entirely subjective:

examples :Lefebvre argument (taken from the Society’s web site) The Archbishop consecrated the Bishops out of necessity. That Catholic tradition needed to be preserved, so the Archbishop was justified in doing what he did.
response: Who decides whether or not it is necessary? It is obvious that we cannot have any particular Bishop deciding on his own when it is gravely necessary to consecrate Bishops without papal permission. How can the Archbishop on his own decide to go ahead with the consecrations just because he "feels " it is necessary.
Lefebvre argument: The Archbishop truly believed he was a cting in good conscience and that he believed it was necessary that he consecrate these Bishops.
response: Well these really creates a terrible situation. Where as any Bishop or Priest could go forth and argue they disobeyed the Pope because “their conscience” told them otherwise.

Lefebvre argument: The Vatican wouldnt give ane exact date for the conscecrations. The Archbishop had to act due to his age and poor health(to presevere tradition).
response: The Pope didnt have to give any permission or any date. This is no reason to disobey. The Pope is under no obligation to give any permission at all for the conscecrations.

1. These responses ( against the subjective arguments of Lefebvre and his supporters) can be applied to almost, if not all, the arguments in favor of the Archbishop.
2. In conclusion the Pope deemed The Archbishop and anyone who supports his movement excommunicated and in grave danger.

I reccomend all to read the first part of the HOly Father’s Letter Ecclesia Dei-----Thank you!!!

 

[Genesis315]

Thanks for taking the time to post, but this issue has been rehashed over and over again–understanding hasn’t really seemed to increase

 

[bear06]

1. Archbishop Lefebvre did not have permission when he consecrated the four priests as bishops.

Not only did he not have permission, he was told not to.

examples :Lefebvre argument (taken from the Society’s web site) The Archbishop consecrated the Bishops out of necessity. That Catholic tradition needed to be preserved, so the Archbishop was justified in doing what he did.
response: Who decides whether or not it is necessary? It is obvious that we cannot have any particular Bishop deciding on his own when it is gravely necessary to consecrate Bishops without papal permission. How can the Archbishop on his own decide to go ahead with the consecrations just because he "feels " it is necessary.

Right. He lost use of this clause when the Holy Father told him not to do it. He fully new the mind of the legislator. This wasn’t some bishop who was incommuncado with the Holy See and felt he had necessity. This one someone who had many communications with the Holy Father on the issue. We have a term in the Church and it does mean something. Rome has spoken!

Here’s another one that might interest you if you haven’t seen it before. sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html

 

[GerardP]

Your class has failed to discuss the subjectivity of John Paul II in the matter.

This is why St. Charles is a virtually empty seminary.

Questions that need to be considered that the Seminary would be afraid to tackle.

1. Why did John Paul II deliberately choose to ignore the Canons 1323 and 1324 in LeFebvre’s defense?
2. Why did John Paul II require LeFebvre to sign a note asking for pardon for his errors after LeFebvre had signed the protocol agreement with Card. Ratzinger? And why were LeFebvre’s errors never stated explicitly?

As it turns out, with the issuance of Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI, Archbishop LeFebvre was correct when he said the TLM was never abrogated and was illegally suppressed.

1. In Ecclesia Dei JPII purports to know the interior disposition of Archbishop LeFebvre against the testimony of his professed statements. This is directly against the teaching of the Church. Specifically mentioned in St. Pius X’s Pascendi. “the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge,”

From Ecclesia Dei:

Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.

That is a complete non-sequitur on the part of the Holy Father. And it’s the wrong use of “implies.” He means to say “infers.”

Not to mention the entirety of paragraph 4 which is useless, meaningless, subjective gobbledygook.

more later…

 

[terillmorris]

Your class has failed to discuss the subjectivity of John Paul II in the matter.

This is why St. Charles is a virtually empty seminary.

Questions that need to be considered that the Seminary would be afraid to tackle.

1. Why did John Paul II deliberately choose to ignore the Canons 1323 and 1324 in LeFebvre’s defense?
2. Why did John Paul II require LeFebvre to sign a note asking for pardon for his errors after LeFebvre had signed the protocol agreement with Card. Ratzinger? And why were LeFebvre’s errors never stated explicitly?

As it turns out, with the issuance of Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI, Archbishop LeFebvre was correct when he said the TLM was never abrogated and was illegally suppressed.

1. In Ecclesia Dei JPII purports to know the interior disposition of Archbishop LeFebvre against the testimony of his professed statements. This is directly against the teaching of the Church. Specifically mentioned in St. Pius X’s Pascendi. “the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge,”

From Ecclesia Dei:

That is a complete non-sequitur on the part of the Holy Father. And it’s the wrong use of “implies.” He means to say “infers.”

Not to mention the entirety of paragraph 4 which is useless, meaningless, subjective gobbledygook.

more later…

Nice try but Lefebvre’s errors were stated explicitly. He didnt have permission to consecrate the Bishops, but did it anyway. If that doesnt imply a rejection of the teaching that obedience to the Vicar of Christ is necessary I dont know what is?

1. Lefebvre knew that canon law said he shouldnt consecrate Bishops without permission. But he did it anyway–(he did it with" the Catholic world watching)

2.The word “imply” means that Lefebvre certainly could have believed that it was Catholic doctrine that a Catholic has to obey the Vicar of Christ, but in his actions (specifically because he was warned not to and because his act was so public and the fact that he did not repent from his actions) he denied this teaching.

1. Also I think you and others are mistaken. The Pope doesnt have to give any reason at all. He can say " I dont feel like given you permission and you must like it" and you are bound to obey. This is a disciplinary matter and the Pope can say “NO!” just because, as parents often say, I SAID SO!!!
2. Whether or not you like or dont like the Pope’s explanation. Whether or not you think the Pope is not judging acurately. Whether or not you think it would have been good to have more traditional bishops. It doesnt matter!!! The Pope said no. A faithful Catholic must obey!!! Lefebvre didnt!!!

 

[GerardP]

1. Lefebvre’s arguments were entirely subjective:

Actually LeFebvre being a Thomist was objective and John Paul II being the phenomenologist was the subjective one.

examples :Lefebvre argument (taken from the Society’s web site) The Archbishop consecrated the Bishops out of necessity. That Catholic tradition needed to be preserved, so the Archbishop was justified in doing what he did.

response: Who decides whether or not it is necessary?

Not decides. Determines is the correct word. When cutting a piece of wood for a shelf, you don’t decide the angle you cut at. You calculate the angle that is needed. That is how anyone determines necessity for anything.

It is obvious that we cannot have any particular Bishop deciding on his own when it is gravely necessary to consecrate Bishops without papal permission.

Not true. And it’s not obvious. History has not always required bishops to have the Pope’s permission and the Eastern code of Canon law does not require a papal mandate for bishops.

How can the Archbishop on his own decide to go ahead with the consecrations just because he "feels " it is necessary.

What should a bishop do when in a state of emergency? When the Pope is unwilling to address issues, when the Pope is incapacitated and the flock needs to be tended, a bishop as a successor to the Apostles must act for the salvation of souls and for the good of his own soul.

Lefebvre argument: The Archbishop truly believed he was a acting in good conscience and that he believed it was necessary that he consecrate these Bishops.

response: Well these really creates a terrible situation. Where as any Bishop or Priest could go forth and argue they disobeyed the Pope because “their conscience” told them otherwise.

Who creates a terrible situation? How about JPII’s and Paul VI’s actions creating a terrible situation?

Sometimes disobedience to a Pope may be necessary to a well-formed conscience and it may be the right action. Vatican I calls for “true” hierarchical obedience. Not servile obedience. Thomas Aquinas teaches three kinds of obedience. Perfect, True and false. False obedience is sinful.

The fact is, LeFebvre would not have had to disobey a better Pope. The terrible situation is the one that was fostered by the failings of John Paul II that forced a traditional bishop to pick the slack left by the Pope.

Is Archbishop LeFebvre responsible for any of the following?

1. False ecumenism and the abominable Assisi meetings?
2. Communion in the hand which has contributed to loss of reverence and belief in the Real Presence?
3. Misguided relations with other religions that don’t even know that Catholics believe they must convert to the one true Church?
4. Abominable papal liturgies produced by the recently ousted archbishop Marini (pupil of Annibale Bugnini)
5. Confused, shadowy phenomenological musings in book length encyclicals that only sow doubt and destroy the clarity of the Catholic faith as expressed in the Catechism of the Council of Trent?
6. Apologies for the Catholic Church’s behavior in the past? Essentially capitulating to a false notion of the history of the Church?
7. Altar girls
8. Tolerating the most dangerous and damaging theologians and progressives at all levels in the Church
9. Promoting some of the most heterodox people to the highest ranks in the Church?

That’s just the tip of the Iceberg.

And who thinks LeFebvre was not correct in stating the Church was in a state of emergency with Pope Benedict being the only person in Rome who seemed to know it?

The current Holy Father has validated LeFebvre in his actions despite JPII’s selective and subjective opinions.

 

[piouswoman]

Actually LeFebvre being a Thomist was objective and John Paul II being the phenomenologist was the subjective one.

Not decides. Determines is the correct word. When cutting a piece of wood for a shelf, you don’t decide the angle you cut at. You calculate the angle that is needed. That is how anyone determines necessity for anything.

Not true. And it’s not obvious. History has not always required bishops to have the Pope’s permission and the Eastern code of Canon law does not require a papal mandate for bishops.

What should a bishop do when in a state of emergency? When the Pope is unwilling to address issues, when the Pope is incapacitated and the flock needs to be tended, a bishop as a successor to the Apostles must act for the salvation of souls and for the good of his own soul.

Who creates a terrible situation? How about JPII’s and Paul VI’s actions creating a terrible situation?

Sometimes disobedience to a Pope may be necessary to a well-formed conscience and it may be the right action. Vatican I calls for “true” hierarchical obedience. Not servile obedience. Thomas Aquinas teaches three kinds of obedience. Perfect, True and false. False obedience is sinful.

The fact is, LeFebvre would not have had to disobey a better Pope. The terrible situation is the one that was fostered by the failings of John Paul II that forced a traditional bishop to pick the slack left by the Pope.

Is Archbishop LeFebvre responsible for any of the following?

1. False ecumenism and the abominable Assisi meetings?
2. Communion in the hand which has contributed to loss of reverence and belief in the Real Presence?
3. Misguided relations with other religions that don’t even know that Catholics believe they must convert to the one true Church?
4. Abominable papal liturgies produced by the recently ousted archbishop Marini (pupil of Annibale Bugnini)
5. Confused, shadowy phenomenological musings in book length encyclicals that only sow doubt and destroy the clarity of the Catholic faith as expressed in the Catechism of the Council of Trent?
6. Apologies for the Catholic Church’s behavior in the past? Essentially capitulating to a false notion of the history of the Church?
7. Altar girls
8. Tolerating the most dangerous and damaging theologians and progressives at all levels in the Church
9. Promoting some of the most heterodox people to the highest ranks in the Church?

That’s just the tip of the Iceberg.

And who thinks LeFebvre was not correct in stating the Church was in a state of emergency with Pope Benedict being the only person in Rome who seemed to know it?

The current Holy Father has validated LeFebvre in his actions despite JPII’s selective and subjective opinions.

Excellent reply!

 

[GerardP]

Nice try but Lefebvre’s errors were stated explicitly.

No. They weren’t. Saying, “He misunderstands” without saying what he misunderstands is not being explicit. It’s being evasive.

He didnt have permission to consecrate the Bishops, but did it anyway.

A bishop had been promised to him during the sessions of the protocol agreement. The fact that Rome kept issuing delaying actions indicated to LeFebvre that they were not acting in good faith and were simply trying to outwait him.

If that doesnt imply a rejection of the teaching that obedience to the Vicar of Christ is necessary I dont know what is?

Obviously you can’t possibly believe that absolute obedience is due to the Holy Father in all situations. The trial of Pope Formosus should be enough evidence that resisting and disobeying a Pope is sometimes the only moral path.

1. Lefebvre knew that canon law said he shouldnt consecrate Bishops without permission. But he did it anyway–(he did it with" the Catholic world watching)

Yes. I’ve watched it. Just as I’ve watched the disintegration of the local parishes over the last 4 decades.

But Canon law is not established for the purpose of destroying the Catholic faith. A man breaks a law against trespassing in order to pull someone out of a burning building, the higher law is the salvation of souls.

2.The word “imply” means that Lefebvre certainly could have believed that it was Catholic doctrine that a Catholic has to obey the Vicar of Christ, but in his actions (specifically because he was warned not to and because his act was so public and the fact that he did not repent from his actions) he denied this teaching.

So, does that mean that JPII’s persecution of LeFebvre was a case of JPII implying that he intended to destroy all tradition in the Church in order to remake it in his own image?

On one side of your argument you accuse LeFebvre of being subjective but you bend over backwards to skew your argument to avoid any evidence of JPII being subjective or objectively wrong for that matter.

1. Also I think you and others are mistaken. The Pope doesnt have to give any reason at all. He can say " I dont feel like given you permission and you must like it" and you are bound to obey. This is a disciplinary matter and the Pope can say “NO!” just because, as parents often say, I SAID SO!!!

No. You have a very simplistic understanding of what obedience is. The etymology of “obey” means “to hear” just as “respect” means "to look back towards. " In both of those cases, you take into consideration what is being said and what is being heard and you apply that to the situation and act for the right.

Now if the Pope is unreasonable or acting in a way that would endanger himself, his soul or the more importantly the souls of others, he must be resisted. You’ll find this expressed by Pope’s themselves. From Innocent III to Pius IX along with St. Paul and some of the greatest theologians in the Church. From Augustine, Aquinas, Bellarmine all the way up to von Hildebrand.

1. Whether or not you like or dont like the Pope’s explanation. Whether or not you think the Pope is not judging acurately. Whether or not you think it would have been good to have more traditional bishops. It doesnt matter!!! The Pope said no. A faithful Catholic must obey!!! Lefebvre didnt!

This is just evidence that you are being brainwashed and not educated at the seminary. Vatican I says “true obedience” whether you like it or not, that council was formed under the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and given an infallible imprimatur by being adopted.

The fact that you may want it to be “absolute obedience” is irrelevant. You either accept the Catholic faith as it is and the responsibility that you have to be an adult even in the face of papal authority when it’s just or resist it when it’s being abused, or you get out before you hurt yourself and many souls in the process.

“But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned.”–St. Paul speaking the word of God.

 

[terillmorris]

Actually LeFebvre being a Thomist was objective and John Paul II being the phenomenologist was the subjective one.

Not decides. Determines is the correct word. When cutting a piece of wood for a shelf, you don’t decide the angle you cut at. You calculate the angle that is needed. That is how anyone determines necessity for anything.

Not true. And it’s not obvious. History has not always required bishops to have the Pope’s permission and the Eastern code of Canon law does not require a papal mandate for bishops.

What should a bishop do when in a state of emergency? When the Pope is unwilling to address issues, when the Pope is incapacitated and the flock needs to be tended, a bishop as a successor to the Apostles must act for the salvation of souls and for the good of his own soul.

Who creates a terrible situation? How about JPII’s and Paul VI’s actions creating a terrible situation?

Sometimes disobedience to a Pope may be necessary to a well-formed conscience and it may be the right action. Vatican I calls for “true” hierarchical obedience. Not servile obedience. Thomas Aquinas teaches three kinds of obedience. Perfect, True and false. False obedience is sinful.

The fact is, LeFebvre would not have had to disobey a better Pope. The terrible situation is the one that was fostered by the failings of John Paul II that forced a traditional bishop to pick the slack left by the Pope.

Is Archbishop LeFebvre responsible for any of the following?

1. False ecumenism and the abominable Assisi meetings?
2. Communion in the hand which has contributed to loss of reverence and belief in the Real Presence?
3. Misguided relations with other religions that don’t even know that Catholics believe they must convert to the one true Church?
4. Abominable papal liturgies produced by the recently ousted archbishop Marini (pupil of Annibale Bugnini)
5. Confused, shadowy phenomenological musings in book length encyclicals that only sow doubt and destroy the clarity of the Catholic faith as expressed in the Catechism of the Council of Trent?
6. Apologies for the Catholic Church’s behavior in the past? Essentially capitulating to a false notion of the history of the Church?
7. Altar girls
8. Tolerating the most dangerous and damaging theologians and progressives at all levels in the Church
9. Promoting some of the most heterodox people to the highest ranks in the Church?

That’s just the tip of the Iceberg.

And who thinks LeFebvre was not correct in stating the Church was in a state of emergency with Pope Benedict being the only person in Rome who seemed to know it?

The current Holy Father has validated LeFebvre in his actions despite JPII’s selective and subjective opinions.

Look what you just did!!! All subjective!! " Communion in the hand is bad" says who??? Who promotes false ecumenism? etc etc–all your examples are totally subjective.

It is like Protestanism. You take circumstances and decide for yourself what is right. Just like the Archbishop did even if it is against the Holy father’s madates.

I dont care if there were certain times (or if the eastern code doesnt require this) when there wasnt a mandate for Papal permission to consecrate Bishops. The bottom line is that there was when Lefebvre was alive. He was specifically told not to do what he did. He did it anyway. You are defending disobedience to the Pontiff. How dare you?

 

[GerardP]

The problem with most of these threads is the a priori assumption that Archbishop LeFebvre sprang up out of nowhere and proceeded to “do things.”

What is always difficult for the “conservative” to see is the fact that LeFebvre acted in reaction to liberal actions. Namely, infiltration of the Church because of the inaction of Popes Paul VI and JPII.

The question is not the legalisms of what JPII ruled regarding the state of necessity. He provoked the stated of necessity and it’s self-evident today and it’s only now that Pope Benedict is beginning to tackle it. (God give him the strength and time!)

It just goes to show that when the Popes exercise their free will as men and do not govern the Church wisely, God will raise someone up who will carry on until a true Apostle is placed on the Chairof Peter again.

 

[GerardP]

Look what you just did!!! All subjective!! " Communion in the hand is bad" says who???

Besides Paul VI in Memoriale Domini?

Beside JPII in Dominicae Cenae back in 1981 when he tried to suppress it?

The only problem was they were both all talk and no action when it came to protecting sacred things.

How about last week when the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments? “I think the time has come to evaluate these practices and to review them and, if necessary, to abandon the current practice,” Archbishop Ranjith said.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0800606.htm

Who promotes false ecumenism? etc etc–all your examples are totally subjective.

No. I can back them all up. Pope Benedict’s recent revision to the prayer for the Conversion of the Jews in the 1962 missal has provoked numerous rebukes from Jews that actually believe the Church stopped teaching this essential dogma; that salvation is found in the Church established by Jesus Christ.

JPII’s form of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue are nowhere near the goals and clarity and methods established by John XXIII and Cardinal Augustin Bea. Read “On the Unity of Christians” by Bea. It’s a collection of interview and speeches he gave between 1960 and 63. It sounds like Bishop Williamson of the SSPX.

It is like Protestanism. You take circumstances and decide for yourself what is right.

No. It’s like Catholicism. Natural law and the reason are not abandoned. Discernment is a Catholic trait. Wisdom, knowledge, understanding are all gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Church Militant is established to fight for the Truth.

Just like the Archbishop did even if it is against the Holy father’s madates.

Which were utterly insane from an objective standpoint.

I dont care if there were certain times (or if the eastern code doesnt require this) when there wasnt a mandate for Papal permission to consecrate Bishops.

But your argument is based on the consequences of not having a papal mandate. As shown by history and circumstances, the situation would not necessarily be grave if papal mandates were not needed.

The bottom line is that there was when Lefebvre was alive. He was specifically told not to do what he did. He did it anyway. You are defending disobedience to the Pontiff. How dare you?

Simply because LeFebvre was justified in what he did. He wasn’t overturning anything that he’d been taught. He was preventing the overturning of everything he’d been taught and sworn an oath to defend.

And since we’re grandstanding, how dare you defend the indefensible behavior of the late Holy Father? God rest his soul and have mercy on him because he presided over some of the worst destruction of the Church in it’s entire history. He promoted progressives, provoked heresy and indifferentism and systematically worked against any restoration of traditional Catholicism.

 

[terillmorris]

The problem with most of these threads is the a priori assumption that Archbishop LeFebvre sprang up out of nowhere and proceeded to “do things.”

What is always difficult for the “conservative” to see is the fact that LeFebvre acted in reaction to liberal actions. Namely, infiltration of the Church because of the inaction of Popes Paul VI and JPII.

The question is not the legalisms of what JPII ruled regarding the state of necessity. He provoked the stated of necessity and it’s self-evident today and it’s only now that Pope Benedict is beginning to tackle it. (God give him the strength and time!)

It just goes to show that when the Popes exercise their free will as men and do not govern the Church wisely, God will raise someone up who will carry on until a true Apostle is placed on the Chairof Peter again.

Unbelievable!!! It doesnt matter whether Lefebvre “sprang out of nowhere” or not. The bottom line is that the Pope told him not too do what he did. It was purely a disciplinary matter and you cant justify Lefebvre’s action other than stating specific subjective circumstances that the Archbishop deemed necessary to disobey the Pope. An example is your argument (in the above post) that the Pope “provoked the state of necessity” and then you say it is “self evident” --PLEASE!!!-- who says he provoked it? I hate to break it to you, but just because you say it is “self evident” doesnt make it so!!!
You cant run and you cant hide from the fact that your beloved Archbishop disobeyed the Pope, and was excomunicated for it!!!
You arguments are weak. You state a specific circumstance and draw a conlclusion (subjectively) that the reaction from the Archbishop is justified—Your wrong I say so and more importantly the Pope says so!!!

 

[timjp77]

Look what you just did!!! All subjective!! " Communion in the hand is bad" says who??? Who promotes false ecumenism? etc etc–all your examples are totally subjective.

It is like Protestanism. You take circumstances and decide for yourself what is right. Just like the Archbishop did even if it is against the Holy father’s madates.

I dont care if there were certain times (or if the eastern code doesnt require this) when there wasnt a mandate for Papal permission to consecrate Bishops. The bottom line is that there was when Lefebvre was alive. He was specifically told not to do what he did. He did it anyway. You are defending disobedience to the Pontiff. How dare you?

How dare you question what a Bishop of the Church determined was best for his flock at the time.

Lefebvre had a flock to care for and he made a determination that he needed a replacement. He knew his time was coming to an end and the Vatican was going to continue to stall in it’s promise that he’d get a bishop to replace him.

Did you even bother to read any of the above repsonses? All of them appear to be well thought out, logical and educated responses. Your youth and inexperience is evident in your reactionary responses without ever addressing the points raised.

Just how full is St Charles Borromeo seminary compared to the Society’s seminary in MN or to the FSSP seminary in Nebraska?

 

[terillmorris]

How dare you question what a Bishop of the Church determined was best for his flock at the time.

Lefebvre had a flock to care for and he made a determination that he needed a replacement. He knew his time was coming to an end and the Vatican was going to continue to stall in it’s promise that he’d get a bishop to replace him.

Did you even bother to read any of the above repsonses? All of them appear to be well thought out, logical and educated responses. Your youth and inexperience is evident in your reactionary responses without ever addressing the points raised.

Just how full is St Charles Borromeo seminary compared to the Society’s seminary in MN or to the FSSP seminary in Nebraska?

Oh so a Bishop can do anything if he thunks it is necessary for his flock? PLEASE!! The Pope told Lefebvre not to do what he did, yet he did it anyway—shame on you for defending him!!!

 

[catharina]

The problem with most of these threads is the a priori assumption that Archbishop LeFebvre sprang up out of nowhere and proceeded to “do things.”

1. What is always difficult for the “conservative” to see is the fact that LeFebvre acted in reaction to liberal actions. Namely, infiltration of the Church because of the inaction of Popes Paul VI and JPII.

2. The question is not the legalisms of what JPII ruled regarding the state of necessity. He provoked the stated of necessity and it’s self-evident today and it’s only now that Pope Benedict is beginning to tackle it. (God give him the strength and time!)

3. It just goes to show that when the Popes exercise their free will as men and do not govern the Church wisely, God will raise someone up who will carry on until a true Apostle is placed on the Chairof Peter again.

Straw men, every one. Tinged with psychopathology too.

1. Oh I get it.
Liberals = wrong.
Traditionalists become wrong.

**So Two Wrongs DO make a Right. **

~~~

2. The first and last cry of the abusive personality …
"he provoked me and that made me abuse him."

**Lefebvre was perfect until that Pope JP II “provoked” him. **

~~~

3. Lefebvre ws the true pope-in-waiting for the needy legalists.
Now they “hope” Benedict XVI will see things their way.

Not a chance.

 

[SFD]

Simply because LeFebvre was justified in what he did. He wasn’t overturning anything that he’d been taught. He was preventing the overturning of everything he’d been taught and sworn an oath to defend.

This is correct.

And please read what Archbishop Lefebvre described only one year after the Council closed, “In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.” And, "In fact, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis [Teacher of Truth]."

SFD

 

[terillmorris]

This is correct.

And please read what Archbishop Lefebvre described only one year after the Council closed, “In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.” And, "In fact, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis [Teacher of Truth]."

SFD

Well that is heresy Rome is the unique teacher of the truth!!!(I hope I am understanding you beloved Archbishop correctly)

 

[SFD]

Well that is heresy Rome is the unique teacher of the truth!!!(I hope I am understanding you beloved Archbishop correctly)

“In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.” And, “In fact, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis [Teacher of Truth]
.”

He is saying that the council is an anti-council because of what it did…he knows full well that Rome is “the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis [Teacher of Truth]”. He is contrasting what he knows to be true with what happened at the council.

You can’t separate the two sentences in the quote.

SFD

 

[GerardP]

Straw men, every one. Tinged with psychopathology too.

Not at all.

1. Oh I get it.
Liberals = wrong.
Traditionalists become wrong.

No. This is how it goes.

Liberals are wrong.

Popes do nothing.

People ask for help.

LeFebvre answers.

Liberals wrong.

Popes wrong.

LeFebvre right.

**So Two Wrongs DO make a Right. **

If the liberals are wrong and the Popes do nothing. God makes a right and sends LeFebvre and others like him.

2. The first and last cry of the abusive personality …
"he provoked me and that made me abuse him."

So you’re saying the JPII’s cry was “I’m abusing LeFebvre because he abuse me?”

**Lefebvre was perfect until that Pope JP II “provoked” him. **

No. JPII provoked error and promoted liberals. LeFebvre reacted to this bad behavior by supplying what the faithful requested of him when the Pope would not.

3. Lefebvre ws the true pope-in-waiting for the needy legalists.

No. More like St. Paul resisting St. Peter in his errors.

Now they “hope” Benedict XVI will see things their way.

Not a chance.

Benedict sure isn’t seeing things JPII’s way. And that’s a real good sign.

 

[GerardP]

Well that is heresy Rome is the unique teacher of the truth!!!(I hope I am understanding you beloved Archbishop correctly)

Rome is only a city. The Bishop of that city is the unique teacher (when he invokes the power of the magisterium) When the Pope was in Avignon, “Rome” was in Avignon.