Terril - as was feared, some who supported sspx are still in support of Lefevbre. It’s a horror and a tragedy and I’m very grateful to learn the truth of Tradition is upheld at St. Charles Borremeo (including that fact of the severity required when one who’s been ordained is fully in public rebellion and deserving of the excommunication he earned). I’ll keep you in my prayers.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.
Ok now how about Lefebvre’s arguments for doing what he did.
- 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.
- Archbishop Lefebvre did not have permission when he consecrated the four priests as bishops.
- Pope John Paul II clearly states in Ecclesia Dei that Archbishop Lefebvre committed a schismatic act and incurs the penalty of automatic excommunication.
- 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.
- THe Pope also states and warns the faithful not to support the Archbishop’s movement in any way or they to will suffer excommunication.
We came to the following conclusions:
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.
- Lefebvre’s arguments were entirely subjective:
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.
I reccomend all to read the first part of the HOly Father’s Letter Ecclesia Dei-----Thank you!!!
- 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.
- In conclusion the Pope deemed The Archbishop and anyone who supports his movement excommunicated and in grave danger.
The Pope told him not to help the faithful get to Heaven with the faith as handed on. LeFebvre rightly disobeyed.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.
No. It was far more political than disciplinary. They were going to let LeFebvre simply die out, but when he threatened to consecrate bishops. Rome didn’t want to deal with that. Because Bishops mean that the SSPX can continue indefinitely and grow. And that means people and money and contributions and most of all power.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.
His own actions were scandalous. Do you really need to see the picture of him kissing the Koran? The Vicar of Christ kissing that abominable blasphemous book?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 know. It is so, whether I say it or not.I hate to break it to you, but just because you say it is “self evident” doesnt make it so!!!
I fully admit he was disobedient but just in doing so. The excommunication was intrinsically invalid.You cant run and you cant hide from the fact that your beloved Archbishop disobeyed the Pope, and was excomunicated for it!!!
My arguments are weak? I dealt directly with your seminary classes responses. Do more than throw stones. Deal with the arguments.You arguments are weak.
But neither of you are dealing with the objective reality of the situation.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!!!
The only relevant question is whether Lefebvre owed obdience to the Holy Father or was Lefebvre the special case that was above the law?Do you believe the Pope is entitled to absolute obedience in all things? Yes or No?
One must obey the Pope in all lawful matters unless one is commanded to commit an evil act.Do you believe the Pope is entitled to absolute obedience in all things? Yes or No?
Yes and on Sunday you only have to cross City Line Ave and walk 1 block up 63rd Street to see a beautiful TLM offered at Our Lady of Lourdes at 7:30 am. You can thank Archbishop LeFebvre for that, becuase it wouldn’t be around if not for him.I’m very grateful to learn the truth of Tradition is upheld at St. Charles Borremeo
LeFebvre owed 'true" obedience to the Holy Father. Not servile obedience.The only relevant question is whether Lefebvre owed obdience to the Holy Father or was Lefebvre the special case that was above the law?
At least SFD is consistent which is more than what can be said for the SSPX. They like to occupy a mushy middle ground where one can acknowledge the Pope’s legitimate authority and then at the same time, disobey his authority. It’s intellectual schizophrenia of the highest order!well sfd just informed me in a private message that he is a sedevacantist!!! so I guees the arguments, I made earlier, about the Pope telling Lefebvre not to do what he did doesnt apply. Because he beleives JPII wasnt the Pope—WHY DIDNT YOU SAY THAT SFD? I It would have made things easier because you dont accept JPII’s rulings!!! You might as well be quiet about this incident(Lefebvre) then because Lefebve believed JPII was the Pope —BIG DIFFERNCE!!!
It might be just as obvious to those who apprecate logic, that without Lefevbre and his pack of the disgruntled, the TLM would have become more available and much sooner than it did with its problematical tie to Lefebvre and his “demands.”Yes and on Sunday you only have to cross City Line Ave and walk 1 block up 63rd Street to see a beautiful TLM offered at Our Lady of Lourdes at 7:30 am. You can thank Archbishop LeFebvre for that, becuase it wouldn’t be around if not for him.
The seminarians used to have to sneak out of St. Charles and go to underground masses to see the TLM back in the 1980’s.
Standing by and doing nothing when the faithful are crying for help is sinful. Cooperating in the destruction of the Church is sinful.One must obey the Pope in all lawful matters unless one is commanded to commit an evil act.
The act of NOT consecrating bishops is not an evil act. Period.
Sure there is. What you mean is there really is no debate you can win on this matter.There is really no debate on any of this.
Plus, think of the hundreds of thousands of mortal sins his priests committed everytime they said the Mass. Or the thousands of SSPX adherents who are in hell because their sins were never really forgiven. Or what about the poor couples living in sin because they are not actually married. Oh, but all of that is worth it because our schismatic hero “saved” a form of the liturgy. Well, yippee. How nice of him to do it in such a radically sinful fashion! And at the expense of the souls of others. What a hero!It might be just as obvious to those who apprecate logic, that without Lefevbre and his pack of the disgruntled, the TLM would have become more available and much sooner than it did with its problematical tie to Lefebvre and his “demands.”
Not at all. The sedevacantis position is more sane and honest than the conservative position because it acknowledges the reality of the crisis confronting the Church.At least SFD is consistent which is more than what can be said for the SSPX. They like to occupy a mushy middle ground where one can acknowledge the Pope’s legitimate authority and then at the same time, disobey his authority. It’s intellectual schizophrenia of the highest order!
No. It’s still not a sin to not consecrate a bishop. He did a bad thing and he ultimately paid the price.Standing by and doing nothing when the faithful are crying for help is sinful. Cooperating in the destruction of the Church is sinful.
Sure there is. What you mean is there really is no debate you can win on this matter.
Thank you for sharing this info, Terril. I’ve wondered at times how many on this forum are actually in that camp - but silent (or private) about the fact, knowing the data would fully discredit them with Catholics.well sfd just informed me in a private message that he is a sedevacantist!!! so I guees the arguments, I made earlier, about the Pope telling Lefebvre not to do what he did doesnt apply. Because he beleives JPII wasnt the Pope—WHY DIDNT YOU SAY THAT SFD? I It would have made things easier because you dont accept JPII’s rulings!!! You might as well be quiet about this incident(Lefebvre) then because Lefebve believed JPII was the Pope —BIG DIFFERNCE!!!
HA.papal impeccability
That’s nothing but fantasy.It might be just as obvious to those who apprecate logic, that without Lefevbre and his pack of the disgruntled, the TLM would have become more available and much sooner than it did with its problematical tie to Lefebvre and his “demands.”
LeFebvre was on the preparatory commission for the Council. After the council he retired quietly. He didn’t set up the SSPX till 1970 when requested to by seminarians and their parents in Rome because they were being taught heresy.Since someone posted on this thread that Lefevbre began his complaints and demands the year after the council ended (!!!) he was hardly in a position to be easily trusted with the growth of the grace-filled foundation and spread of the TLM.
Like a mustard seed… or David…or a babe in a manger i Bethlehem. Of small things, great things come.sspx, etc., is a very small movement -
Like many souls in hell. Unfortunately, that is all Lefevbre’s legacy.Of small things, great things come.
No one would because they would be exposed. But they imbibe in the attitude of it.HA.You always say this but no one here is claiming it.
Umm…Don’t Catholics have to take responsibility for what they do and fail to do? Answer: Yes.There is no “Thou shalt not not consecrate bishops”
Nope. There is a matter of justice that must be fulfilled. Perhaps it will be Pope Benedict, perhaps not, but it will happen.Lefevbre is a dead schismatic excommunicated guy. It’s over. Life and the Church move on. There are better days ahead
Again, that’s like accusing the fire department of trespassing.Plus, think of the hundreds of thousands of mortal sins his priests committed everytime they said the Mass.
Supplied Juridiction.Or the thousands of SSPX adherents who are in hell because their sins were never really forgiven.
They are validly married. The priest only witnesses a marriage. The couple marries each other.Or what about the poor couples living in sin because they are not actually married.
Sorry if it doesn’t live up to your favorite form of clown mass.Oh, but all of that is worth it because our schismatic hero “saved” a form of the liturgy. Well, yippee.
I’m trying to figure out if you are simply hopelessly confused or diabolically controlled in that you consistently run around looking to trash archbishop LeFebvre and rehash arguments that you clearly know are not valid.How nice of him to do it in such a radically sinful fashion! And at the expense of the souls of others. What a hero!
well sfd just informed me **in a private message **that he is a sedevacantist!!! so I guees the arguments, I made earlier, about the Pope telling Lefebvre not to do what he did doesnt apply. Because he beleives JPII wasnt the Pope—WHY DIDNT YOU SAY THAT SFD? I It would have made things easier because you dont accept JPII’s rulings!!! You might as well be quiet about this incident(Lefebvre) then because Lefebve believed JPII was the Pope —BIG DIFFERNCE!!!