some say the Lefebvre is the disobedient one. yet, how many bishops who accept the changes but act in totally disobedience to the pope is not called disobedient. how about priests who are in disobedience to the teachings of the Church? no one say they are in disobedience and if they are, they are ok. this is the mentality of many. these disobedient bishops and priests have all the support of the people even if they are in error. think about this.I agree; there’s disobedience all around. But why stoop to the level of others who are disobedient?
What Lefebvre did was objectively wrong; I make no claim as to the state of his soul. Even if he wasn’t culpable for any sin in this instance, it still wouldn’t make what he did morally right; it would just lessen or eliminate his personal culpability.
What doesn’t make sense is why Lefebvre wouldn’t submit to the Pope’s judgment.
God’s will can be found in the orders of one’s superiors. So goes a quote from some saint (I can’t remember which). I’m also reminded of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque – Jesus advised her to obey her superior even if what her superior said conflicted with what He wanted her to do (we’re not talking issues of sin here – read a biography on her and you’ll understand what I mean).
It’s a fact! If the SSPX had humbled themselves and submitted to legitimate authority, they would have been reconciled a long time ago! Yes, they have legitimate concerns and problems, but they could have ALREADY met with Church leaders and ironed out such difficulties and thus bypassed this predicament they’ve created for themselves.
There may not have been so many priests offering the TLM and other traditional sacramental forms at the time, but there were nevertheless MANY offering the Mass and the sacraments. While I much prefer the Extraordinary Form Mass over the Ordinary Form any day, I know that going to one over the other won’t in itself make me holy – I have to have the proper dispositions as well (which would be necessary regardless of whether I went to EF or OF). The traditional sacraments won’t help save souls just because the sacraments are traditional; it’s the grace derived from said sacraments that helps save souls – no matter whether the rite is pre- or post-Vatican II. Besides, God is in control here, and while the whole Lefebvre affair merely goes to show He can (and does) bring good out of bad situations, the TLM could very well have been brought back into the mainstream even sooner had Lefebvre obeyed. Then, during the time when bishops had to first permit Latin Masses in their dioceses, maybe more would have been willing to allow them. I believe the reason why so many were reticent about it was because they associated the Latin Mass with Lefebvre, disobedience, schism, etc. Let’s face it – traditionalists ARE NOT lily white in such matters. While in many cases they were (and still are) wrongly persecuted and whatnot, in other cases they helped bring this stuff on themselves.
I agree that many bishops and priests these days are indeed disobedient to Church teachings, and nothing seems to be done about it (although we really don’t know what goes on behind closed doors, which could very well be A LOT more than we think). But just because they happen to be disobedient in some ways DOES NOT mean that they have no authority. We still have to obey them in legitimate matters if their orders don’t go against Church teachings/directives.some say the Lefebvre is the disobedient one. yet, how many bishops who accept the changes but act in totally disobedience to the pope is not called disobedient. how about priests who are in disobedience to the teachings of the Church? no one say they are in disobedience and if they are, they are ok. this is the mentality of many. these disobedient bishops and priests have all the support of the people even if they are in error. think about this.
Liberal Bishops have openly defied Rome in disobedience, nothing is done, yet we should keep silent and obey them as they destroy the faith?I agree that many bishops and priests these days are indeed disobedient to Church teachings, and nothing seems to be done about it (although we really don’t know what goes on behind closed doors, which could very well be A LOT more than we think). But just because they happen to be disobedient in some ways DOES NOT mean that they have no authority. We still have to obey them in legitimate matters if their orders don’t go against Church teachings/directives.
But this really isn’t about other bishops; it’s about Archbishop Lefebvre. He chose to disobey his superior in a legitimate matter – one that Canon Law was explicit about, especially with regard to penalties. Just because there are many other disobedient priests and bishops today, it does NOT justify Lefebvre’s actions. And remember, one of the ways we can be an accessory to another’s sin is defense of the wrong done – think about this.
Just like Cardinal Ottaviani “submitted”? And look where it got him.It’s a fact! If the SSPX had humbled themselves and submitted to legitimate authority, they would have been reconciled a long time ago!
No, i agree with. this is about who is keeping the Faith alive and who is trying to destroy it? this is what is all about. can you deny the confusion. pope JPII excomunicated ABL group but BXVI says he is not excomunicated. which is it? and why are they not allowed to celebrate Mass in the CC while groups who are destroying the Faith such as groups who support gay marriage, abortion, charismatics, and so forth are not excomunicated they are free to teach their err throughout the Church while the saintly priests of Traditional Faith are scorned and treated like second class citizen. no wonder why the Church is suffering today and are being humiliated in the world.I agree that many bishops and priests these days are indeed disobedient to Church teachings, and nothing seems to be done about it (although we really don’t know what goes on behind closed doors, which could very well be A LOT more than we think). But just because they happen to be disobedient in some ways DOES NOT mean that they have no authority. We still have to obey them in legitimate matters if their orders don’t go against Church teachings/directives.
But this really isn’t about other bishops; it’s about Archbishop Lefebvre. He chose to disobey his superior in a legitimate matter – one that Canon Law was explicit about, especially with regard to penalties. Just because there are many other disobedient priests and bishops today, it does NOT justify Lefebvre’s actions. And remember, one of the ways we can be an accessory to another’s sin is defense of the wrong done – think about this.
I said we must obey them in LEGITIMATE matters, not that we must blindly obey them in everything even if it goes against Church teaching! So obviously, if a bishop demanded that the congregations in the parishes in his diocese were to stand for the consecration of the Mass, no one ought to obey. But utterly and totally withdrawing obedience IN ALL THINGS is another thing altogether.Liberal Bishops have openly defied Rome in disobedience, nothing is done, yet we should keep silent and obey them as they destroy the faith?
Canon Law was indeed explicit. It explicitly said no excommunication if the Archbishop sincerely believed there to be a state of necessity.
To blindly condemn Archbishop Lefebvre by looking through a narrow legalistic prism ignoring all circumstances of the time is Pharisaical.
If the Pope forbid you to say your rosary and you refuse, you are:
1.) disobedient
and
2.) completely justified
So was ABL.
You can’t be serious by saying this. Did you seriously just place the charismatic renewal, a movement endorsed by Popes and Cardinals, in the same sentance as the assault on marriage and the holocaust of abortion?and why are they not allowed to celebrate Mass in the CC while groups who are destroying the Faith such as groups who support gay marriage, abortion, charismatics, and so forth are not excomunicated they are free to teach their err throughout the Church
What do you mean regarding Cardinal Ottaviani? He didn’t place himself outside the Church, so he’s A-OK.Just like Cardinal Ottaviani “submitted”? And look where it got him.
Sure they would have “reconciled.” Right in with all the church scandals and heretics and other loonies. And the TLM and the old traditions would have died a quiet death.
And if the Pope demanded congregations stand for the consecration of the Mass?I said we must obey them in LEGITIMATE matters, not that we must blindly obey them in everything even if it goes against Church teaching! So obviously, if a bishop demanded that the congregations in the parishes in his diocese were to stand for the consecration of the Mass, no one ought to obey. But utterly and totally withdrawing obedience IN ALL THINGS is another thing altogether.
The Church never judged his case because they never game him a trial. They simply declared an excommunication took place automatically from the act. There was an obvious exception in Canon Law that was never addressed. In any case, this is all moot because the excommunications are remitted.Whether Archbishop Lefebvre truly fit the criteria not to have his excommunication “stick” is something that only the Church can judge, not us.
Of course he continued to administer the sacraments. That was the entire point of the Society, to preserve and perpetuate the Traditional Faith in a time of widespread, error, irreverence, and apostasy. St. Athanasius did the same, although he was excommunicated as well.Even so, it’s most telling that after his excommunication he and the bishops he ordained continued to administer the sacraments, something their excommunication would have forbidden them to do. Even if Lefebvre acted out of fear, he would still have been required to abide by the terms of his excommunication until or unless it was determined that he had acted out of fear.
Disobedience is not always to be condemned. St. Thomas more was “disobedient” as well.And by the way, I have never condemned Archbishop Lefebvre himself – merely his disobedience.
Oh really? Catholics once firmly believed the same thing about the Traditional Mass. But it happened.No pope would or could forbid Catholics from saying the rosary.
If the Society had submitted to Rome they would not exist. Rome wanted to close their seminary and thus end the Society under Paul VI.What do you mean regarding Cardinal Ottaviani? He didn’t place himself outside the Church, so he’s A-OK.
As for your other point, the SSPX, had they submitted to Rome, would be in good standing and probably a driving force in getting the Church back to how it ought to be. They could have helped combat the “church scandals and heretics and other loonies.” As it is, they’re not helping the Church solve any of their problems as long as they choose not to be in communion with her; they’re instead running and hiding.
I never said there wasn’t confusion. I’ve never met a single orthodox Catholic who doesn’t see a crisis of faith in the Church! If they thought everything was hunky-dory, organizations like Catholic Answers and Catholics United for the Faith, TV networks like EWTN, colleges like Christendom and – gasp! – Franciscan, publications like “The Wanderer,” etc. wouldn’t even exist! Sure, you may consider such organizations, networks, publications, etc. to be “Novus Ordo,” but let me tell you, they do a heckuva job defending the faith!No, i agree with. this is about who is keeping the Faith alive and who is trying to destroy it? this is what is all about. can you deny the confusion. pope JPII excomunicated ABL group but BXVI says he is not excomunicated. which is it? and why are they not allowed to celebrate Mass in the CC while groups who are destroying the Faith such as groups who support gay marriage, abortion, charismatics, and so forth are not excomunicated they are free to teach their err throughout the Church while the saintly priests of Traditional Faith are scorned and treated like second class citizen. no wonder why the Church is suffering today and are being humiliated in the world.
do you see something wrong here?
How did you know so much about Canon Law that you can make this claim?Whether Archbishop Lefebvre truly fit the criteria not to have his excommunication “stick” is something that only the Church can judge, not us. Even so, it’s most telling that after his excommunication he and the bishops he ordained continued to administer the sacraments, something their excommunication would have forbidden them to do. Even if Lefebvre acted out of fear, he would still have been required to abide by the terms of his excommunication until or unless it was determined that he had acted out of fear.
Canon 1321 (3) says that imputability must be presumed unless the contrary is made evident (the Latin verb “apparere” is used here, and it means “to be made evident,” not “to appear” or “to seem”).How did you know so much about Canon Law that you can make this claim?
Yes, because Archbishop Lefebvre wasn’t co-operating even then! But that was Paul VI. John Paul II, on the other hand, was more than willing to allow Lefebvre to consecrate one bishop and to get the SSPX back in full communion (they were suspended even before the excommunication). And it could have not only survived but thrived WITHIN the Church! But then His Excellency threw a monkey wrench in the works.If the Society had submitted to Rome they would not exist. Rome wanted to close their seminary and thus end the Society under Paul VI.
Seems as if the sex abusers and their coverup bishops threw the real monkey wrenches.But then His Excellency threw a monkey wrench in the works.
they would have been forced to celebrate the new Mass. they refused to do so.Yes, because Archbishop Lefebvre wasn’t co-operating even then! But that was Paul VI. John Paul II, on the other hand, was more than willing to allow Lefebvre to consecrate one bishop and to get the SSPX back in full communion (they were suspended even before the excommunication). And it could have not only survived but thrived WITHIN the Church! But then His Excellency threw a monkey wrench in the works.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but does the FSSP not exclusively do TLM? I mean, I know their primary charism is “to offer the Mass and other sacraments according to the Roman Rite, as it existed before the Second Vatican Council”. Is there anything I’m missing there (I honestly would like to know)?they would have been forced to celebrate the new Mass. they refused to do so.
i find very interesting that many unorthodox groups are running free spreading their err inside the CC and are allowed to do so and remain in the CC. but SSPX refuses to celebrate the NO are not allowed to do so. The Holy Mass became a big problem for the Church of the those unholy groups who couldnt careless about the Church.
You need to read the original source material to understand the situation.Yes, because Archbishop Lefebvre wasn’t co-operating even then! But that was Paul VI. John Paul II, on the other hand, was more than willing to allow Lefebvre to consecrate one bishop and to get the SSPX back in full communion (they were suspended even before the excommunication). And it could have not only survived but thrived WITHIN the Church! But then His Excellency threw a monkey wrench in the works.
Last I heard, Fr Gruner was not a priest in good standing with Rome.Because a heretic rejects some dogmas his belief is not based on Faith. Where the man/woman who believes everything God teachs is True. The Faithfull soul knows that God who is Holy cannot tell a lie. And God who is all knowing cannot tell a lie.
…
The Third Secret of Fatima must be released in its entire complete form. The Blessed Mother cannot be WRONG. She said give this to the PEOPLE after 1960. They will not understand it till then. This time has come and gone. In 2000 a loose interpretation of the Message was released. BUT NOT THE WORDS OF OUR BLESSED MOTHER. This is NOW admitted by Pope Benedict and rationalized. This message is NOT for the Pope. It is for those of this religion to give you direction and hope in these OH SO DIFFICULT TIMES.
I beg of you, go to fatma.org and listen to the message their. Go to You Tube and listen to Art Bell with Father Gruner and the Third Message. This is so urgent now that we cannot wste another minute. The stakes are higher NOW than ever before in history.
…