Suppressed Interview of Abp. Lefebvre?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glenoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Did you not sign and agree to the resolutions of this council?
Code: 
No. First of all, I have not signed all the documents of Vatican II because of the last two acts. The first, concerned with "Religion and Freedom," I have not signed. The other one, that of “The Church in the Modern World”, I also have not signed. This latter is in my opinion the most oriented toward modernism and liberalism.
**If Abp. Lefebvre did not sign certain of the decress of Vatican II and actively opposed them, then he set himself against the teaching of an Ecumenical Council, and therefore was clearly schismatic. **
 
bpbasilphx said:
Did you not sign and agree to the resolutions of this council?
Code: 
No. First of all, I have not signed all the documents of Vatican II because of the last two acts. The first, concerned with "Religion and Freedom," I have not signed. The other one, that of “The Church in the Modern World”, I also have not signed. This latter is in my opinion the most oriented toward modernism and liberalism.
**If Abp. Lefebvre did not sign certain of the decress of Vatican II and actively opposed them, then he set himself against the teaching of an Ecumenical Council, and therefore was clearly schismatic. **
Click to expand...
1054 all over again ?
 
The following interview with the archbishop was to have been published in 1978 by a leading American Catholic publication. However, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops threatened the publication’s publisher with excommunication and decreed virtual extinction for the publication itself if the interview were run.
**I notice it didn’t say WHICH publication, or who was the publisher at the time.

Furthermore, the USCCB does not itself excommunicate. This belongs ONLY to the diocesan bishop, as I understand it.**
 
I_Believe said:
1054 all over again ?
Click to expand...
He had another serious problem, besides not signing. He is a hairline short from calling Paul VI a heretic. He keeps referring to him as a liberal. And he also says that Paul VI loathed the idea of using his infallibility. Those are strong accusations. I wouldn’t dare make them.

I believe he would have been on safer ground sticking to his other points and trying to clarify them, rather than taking the pope head-on. But that’s just my opinion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
And he also says that Paul VI loathed the idea of using his infallibility.
**I don’t know any popes there were especially fond of invoking infallibility. I can’t blame Paul VI for hesitating to do so.

Of course, when John Paul II non-infallibly excommunicated him and the 4 bishops, he wasn’t happy about it. Would using infaillibility against him have pleased him more?**
 
I would not have signed a decree on religious freedom either…
 
bpbasilphx said:
**If Abp. Lefebvre did not sign certain of the decress of Vatican II and actively opposed them, then he set himself against the teaching of an Ecumenical Council, and therefore was clearly schismatic. **
Click to expand...
No, that’s not true. There were a handful of bishops who didn’t sign a variety of different documents. The general outlook, after debate was over on a topic, was that everyone signed whether or not they were for or against either parts of the document or the document as a whole. But some did not.

None of the documents were ever passed unanimously and this has nothing to do with schism or a schismatic mentality.

The document on religious liberty met with such opposition during the council that a letter was circulated by Monsignor Giuseppe di Meglio stating:

“…that for a notable number of Council Fathers the teaching and practical applications of the schema are not acceptable in conscience. In fact, the fundamental principle of the schema has remained unchanged despite the amendments that have been introduced: that is, the right of error… Since the declaration on religious freedom has no dogmatic value, the negative votes of the Council Fathers will constitute a factor of great importance for the future studies of the declaration itself, and particularly for the interpretation to be placed upon it.”

You would be wise to read a history of Vatican II, such as “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber”, before throwing around condemnations of “schism.” Pope Paul VI didn’t take a failure to sign off on a certain document as an act of schism and neither should you.

Are all those who voted against certain documents to be counted as schismatic also?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top