You can only see irony in the position of Archbishop LeFebvre if you employ a very selective and completely superficial understanding of a partial view of the whole situation.
This is another example of the irony, in that he decries disobedience, yet he employs disobedience himself to obtain his objectives.
Actually LeFebvre simply applied the teaching of the Church on obedience.
Interesting how you make obedience a subjective matter. When you agree with what the Church is doing/teaching, then you follow along in the name of obedience. When you disagree with what the Church is doing/teaching, then you don’t follow along claiming that it would be “false obedience.” Is it your position to determine whether to obey or disobey the Pope and Bishops?
Interesting. Let’s go back to the beginning:
I do not particularly like the SSPX but I love the SSPX members. I pray that one day they will be fully re-united with the Church, and that day will be a day of joy. I also think that quite a few of the SSPX members would consider me a liberal.
It doesn’t sound like you know the difference between obedience and false obedience. That’s why so many traditional Catholics cringe when neo-cons say things like “I’m obedient to the pope in all things”.
Where can I find out the Church’s teaching on “false” obedience? Is it in the CCC?
The head of the Ecclesia Dei commission has said numerous times that there is no schism. He also says that the SSPX situation is an internal church affair. They can’t be schismatic and simultaneously be inside the church.
Do you really need to look that one up!?!?!? I’m surprised.
So you are saying it is sinful to attend an ordinary form Mass?
I need a little help with that one, too. So where can we find the documents and encyclicals that deal with “false obedience.” If I didn’t know better I would think that it is a “modern” concept, but I know that can be true coming from a “traditionalist.”
Actually, he said they weren’t “exactly” in schism, which is not so clear cut.
That’s funny, because he has been quoted not once, but a handful of times in interviews and elsewhere as having said there is no schism. Either he’s representing the current position or he himself is being disobedient. Saying that it isn’t “exactly” schism sounds more like the Rome double-speak which has done so much damage to the church in the last 40 years. Obfuscation and equivocation are the sands that the post-conciliar church is built on (as well as lax practice and the look-the-other-way policy of the episcopate with regard to their wayward priests). I prefer tradition’s kepha.
Defying and/or rebuking popes goes back a few years prior to 1988…I believe the year was probably shortly after AD 33? Some guy named…Paul(?)…felt that in good conscience he could not go along with what his superior was doing. I think his superior’s name was “Peter” and by his actions was causing “scandal”. I don’t know…I’ll have to look it up, maybe verify it using wiki or something.
In the audio interview posted on these pages not long ago he used the term “exactly.” Someone provided a transcript so you can check it yourself. Even if he didn’t , it doesn’t change the fact that that is his personal opinion of the matter in conversation with a reporter. It is not an official declaration of the Church since none has been made thus far.
Very clever, but to set yourself up as the judge of the Holy Father is a dangerous place to be. One of the terms offered by the Church for reconciliation with the sspx was that they stop telling the Pope how to run things. But of course, it appears that disobedience is a cornerstone of the sspx and those who support them…
