C
catharina
Guest
Thank you, Andreas, for presenting a very clear explanation.
- Status
S
Spiller
Guest
Xlnt point…
P
ProVobis
Guest
Enjoys?
C
catharina
Guest
A figure of speech?Enjoys?
I’m guessing it means many things including the fact that the Holy Father has the authority; and single authority in one person makes life more convenient for him and for all. How wise of God.
(Yet does it matter? the use of the word “enjoys?”)
P
ProVobis
Guest
Ooops. There went his medical insurance.
Probably could have used it later.
P
preV2tradcath
Guest
According to my dictionary, the second definition of enjoy is: “To have the use of; benefit from; have as one’s lot” It then quotes Richard Caarrington as saying, “At one time the white elephant enjoyed immense symbolic importance in the East.”
C
catharina
Guest
Excellent. Thank you.
G
Genesis315
Guest
The doctrine is that the entire college of bishops as a body governs the entire Church–but the Pope is the head and the body can only act in union with the head. It has little to do with the synods that are called every so often–that is just to give the Pope an idea of the state of things around the world and what needs to be addressed (it is called by him for that reason). Ecumenical Councils are a better example of the college acting as a whole, but the college also does this while spread all over the world.
In order to understand this, you have to understand leadership in terms of care and service. The bishops, in all their actions, do not just take into account their diocese alone, but must be solicitous of the good of the whole Church with each decision they make in terms of governance–always in union with the head.
(it also bears pointing out that while priests are vicars of their bishop, bishops are not vicars of the Roman Pontiff).
In order to understand this, you have to understand leadership in terms of care and service. The bishops, in all their actions, do not just take into account their diocese alone, but must be solicitous of the good of the whole Church with each decision they make in terms of governance–always in union with the head.
(it also bears pointing out that while priests are vicars of their bishop, bishops are not vicars of the Roman Pontiff).
G
Genesis315
Guest
The problem with Lefevbrve is he committed an objectively schismatic act. Pope Pius VI states this traditional principle in the 1790s:
Charitas:
Lefebrve started out on the right path, founding the SSPX as a pious union to help implement the Second Vatican Council’s decree, Optatum Totius (on priestly training)–in that way he was similar to a true reformer, St. Cajetan, who founded the Theatines (Clerks Regular) for a similar purpose in the 1500s.
However, when Lefebrve’s work did not produce fruits right away, he essentially lost the one virtue most necessary to a true reformer: patience. All the great true reformers had heroic patience, but sadly, Lefebrve lost his, panicked, and chose to commit the act that he did.
Were there problems in the Church at that time? Of course. Are true reformers needed in the Church? Yes, and they have been in many times throughout history.
Lefebrve started out on the right path, founding the SSPX as a pious union to help implement the Second Vatican Council’s decree, Optatum Totius (on priestly training)–in that way he was similar to a true reformer, St. Cajetan, who founded the Theatines (Clerks Regular) for a similar purpose in the 1500s.
However, when Lefebrve’s work did not produce fruits right away, he essentially lost the one virtue most necessary to a true reformer: patience. All the great true reformers had heroic patience, but sadly, Lefebrve lost his, panicked, and chose to commit the act that he did.
J
JReducation
Guest
You have to be careful here. Collegiality does not meen equality. There is a dialogue between the Pope and the bishops, but it is the bishops who must be in union with the Pope, not the other way around.
There was no possible way that he would have gotten support from the majority of bishops, once the Pope had spoken his mind. The bishops were not going to break their union with the Pope.
Canon law says that a bishop may not ordain other bishops without the authority of the Pope.
It also says that one can disobey and is not subject to excommunication if one fears for certain reasons.
In rescent documents, Pope Benedict has dismissed the idea that Msgr. was fearful and has suggested that there was more to this, a hidden agenda.
Maybe it wasn’t his. Maybe it was the people around him. Who knows? I don’t think that we will ever know.
But the question is how will he be remembered. He will probably not be remembered, is my guess. There are many bishops who have gotten into conflicts with the Holy See and havae been fogotten.
The best thing is to pray for soul and believe that he was a good man who made a mistake, but God is merciful and forgives.
Let’s leave it at that.
JR
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
**ISTM that if he had died by 1974 he would have been looked on favourably. ****The difficulty is whether the suspension a divinis is dependent on the 1974 interview; the excommunication is not, & that ISTM is the real obstacle to rehabilitating him as a Catholic. And matters are made worse by the refusal of the SSPX to be governed by the act of the Pope - for any fair estimate of the Abp. would have to take account of the SSPX, & so, of its attitude to the Pope following its founder’s death. **
**Can one be Catholic if in practice one ignores Papal authority when it is exercised ? Or can it be more truly Catholic to disobey the expressed will of the Pope so as to avoid an evil that obedience to it would bring about ? If his disregard for papal authority after 1976 makes him Catholic only the sense that he was not excommunicated (until 1988), that means that a lot of other bishops were also Catholic in little more than name; yet Rome treated them better than it treated him - which makes no sense
****I think there is an unresolved dilemma here as to which takes priority (if either): Papal authority - or the good of the Church ? This is to assume that the two are separable - they can be seen as so bound together that to disobey a Papal command is of its very nature to harm the Church, even if the disobedience is from a desire to avoid harm to it; that reasoning raises further problems. **
There is another issue: in what does healthy doctrinal development consist ? And what counts as fidelity to the deposit of faith ? John Paul II & the Abp. were both concerned to be faithful - but they seem to have given very different answers to those two questions (as is implied in Ecclesia Dei). How those questions are answered affects what one makes of (say) Dignitatis Humanae.
**That’s the real lesson of the Lefebvre affair IMO: it points also to unresolved questions about the Church; the Papacy; the definition of what is morally good; the relation between Papal jurisdiction, the good of the Church, & the moral character of both. **
J
JReducation
Guest
Allow me to give you an example of how collegiality works.
The term comes from the ancient word, “College”. This term has been applied to the Electoral College and to the Bishops when they work as one for the good of the universal Church.
In the 1200s there was a Council in Rome. One of the topics on the table was the rules of religious life. At that time there were the rules of St. Benedict, St. Basil, Carmel, and St. Augustine.
The synod had voted that no new rules would be approved. Any new religious order had to adopt one of the rules already in existence.
When St. Francis approached Pope Honorius with his rule, the Pope overruled the entire synod. He not only approved the Rule of St. Francis, but he put a papal bull on it so that no authority in the Church could change it or nullify it, except another Pope. Then he said, that any new religious community must follow the rules of Benedict, Basil, Carmel, Augustine and Francis. This has never changed to this day. All new congregations follow one of these rules or not rule at all.
Collegiality is the college in union with the Pope, but the Pope can break union with the college. This happened more times, the decrees of the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception. The College wanted to continue the dialogue and the Pope brought it to an end.
John Paul did it with the question of married priest in the West.
These are just some examples.
JR
A
allmhuran
Guest
Yes.
A
allmhuran
Guest
And soon.
I
INeed_Help_God
Guest
Hello Everyone,
I don’t mean to disrespect anyone by posting in this forum I just don’t know how to start one.
I have masturbated multiple times and I am concerned I will go to hell. I have prayed to God for forgiveness and the strength to stop but I don’t know if I will go to Hell or not.
I don’t mean to disrespect anyone by posting in this forum I just don’t know how to start one.
I have masturbated multiple times and I am concerned I will go to hell. I have prayed to God for forgiveness and the strength to stop but I don’t know if I will go to Hell or not.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is not a matter that you should bring up on a forum. Speak to your confessor or spiritual director. They will help you out better than anyone here can.
JR
P
pnewton
Guest
“No” is the anser to date.
Speculating on the future is useless, as we live neither in the future or the present. One’s answer to this question will only shed light on the one answering, not on the future.
Speculating on the future is useless, as we live neither in the future or the present. One’s answer to this question will only shed light on the one answering, not on the future.
P
ProVobis
Guest
So what changed with Vatican II? Weren’t the bishops of China in more trouble with the Vatican but probably since there were more of them, the Vatican really couldn’t excommunicate them? But could with the TLM bishops since there were only two of them, both “expendable”?Collegiality is the college in union with the Pope, but the Pope can break union with the college. This happened more times, the decrees of the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception. The College wanted to continue the dialogue and the Pope brought it to an end.
John Paul did it with the question of married priest in the West.
These are just some examples.
JR
I’m sorry, but I feel if Lefebrve had more support amongst his peers (most were anti-TLM at that point), no way would the Pope have excommunicated him. Probably he would have no reason to proceed with the consecrations either but that’s only conjectural at this point. But, seriously, how many bishops were ordaining priests to say the TLM in 1988? Without Lefebrve, there would have been no 1988 ED and the Latin Mass would have just died a slow death.
So would history look favorably on Archbishop Lefebrve? Depends on which side of the TLM/anti-TLM side you’re on, although even some TLM people would never touch anyone not in full communion with the Church.
C
catharina
Guest
Yes, you feel as you feel, but that has nothing to do with obedience or clear thinking in regard to the faith. As for the bishops of China, pardon me?
Do you fully understand that there are two groups of bishops in China, a group that is faithful to the Chair of Peter, headed by the bishop of Rome (Pope); and the “other” group, bishops in name but faithful to the government of China that established that “church.” If Rome chooses to discuss reunion (a place within the Catholic Church under the Pope’s leadership) for those bishops who exist outside of the Church in China, then hurray for Rome and for the real (true) Church in China - and the many many many who grew up there without any freedom of religion.
Clearly it was Lefebvre’s definitive action that ended any such “discussions of mutual benefit” that might have been continued if he had not acted in disobedience.
It’s as logical to say that without Lefebvre, the Latin Mass would have been revived more quickly and easily; his obstinacy can be seen as a deterent or as a positive force. The final point is that what happened is what happpened. Please don’t allow anyone to tell you that any comparison can be made with the real and desperate needs of HMC in China.
J
JReducation
Guest
We have to separate our personal feelings on an issue and Church law. What makes men and women saints is their ability to love the Church and obey her, even when they feel that they are being treated wrongly or that others are being treated wrongly.
Sanctity has more to do with obedience and less to do with our personal feelings. If you and I want to be saints, it does not matter what we think about Msgr. Lefebvre, the Tridentine mass or John Paul II. What matters is that we act in conformity with the Church.
In the future, we will be remembered or not, by how we lived within the Church. St. Vincent said it very well, “Be children of the Church.” St. Francis of Assisi also said it very well, “No matter how sinful a cleric is, you must always remember that it is only through him that you can see Christ. Therefore, you must always honour him forgive him. It is not for the laity to rule the Church, but to obey.”
St. Thomas Aquinas also said it well, “You can disobey if you are ordered to commit a sin.” But there is no other justification for disobeying.
As to how Msgr. Lefebvre will be remembered, who knows?
Most importantly to us today is not how the Bishop will be remembered. More important to you and me should be how am I to become a saint. Should I spend time on issues and questions that I can do nothing about and which do not lead to union of my soul with the Divine or should I focus on the latter?
One of the most interesting behaviours of all the great reformers of the Church is that they all had inspirations that they received from the Holy Spirit. Of course these inspirations always touched on some deficit in the Church’s structure, not her holiness, just her manner of doing things. The Church’s holiness is unquestionable.
Whenever the saints came across something that they believed needed reforming, even if they had a vision and saw and heard it from the mouth of Christ, they always went to the hierarchy and told them about what they heard or believed and then asked the hierarchy if their belief was correct.
There were many times when the saints were told not to believe what they thought they had heard from Christ or not to put it into action. That’s exactly what they did. They obeyed the Church hierarchy. Eventually, the Holy Spirit found a way of making it possible for the saints to put into action what they had originally received through grace.
However, they did not become saints because they reformed the Church. They became saints because Christ tested their obedience to the Church and their trust in the Holy Spirit and they passed the test.
Teresa of Avila waited 20 years to reform the Church of her time. Catherine of Siena also waited that many years. Francis of Assisi never finished the reform that he began. It was finished by the Capuchin-Franciscan Friars in 1529. Francis had begun in 1209.
Blessed John XXIII never finished the reform that he started. Only God knows who will finish it.
But what made these people saints was not their battle with Church law or change. What made them saints was their ability to obey and to wait for the Holy Spirit.
This is what we must remember. We willl be saints if we obey and we trust God. Spending an inordinae amount of time on every event that happens is not part of sanctity.
I always enjoy thinking about monastics. Contemplatives in monasteries are such an inspiration on a life lived for the sake of sanctity. They see situations such as the issue with Msgr. Lefebvre, they place it in their prayers, and they move on as if nothing has ever happened. They return to their life of silence, prayer, work, meditation and to their duties. This detachment is a gift that God gives all people, not just monks and nuns.
As St. John Chrysostom said, “the life of monks, friars, nuns and religious brothers is moe austere than that of the layman and the diocesan priest. Therefore it is of greater dignity, But this does not mean that they are the only ones called to be saints. On the contrary, they are to be models that the layperson and the diocesan priest should immitate to whatever degree is possible in their particular circumstances.”
I believe that whatever history says of Msgr. Lefebvre has not bearing on how holy you and I are.
JR
- Status