Would the MP exist without Lefebvre?

[anthony022071]

So how much publicity did the previous two indults without Lefebvre get? I rest my case.

You rest your case about what?

Lefebvre was right to want to hold on to the Latin Rite,but he was wrong in his behavior and his attitude towards the Popes and the Vatican. He was non compos mentis.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

One could easily get news alerts to his email address from Yahoo or Google concerning issues like “Pope Benedict” or “Latin Mass.” Normally I get 2-3 per day.

I signed up for the google alerts, but the funny thing is all the articles it has given me are at least two days after Rorate or Fr Z have posted them.

The fact is though, this IS making the news all over, and the word is spreading. This is no trivial thing. Im betting most papers are waiting for the document to come out.

 

[anthony022071]

The Motu Proprio would exist because of the many younger,serious,traditional-minded Catholics who are interested in the Latin mass.

 

[labernadette]

The Motu Proprio would exist because of the many younger,serious,traditional-minded Catholics who are interested in the Latin mass.

Keep in mind that it may of been lost forever had it not been for the preservation of the traditional formation of the priests. Therefore, had it not been for Archbishop Lefebvre, it may not of survived the attempts to stamp it out of existence.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Just a clarification. Im not saying that if Lefebvre did nothing the MP would not have come out in the “distant future”, it very well could have come out in the “distant future”…but the fact is the “recent past” has seen little attempt to broaden the access to the TLM. The first indult was granted 18 years afterwards, and it was appended to the excommunication decree Ecclesia Dei against Lefebvre.

Not quite - The “Agatha Christie indult” was granted in 1971. It was very restrictive, & it applied (IIRC) only in England - but it was something at least​

To complicate the picture, there is also the LLA - the Latin Liturgy Association: the US branch of which is known as the Association for Latin Liturgy. It works for the wider use of Latin in the celebration of the reformed Missal:

Latin Liturgy Association

Association for Latin Liturgy

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Do you even know what “apostasy” means? Because you cannot apply that word to the SSPX. Have you ever attended an SSPX Mass? Are you not aware of the burgeoning chapels, the over-crowded seminaries, the many priests who are ordained, more and more, every year? These are the undeniable fruits.

Which is fine - as far as it goes.​

In 635, the Nestorians entered China - we know this because in 1625 a sculptured cross was discovered in China, which was dated to a date corresponding to 781 in the Julian Calendar. They were sufficiently successful to make converts among the Imperial family.

Not only were they successful in China - at one time, the Nestorian Church was so extensive that it was subject to no fewer than 25 archbishops. In 1292, the Patriarch sent a legate to Rome, who was admitted to communion by the Pope.

But now - what remains of all this ?

So with the SSPX - all those things are true: but it does not validate them. Zeal, energy, geographical expansion, numerousness of clergy & faithful, cannot make up for lack of union with Rome. It is useless to fill a room with argon, krypton, xenon - & to forget the need for oxygen. If the SSPX is not with the Church - then it is against it. This is not theory, but fact, because its clergy are not recognsed by the bishops of the dioceses in which they work.

And that cannot build up the Church, because it shows disrespect for the lawful pastors of the Church who have been appointed by the Pope. How is it obedient to the Pope for clergy to disregard the lawful authority of Catholic bishops ?

Mgr. Lefebvre was not apostate - but he did commit a schismatic act. He could have submitted later on, even so - but he did not. Nor have any of the four bishops he consecrated.

As for the argument from the evils in the Church - this is suicidal

1. It is an argument from prosperity - but Christ did not live prosperously: He died as cross-fodder, having been betrayed by one of his disciples, several times denied by another, & deserted by all. To reject the Church’s authority because of evils in her - however great - is to imply that unless she is obviously prosperous, she is not the Church. But that is to make appearances more important than faith. If she is the Church, it is irrelevant that she is racked with scandals: for our duty to be in unbroken communion with the Church is founded on the reality of the Church perceived by Divine faith - not on outward things such as appearances.
2. It makes our obedience depend on our perceptions of the Church & her condition
3. Maybe the good in the SSPX is despite, not because of, its status: that there is good in it, cannot of itself be a reason not to be in full communion with the Church.

As opposed to the other undeniable fruits of the conciliar church: Catholics leaving the practice of their faith by the droves, parishes being closed and merged, seminaries and monasteries closing, grand old churches being torn down, high altars and communion rails being ripped out and destroyed, confusion about or outright denial of the real presence… need I go on?

4. Yes, if this is to tell against the Church in recent times, & not against the Church after Nicea as well. Arianism was so far from being dead in 325, that it spread among the Goths, so that the first king of Spain to be a Catholic did not become a Catholic until 586: 261 years after Nicea, & 268 after Arius wrote to Alexander of Alexandria. Marcionism lasted until the 6th century - IOW, for over 400 years. Montanism spread too, & had its martyrs. As for the Church - the rise of Islam had a massive effect on it: Christians living in 700 would have had many reasons to wonder whether Christianity really was all it claimed.​

 

[Genesis315]

Arianism was so far from being dead in 325, that it spread among the Goths, so that the first king of Spain to be a Catholic did not become a Catholic until 586: 261 years after Nicea, & 268 after Arius wrote to Alexander of Alexandria.

You know, I was pretty surprised when I first learned this (reading St. Isidore’s history of the Goth’s and other groups). I always assumed Nicea ended that issue–but many nations were completely Arian for centuries after (as you point out). They would often shift back and forth between Arianism and orthodoxy, depending on the preference of the King.

Of course, we can also talk of the massive expansion of Protestantism and all its branches over the last 450 years–and the growth of Mormonism in more recent times

 

[laudamus_te]

1. It makes our obedience depend on our perceptions of the Church & her condition.

No, obedience does not depend on perceptions but on knowledge of the immemorial truths of the Church, and the refusal to accept whatever goes against those truths. Archbishop Lefebvre quite simply refused to follow in blind obedience and participate in the destruction of the Church by accepting the errors of ecumenism, etc. which the council had adopted. Obedience to God is first and foremost.

1. Maybe the good in the SSPX is despite, not because of, its status: that there is good in it, cannot of itself be a reason not to be in full communion with the Church.

That is not the reason why the SSPX chooses to remain in an irregular status in the Church. They are simply presented by myself as obvious signs that the Holy Ghost is present. That the SSPX has borne good fruit is undeniable, and has been acknowledged by Rome.

 

[bear06]

People might want to actually read Unam Sanctam and Pastor Aeternus.