Was Archbishop Lefebvre right to perform the consecrations in 1988???

[tradical]

Tradical????

Yoooo Hooo????

Need some time?

I passed my oral exam!

My detailed response to Gerard's objections can be found in the links below.

Here's my response to one interesting objection that Gerard raised:

Gerard: During the regular mode of life. Resistance is contingent upon whether the order is "against God" not whether it involves personal sin. ... You also keep falsely claiming that any abuse of authority cannot be resisted and any resistance attempted is based on subjective opinion.
The crisis in the Church is objective, identifiable, quantifiable. A Churchman in authority denying this reality and enabling the crisis is exercising his authority based on his own erroneous subjective opinion.
So, if that Churchman orders his subordinate not consecrate traditional bishops or to offer a liturgy that is inferior and detrimental to the faith, the subordinate is bound to ignore those orders which objectively belong to his superior's sphere of authority.

Update: Gerard asserts that I "keep falsely claiming that any abuse of authority cannot be resisted". I do not recall making this claim explicitly anywhere in my conversations with Gerard.  Beyond Gerard's gross generalization, an abuse of authority is one that either is outside of the sphere of authority or is sinful.  Obedience is either optional or to be refused (respectively) in these cases.

Example 1: The SSPX uses the 1963 liturgy instead of earlier ones because this is the last point in which the liturgical changes did not involve a danger to the faith.  In other words, to knowingly adhere to the New Mass after the realisation of the danger it represents is sinful and therefore the 'order' is to be disregarded.

Example 2: Pope Francis' encyclical on the environment (which I haven't read) is on a topic that is outside of his sphere of authority.  He can't make it a sin to use your air conditioner.  Whether or not you want to obey such a 'precept' is up to the individual.

Was Archbishop Lefebvre right to perform the consecrations in 1988???

Now both Gerard and an FSSP seminarian recently stated that the Archbishop was wrong to perform the consecrations (Gerard qualified his  assertion with the statement that if my understanding of St. Thomas' doctrine on obedience was correct, then Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong).

I've written my thoughts in a post on my blog ( https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_26.html
).  Unless someone asks I'm not going to repost it here because I would have to recreate the formatting and I don't have that much time.

What I would like to hear is if there is another defense of the consecrations?

Cheers!



Links to detailed response:

Introduction: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article.html

Obedience as per St. Thomas: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_23.html

DisObedience as per St. Thomas Aquinas: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_24.html

Key Distinctions: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_25.html

Application to the 1988 Consecrations: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_26.html

Conclusions: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_27.html

Objections: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_28.html

St. Thomas on Legitimate authority and obedience: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2017/07/breaking-down-st-thomas-summa-article_13.html

[Stubborn]

Skimming some of your links, I did not find anywhere that told of the many fruitless meetings that Archbishop Lefebvre had with both Pope Paul VI and then Pope John Paul II regarding the crisis. One can easily get the wrong impression that +ABL put forth little or no effort to gain the approval of the ordinations from JP2, but the truth is that he did everything that he thought he could do to get the pope's approval, and only decided to disobey after finally he finally came to the understanding that there was no hope for the pope's approval, there was absolutely, positively no other conciliar bishop who would ever consecrate traditional bishops.

Was he right to perform the consecrations? Yes, of course he was right. Whoever doubted it back then, should know this with certainty by now because hind site is 20/20.

Below is a sermon from Fr. Wathen given July 3,1988, only a few days after Archbishop Lefebvre, together with Bishop de Castro Mayer, consecrated the four bishops and as a result, was officially declared to be excommunicated.   

It's less than 20 minutes long and well worth listening to, perhaps especially for those who foolishly are looking forward to an SSPX agreement with Rome, but primarily for the rest of us as a reminder or to help understand where we came from. Far as that goes, in many respects, this sermon could have been given yesterday.

Sermon
 



   

[christulsa]

I think so.  But some counterarguments:

1. He could have kept delaying them and negotiating with Ratzinger until he was in danger of death to avoid the appearance of schism, which disrupted unity in the Church and unjustly stigmatized the whole SSPX and those who agreed with the consecrations.

2. Same for Mayer.  At some point before dying he or Lefebvre could consecrate bishops for ordinations or secured the help of other bishops.  Plus priests can give confirmation.

3. I havent read proof Ratzinger was lying that Rome would at some point grant a bishop.  As BXVI he seemed to me very honest.

[St.Justin]

The Archbishop could do nothing else. What he did was a saving Grace for the Church. He knew one Bishop was not enough and he also felt he had to sayso in who that Bishop would be.

Just for the record a Priest is not the Ordinary Minister of Confirmation. He must have delegated Jurisdiction from his Bishop.

[christulsa]

The Archbishop could do nothing else. What he did was a saving Grace for the Church. He knew one Bishop was not enough and he also felt he had to sayso in who that Bishop would be.

Just for the record a Priest is not the Ordinary Minister of Confirmation. He must have delegated Jurisdiction from his Bishop.

But ABL accepted one bishop as enough.  Even later said how many bishops wasnt the issue.

If a trad priest can hear confessions without jurisdiction, why not do confirmations if theres no bishop available?

[tradical]

@ Christulsa: 
- Card Ratzinger asked for a compromise shortly after the signing of the protocol (New Mass in St. Nicholas du Chardonnet - I think).
- No certain about delaying until the danger of death.  It would seem to be imprudent because our lives hang on our shoulders like an unclasped cloak.  It can fall at a moments notice.
- Not certain if supplied jurisdiction provides for the assignment of an extra-ordinary minister of a sacrament. 

@ Stubborn:
- I'm not certain if the meetings could be considered fruitless as we have the protocol as a frame of reference. Had a compromise not been required in the last minute (sound familiar???), the SSPX would have been in a canonically regular situation in 1988.
- " who foolishly are looking forward to an SSPX agreement with Rome"  Just for the record, I am not foolishly looking forward to an regularization with the SSPX.  I look at the situation with the perspective of Catholic Dogma, Doctrine and Principles.  If these are satisfied, then no problem.  In 30 years it hasn't happened, a compromise has always been asked and the SSPX has always refused.

@ St. Justin:
- I know he felt he had to perform the consecrations.  The FSSP seminarian agreed immediately that because of his belief, the Archbishop didn't incur excommunication. The key element was he believed it was sinful to go against canon law and a direct order from the Pope.
- I wonder how to answer next time I meet an FSSP seminarian from an objective perspective.

[christulsa]

Voris said JPII called the SSPX a "Church" in the Ecclesia Dei document.  I was surprised when I checked he was right.  JPII was saying the SSPX had become literally a schismatic Church. 

[tradical]

Voris said JPII called the SSPX a "Church" in the Ecclesia Dei document.  I was surprised when I checked he was right.  JPII was saying the SSPX had become literally a schismatic Church.

I just re-read ED.  Where does JPII call the SSPX a 'Church'???

[St.Justin]

Voris said JPII called the SSPX a "Church" in the Ecclesia Dei document.  I was surprised when I checked he was right.  JPII was saying the SSPX had become literally a schismatic Church.

I just re-read ED.  Where does JPII call the SSPX a 'Church'???

Do you have a link? I have no idea what Chris is talking about.

[tradical]

Voris said JPII called the SSPX a "Church" in the Ecclesia Dei document.  I was surprised when I checked he was right.  JPII was saying the SSPX had become literally a schismatic Church.

I just re-read ED.  Where does JPII call the SSPX a 'Church'???

Do you have a link? I have no idea what Chris is talking about.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei.html

[tradical]

Skimming some of your links, I did not find anywhere that told of the many fruitless meetings that Archbishop Lefebvre had with both Pope Paul VI and then Pope John Paul II regarding the crisis. One can easily get the wrong impression that +ABL put forth little or no effort to gain the approval of the ordinations from JP2, but the truth is that he did everything that he thought he could do to get the pope's approval, and only decided to disobey after finally he finally came to the understanding that there was no hope for the pope's approval, there was absolutely, positively no other conciliar bishop who would ever consecrate traditional bishops.

Was he right to perform the consecrations? Yes, of course he was right. Whoever doubted it back then, should know this with certainty by now because hind site is 20/20.

Below is a sermon from Fr. Wathen given July 3,1988, only a few days after Archbishop Lefebvre, together with Bishop de Castro Mayer, consecrated the four bishops and as a result, was officially declared to be excommunicated.   

It's less than 20 minutes long and well worth listening to, perhaps especially for those who foolishly are looking forward to an SSPX agreement with Rome, but primarily for the rest of us as a reminder or to help understand where we came from. Far as that goes, in many respects, this sermon could have been given yesterday.

Sermon
 

Hi Stubborn,

I wasn't able to access the link. What was the gist of the sermon?

[christulsa]

From Ecclesi Dei document.  See bolded.  Strangely refers to the Society as a capital "C" Church.
Post 88 many used this document to portray the Society as a formal schism with its own parallel hierarchy. 

1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)

[clau clau]

Yes

[tradical]

From Ecclesi Dei document.  See bolded.  Strangely refers to the Society as a capital "C" Church.
Post 88 many used this document to portray the Society as a formal schism with its own parallel hierarchy. 

1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)

Wow, I've read ED a number of times and never noticed that.

However, the conclusion that the SSPX was a separate schismatic Church isn't supported as there are 'particular' Churches within the body of the Church. 

Using Lumen Gentium as a comparison we find:

Moreover, within the Church particular Churches hold a rightful place; these Churches retain their own traditions, without in any way opposing the primacy of the Chair of Peter, which presides over the whole assembly of charity (11*) and protects legitimate differences, while at the same time assuring that such differences do not hinder unity but rather contribute toward it. Between all the parts of the Church there remains a bond of close communion whereby they share spiritual riches, apostolic workers and temporal resources. For the members of the people of God are called to share these goods in common, and of each of the Churches the words of the Apostle hold good: "According to the gift that each has received, administer it to one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God".(123)

The use could simply mean other ecclesial bodies etc.

So referring to the SSPX does not necessarily support Voris' conclusion - he'd have to make an inference at a later point.

[St.Justin]

From Ecclesi Dei document.  See bolded.  Strangely refers to the Society as a capital "C" Church.
Post 88 many used this document to portray the Society as a formal schism with its own parallel hierarchy. 

1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)

"the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X "

It is pretty confusing English but I think it really says" the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X to ensure the full communion with the Church"

At least that is how I read it. Taqke a breath between the word "Church" and the word "of" and it is obvious. at least to me, what it is saying.