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

[christulsa]

Unity with the See of St. Peter has always been conisidered doctrinally necessary.  Unless Rome, the pope currently lacks authority, we should keep seeking this, which ABL did.

Yes, of course, yet today is no different then 1988 or the 20 years prior, this is the reason why there can be no agreement with the Modernists.

Yet post 1988 ABL didnt say no deal until Rome comes back to Tradition.  He didnt see how a deal could be practically be made until then, but he didnt lay it down as a rule for the Society.  He said he stood by the 88 Accord and would have kept it if Rome had been trustworthy about granting a bishop.

If Rome should allow the Society to continue as is, why not try what ABL wanted ie an experiment of Tradition?

I agree.

In order to not treat the authority of Pope / Rome with contempt (ie schismatic) it is necessary to be ready to obey if they actually manage to issue an 'order', that doesn't involve a compromise.

I also think that today is far worse and far better than 1988.

Worse: Pope Francis et al, Amoris Laetitia, Laudatio Si (sp) etc etc etc

Better: The _______ are out in the open.

Its interesting Bishop Scheider in his recent interview said the Society doesn't have to worry if they are required to compromise because they can just revert to their present state.  I'm all for an agreement for many reasons, imo  1. To better bring Tradition to the mainstream Church.  2. To end the appearance of schism which confuses people, 3. To help remedy some of the weirdness in the SSPX, 4. To better unite Traddom.

As much as I respect Bishop Schneider, I disagree about accepting a compromised position. This will, in my opinion, cause more division and confusion than it solves. If the SSPX is recognized 'as they are' (and allllll that entails) - then go for it!  If not ... well, they've waited 40 ish years, what's another 10. 

Reminds me of:

What would be an uncompromised position?  It seems to come down to how to deal with the errors of the Council.  I think they can give public religious assent to religious liberty, etc but still object to the ambiguity and problematic statements as material errors in language and common interpretation, adhering to the traditional ecclesiology.  As long as they arent required to deny any part of the traditional doctrine.  They've been the main VII critic in the Church.  They are in a position once regularized to bring the debate out in the open and ask the Church to correct the errors

[tradical]

What would be an uncompromised position?  It seems to come down to how to deal with the errors of the Council.  I think they can give public religious assent to religious liberty, etc but still object to the ambiguity and problematic statements as material errors in language and common interpretation, adhering to the traditional ecclesiology.  As long as they arent required to deny any part of the traditional doctrine.  They've been the main VII critic in the Church.  They are in a position once regularized to bring the debate out in the open and ask the Church to correct the errors

From a purely practical point of view, if they are not allowed to hold the pre-conciliar understanding, then based on part performance they would be trapped. 

From my reading there are three things that they are being asked:

a. unconditional acceptance of v2
b. unconditional acceptance of the NOM
c. unconditional acceptance of the post-v2 magisterium

Pretty bad if you compromise on any of those because then they'd be trapped.

[tradne4163]

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?

I see that this question has not been addressed, so I'll take a stab at it.

Confession is essential for the salvation of souls. In fact, the Church obliges one to confess sins at least once a year under pain of mortal sin. Plus, it is the ordinary means of absolving mortal sin. So the Church made provisions for the sake of the faithful by supplying jurisdiction in certain situations such as when there's a danger of death, a common error of fact/law, etc.

Confirmation, while being very important, is not required for salvation. So there is no situation where a priest could presume to be able to confer that sacrament in place of a bishop.

[tradical]

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?

I see that this question has not been addressed, so I'll take a stab at it.

Confession is essential for the salvation of souls. In fact, the Church obliges one to confess sins at least once a year under pain of mortal sin. Plus, it is the ordinary means of absolving mortal sin. So the Church made provisions for the sake of the faithful by supplying jurisdiction in certain situations such as when there's a danger of death, a common error of fact/law, etc.

Confirmation, while being very important, is not required for salvation. So there is no situation where a priest could presume to be able to confer that sacrament in place of a bishop.

Good point!

[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?

I see that this question has not been addressed, so I'll take a stab at it.

Confession is essential for the salvation of souls. In fact, the Church obliges one to confess sins at least once a year under pain of mortal sin. Plus, it is the ordinary means of absolving mortal sin. So the Church made provisions for the sake of the faithful by supplying jurisdiction in certain situations such as when there's a danger of death, a common error of fact/law, etc.

Confirmation, while being very important, is not required for salvation. So there is no situation where a priest could presume to be able to confer that sacrament in place of a bishop.

I've heard of independent traditional priests giving confirmation, plus the Society bishops confer it without ordinary jurisdiction.  True as a bishop they would be the ordinary minister of the sacrament, but if a priest cant confirm with supplied jurisdiction because it isnt essential, then why the imperative of those bishops flying endlessly all over the world to confirm.  Why would they have supplied jurisdiction?

[Stubborn]

Unity with the See of St. Peter has always been conisidered doctrinally necessary.  Unless Rome, the pope currently lacks authority, we should keep seeking this, which ABL did.

Yes, of course, yet today is no different then 1988 or the 20 years prior, this is the reason why there can be no agreement with the Modernists.

Yet post 1988 ABL didnt say no deal until Rome comes back to Tradition.  He didnt see how a deal could be practically be made until then, but he didnt lay it down as a rule for the Society.  He said he stood by the 88 Accord and would have kept it if Rome had been trustworthy about granting a bishop.

If Rome should allow the Society to continue as is, why not try what ABL wanted ie an experiment of Tradition?

The good archbishop wanted what we all want - to convert Rome, not settle for anything, as Fr. Wathen said - "we want for them to leave the Church and hand back Catholic property to Catholics." That is the deal we want, that is the only deal really that can be made.

Though the archbishop would have settled for the pope granting the consecrations for the sake of the legality of the matter, he was convinced that he was right and the pope and the living authority in the Church were wrong - and they still are just as wrong today as they were back then, nothing has changed in that regard. That's why what +ABL did was right and that's why +Fellay and crew have not been able to make a deal.

As Fr. correctly said in his sermon - when dealing with the powers that be within the Church, think "ravening wolves". Deals can not be made with ravening wolves at all, certainly not today any better than back then. The problem is that most people today do not think its as bad today as it was then.

From the sermon (9:20-11:19) I posted earlier.....

"....and we say the only thing that will satisfy us is for them to leave the Church and hand back Catholic property to Catholics. For them to call themselves what they are - Masons, Revolutionaries, Marxists, and anti-Christian heretics. That is what they are and we want a little truth, a little plain spokeness, a little honor and a little honesty, we have had none of it for 20 years!

Again I repeat we are not intimidated nor are we seduced by all this language, because a long time ago we learned how to deal with these people, we learned that they are conniving liars and heretics, and they regard us as hardly more than a nuisance whom they would be glad to see die off. They find us a pitiable lot but they have no care for us. Pitiable only in the sense that we are so stupid as to believe them, as to take them seriously.

You must convince yourselves my dear people that those who control the Church have no religion whatsoever. If that seems an extreme statement, I dare say if you talk to the archbishop, you would be convinced by him because he has seen it first hand. He has received their treatment and he knows what they're about...."

[tradical]

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?

I see that this question has not been addressed, so I'll take a stab at it.

Confession is essential for the salvation of souls. In fact, the Church obliges one to confess sins at least once a year under pain of mortal sin. Plus, it is the ordinary means of absolving mortal sin. So the Church made provisions for the sake of the faithful by supplying jurisdiction in certain situations such as when there's a danger of death, a common error of fact/law, etc.

Confirmation, while being very important, is not required for salvation. So there is no situation where a priest could presume to be able to confer that sacrament in place of a bishop.

I've heard of independent traditional priests giving confirmation, plus the Society bishops confer it without ordinary jurisdiction.  True as a bishop they would be the ordinary minister of the sacrament, but if a priest cant confirm with supplied jurisdiction because it isnt essential, then why the imperative of those bishops flying endlessly all over the world to confirm.  Why would they have supplied jurisdiction?

I think the key is that the delegation of a priest to perform the confirmations is an act of delegation of the local ordinary.  This is done under his authority / jurisdiction.

[tradical]

The good archbishop wanted what we all want - to convert Rome, not settle for anything, as Fr. Wathen said - "we want for them to leave the Church and hand back Catholic property to Catholics." That is the deal we want, that is the only deal really that can be made.

Though the archbishop would have settled for the pope granting the consecrations for the sake of the legality of the matter, he was convinced that he was right and the pope and the living authority in the Church were wrong - and they still are just as wrong today as they were back then, nothing has changed in that regard. That's why what +ABL did was right and that's why +Fellay and crew have not been able to make a deal.

As Fr. correctly said in his sermon - when dealing with the powers that be within the Church, think "ravening wolves". Deals can not be made with ravening wolves at all, certainly not today any better than back then. The problem is that most people today do not think its as bad today as it was then.

From the sermon (9:20-11:19) I posted earlier.....

"....and we say the only thing that will satisfy us is for them to leave the Church and hand back Catholic property to Catholics. For them to call themselves what they are - Masons, Revolutionaries, Marxists, and anti-Christian heretics. That is what they are and we want a little truth, a little plain spokeness, a little honor and a little honesty, we have had none of it for 20 years!

Again I repeat we are not intimidated nor are we seduced by all this language, because a long time ago we learned how to deal with these people, we learned that they are conniving liars and heretics, and they regard us as hardly more than a nuisance whom they would be glad to see die off. They find us a pitiable lot but they have no care for us. Pitiable only in the sense that we are so stupid as to believe them, as to take them seriously.

You must convince yourselves my dear people that those who control the Church have no religion whatsoever. If that seems an extreme statement, I dare say if you talk to the archbishop, you would be convinced by him because he has seen it first hand. He has received their treatment and he knows what they're about...."

I think this is a simplification:
1. The Archbishop, except for one time, always went when Rome called and stated clearly that once Rome realized the vitality of Tradition, that the Superior General would be responsible for the negotiations.
2. Applying generalizations to specific issues is dangerous because the bad Pope, cardinals, bishops are still in the Church and still hold the authority.  That's why understanding the principles is important.

[Stubborn]

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?

I see that this question has not been addressed, so I'll take a stab at it.

Confession is essential for the salvation of souls. In fact, the Church obliges one to confess sins at least once a year under pain of mortal sin. Plus, it is the ordinary means of absolving mortal sin. So the Church made provisions for the sake of the faithful by supplying jurisdiction in certain situations such as when there's a danger of death, a common error of fact/law, etc.

Confirmation, while being very important, is not required for salvation. So there is no situation where a priest could presume to be able to confer that sacrament in place of a bishop.

I've heard of independent traditional priests giving confirmation, plus the Society bishops confer it without ordinary jurisdiction.  True as a bishop they would be the ordinary minister of the sacrament, but if a priest cant confirm with supplied jurisdiction because it isnt essential, then why the imperative of those bishops flying endlessly all over the world to confirm.  Why would they have supplied jurisdiction?

I think the key is that the delegation of a priest to perform the confirmations is an act of delegation of the local ordinary.  This is done under his authority / jurisdiction.

Along 2 others, I was confirmed by a priest, I lived in one of the suburbs of Detroit, MI but had to drive 520 miles for it. In 1973, it was that or get confirmed by a NO bishop.

[Stubborn]

The good archbishop wanted what we all want - to convert Rome, not settle for anything, as Fr. Wathen said - "we want for them to leave the Church and hand back Catholic property to Catholics." That is the deal we want, that is the only deal really that can be made.

Though the archbishop would have settled for the pope granting the consecrations for the sake of the legality of the matter, he was convinced that he was right and the pope and the living authority in the Church were wrong - and they still are just as wrong today as they were back then, nothing has changed in that regard. That's why what +ABL did was right and that's why +Fellay and crew have not been able to make a deal.

As Fr. correctly said in his sermon - when dealing with the powers that be within the Church, think "ravening wolves". Deals can not be made with ravening wolves at all, certainly not today any better than back then. The problem is that most people today do not think its as bad today as it was then.

From the sermon (9:20-11:19) I posted earlier.....

"....and we say the only thing that will satisfy us is for them to leave the Church and hand back Catholic property to Catholics. For them to call themselves what they are - Masons, Revolutionaries, Marxists, and anti-Christian heretics. That is what they are and we want a little truth, a little plain spokeness, a little honor and a little honesty, we have had none of it for 20 years!

Again I repeat we are not intimidated nor are we seduced by all this language, because a long time ago we learned how to deal with these people, we learned that they are conniving liars and heretics, and they regard us as hardly more than a nuisance whom they would be glad to see die off. They find us a pitiable lot but they have no care for us. Pitiable only in the sense that we are so stupid as to believe them, as to take them seriously.

You must convince yourselves my dear people that those who control the Church have no religion whatsoever. If that seems an extreme statement, I dare say if you talk to the archbishop, you would be convinced by him because he has seen it first hand. He has received their treatment and he knows what they're about...."

I think this is a simplification:
1. The Archbishop, except for one time, always went when Rome called and stated clearly that once Rome realized the vitality of Tradition, that the Superior General would be responsible for the negotiations.
2. Applying generalizations to specific issues is dangerous because the bad Pope, cardinals, bishops are still in the Church and still hold the authority.  That's why understanding the principles is important.

1) To date, Rome has not only *not* realized the vitality of tradition, as Modernists, as Pope St. Pius X said; "despising the holy and apostolic traditions", they will never realize it's vitality because Modernism is wholly opposed to tradition. So if that be the condition for negotiations, there can be no negotiations, hence no agreement - just as there was not and could not have been any agreement in 1988.

2) No one (except sedevacantists) argues that the pope and hierarchy are still the authority, that's why +ABL always went when Rome called and that's why Fr. Wathen repeatedly affirms as much when he says; "those with power within the Church".   

Yet having that authority does not change what they have made themselves into, namely, "ravenous wolves" who have "no religion whatsoever." What kind of deal can the SSPX hope to make with "ravenous wolves" who have "no religion whatsoever"?

[Miriam_M]

Stubborn,

[christulsa]

What would be an uncompromised position?  It seems to come down to how to deal with the errors of the Council.  I think they can give public religious assent to religious liberty, etc but still object to the ambiguity and problematic statements as material errors in language and common interpretation, adhering to the traditional ecclesiology.  As long as they arent required to deny any part of the traditional doctrine.  They've been the main VII critic in the Church.  They are in a position once regularized to bring the debate out in the open and ask the Church to correct the errors

From a purely practical point of view, if they are not allowed to hold the pre-conciliar understanding, then based on part performance they would be trapped. 

From my reading there are three things that they are being asked:

a. unconditional acceptance of v2
b. unconditional acceptance of the NOM
c. unconditional acceptance of the post-v2 magisterium

Pretty bad if you compromise on any of those because then they'd be trapped.

They can do all those things in the sense of giving basic religious assent but once regularized continue to criticize the errors (in language and common interpretation, practice).   They could not be forbidden from doing this nor adhering to preconciliar documents.  If so, then disobey to the point of being suspended again.  They can make it plain they are prepared to revert to their current position if required to compromise when signing an accord.  If the Society is confident in its resistance of the errors and modernist abuse of authority, then why not give it a try?  Unless the Society were to insist on rejecting controversial VII teachings as formal, grave errors against the Faith, which I haven't read them going that far.  For example religious liberty.  The language is so convoluted that it is commonly interpreted in a modernist sense, which is bad for the Chyrch.  There is conflict with preconciliar language.  But no need to formally reject the statements, which I don't think the Society has done.  Whats crazy is I haven't read or heard anyone discuss this strategy as one possible solution.  Am I the only one? 

[Stubborn]

They can do all those things in the sense of giving basic religious assent but once regularized continue to criticize the errors (in language and common interpretation, practice).

This completely reneges on the principles tradical mentioned, because the SSPX deceives in order to be regularized - which only entirely negates any reason to strive to convert the Roman Modernists - which, their conversion is wholly necessary for any agreement.   

  They could not be forbidden from doing this nor adhering to preconciliar documents.  If so, then disobey to the point of being suspended again.  They can make it plain they are prepared to revert to their current position if required to compromise when signing an accord...... Whats crazy is I haven't read or heard anyone discuss this strategy as one possible solution.  Am I the only one? 

This is a strategy that can only result in disaster, which is likely why it has not been discussed.

[christulsa]

Youd think they could come together and sit down and write out something like this to sign.  Its not brain surgery. 

1. We give the proper assent required to all teachings of Vatican Council II, the postconciliar Magisterium, and the New Order of Mass.

2. We object to ambiguity and material errors in language in Vatican II, which are difficult to reconcile with previous teaching, but we will assist the Church in a theological critique so that the Council can be properly understood in light of Tradition.

3. We adhere completely to the preconciliar doctrinal teachings, especially with regards to religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality.

4. We will obey the pope and bishops, but if ever commanded to sin or deny a doctrine of the Faith, we cannot.

5. The Vatican guarantees the Society will be able to publicly make theological criticisms of Vatican II and the New Mass but maintaining proper respect and assent to the Magisterium.

[christulsa]

They can do all those things in the sense of giving basic religious assent but once regularized continue to criticize the errors (in language and common interpretation, practice).

This completely reneges on the principles tradical mentioned, because the SSPX deceives in order to be regularized - which only entirely negates any reason to strive to convert the Roman Modernists - which, their conversion is wholly necessary for any agreement.   

  They could not be forbidden from doing this nor adhering to preconciliar documents.  If so, then disobey to the point of being suspended again.  They can make it plain they are prepared to revert to their current position if required to compromise when signing an accord...... Whats crazy is I haven't read or heard anyone discuss this strategy as one possible solution.  Am I the only one? 

This is a strategy that can only result in disaster, which is likely why it has not been discussed.

That's predicting the future.  IF it results in disaster, they can revert to their current position.