Archbishop Lefebvre Warns Sedevacantism Leads to Schism. In His Own Voice

Started by Rad Trad, June 03, 2024, 08:06:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rad Trad

Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 04, 2024, 03:45:51 PMLet's talk about "schism":Q. Which bishop or bishops have been officially excommunicated by their Pope?
A. Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops that he illicitly consecrated (according to your Pope).
Your Pope John Paul II stated explicitly in the decree of excomunication, that the consecration of bishops is a "schismatic act"!!! Yet because he is merely a "cardboard Pope" (according to R&R Ecclesiology); one does not have to pay the least attention to him:
QuoteMonsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred <ipso facto> excommunication <latae sententiae> reserved to the Apostolic See.

Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication <latae sententiae> as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur <ipso facto> the very grave penalty of excommunication.

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Bernardinus Card. Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
So if the "schismatic" shoes fit, why not wear them?
Of course the SSPX apologists immediately "spinned" the excommunication as "not valid"; In other words: "Rome speaks, and the Case is closed" (St. Augustine) to: "Rome speaks, and let every Catholic decide".

1. The invalid excommunications do not render the Pope as a "cardboard pope."  That does not follow.

2. You're calling into question my own personal Catholicity in the discussion about SVism which itself IS against the forum rules. I haven't done this to you. You also did this in the other thread saying if someone does not believe in ultramontane theology on the extent of papal infallibility, as I (and others) said I didn't, then they aren't a Catholic. You repeated this without explaining where the Magisterium teaches what you assert.

3. Catholics are required to believe the Faith and obey the pope and local bishop as a matter of salvation. To be in communion with the Church. And the popes and bishops aren't canonically commanding anything  to ordinary laity anything that they can't obey. Strictly speaking. Including about where they can attend Mass, and if they can hold to RR objections about the Council. Not as a binding canonical command. Therefore, a Catholic avoids also the sin of schism by not following SVism in all its practical conclusions.

On the other hand, in contrast, SVism exposes itself to the danger if wrong of falling into schism. No lay Catholic has the right to publicly declare with a certain judgment that the popes, bishops, and Council are a formally a false church they encourage other Catholics to reject. At best it can be a private opinion modestly expressed.  But SVism typically goes beyond this.  Therefore, it risks schism.

Stubborn

Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 04, 2024, 03:57:27 PMYou don't 'submit' to the man you claim is Pope; you do not accept Vatican II (except giving it merely lip service, and interpreting it in your own way). You reduce the office of the Papacy to a mere ceremonial role; and accuse the pre-Vatican II Popes and theologians of exaggerating the powers of the Papacy. This is essentially a schismatic and heretical position.

You are confusing blind obedience with true obedience Michael, and you are insisting blind obedience is owed to popes - we disagree that that idea is even worth considering. There's also confusion among sedeism as regards authority vs infallibility.   

We reference V1 repeatedly, who infallibly defined the criteria and limits of papal infallibility which some pre-V2 theologians most certainly expanded and exaggerated, probably under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding, which V1 condemned doing but they did it anyway - likely because most of the pre-V2 popes were so highly virtuous personally, that the theologians' contrary-to-V1 ideas were readily accepted in those days, even tho they exaggerated papal infallibility as defined at V1.     
Even after a long life of sin, if the Christian receives the Sacrament of the dying with the appropriate dispositions, he will go straight to heaven without having to go to purgatory. - Fr. M. Philipon; This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life. - St. Thomas Aquinas; It washes away the sins that remain to be atoned, and the vestiges of sin; it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing in him a great trust and confidence in the divine mercy. Thus strengthened, he bears the hardships and struggles of his illness more easily and resists the temptation of the devil and the heel of the deceiver more readily; and if it be advantageous to the welfare of his soul, he sometimes regains his bodily health. - Council of Trent

Michael Wilson

Quote1. The invalid excommunications do not render the Pope as a "cardboard pope."  That does not follow.
In other words when your Pope excommunicates someone, you can ignore him and go on your happy way?
That means you ignore your Pope's authority, and he is in effect a mere figurehead Pope for you.

Quote2. You're calling into question my own personal Catholicity in the discussion about SVism which itself IS against the forum rules. I haven't done this to you. You also did this in the other thread saying if someone does not believe in ultramontane theology on the extent of papal infallibility, as I (and others) said I didn't, then they aren't a Catholic. You repeated this without explaining where the Magisterium teaches what you assert.
You are the one who started this thread entitled: "Sedevacantism leads to schism"; so if one holds to the sede principles, one logically is going to schism sooner or latter; I responded by saying it isn't the sede principles that lead to schism, by those of the R&R and I pointed to the case of Msgr. Lefebvre, who died in schism according  to your Pope. But of course in your ecclesiology, what the Pope says or does, has no effect on one's Catholicism.

Quote3. Catholics are required to believe the Faith and obey the pope and local bishop as a matter of salvation. To be in communion with the Church. And the popes and bishops aren't canonically commanding anything  to ordinary laity anything that they can't obey. Strictly speaking. Including about where they can attend Mass, and if they can hold to RR objections about the Council. Not as a binding canonical command. Therefore, a Catholic avoids also the sin of schism by not following SVism in all its practical conclusions.
So the Pope and the bishops cannot tell you where you can or cannot attend Mass? Cannot tell you that you have to accept a Church Council? Cannot give you a canonical binding command on such matters? They absolutely can and have done so; but according to R&R ecclesiology, one can ignore them.
Aha! What were you crying about in your previous paragraph? So you wouldn't even think about calling into question the Catholicity of your's truly? No siree! Nothing to see here.

QuoteOn the other hand, in contrast, SVism exposes itself to the danger if wrong of falling into schism. No lay Catholic has the right to publicly declare with a certain judgment that the popes, bishops, and Council are a formally a false church they encourage other Catholics to reject. At best it can be a private opinion modestly expressed.  But SVism typically goes beyond this.  Therefore, it risks schism.
Ah yes, it is the sedes that have a "schismatic" tendency; and "no lay Catholic has the right to declare that the Popes, bishops and Council are a formaly false Church"; however if a bishops does so, say in the case of Msgr. Lefebvre its "A-OK"?
Interview, June 29, 1976:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Chapter_11.htm
Quote"The Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been.It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.

"This Conciliar Church is schismatic, because it has taken as a basis for its updating, principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church, such as the new concept of the Mass expressed in numbers 5 of the Preface to (the decree) Missale Romanum and 7 of its first chapter, which gives the assembly a priestly role that it cannot exercise; such likewise as the natural — which is to say divine — right of every person and of every group of persons to religious freedom.

This right to religious freedom is blasphemous, for it attributes to God purposes that destroy His Majesty, His Glory, His Kingship. This right implies freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and all the Masonic freedoms.


"The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church."
So let's summarize how many times Msgr Lefebvre tells us that the one true Church is "schismatic" is a "Conciliar Church" is "not Catholic"
1.The Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church,
2.already condemned by the Church
3."This Conciliar Church is schismatic
4.principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church
5."This right to religious freedom is blasphemous,
6."The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical
7.This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic.
8.To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.
You can read the whole sermon on the link above.
So which of the two positions leads to schism? The difference between R&R and Sedism is that the first is essentially schizofrenic it holds that the Holy Catholic Church is at the same time a heretical shismatic Church; that the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, and a heretical apostate and destroyer of the faith.
It absolutely does not hang together as a coherent theory and is full of self contradictory principles.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Michael Wilson

Re. "Ultramontane theology" from Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii"
Quote"Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."

  To summarize:   "Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason..."
    "For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature..."
    "...and to imagine ... that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false..."
    Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."
Wow! Pope Pius seems to be "calling into question" the Catholicism of those who would restrict the authority of the Roman Pontiff to only her solemn decisions.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Michael Wilson

Pope Leo XIII "Sapientia Christiana"
QuotePope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, Jan. 10, 1890 

"In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed "with Catholic and divine faith." But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.   
"Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live."
Therefore:
1.) Catholics believe what the Magisterium teaches...heretics pick and choose.
2.) amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See. (They can even tell you what Church to attend!)
3.) Owe obedience to the Roman Pontiff, say for example when he would order the suppresion of a religious order as in Paul VI ordering the suppression of the SSPX (still happily operating without official approval for the last 50 years)
4.) When they promulgate acts of a General Council and the reforms of the liturgical rites including the Mass mandated by the same Council.


"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Bonaventure

Mike, you might be dealing with AlfredtheGreat/BonifaceVIII/GoG, based on the VPN use and massive amount of different IPs.

Rad Trad

You've literally twisted everything I said, Michael. The title is ABL making the argument. It's a description of the video to be discussed. And ABL did not say that being sede necessarily will result in schism, but that following it to all its practical conclusions poses the danger of falling into schism.  That was why ABL officially rejected going that direction.

And none of your conclusions logically follow from what I said.  Concluding the excommunications were invalid doesn't equate to ignoring the Pope or treating him as a mere figurehead.

I never stated the Popes have no authority to make those commands. I stated that they have not given any canonically binding commands to the laity that Catholics can't obey.

Going to the SSPX or FSSP is allowed.  To any Catholic Mass. Objecting to problems in the Council is allowed. Ignoring papal speeches that favor the LGBTQ agenda is allowed. What IS NOT allowed by the Church, if you believe ultramontane theology is Church teaching, is to usurp the authority of the Pope and declare with dogmatic-like certainty that the pope and hierarchy are a "false schismatic church" to be rejected.  ABL knew that to do that was dangerous and could lead to excommunication.  He wasn't in schism from the Church of Rome, which is the Church of Christ, but from the modernists in Rome. Those are two different realities.

Michael Wilson

Bonny,
the most ironic thing about this poster is that he can only see the "mote in his neighbor's eye" and cannot for a moment see that he has an elephant in his own.
R&R's are so blind to their totally incoherent ecclessiology, which was really just "concocted on the fly" by the trads at the end of the Council; that they don't see that it doesn't accord with Catholic doctrine; and if you try to point to them the sources of said doctrine, they dismiss the sources as "heretical" or "exaggerated".
At "One Peter Five" they have a project to "Re Thinking the Papacy" and no one over there blinks an eye; imagine if they proposed;"Re Thinking the Real Presence" or "The Blessed Trinity"?  You would think somebody would "twig-on" and realize that there is something seriously amiss with the theological foundations that would lead one to even propose such a thing. 
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Michael Wilson

Rad Trad,
I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Bonaventure

Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 05, 2024, 12:19:18 PMBonny,
the most ironic thing about this poster is that he can only see the "mote in his neighbor's eye" and cannot for a moment see that he has an elephant in his own.

Indeed. Twisting words, sophistry. Strange obsession to immediately register and dive right into a thread about SV.

I wonder why such a person would willingly devote time out of their life to participate in what they consider a Catholic fight club? Surely more edifying works a Catholic could perform?

Although I suppose to this person, trying to convert the big bad sedes from their position that leads to schism, is edifying in their book.

Keep it up, soon you're gonna have a nice rhyming poem written about you! I'm so flattered, my high school crushes didn't even do that for me, so it means a lot!!

Rad Trad

Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 05, 2024, 12:19:18 PMBonny,
the most ironic thing about this poster is that he can only see the "mote in his neighbor's eye" and cannot for a moment see that he has an elephant in his own.
R&R's are so blind to their totally incoherent ecclessiology, which was really just "concocted on the fly" by the trads at the end of the Council; that they don't see that it doesn't accord with Catholic doctrine; and if you try to point to them the sources of said doctrine, they dismiss the sources as "heretical" or "exaggerated".
At "One Peter Five" they have a project to "Re Thinking the Papacy" and no one over there blinks an eye; imagine if they proposed;"Re Thinking the Real Presence" or "The Blessed Trinity"?  You would think somebody would "twig-on" and realize that there is something seriously amiss with the theological foundations that would lead one to even propose such a thing.

Your first statement is untrue and uncharitable. I've not discussed the sins of sedes vs those in the RR camp. Let alone my own sins. You're confusing the debate over ecclesiology with personal judgment.


Rad Trad

Quote from: Bonaventure on June 05, 2024, 12:33:16 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 05, 2024, 12:19:18 PMBonny,
the most ironic thing about this poster is that he can only see the "mote in his neighbor's eye" and cannot for a moment see that he has an elephant in his own.

Indeed. Twisting words, sophistry. Strange obsession to immediately register and dive right into a thread about SV.

I wonder why such a person would willingly devote time out of their life to participate in what they consider a Catholic fight club? Surely more edifying works a Catholic could perform?

Although I suppose to this person, trying to convert the big bad sedes from their position that leads to schism, is edifying in their book.

Keep it up, soon you're gonna have a nice rhyming poem written about you! I'm so flattered, my high school crushes didn't even do that for me, so it means a lot!!

The forum is not a fight club. Nor this subfurum. Despite a few treating it as such.

Rad Trad

Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 05, 2024, 12:24:27 PMRad Trad,
I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you.


That's fine. We can agree to disagree. But I hope you and anyone reading this thread takes to heart ABL warning about the dangers of SVism, especially when it becomes dogmatic. I also hope you'll be more objective and fair when debating this issue in the future.

Stubborn

Quote from: Rad Trad on June 05, 2024, 12:15:12 PMYou've literally twisted everything I said, Michael.

Ha ha, I have told him the same thing in our battles - and he has told the same thing to me once or twice lol.
Even after a long life of sin, if the Christian receives the Sacrament of the dying with the appropriate dispositions, he will go straight to heaven without having to go to purgatory. - Fr. M. Philipon; This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life. - St. Thomas Aquinas; It washes away the sins that remain to be atoned, and the vestiges of sin; it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing in him a great trust and confidence in the divine mercy. Thus strengthened, he bears the hardships and struggles of his illness more easily and resists the temptation of the devil and the heel of the deceiver more readily; and if it be advantageous to the welfare of his soul, he sometimes regains his bodily health. - Council of Trent

Rad Trad

Quote from: Stubborn on June 05, 2024, 01:11:21 PM
Quote from: Rad Trad on June 05, 2024, 12:15:12 PMYou've literally twisted everything I said, Michael.

Ha ha, I have told him the same thing in our battles - and he has told the same thing to me once or twice lol.


As long as you're willing to correct yourself when he points it out. Unfortunately, at least in this and the recent thread, he's not willing to correct repeatedly twisting my words. It seems therefore willful and obstinate.