It is currently Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:26 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] 
 The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike 
Author Message

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Mike wrote:

Mike wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

I hope you enjoyed your holiday! A cordial greeting to you as well, and thank you for your comments. Regarding Archbishop Lefebvre's ideas about Vatican II or any of his ideas, I would need to see his exact words before commenting. I think there are perceptions of the Archbishop and there is the reality of him as well. It is important to sort the two out.

Generally speaking though, I think you would agree with this:

1. When a Catholic hears heresy or error, the first duty is to reject it. A Catholic may be illogical in how he resists it, and may be clumsy in his theology, but what is first and foremost is that he must reject it and keep his faith.
2. The second part of this process is to try to understand what happened. Many questions may arise. Was the person teaching the heresy aware of what he was saying? How could a pope teach heresy or error publicly in an apparently binding way? Did I understand the person I believe to be in error, i.e. is there a misunderstanding of terms? Is the matter not clear in my mind, so that I need more data before making a judgment, etc.

For myself, I say that Vatican II is non-binding, due it not coming from the Church. For Archbishop Lefebvre, I would need to read his words. But, without looking at his exact statement, let me posit that if a Catholic has followed the first step but is stuck on the second step, then he is still behaving as a Catholic.

I think it may be worthwhile to post the statement from Archbishop Lefebvre that you are thinking of on a new thread and we can work through it.


Dear Mike,

- About the two steps. The first step for you is the following:

"1. When a Catholic hears heresy or error, the first duty is to reject it. A Catholic may be illogical in how he resists it, and may be clumsy in his theology, but what is first and foremost is that he must reject it and keep his faith".

I perfectly agree that the first duty is to reject heresy or error, but only at one condition. The statement must be completed: "The first duty is to reject the error, without embrace another one". Lefebvre was convinced that the visible head of the Church (the Pope) led the Church to the destruction. He professed this publicly, with his declarations and his behavior (systematic disobedience to the Pope). I think that it is at least an error if not a heresy to say that the Pope is bad for the Universal Church. And for you?

- About the "exact words" of Lefebvre. An example may be done by these words:

« Le cardinal Ratzinger est contre l'infaillibilité, le pape est contre l'infaillibilité de par sa formation philosophique. Que l'on nous comprenne bien, nous ne sommes pas contre le pape en tant qu'il représente toutes les valeurs du siège apostolique, qui sont immuables, du siège de Pierre, mais contre le pape qui est un moderniste qui ne croit pas à son infaillibilité, qui fait de l'œcuménisme. Évidemment, nous sommes contre l'Église conciliaire qui est pratiquement schismatique, même s'ils ne l'acceptent pas. Dans la pratique, c'est une Église virtuellement excommuniée, parce que c'est une Église moderniste. Ce sont eux qui nous excommunient, alors que nous voulons rester catholiques» (Mgr Lefebvre, Fideliter n. 70, p. 8, 1989).

So, for Lefebvre:
The Pope is against the infallibility.
The Pope is modernist.
The Pope promotes ecumenism.
The conciliar Church [chaired by the Pope] is practically schismatic, virtually excommunicated and she is modernist.

Now, obviously, for all sedevacantists the Vatican II is non-binding because no Pope has approved it. But for a man who, as Lefebvre, retains that Paul VI (and his successors) was a Pope, is it possible to arrive at the same conclusion (the Vatican II is non-binding) without to profess an error or heresy? I think no, dear Mike. And you?

A cordial greeting.


Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele,

Quote:
Cardinal Ratzinger against infallibility, the Pope is against the infallibility of its philosophical training. That we understand, we are not against the pope as he represents all the values ​​of the Apostolic See, which are immutable, the See of Peter, but against the Pope, who is a modernist who does not believe in infallibility, which makes ecumenism. Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church is practically schismatic, even if they do not accept it. In practice, it is virtually a church excommunicated because it is a modernist church. They are excommunicate us while we remain Catholic.


Those statements are all factual, except the appellation "pope" but since the Church tolerated the view of Cajetan ("Lamp of the Church"), John of St. Thomas, Suarez, Bouix, and others, that one cannot say that a heretic-pope is not pope prior to a declaration by authority, this is a lawful position to hold.

And in case anybody is in any doubt, the first three names on that list are some of the greatest theologians ever produced by the Church. They are cited by all, repeatedly, on numerous subjects.

Gabriele, you'd use your time better trying to understand the mysterious crisis in all its implications than in censuring Archbishop Lefebvre for his views, views you evidently don't understand and have made no real effort to grasp.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:21 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele,

Quote:
Cardinal Ratzinger against infallibility, the Pope is against the infallibility of its philosophical training. That we understand, we are not against the pope as he represents all the values ​​of the Apostolic See, which are immutable, the See of Peter, but against the Pope, who is a modernist who does not believe in infallibility, which makes ecumenism. Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church is practically schismatic, even if they do not accept it. In practice, it is virtually a church excommunicated because it is a modernist church. They are excommunicate us while we remain Catholic.


Those statements are all factual, except the appellation "pope" but since the Church tolerated the view of Cajetan ("Lamp of the Church"), John of St. Thomas, Suarez, Bouix, and others, that one cannot say that a heretic-pope is not pope prior to a declaration by authority, this is a lawful position to hold.

And in case anybody is in any doubt, the first three names on that list are some of the greatest theologians ever produced by the Church. They are cited by all, repeatedly, on numerous subjects.


Dear John, these great theologians should make you (at least) doubt about your position on the totally vacance of the Apostolic See. But this is not the issue now.

John Lane wrote:
Gabriele, you'd use your time better trying to understand the mysterious crisis in all its implications than in censuring Archbishop Lefebvre for his views, views you evidently don't understand and have made no real effort to grasp.


The essential difference between the great theologians that you have cited and Bp. Lefebvre is that for the formers (and for Bellarmine too, and for all theologians who have treated of the issue of the so called "Papa-haereticus") a Pope can become a heretic as private person (and as you know, Bellarmine and Suarez excluded also this eventuality, as their personal opinion). On the contrary, for Lefebvre, Paul VI and John Paul II were dangerous and harmful as Popes, as public persons. This is inconceivable for the theologians of the past. Maybe for you the consensus of theologians is binding only for me and not for Lefebvre?

It seems to me that the person who has not understood Bp. Lefebvre are you, dear John. And not only you do not make any real effort to grasp, but you close your eyes in front of the evidence.

A cordial greeting


Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:57 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele,

How about you tell me your objective?

1. Obtain agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre was a bad theologian?
2. Obtain agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre was a bad man?

Or what? Because this thread doesn't appear to have any other evident purpose.

State your objective and we'll see what value it has.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:47 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele,

How about you tell me your objective?

1. Obtain agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre was a bad theologian?
2. Obtain agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre was a bad man?

Or what? Because this thread doesn't appear to have any other evident purpose.

State your objective and we'll see what value it has.


John,

It seems that you do not like to be contradicted.

First of all I, cordially, invite you not to make insinuations or to attribute to me things I did not say. I have never said that Lefebvre was a bad man. On the contrary, I have always said that he was a good man and that I have great admiration for him as man. Not as theologian, at least for the issues concerning the Papacy.

About this thread. It was absolutely not my intention to open a thread to criticize Lefebvre. I was discussing on Lefebvre with Mike in another thread. It was been Mike to ask me to open a new thread on Bp. Lefebvre. His request was very reasonable, because that thread concerned a completely different issue. [Here the words of Mike, that you already know: "I think it may be worthwhile to post the statement from Archbishop Lefebvre that you are thinking of on a new thread and we can work through it"].

About my objective. Simply, it is to express my opinion on a certain issue (the theological position of Lefebvre), for to try to understand, with other people, the reality of things. I believe that to understand and highlight the mistakes of Lefebvre is very useful for preventing many good Catholics fall into the trap of Lefebvrism. In every case, I have the same right of you to express my convinctions on this matter. My objective in criticizing the theological positions of Lefebvre is equal and opposite to the objective that you have in defending them.

A cordial greeting.


Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:29 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele,

If you want to discuss the views of Archbishop Lefebvre, then you should take the facts that existed, his words and actions in response, and then point out whatever you think was erroneous or mistaken in his words or actions.

This will require work and time, but it will be enlightening.

What is not consistent with that objective is to characterise his position as a whole (erroneously) and then assert that it is not orthodox. No light can come from that kind of approach, and it is bad manners.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:13 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele,

In case you are not used to the approach I am insisting upon, here is an example.

Quote:
Answer to the CDF, 11 January 1979

QUESTION:
Do you hold that a faithful Catholic can think and say that a sacramental rite, in particular that of the Mass, approved and promulgated by the Sovereign Pontiff, can be out of conformity with the Catholic faith or "favoring heresy"?

ANSWER:
That rite in itself does not profess the Catholic faith in as clear a manner as did the old Ordo Missae, and consequently it can favor heresy. But I do not know to whom to attribute it, nor if the Pope is responsible for it.

What is astounding is that an Ordo Missae savoring of Protestantism and therefore “favoring heresy” should be spread abroad by the Roman Curia.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archb ... ter_32.htm


Clearly, the Archbishop is avoiding the heterodox notion that the authority of the Catholic Church could be responsible for worship which "favours heresy".

So, that is evidence which is completely incompatible with your assertion that "Lefebvre was convinced that the visible head of the Church (the Pope) led the Church to the destruction." Indeed, the evidence and your assertion are direct contradictories.

The usual reply by those who criticise the Archbishop when some inconvenient evidence like this is presented is to accuse the Archbishop of flip-flopping. In this way they display their contempt for scholarship, and for justice, and for truth.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:01 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Dear Gabriele,

I agree with what John has already stated, but I have a few thoughts as well. I think the divide here is that Archbishop Lefebvre is following the position of a minority of theologians on this the point of a heretic pope. I do not follow that opinion, nor does John Lane, but in this case, it is a lawful opinion for Catholics to follow. This crisis in my view will put an end to that opinion, as the reality of this crisis has clearly demonstrated the truth of St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching on this.

But, hindsight is always 20/20. At the time of the crisis, Catholics in my view were universally taken off guard. No one was prepared for this catastrophe, including the hierarchy. The Church had just witnessed a string of beloved Popes from St. Pius X to Pius XII. Who could have dreamed of what was coming?

The Catholic reaction to the crisis was formed for the most part in the 1970's. As we talked about previously, a Catholic's first duty is to react to heresy by keeping his Faith. This is done by avoiding and denouncing heretics. Ordinarily, this would also involve an appeal to the Church to censure the heretic and protect the flock from any further damage. But, in the 1970's there was no authority to appeal to, so Catholics were stuck with first protecting their Faith, and then privately determining the next course of action without the benefit of the Shepherds of the Church.

The 1970's was the heat of battle for Catholics, and mistakes were made. Paul VI and his crew were able to maintain chaos, and very few knew what to do. Tens of millions of Catholics were losing the Faith. There was no internet, and Catholics had to rely on loose communication networks, such as small printed mailings, private letters, phone calls, or visits from other Catholics with current news. There was very little organized resistance.

In the midst of this chaos, who can blame Archbishop Lefebvre for not working out the second step we are discussing. He was after all on permissible theological ground, and his position bought him time, which is what I think he wanted more than ever. This time would give him the ability to allow him to not only keep his Faith, but to try to protect the Faith of other Catholics by organizing Catholics, training priests, and resisting Paul VI. In addition to this, time would allow the Archbishop to watch the actions of Paul VI, to try to figure out whether or not he was really a heretic, a prisoner in the Vatican, or was there some other explanation.

As I said before, Catholics lacked the ability to go forward with step two in the proper sense. They could not bring the matter to the Church, so their only recourse was to privately determine the status of Paul VI. Some Catholics did this, and determined that he was a heretic, but they were the minority. The greater majority including Lefebvre, in my opinion took the option of waiting and watching before making such a drastic judgment.

A judgment that the man (almost) universally recognized as Pope is a drastic step with serous implications. Lefebvre clearly did not waste the time he was using prior to making a judgment about the status of the Vatican II claimants. He was not only actively involved in protecting the flock, but was gradually moving closer to making a public judgment about John Paul II. He was following the minority of theologians, but he must have educated himself better as the crisis went on, because at least in the 1986 speech he was saying he was getting closer to making the judgment.

Bp. Meyer, during the 1988 consecrations had already made the judgment as he was publicly declaring the state of sedevacante. Lefebvre was close, as the 1983 heretical code of Canon Law and Assisi had given him sufficient evidence to conclude that John Paul II was a heretic and enemy of the Church, and by that not the Pope.

To sum up:

1. He loved his Catholic Faith and did not compromise.
2. He reacted properly to heresy by preserving his Faith, and acted charitably by protecting the Faith of many other Catholics.
3. He was confronted by a heretical claimaint who was (almost) universally recognized.
4. He reacted using an approved theological opinion.
5. He obviously continued to study the issue, and by the 1980's appeared to adopt the view of St. Robert Bellarmine that one could recognize that the man considered to be pope could lose his office prior to the judgment of the Church.
6 My opinion: if the Archbishop had lived on, I have no doubt that he would have declared the imposters, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul as heretics. His statements and actions during the 1980's support this view, in my opinion.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:49 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Mike,

The other thing to keep in view is that it was commonly held that St. Robert Bellarmine's doctrine implied a declaration by some authority (i.e. some bishops gathered in a council) to make the matter clear, before it would be reasonable to judge that a pope-heretic was not really pope. Further, and crucially, nobody presented a clear, orthodox, and compelling thesis which would explain the totality of the crisis. Instead, concerned Catholics were confronted with "Cum ex apostolatus sedevacantism" which I have already said elswehere, is heretical. That is, it postulated that all episcopal sees were vacant simultaneously. If that was the alternative to continuing to recognise Paul VI provisionally as pope, then no wonder learned men chose not to shift position! Guerard des Lauriers rejected it himself, and developed his Cassicacum Thesis in order to avoid that heterodox conclusion.

And finally, Paul VI's heresy was not obvious. He was a refined hypocrite, wringing his hands over the situation for which he himself was responsible, publishing his Credo in order to prove his faith publicly and keep the deception going, and generally avoiding any clear legislative act obliging anybody to adopt the evil reforms he had ordered published. The whole thing was a masterpiece of deception.

So you had a situation in which hardly any bishops - the authorised judges of faith in the Catholic Church - were reacting at all; not one had judged that Paul VI was not pope; hardly any priests had formed the judgement; a handful of laymen had done so; and the situation was objectively incredibly difficult to judge.

If the Church ever suggests that Archbishop Lefebvre's reaction was "unorthodox", let alone judges that it was unorthodox, I will be very, very surprised.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:56 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
John Lane wrote:
Clearly, the Archbishop is avoiding the heterodox notion that the authority of the Catholic Church could be responsible for worship which "favours heresy".


Are you sure John? An why, then, does Archbishop Lefebvre ask to himself and to everyone this:

« Car enfin un problème grave se pose à la conscience et à la foi de tous les catholiques depuis le début du pontificat de Paul VI. Comment un pape vrai successeur de Pierre, assuré de l'assistance de l'Esprit saint, peut-il présider à la destruction de l'Église, la plus profonde et la plus étendue de son histoire en l'espace de si peu de temps, ce qu'aucun hérésiarque n'a jamais réussi à faire ? A cette question il faudra bien répondre un jour… » (Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, Écône, le 2 août 1976).

And why does he ask the same thing ten years after:

«Comment celui auquel Notre Seigneur a promis de le garder dans la foi définitivement et sans qu’il puisse errer dans la foi, peut-il en même temps être hérétique publiquement et quasi apostasier ? Voici un problème qui vous concerne tous, qui ne concerne pas moi seulement» (Mrg Lefebvre, Easter Sermon, 1986).

John Lane wrote:
So, that is evidence which is completely incompatible with your assertion that "Lefebvre was convinced that the visible head of the Church (the Pope) led the Church to the destruction." Indeed, the evidence and your assertion are direct contradictories.

The usual reply by those who criticise the Archbishop when some inconvenient evidence like this is presented is to accuse the Archbishop of flip-flopping. In this way they display their contempt for scholarship, and for justice, and for truth.


But what evidence? John, Lefebvre retained the Pope a promoter of the modernism ("Le Pape fait de l'œcuménisme")! A heresiarch destroyer of the Church! How do you think that this is orthodox? Just that you're a lover of Bellarmine! I'm shocked!


Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:04 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Mike wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

I agree with what John has already stated, but I have a few thoughts as well. I think the divide here is that Archbishop Lefebvre is following the position of a minority of theologians on this the point of a heretic pope. I do not follow that opinion, nor does John Lane, but in this case, it is a lawful opinion for Catholics to follow. This crisis in my view will put an end to that opinion, as the reality of this crisis has clearly demonstrated the truth of St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching on this.


Mike,

I have already remember to John that the theologians of the past (majority and minority) discussed of the Pope heretic as private person, not as Pope. Lefebvre stays on a different level. For Lefebvre the Pope (and Romans authorities) promotes the liberalism and modernism as Pope! In his Magisterium addressed to the whole Church. This would be inconceivable for Bellarmine and the other theologians!

A cordial greeting


Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:05 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Clearly, the Archbishop is avoiding the heterodox notion that the authority of the Catholic Church could be responsible for worship which "favours heresy".


Are you sure John?


Gabriele, deal with the data. Do you, or do you not agree that that text indicates what I said it indicates? And if not, why not? Don't say he contradicted himself some other time, etc. Deal with what he said on that occasion.


Gabriele wrote:
An why, then, does Archbishop Lefebvre ask to himself and to everyone this:

« Car enfin un problème grave se pose à la conscience et à la foi de tous les catholiques depuis le début du pontificat de Paul VI. Comment un pape vrai successeur de Pierre, assuré de l'assistance de l'Esprit saint, peut-il présider à la destruction de l'Église, la plus profonde et la plus étendue de son histoire en l'espace de si peu de temps, ce qu'aucun hérésiarque n'a jamais réussi à faire ? A cette question il faudra bien répondre un jour… » (Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, Écône, le 2 août 1976).


I'd say here he is posing the question himself which he would avoid answering when the CDF posed it two years later. In neither case does he give the answer you accused him of giving - viz. that a true pope can authorise evil etc.

Gabriele wrote:
And why does he ask the same thing ten years after:

«Comment celui auquel Notre Seigneur a promis de le garder dans la foi définitivement et sans qu’il puisse errer dans la foi, peut-il en même temps être hérétique publiquement et quasi apostasier ? Voici un problème qui vous concerne tous, qui ne concerne pas moi seulement» (Mrg Lefebvre, Easter Sermon, 1986).


Neither is that a declaration that he has solved the problem, and that his solution is that these men have certainly been popes, as you allege. On the contrary, he was openly questioning whether JP2 was pope in that sermon.

Gabriele wrote:
But what evidence? John, Lefebvre retained the Pope a promoter of the modernism ("Le Pape fait de l'œcuménisme")! A heresiarch destroyer of the Church! How do you think that this is orthodox? Just that you're a lover of Bellarmine! I'm shocked!


I'm not shocked by your procedure, even though it is objectively shocking. It's that of Fr. Barbara, who was the root of all such thinking. When Archbishop Lefebvre declined politely to meet with him or to cooperate with him, and he reacted very nastily (he characterised the Archbishop's polite refusal as a bitter attack on himself!), and he developed this notion that all were strictly obliged to reject Paul VI's claim. He didn't prove his thesis, but it was adopted by many, and did a great deal of damage.

But we've been here before, Gabriele, and you declined to address the point. I even opened a new thread in which the point could be discussed: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1256

Not one answer. Perhaps this time you might agree to prove your assertion that there is a strict obligation upon all to reject these papal claimants?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 1:38 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele wrote:
I have already remember to John that the theologians of the past (majority and minority) discussed of the Pope heretic as private person, not as Pope. Lefebvre stays on a different level. For Lefebvre the Pope (and Romans authorities) promotes the liberalism and modernism as Pope! In his Magisterium addressed to the whole Church. This would be inconceivable for Bellarmine and the other theologians!


You are mixing up different questions.

Can a pope teach heresy as pope? No. This is certain.
Can a pope teach heresy as a "private person"? No, but this is not certain.
What would be the effect if a pope did teach heresy as a private person? Various answers - chiefly Bellarmine's.

What does it mean when we distinguish between the pope's public and private acts? John XXII preached heresy in a sermon. It is generally agreed that this was a private act, not a public one. Of course, a sermon is always a public act, but the question is, in what role did the man act publicly? As pope, or as pastor of Rome? I think all agree he was not preaching as pope, because he was not addressing the universal church.

Pascal II embodied an heretical proposition in his agreement with the German emperor Henry, and various saints reacted by threatening to cut off communion with him. All understood this to mean that they were threatening to regard him as no longer pope.

Was Pascal's act a papal one, or a private one? Absolutely a public one. It was a papal act, without any possibility of dispute. In the end, he withdrew his signature, nullifying the act, and resolving the problem.

And so to Paul VI's case. Did he preach some heretical proposition to the universal church? No. If you think he did, then cite it, but nobody else ever cites such an event. (The one possible exception is the so-called Arian Canon, which when it was protested, Paul VI withdrew!) The problem is more subtle and complex. He approved error, and arguably heresy, in texts which, if they were really acts of a general council, the theologians would universally have regarded as infallible declarations (i.e. those of Vatican II). But not one of the proper judges of the faith in the universal church, the bishops with jurisdiction, openly rejected these texts. Archbishop Lefebvre declined to sign two of them, but even he didn't denounce them publicly. He retreated quietly.

Likewise, when Paul VI "promulgated" those texts, and the New Mass, he departed from the usual procedure of popes in a striking and highly significant way. He didn't impose them, as law, on anybody. No obligation was established by him, on anybody, to accept the texts of Vatican II, or to say, or to assist at, the New Mass. A stupendous silence on the question of obligation echoes about those acts.

It's understandable that the average layman doesn't notice this, or see its significance, but anybody with some theological knowledge recognises it. It's fundamental. And it goes right to the heart of the proper nature of those acts. Were they "public acts" of a pope? Just as John XXII's error was regarded as "private" because he didn't impose it on the universal church, so Paul VI's errors may be categorised in the same way. That is, some essential element which would make them properly "public and papal" was lacking.

Does this get him off the hook in terms of judging his own faith? Not at all. But it doesn't affect the ecclesiological implications of his acts. And that is why I say you are mixing up different questions, failing to make the proper distinctions.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:15 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
John Lane wrote:
You are mixing up different questions.

Can a pope teach heresy as pope? No. This is certain.
Can a pope teach heresy as a "private person"? No, but this is not certain.
What would be the effect if a pope did teach heresy as a private person? Various answers - chiefly Bellarmine's.

What does it mean when we distinguish between the pope's public and private acts? John XXII preached heresy in a sermon. It is generally agreed that this was a private act, not a public one. Of course, a sermon is always a public act, but the question is, in what role did the man act publicly? As pope, or as pastor of Rome? I think all agree he was not preaching as pope, because he was not addressing the universal church.

Pascal II embodied an heretical proposition in his agreement with the German emperor Henry, and various saints reacted by threatening to cut off communion with him. All understood this to mean that they were threatening to regard him as no longer pope.

Was Pascal's act a papal one, or a private one? Absolutely a public one. It was a papal act, without any possibility of dispute. In the end, he withdrew his signature, nullifying the act, and resolving the problem.

And so to Paul VI's case. Did he preach some heretical proposition to the universal church? No. If you think he did, then cite it, but nobody else ever cites such an event. (The one possible exception is the so-called Arian Canon, which when it was protested, Paul VI withdrew!) The problem is more subtle and complex. He approved error, and arguably heresy, in texts which, if they were really acts of a general council, the theologians would universally have regarded as infallible declarations (i.e. those of Vatican II). But not one of the proper judges of the faith in the universal church, the bishops with jurisdiction, openly rejected these texts. Archbishop Lefebvre declined to sign two of them, but even he didn't denounce them publicly. He retreated quietly.

Likewise, when Paul VI "promulgated" those texts, and the New Mass, he departed from the usual procedure of popes in a striking and highly significant way. He didn't impose them, as law, on anybody. No obligation was established by him, on anybody, to accept the texts of Vatican II, or to say, or to assist at, the New Mass. A stupendous silence on the question of obligation echoes about those acts.

It's understandable that the average layman doesn't notice this, or see its significance, but anybody with some theological knowledge recognises it. It's fundamental. And it goes right to the heart of the proper nature of those acts. Were they "public acts" of a pope? Just as John XXII's error was regarded as "private" because he didn't impose it on the universal church, so Paul VI's errors may be categorised in the same way. That is, some essential element which would make them properly "public and papal" was lacking.

Does this get him off the hook in terms of judging his own faith? Not at all. But it doesn't affect the ecclesiological implications of his acts. And that is why I say you are mixing up different questions, failing to make the proper distinctions.


John, are you that, when Paul VI says to Lefebvre (privately and publicly) that Vatican II is binding, you say that he did not say this. Are you that, when Paul VI says that all are obliged to celebrate the new mass, you say that he does not speak of obligation or that his words are irrelevant. And so on. How can I explain that the things are so, if you deny everything?

You say:
"That is, some essential element which would make them properly "public and papal" was lacking".

Ok, then, what would they have said to act in a binding and infallible way?


Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:41 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
John Lane wrote:
Mike,

The other thing to keep in view is that it was commonly held that St. Robert Bellarmine's doctrine implied a declaration by some authority (i.e. some bishops gathered in a council) to make the matter clear, before it would be reasonable to judge that a pope-heretic was not really pope. Further, and crucially, nobody presented a clear, orthodox, and compelling thesis which would explain the totality of the crisis. Instead, concerned Catholics were confronted with "Cum ex apostolatus sedevacantism" which I have already said elswehere, is heretical. That is, it postulated that all episcopal sees were vacant simultaneously. If that was the alternative to continuing to recognise Paul VI provisionally as pope, then no wonder learned men chose not to shift position! Guerard des Lauriers rejected it himself, and developed his Cassicacum Thesis in order to avoid that heterodox conclusion.

And finally, Paul VI's heresy was not obvious. He was a refined hypocrite, wringing his hands over the situation for which he himself was responsible, publishing his Credo in order to prove his faith publicly and keep the deception going, and generally avoiding any clear legislative act obliging anybody to adopt the evil reforms he had ordered published. The whole thing was a masterpiece of deception.

So you had a situation in which hardly any bishops - the authorised judges of faith in the Catholic Church - were reacting at all; not one had judged that Paul VI was not pope; hardly any priests had formed the judgement; a handful of laymen had done so; and the situation was objectively incredibly difficult to judge.

If the Church ever suggests that Archbishop Lefebvre's reaction was "unorthodox", let alone judges that it was unorthodox, I will be very, very surprised.


John, I agree completely! An imperfect council would be necessary not to depose a "pope," but to make the fact public. We are in agreement on this, as we are on every other point as well. The case of Paul VI is highly complex as you state, in that he was diabolically clever, and masked his heresy. The plot against the Church needed nothing less, it needed a sophisticated plan of such depth that it would fool the hierarchy and almost all of the clergy of the world. Anything other than this would have failed, as it would have been detected and Catholics would have resisted.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:12 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pm
Posts: 483
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele wrote:
Mike wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

I agree with what John has already stated, but I have a few thoughts as well. I think the divide here is that Archbishop Lefebvre is following the position of a minority of theologians on this the point of a heretic pope. I do not follow that opinion, nor does John Lane, but in this case, it is a lawful opinion for Catholics to follow. This crisis in my view will put an end to that opinion, as the reality of this crisis has clearly demonstrated the truth of St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching on this.


Mike,

I have already remember to John that the theologians of the past (majority and minority) discussed of the Pope heretic as private person, not as Pope. Lefebvre stays on a different level. For Lefebvre the Pope (and Romans authorities) promotes the liberalism and modernism as Pope! In his Magisterium addressed to the whole Church. This would be inconceivable for Bellarmine and the other theologians!

A cordial greeting


Gabriele,

Thank you for your response. John has answered these points completely and far better than I could. God bless and a cordial greeting to you as well.

_________________
Yours in JMJ,
Mike


Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:14 am
Profile

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Clearly, the Archbishop is avoiding the heterodox notion that the authority of the Catholic Church could be responsible for worship which "favours heresy".


Are you sure John?


Gabriele, deal with the data. Do you, or do you not agree that that text indicates what I said it indicates? And if not, why not? Don't say he contradicted himself some other time, etc. Deal with what he said on that occasion.


Gabriele wrote:
An why, then, does Archbishop Lefebvre ask to himself and to everyone this:

« Car enfin un problème grave se pose à la conscience et à la foi de tous les catholiques depuis le début du pontificat de Paul VI. Comment un pape vrai successeur de Pierre, assuré de l'assistance de l'Esprit saint, peut-il présider à la destruction de l'Église, la plus profonde et la plus étendue de son histoire en l'espace de si peu de temps, ce qu'aucun hérésiarque n'a jamais réussi à faire ? A cette question il faudra bien répondre un jour… » (Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, Écône, le 2 août 1976).


I'd say here he is posing the question himself which he would avoid answering when the CDF posed it two years later. In neither case does he give the answer you accused him of giving - viz. that a true pope can authorise evil etc.

Gabriele wrote:
And why does he ask the same thing ten years after:

«Comment celui auquel Notre Seigneur a promis de le garder dans la foi définitivement et sans qu’il puisse errer dans la foi, peut-il en même temps être hérétique publiquement et quasi apostasier ? Voici un problème qui vous concerne tous, qui ne concerne pas moi seulement» (Mrg Lefebvre, Easter Sermon, 1986).


Neither is that a declaration that he has solved the problem, and that his solution is that these men have certainly been popes, as you allege. On the contrary, he was openly questioning whether JP2 was pope in that sermon.

Gabriele wrote:
But what evidence? John, Lefebvre retained the Pope a promoter of the modernism ("Le Pape fait de l'œcuménisme")! A heresiarch destroyer of the Church! How do you think that this is orthodox? Just that you're a lover of Bellarmine! I'm shocked!


I'm not shocked by your procedure, even though it is objectively shocking. It's that of Fr. Barbara, who was the root of all such thinking. When Archbishop Lefebvre declined politely to meet with him or to cooperate with him, and he reacted very nastily (he characterised the Archbishop's polite refusal as a bitter attack on himself!), and he developed this notion that all were strictly obliged to reject Paul VI's claim. He didn't prove his thesis, but it was adopted by many, and did a great deal of damage.

But we've been here before, Gabriele, and you declined to address the point. I even opened a new thread in which the point could be discussed: http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/vi ... f=2&t=1256

Not one answer. Perhaps this time you might agree to prove your assertion that there is a strict obligation upon all to reject these papal claimants?


There is nothing to prove. There is only to follow the Catholic principle for which Authority must be obeyed. Therefore, those who recognize Conciliar "Popes" as Popes (and speaks to them calling them "Holy Father", "Your Holiness", etc - the Holy Father is atitle for to indicate not a private person, but the teacher of all the christians, do you remember John?), well, these persons must to obey to them.
Lefebvre, driven by events and by the catastrophic situation, abandons this holy and orthodox principle:

"Aucune autorité, même la plus élevée dans la hiérarchie, ne peut nous contraindre à abandonner ou à diminuer notre foi catholique clairement exprimée et professée par le magistère de l’Eglise depuis dix-neuf siècles" (Déclaration de Mgr Lefebvre aux journalistes le 21 octobre 1974).

And he prays Authority to return to orthodoxy:

"Que Votre Sainteté abandonne cette néfaste entreprise de compromission avec les idées de l'homme moderne, entreprise qui tire son origine d'une entente secrète entre de hauts dignitaires de l'Eglise et ceux des loges maçonniques, dès avant le Concile.


Persévérer dans cette orientation, c'est poursuivre la destruction de l'Eglise. Votre Sainteté comprendra aisément que nous ne pouvons collaborer à un si funeste dessein, ce que nous ferions si nous consentions à fermer nos séminaires"
(Lettre de Mgr Lefebvre à Paul VI du 17 juillet 1976).

It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre does not ask for much personal conversion of Montini. He ask to Paul VI, “His Holiness”, to govern the Church in a orthodox and Catholic way.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:18 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Mike wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
Mike wrote:
Dear Gabriele,

I agree with what John has already stated, but I have a few thoughts as well. I think the divide here is that Archbishop Lefebvre is following the position of a minority of theologians on this the point of a heretic pope. I do not follow that opinion, nor does John Lane, but in this case, it is a lawful opinion for Catholics to follow. This crisis in my view will put an end to that opinion, as the reality of this crisis has clearly demonstrated the truth of St. Robert Bellarmine's teaching on this.


Mike,

I have already remember to John that the theologians of the past (majority and minority) discussed of the Pope heretic as private person, not as Pope. Lefebvre stays on a different level. For Lefebvre the Pope (and Romans authorities) promotes the liberalism and modernism as Pope! In his Magisterium addressed to the whole Church. This would be inconceivable for Bellarmine and the other theologians!

A cordial greeting


Gabriele,

Thank you for your response. John has answered these points completely and far better than I could. God bless and a cordial greeting to you as well.



Mike,

it seems to me that John did not respond to anything. Simply, he continues to deny that the doctrines of an Ecumenical Council and the liturgy approved by a Pope are not binding.

How can you say the same thing too, if - and rightly so - you feel that the simple consensus of theologians is binding?

An Ecumenical Council (ie, the consent of all the world's bishops united with the Pope) is not binding, and the consensus of theologians is binding?


A cordial greeting


Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:26 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
John Lane wrote:
And so to Paul VI's case. Did he preach some heretical proposition to the universal church? No. If you think he did, then cite it, but nobody else ever cites such an event. (The one possible exception is the so-called Arian Canon, which when it was protested, Paul VI withdrew!) The problem is more subtle and complex. He approved error, and arguably heresy, in texts which, if they were really acts of a general council, the theologians would universally have regarded as infallible declarations (i.e. those of Vatican II). But not one of the proper judges of the faith in the universal church, the bishops with jurisdiction, openly rejected these texts. Archbishop Lefebvre declined to sign two of them, but even he didn't denounce them publicly. He retreated quietly.

Likewise, when Paul VI "promulgated" those texts, and the New Mass, he departed from the usual procedure of popes in a striking and highly significant way. He didn't impose them, as law, on anybody. No obligation was established by him, on anybody, to accept the texts of Vatican II, or to say, or to assist at, the New Mass. A stupendous silence on the question of obligation echoes about those acts.

It's understandable that the average layman doesn't notice this, or see its significance, but anybody with some theological knowledge recognises it. It's fundamental. And it goes right to the heart of the proper nature of those acts. Were they "public acts" of a pope? Just as John XXII's error was regarded as "private" because he didn't impose it on the universal church, so Paul VI's errors may be categorised in the same way. That is, some essential element which would make them properly "public and papal" was lacking.

Does this get him off the hook in terms of judging his own faith? Not at all. But it doesn't affect the ecclesiological implications of his acts. And that is why I say you are mixing up different questions, failing to make the proper distinctions.


“When one loves the pope one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit of this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public documents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext – easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey - that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides, however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, for there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope” (St Pius X, to the priests of the Apostolic Union, 18th November 1912, AAS 1912, p. 695).


Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:36 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele wrote:
John, are you that, when Paul VI says to Lefebvre (privately and publicly) that Vatican II is binding, you say that he did not say this. Are you that, when Paul VI says that all are obliged to celebrate the new mass, you say that he does not speak of obligation or that his words are irrelevant. And so on. How can I explain that the things are so, if you deny everything?

You say:
"That is, some essential element which would make them properly "public and papal" was lacking".

Ok, then, what would they have said to act in a binding and infallible way?


We covered this in another thread, in detail, and you just replied that you didn't accept anything I had written. So this is all a complete waste of time.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:05 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Not one answer. Perhaps this time you might agree to prove your assertion that there is a strict obligation upon all to reject these papal claimants?


There is nothing to prove. There is only to follow the Catholic principle for which Authority must be obeyed.


And I have refuted this complete nonsense also, but you ignored the refutation, Gabriele. You are wasting my time and everybody else's.

A pope has jurisdiction, not dominative power. Do you have to obey him if he commands you personally to get him a cup of coffee and a Cuban? No. But my children have to obey me if I issue that exact command, and their obedience is under pain of sin. What's the difference? The kind of authority. A pope has jurisdiction. That means he can make laws, judge infractions of them, and punish those infractions. If he pretended to have dominative power over every member of the Church he'd be a tyrant, not a governor. The head of a religious institute, and the father of a family, has dominative power - the former due exclusively to the vow of obedience taken freely by each member, and the latter by virtue of the natural law. The two kinds of authority are entirely distinct and not to be confused. That you know nothing of this distinction, and therefore you cannot follow the point, is manifest.

So, go find a LAW promulgated by Paul VI which traditional Catholics fail to obey, and you'll have made a beginning to your case that their reaction was unlawful. A beginning, only, of course, because the next thing you'll be required to prove is that the law (which you will never discover) is a valid law, not an "act of violence" as St. Augustine and St. Thomas call unjust laws.

Gabriele wrote:
Lefebvre, driven by events and by the catastrophic situation, abandons this holy and orthodox principle:

"Aucune autorité, même la plus élevée dans la hiérarchie, ne peut nous contraindre à abandonner ou à diminuer notre foi catholique clairement exprimée et professée par le magistère de l’Eglise depuis dix-neuf siècles" (Déclaration de Mgr Lefebvre aux journalistes le 21 octobre 1974).


No, that is the exact principle he applied. Whatever "laws" Paul VI claimed to have promulgated, by asserting without proof that the New Mass was obligatory, for example, every Catholic could reply with perfect justification, "No authority can make us abandon our faith."

Gabriele wrote:
And he prays Authority to return to orthodoxy:

"Que Votre Sainteté abandonne cette néfaste entreprise de compromission avec les idées de l'homme moderne, entreprise qui tire son origine d'une entente secrète entre de hauts dignitaires de l'Eglise et ceux des loges maçonniques, dès avant le Concile.


Persévérer dans cette orientation, c'est poursuivre la destruction de l'Eglise. Votre Sainteté comprendra aisément que nous ne pouvons collaborer à un si funeste dessein, ce que nous ferions si nous consentions à fermer nos séminaires"
(Lettre de Mgr Lefebvre à Paul VI du 17 juillet 1976).

It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre does not ask for much personal conversion of Montini. He ask to Paul VI, “His Holiness”, to govern the Church in a orthodox and Catholic way.


Actually, he demanded that the man return to orthodoxy. Your attempt to prove that this implies that Archbishop Lefebvre held that the papacy was at fault is very weak, and contradicted by many other statements of the Archbishop's which are much clearer.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:23 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
John, are you that, when Paul VI says to Lefebvre (privately and publicly) that Vatican II is binding, you say that he did not say this. Are you that, when Paul VI says that all are obliged to celebrate the new mass, you say that he does not speak of obligation or that his words are irrelevant. And so on. How can I explain that the things are so, if you deny everything?

You say:
"That is, some essential element which would make them properly "public and papal" was lacking".

Ok, then, what would they have said to act in a binding and infallible way?


We covered this in another thread, in detail, and you just replied that you didn't accept anything I had written. So this is all a complete waste of time.



viewtopic.php?p=13176#p13176


Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:05 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
John Lane wrote:
And I have refuted this complete nonsense also, but you ignored the refutation, Gabriele. You are wasting my time and everybody else's.

I'm sorry I wasted your time John.
For me, the theological correctness of what you're saying is far from obvious and evident.
Feel free to ignore me. Or, if you prefer, I can stop discuss. But if you want to continue to discuss with me, please, do not expect that I must give you reason to force.
John Lane wrote:
A pope has jurisdiction, not dominative power. Do you have to obey him if he commands you personally to get him a cup of coffee and a Cuban? No. But my children have to obey me if I issue that exact command, and their obedience is under pain of sin. What's the difference? The kind of authority. A pope has jurisdiction. That means he can make laws, judge infractions of them, and punish those infractions. If he pretended to have dominative power over every member of the Church he'd be a tyrant, not a governor. The head of a religious institute, and the father of a family, has dominative power - the former due exclusively to the vow of obedience taken freely by each member, and the latter by virtue of the natural law. The two kinds of authority are entirely distinct and not to be confused. That you know nothing of this distinction, and therefore you cannot follow the point, is manifest.

The only thing obvious is that your comparison of the "cup of coffee" has nothing to do with the topic we are talking about.
How can you compare the obligation to provide to the Pope a cup of coffee with the obligation to follow a liturgy approved by the Pope or to believe in doctrines concerning faith approved by an Ecumenical Council?
I wonder if you're joking...

John Lane wrote:
So, go find a LAW promulgated by Paul VI which traditional Catholics fail to obey, and you'll have made a beginning to your case that their reaction was unlawful. A beginning, only, of course, because the next thing you'll be required to prove is that the law (which you will never discover) is a valid law, not an "act of violence" as St. Augustine and St. Thomas call unjust laws.

The answer of Fr. Guérard Des Lauriers: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1290&p=13176&sid=7fc23538d6ebaa16ee2163a392bd5484#p13176 .

John Lane wrote:
No, that is the exact principle he applied. Whatever "laws" Paul VI claimed to have promulgated, by asserting without proof that the New Mass was obligatory, for example, every Catholic could reply with perfect justification, "No authority can make us abandon our faith."

Firstly, when a Pope speaks to the universal Church in matter of faith or moral, he does not have to prove anything. And secondly, from the Authority of the Vicar of Christ can not come nothing that can force us to abandon or diminish our faith.

John Lane wrote:
Actually, he demanded that the man return to orthodoxy. Your attempt to prove that this implies that Archbishop Lefebvre held that the papacy was at fault is very weak, and contradicted by many other statements of the Archbishop's which are much clearer.

Is it weak? Really? Ok. Then, please, answer to this.
Lefebvre speaks of a “fatal work of compromise with the ideas of modern man »(néfaste entreprise de compromission avec les idées de l'homme moderne). According to you, does Lefebvre allude to the private life of Paul VI, to what Paul VI wrote – for examples – in his diaries, or to what Paul VI thought to the universal Church as Pope?
Why Lefebvre was so worried so much to recommend to Paul VI to switch courses? For his private life of modernist?
And what does Lefebvre mean when he speaks of a "so fatal design" (funeste dessein) to which he refused to cooperate?
Did he always refer to the private affairs of Paul VI?


Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:26 am
Posts: 146
Location: Western Australia
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele wrote:
Firstly, when a Pope speaks to the universal Church in matter of faith or moral, he does not have to prove anything. And secondly, from the Authority of the Vicar of Christ can not come nothing that can force us to abandon or diminish our faith.

I don't think I can agree with any of that, Gabby.


Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:58 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele wrote:
For me, the theological correctness of what you're saying is far from obvious and evident.
Feel free to ignore me. Or, if you prefer, I can stop discuss. But if you want to continue to discuss with me, please, do not expect that I must give you reason to force.


Let's get this clear. If you have an argument, put an argument. If you don't agree with something, say why. But don't keep asserting the same thing for months, ignoring the arguments which are put to refute your assertions. That is a waste of time.


Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
A pope has jurisdiction, not dominative power. Do you have to obey him if he commands you personally to get him a cup of coffee and a Cuban? No. But my children have to obey me if I issue that exact command, and their obedience is under pain of sin. What's the difference? The kind of authority. A pope has jurisdiction. That means he can make laws, judge infractions of them, and punish those infractions. If he pretended to have dominative power over every member of the Church he'd be a tyrant, not a governor. The head of a religious institute, and the father of a family, has dominative power - the former due exclusively to the vow of obedience taken freely by each member, and the latter by virtue of the natural law. The two kinds of authority are entirely distinct and not to be confused. That you know nothing of this distinction, and therefore you cannot follow the point, is manifest.

The only thing obvious is that your comparison of the "cup of coffee" has nothing to do with the topic we are talking about.
How can you compare the obligation to provide to the Pope a cup of coffee with the obligation to follow a liturgy approved by the Pope or to believe in doctrines concerning faith approved by an Ecumenical Council?
I wonder if you're joking...


No, I'm not. And the fact that you are so ignorant of the point that you could think I must be joking leaves me wondering why you have any opinions at all. You don't appear to know anything about the subject!

The pope cannot tell you to go to a particular chapel this Sunday to fulfil your obligation. He can't tell you to go on pilgrimage next week to some place or other. He can't tell you to pray the rosary every day. He can only make general laws which oblige all, or at least a whole class of Church members (such as the laity, the clergy, etc.). Then he can judge infractions of those laws, and punish in accord with his judgements. But he can't tell you to go to his new mass, unless he makes a law obliging some category of persons, of which you are a member, that they are obliged to go to his new mass. And he never did that. So there's no obligation, and there can be no disobedience.

This remains true even though Paul VI asserted that all were obliged to attend his new mass, because that was only his opinion, not a law. He needed to make a law, then enforce it. He didn't make the law, but he acted in ways which implied that he had. He was mistaken. (Actually, he was a tyrant, who probably knew exactly what he had done and not done, but that doesn't matter.)

Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
So, go find a LAW promulgated by Paul VI which traditional Catholics fail to obey, and you'll have made a beginning to your case that their reaction was unlawful. A beginning, only, of course, because the next thing you'll be required to prove is that the law (which you will never discover) is a valid law, not an "act of violence" as St. Augustine and St. Thomas call unjust laws.


viewtopic.php?p=13176#p13176


Well, Guerard doesn't really address the point. He merely begs the question, by assuming that Vatican II would have been defining something if Paul VI had been pope, but this is precisely the point at issue. There was no intention to define, or if there was, it was at best doubtful, made doubtful precisely by the public statements made by John XXIII and Paul VI about the nature of the Council, and by the mode of declaration employed. I gave some examples, contrasting them with the mode of declaration employed by Vatican I, in that thread.

Guerard's main point appears to be that when the pope speaks to the whole Church, or a council does, he or it implicitly defines; that is, makes a doctrinal law binding upon all. But this is manifestly untrue. The pope speaks to the whole Church in encyclicals, yet no theologian regards every word of those as infallible - indeed, many deny that the pope can speak infallibly via an encyclical.

But in this case we have not merely the absence of the usual signs of infallible teaching, we have doubt created by positive data - i.e. the comments made about the nature of Vatican II, that it would be "different" and only "pastoral" etc. What this really meant is anybody's guess, and many have guessed, but that only proves that certitude is lacking.


Gabriele wrote:
Is it weak? Really? Ok. Then, please, answer to this.
Lefebvre speaks of a “fatal work of compromise with the ideas of modern man »(néfaste entreprise de compromission avec les idées de l'homme moderne). According to you, does Lefebvre allude to the private life of Paul VI, to what Paul VI wrote – for examples – in his diaries, or to what Paul VI thought to the universal Church as Pope?
Why Lefebvre was so worried so much to recommend to Paul VI to switch courses? For his private life of modernist?
And what does Lefebvre mean when he speaks of a "so fatal design" (funeste dessein) to which he refused to cooperate?
Did he always refer to the private affairs of Paul VI?


We're not talking about the private affairs of a pope, we're talking about the distinction in all theology manuals between the pope using the fulness of his authority and those many occasions when he doesn't. See the example of John XXII, who was preaching a sermon. That was not a private affair, but it wasn't a "public papal act" either.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:26 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele, and anybody else who is confused about the nature of public authority, here's some information that may motivate you to concentrate on the point until you see its importance.

Popes, kings, governors, and all such rulers have authority to make laws, judge in accordance with them, and punish infractions of those laws. This is the foundation of what is known as the rule of law.

It is distinguished from tyranny precisely by the fact that the tyrant issues arbitrary personal orders, demands obedience, and punishes if those arbitrary orders are not complied with. Tyrants act as if they have dominative power over their subjects. Tyrants don't like law, precisely because law is stable and, being promulgated, is known in advance by all. These factors make law an obstacle to arbitrary authority, which is really just an abuse, not true authority at all.

Every man acting within the law is free. Criminals are those who by their own choice forfeit their freedom by infringing the law. Slaves are distinguished from free men, that is, subjects of a public ruler, precisely by the fact that the master of slaves has dominative power over them. Christians are free subjects of the Church, not slaves. The whole point of the vow of obedience taken by a religious is that he binds himself for life to a master, and thus freely forfeits his personal freedom. He grants dominative power to that master (i.e. the Superior of his religious house). Likewise the Jesuits take a fourth vow, a vow of personal obedience to the pope. This vow puts the Jesuits into a different category from all other Christians, making them "slaves" of the Holy Father, subject to his personal direction, granting him dominative power of them. The vows of baptism do not include one of personal obedience. What we promise is to keep the law - the laws of faith, the laws of God, and the precepts of the Church.

It is one of the marks of liberalism to deny the true nature of public authority, indeed all authority. Hence liberals refuse to acknowledge the rights of parents over their children, husbands over their wives, or religious superiors over their subjects. They also deny the authority of rulers, and make them merely the instruments of the popular will. This is always, in practice, a lie, of course, since tyrants only ever pretend to obey the populace, but the theory is that rulers have no real authority of their own.

Paul VI was a liberal. He didn't believe in public authority and he either didn't know how to exercise it or he simply refused to do so. But either way, he didn't exercise it. He acted instead as a dithering and weak man, who made vitually no laws, dismantled all those which other liberals didn't like (e.g. the Holy Office, the Index, the excommunication of Michael Cerularius, etc.), and then got angry and petulant when his will was thwarted. This was precisely Archbishop Lefebvre's experience when he finally obtained an audience with the snivelling creature. Read this exchange, it's all clear.

Quote:
Then the Holy Father said to me, further:

"It is true, is it not, that you condemn me?"

I had the strong impression that it all came back rather to his person, that he was personally hurt:

"You condemn me, so what ought I to do? Must I hand in my resignation and let you take my place?"

"Oh!" I put my head in my hands.

"Holy Father, do not say such things. No, no, no, no!" I then said:

"Holy Father, let me continue. You have the solution of the problem in your hands. You need say only one word to the bishops: receive fraternally, with understanding and charity all those groups of traditionalists, all those who wish to keep the prayer of former days, the sacraments as before, the catechism as before. Receive them, give them places of worship, settle with them so that they can pray and remain in relation with you, in intimate relation with their bishops. You need say only one word to the bishops and everything will return to order and at that moment we shall have no more problems. Things will return to order. As for the seminary, I myself shall have no difficulty in going to the bishops and asking them to implant my priests in their dioceses: things will be done normally. I myself am very willing to renew relations with a commission you could name from the Congregation of Religious to come to the seminary. But clearly we shall keep and wish to continue the practice of Tradition. We should be allowed to maintain that practice. But I want to return to normal and official relations with the Holy See and with the Congregations. Beyond that I want nothing.”

He then said to me:

“I must reflect, I must pray, I must consult the Consistory, I must consult the Curia. I cannot give you an answer. We shall see.”

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archb ... ter_14.htm


Note the personal irritation, and the Archbishop's solution: Act with authority! And then the refusal to do so - I must consult.

Of course, nobody denies that Paul VI was a liberal, but how many know what that word really means? It means, apart from everything else, that he didn't believe in authority. He believed in power. Like Mao Tse-Tung believed in power - "all power comes from the barrel of a gun" - the power of liberals, the power understood by tyrants, the complete negation of the notion of true authority, which is moral authority, authority which comes from God and is only real insofar as it remains within the true moral law.

Now, if you don't understand this, you have liberal ideas yourself. If you think that the pope has the power merely to declare that the faithful "disobey" when they fail to do something which is not a clear precept, a promulgated law, then you are infected by liberalism.

I hope this is sufficient to motivate anybody who lacks clear ideas on this subject at least to go and do some reading. It's really fundamental, in so many ways.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:48 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
John Lane wrote:
Let's get this clear. If you have an argument, put an argument. If you don't agree with something, say why. But don't keep asserting the same thing for months, ignoring the arguments which are put to refute your assertions. That is a waste of time.


Dear John, to put arguments is what I always done. If I repeat myself "for months" is because there is someone that also repeats "for months" the same confused and unsubstantiated opinions. This is called "vicious circle" and it can not be attributed only to me. If I just say stupid things and irrelevant, you do not answer! People will notice the smallness of my own arguments, and you will not waste your time.

John Lane wrote:
No, I'm not. And the fact that you are so ignorant of the point that you could think I must be joking leaves me wondering why you have any opinions at all. You don't appear to know anything about the subject!


Luckily there is you that you know perfectly the matter and enlighten us all.

John Lane wrote:
The pope cannot tell you to go to a particular chapel this Sunday to fulfil your obligation. He can't tell you to go on pilgrimage next week to some place or other. He can't tell you to pray the rosary every day. He can only make general laws which oblige all, or at least a whole class of Church members (such as the laity, the clergy, etc.). Then he can judge infractions of those laws, and punish in accord with his judgements. But he can't tell you to go to his new mass, unless he makes a law obliging some category of persons, of which you are a member, that they are obliged to go to his new mass. And he never did that. So there's no obligation, and there can be no disobedience.

This remains true even though Paul VI asserted that all were obliged to attend his new mass, because that was only his opinion, not a law. He needed to make a law, then enforce it. He didn't make the law, but he acted in ways which implied that he had. He was mistaken. (Actually, he was a tyrant, who probably knew exactly what he had done and not done, but that doesn't matter.)


And why, John, did the cardinal Ottaviani feel himself obliged to follow the document and teachings of Vatican II? If it was as you say: no law, no obligation. Why he obeyed to the doctrines of the Vatican II? Was he so much ignorant as me?

John Lane wrote:
Well, Guerard doesn't really address the point. He merely begs the question, by assuming that Vatican II would have been defining something if Paul VI had been pope, but this is precisely the point at issue. There was no intention to define, or if there was, it was at best doubtful, made doubtful precisely by the public statements made by John XXIII and Paul VI about the nature of the Council, and by the mode of declaration employed. I gave some examples, contrasting them with the mode of declaration employed by Vatican I, in that thread.

Guerard's main point appears to be that when the pope speaks to the whole Church, or a council does, he or it implicitly defines; that is, makes a doctrinal law binding upon all. But this is manifestly untrue.


What it says Fr. Guérard on this point is absolutely true. It is not him who says this but the same Magisterium in many occasions. This shows how much you do not know the matter. One of the more clear declarations on the subject is that of Pope Leo XIII in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum:

As often as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true”.

“As often as”, says the Pope. That is, there is no need of a particular proceedings for to bind the faithful. Another diriment declaration by the same Magisterium on the point is that of Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical Casti Connubi (that you evidently do not know or do not want to remember):

For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian ... [to imagine that the nations] must obey only in those matters which she [the Church] 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”.

But I also invite you to reflect on the words of the Fr. Kleutgen at Vatican I:

“On doit la soumission de l’esprit à l’Eglise qui définit, même si elle n’ajoute aucun précepte. Puisqu’en effet Dieu nous a
donné l’Eglise comme Mère et Maîtresse pour tout ce qui concerne la religion et la piété, nous sommes tenus de l’écouter quand elle enseigne. C’est pourquoi, si la pensée et la doctrine de toute l’Eglise apparaît, nous sommes tenus d’y adhérer, même s’il n’y a pas de définition: combien plus donc si cette pensée et cette doctrine nous apparaissent par une définition publique?” ( Mansi 53, 330).

We are obliged to adhere when the Church teaches. This is what is happened at Vatican II. That “Council” has thought (the doctrine on religious freedom, for example). If a person (as Lefebvre) thinks that it was a true Council of the Church she must to adhere. It is useless - and even a little ridiculous - appeal to the unfairness of the procedures or to some double-talk for to say that the teaching is non-binding.


John Lane wrote:
The pope speaks to the whole Church in encyclicals, yet no theologian regards every word of those as infallible - indeed, many deny that the pope can speak infallibly via an encyclical.


This is pure minimalism (that the pope can not speak infallibly via an encyclical). And it is very sad that you appeal to it to defend at all costs Lefebvre.

John Lane wrote:
But in this case we have not merely the absence of the usual signs of infallible teaching, we have doubt created by positive data - i.e. the comments made about the nature of Vatican II, that it would be "different" and only "pastoral" etc. What this really meant is anybody's guess, and many have guessed, but that only proves that certitude is lacking.


If those who appeal to these terms are not even ables to determine what they mean, a fortiori they must not disobey and must feel bound by what the Pope (the Ecumenical Council) teaches in matters of faith and morals.


John Lane wrote:
We're not talking about the private affairs of a pope, we're talking about the distinction in all theology manuals between the pope using the fulness of his authority and those many occasions when he doesn't. See the example of John XXII, who was preaching a sermon. That was not a private affair, but it wasn't a "public papal act" either.


Paul VI used the fullness of his authority for to approve Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. With Vatican II he has thought thing concerning the faith. The rest is a mere consequence.


Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele, and anybody else who is confused about the nature of public authority, here's some information that may motivate you to concentrate on the point until you see its importance.

Popes, kings, governors, and all such rulers have authority to make laws, judge in accordance with them, and punish infractions of those laws. This is the foundation of what is known as the rule of law.

It is distinguished from tyranny precisely by the fact that the tyrant issues arbitrary personal orders, demands obedience, and punishes if those arbitrary orders are not complied with. Tyrants act as if they have dominative power over their subjects. Tyrants don't like law, precisely because law is stable and, being promulgated, is known in advance by all. These factors make law an obstacle to arbitrary authority, which is really just an abuse, not true authority at all.

Every man acting within the law is free. Criminals are those who by their own choice forfeit their freedom by infringing the law. Slaves are distinguished from free men, that is, subjects of a public ruler, precisely by the fact that the master of slaves has dominative power over them. Christians are free subjects of the Church, not slaves. The whole point of the vow of obedience taken by a religious is that he binds himself for life to a master, and thus freely forfeits his personal freedom. He grants dominative power to that master (i.e. the Superior of his religious house). Likewise the Jesuits take a fourth vow, a vow of personal obedience to the pope. This vow puts the Jesuits into a different category from all other Christians, making them "slaves" of the Holy Father, subject to his personal direction, granting him dominative power of them. The vows of baptism do not include one of personal obedience. What we promise is to keep the law - the laws of faith, the laws of God, and the precepts of the Church.

It is one of the marks of liberalism to deny the true nature of public authority, indeed all authority. Hence liberals refuse to acknowledge the rights of parents over their children, husbands over their wives, or religious superiors over their subjects. They also deny the authority of rulers, and make them merely the instruments of the popular will. This is always, in practice, a lie, of course, since tyrants only ever pretend to obey the populace, but the theory is that rulers have no real authority of their own.

Paul VI was a liberal. He didn't believe in public authority and he either didn't know how to exercise it or he simply refused to do so. But either way, he didn't exercise it. He acted instead as a dithering and weak man, who made vitually no laws, dismantled all those which other liberals didn't like (e.g. the Holy Office, the Index, the excommunication of Michael Cerularius, etc.), and then got angry and petulant when his will was thwarted.


Why then Ottaviani - not only he felt himself obliged to follow documents and teachings of Vatican II, but also - did he claim that they should be implemented by all?

« Puisque le Concile œcuménique Vatican II, qui vient de prendre une fin heureuse, a promulgué des documents très sages, soit en matière doctrinale, soit en matière disciplinaire, pour promouvoir efficacement la vie de l’Église, le grave devoir incombe au peuple de Dieu tout entier de s’appliquer, de tout son effort, à conduire à sa réalisation tout ce qui, sous l’influence du Saint-Esprit, a été solennellement proposé ou déclaré par cette très vaste Assemblée des évêques, sous la présidence du Souverain Pontife » (cardinal Ottaviani, Lettre aux Présidents des Conférences épiscopales au sujet de certains abus et d’opinions erronées dans l’interprétation de la doctrine du Concile Vatican II, 1966).

Ottaviani was right or Lefebvre?


John Lane wrote:
This was precisely Archbishop Lefebvre's experience when he finally obtained an audience with the snivelling creature. Read this exchange, it's all clear.

Quote:
Then the Holy Father said to me, further:

"It is true, is it not, that you condemn me?"

I had the strong impression that it all came back rather to his person, that he was personally hurt:

"You condemn me, so what ought I to do? Must I hand in my resignation and let you take my place?"

"Oh!" I put my head in my hands.

"Holy Father, do not say such things. No, no, no, no!" I then said:

"Holy Father, let me continue. You have the solution of the problem in your hands. You need say only one word to the bishops: receive fraternally, with understanding and charity all those groups of traditionalists, all those who wish to keep the prayer of former days, the sacraments as before, the catechism as before. Receive them, give them places of worship, settle with them so that they can pray and remain in relation with you, in intimate relation with their bishops. You need say only one word to the bishops and everything will return to order and at that moment we shall have no more problems. Things will return to order. As for the seminary, I myself shall have no difficulty in going to the bishops and asking them to implant my priests in their dioceses: things will be done normally. I myself am very willing to renew relations with a commission you could name from the Congregation of Religious to come to the seminary. But clearly we shall keep and wish to continue the practice of Tradition. We should be allowed to maintain that practice. But I want to return to normal and official relations with the Holy See and with the Congregations. Beyond that I want nothing.”

He then said to me:

“I must reflect, I must pray, I must consult the Consistory, I must consult the Curia. I cannot give you an answer. We shall see.”

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archb ... ter_14.htm


Note the personal irritation, and the Archbishop's solution: Act with authority! And then the refusal to do so - I must consult.


It seems to me to see a person who asks to the Pope to be catholic. Do you think this is a orthodox thing, John? Not even... He begs a little bit of freedom...

John Lane wrote:
Of course, nobody denies that Paul VI was a liberal, but how many know what that word really means? It means, apart from everything else, that he didn't believe in authority. He believed in power. Like Mao Tse-Tung believed in power - "all power comes from the barrel of a gun" - the power of liberals, the power understood by tyrants, the complete negation of the notion of true authority, which is moral authority, authority which comes from God and is only real insofar as it remains within the true moral law.

Now, if you don't understand this, you have liberal ideas yourself. If you think that the pope has the power merely to declare that the faithful "disobey" when they fail to do something which is not a clear precept, a promulgated law, then you are infected by liberalism.


I am liberal as Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, Vatican I, Ottaviani, Fr. Guérard, Fr. Kleutgen and the theologians of Vatican I, ... Ok, John, you alone have the perfect knowledge of the matter, and lefebvrists.

John Lane wrote:
I hope this is sufficient to motivate anybody who lacks clear ideas on this subject at least to go and do some reading. It's really fundamental, in so many ways.


Dear John,
I am ignorant. I am very ignorant. It is not irony. It is true. But you must know that the issues I raise here are not unfounded issues that I raise for to annoy you. Or in order to waste your time. These are issues discussed by traditionalists. By theologians of nowadays. Traditionalists who have my thoughts use the arguments that I use here, and that for you are irrelevant. And I don’t think they are all ignorant and stupid. Said this, I can immediately - and peacefully - stop my discussion with you, if you want. No problem. What I care about is to maintain a cordial relationship with all of you.

A cordial greeting


Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:45 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
The pope speaks to the whole Church in encyclicals, yet no theologian regards every word of those as infallible - indeed, many deny that the pope can speak infallibly via an encyclical.


This is pure minimalism (that the pope can not speak infallibly via an encyclical). And it is very sad that you appeal to it to defend at all costs Lefebvre.


Gabriele, you misunderstand this. I was merely pointing out that the fact that not every word of an encyclical is infallible, and I added the a fortiori that the Church tolerates many theologians who taught what you condemn as "minimalism". Hard-liners like Fenton were arguing something far more modest than you. He was arguing that a pope can, if he chooses, teach infallibly in an encyclical. There were certainly plenty saying that a pope could not do so, and none of them were condemned for this doctrine, as far as I am aware.

So what you condemn, let's be clear, as minimalism, and which makes you sad, is not condemned by the Church. One can build a case on something which is only common or more common, as we do on Bellarmine's doctrine. But one cannot condemn as unorthodox that which is only opposed to a common or more common doctrine.

But that's only one point, and not the main one. The main point is that I was not appealing to this minimalist doctrine to defend Archbishop Lefebvre. I was appealing to the standard doctrine of the manuals, that not every word in an encyclical is infallible.

In any case, infallibility is tangential to the question at issue. We are in general agreement, I think that all Christians are bound to believe all that the Church teaches, even when she does not speak infallibly. What is in question is whether the manner in which the texts of Vatican II were promulgated indicated the Church teaching, or something else. Your quotes all beg the question, since they all merely assert that we are bound to believe all that the Church teaches. That, I repeat, is not in question. What is in question is the nature of Vatican II.

Was Vatican II like Vatican I, and every other general council? Further, even if you argue that despite the weirdness of its formulations and procedures, it was still sufficiently like a general council to be binding on all (if Paul VI was pope), you should grant (and this is my actual argument) that one who did not agree with you about this was within the bounds of orthodoxy. That's all.

Was Ottaviani wrong, and Lefebvre right? Yes. On many important points. That's why Ottaviaini was the one who stood in front of the world's media in 1967 and declared that the Third Secret of Fatima did not need to be released; and it's why Lefebvre was the one who founded a seminary to train proper Catholic priests. And the fact that you would prefer Ottaviani's judgement to that of Lefebvre illustrates the difference between our ideas very well.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:33 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele wrote:
And why, John, did the cardinal Ottaviani feel himself obliged to follow the document and teachings of Vatican II? If it was as you say: no law, no obligation. Why he obeyed to the doctrines of the Vatican II? Was he so much ignorant as me?


Obviously not. He was blindsided by the whole thing, that much is clear.

I really think you'll need to do better than to appeal to the famously dodgy judgement of Cardinal Ottaviani in order to prove that those who rejected the errors of Vatican II without also rejecting Paul VI's claim to the papacy (not that you reject his claim anyway, but let that pass) were guilty of unorthodoxy.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:43 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele wrote:
But you must know that the issues I raise here are not unfounded issues that I raise for to annoy you. Or in order to waste your time. These are issues discussed by traditionalists. By theologians of nowadays. Traditionalists who have my thoughts use the arguments that I use here, and that for you are irrelevant.


No, they're not irrelevant. On some of them I agree with your view, as a matter of fact. But that's not the point. The question is whether those who differ with us are unorthodox. That charge is ridiculous, given the facts.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:45 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele,

So Vatican II fulfilled all of the requirements of a general council, without any doubt. Is that your view? If not, what element was lacking?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Sep 01, 2012 1:53 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:45 pm
Posts: 249
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele,

So Vatican II fulfilled all of the requirements of a general council, without any doubt. Is that your view? If not, what element was lacking?


Dear John,

the attempt to move the question from the real presence of teachings on the manner of their promulgation, it is vain.

As you can see, the same Magisterium - and the theologians - makes to depend the infallibility from the teaching and not from the manner of his promulgation.

So the problem does not concern the nature of Vatican II, or what it lacks in it compared to the other Councils, but if in that occasion the Church has taught something in matter of faith and moral or not. And it seems to me undeniable that Vatican II has taught something in matter of faith and moral.

With renewed esteem and friendship,
A cordial greeting


Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:58 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: The non orthodox position of Bp. Lefebvre - To Mike
Gabriele wrote:
John Lane wrote:
Gabriele,

So Vatican II fulfilled all of the requirements of a general council, without any doubt. Is that your view? If not, what element was lacking?


Dear John,

the attempt to move the question from the real presence of teachings on the manner of their promulgation, it is vain.

As you can see, the same Magisterium - and the theologians - makes to depend the infallibility from the teaching and not from the manner of his promulgation.

So the problem does not concern the nature of Vatican II, or what it lacks in it compared to the other Councils, but if in that occasion the Church has taught something in matter of faith and moral or not. And it seems to me undeniable that Vatican II has taught something in matter of faith and moral.

With renewed esteem and friendship,
A cordial greeting


Gabriele,

You didn't answer the question. You need to do so, because right now I cannot see how you explain the event that was Vatican II, on the principles you have expressed here.

Have a read through this (especially Section 28): http://strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_05.html

You will notice that it is intrinsic to the very nature of the teaching activity of the Church that she is promulgating doctrinal laws when she teaches. I agree that in her teaching activity, no particular form of words is required to make this clear - it is implicit. I agree that her ordinary teaching activity, no specific reference to the fact that she is promulgating a law is required (although there is always some reference to this); I do not agree that when she exercises her magisterium solemnly, no reference to the promulgation of law is required. The form of words may differ widely, but some clear manifestation must be present of the fact that the promulgation is a final decision, a doctrinal law that will be able to be referred to and appealed to when necessary; I repeat, a final decision. This is referred to in the Code where it says that nothing is to be considered as defined unless this is manifestly clear (CIC 1323).

Now the difficulty with the texts of Vatican II is twofold. The men who opened, continued, governed, and then finally promulgated those texts manifestly departed from the doctrine of the Church regarding her teaching authority and how it is employed, and they did so in reference to the Council itself. We are all familiar with these statements - they are trotted out by "sedeplenists" with some regularity.

Further, the texts of Vatican II themselves very suspiciously omitted the usual forms of speech employed by the Church to express herself authoritatively in her teaching activity. Specifically, the texts of Vatican II very carefully avoid any suggestion that the faithful are bound to believe what they teach.

Now, there are arguments as to why these points will not suffice to get the Church off the hook, and so we assert that a far superior and more certain solution is that Paul VI was not pope. But the reality is that anybody who noticed the factors mentioned above, and judged that for these reasons he is not bound to believe what Vatican II teaches, would be following a probable opinion, in my view.

The parallel argument regarding the New Mass is much stronger, of course. In that case there was not a teaching act, but rather a legislative act. Fr. Cekada proved that the case was really unanswerable by his attempt to answer it, in which he merely pointed to various legal terms which were draped around the decrees, and asserted that these settled the matter. This was really just proof that the actual case could not be addressed. There was no new law made, and therefore the old law stands.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:38 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.