The Excommunication of the Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre

Catholic Culture ^ | August 24, 1996 | Pontificial Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts

[sinkspur]

Viva Christo Rey is sedevacantist.

[gbcdoj]

I couldn't care less what he thinks of Jn XXIII. It is Catholic Traditionalism as a movement which embodies the real Church, even if some of its devotees go overboard--their hearts are in the right places.

Dr. Martin Luther had his heart in the right place too. He was a reformer, even if he went a little overboard.

Read the New Testament. Over and over the conflict was between Jesus and the religious leaders of his day who substituted their own tradition for the Sacred Tradition of Moses and the Law. That was almost the whole of his ministry--opposition to those in high places who lorded over the people while pretending to a piety they did not possess.

Were the Jewish authorities given this promise?

And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. (Pastor Aeternus cap. 4 §2)

[dsc]

The materials you post do not suffice to rebut the "bait and switch" charge.

What possible reason would the Vatican have for refusing to pick one of the candidates put forward by Lefebvre?

[dsc]

"The Pope does not have an animus against Holy Tradition."

He has done things that make that position very difficult to defend.

[Palladin]

And which Catholic Church has paid out billions to the victims of pedophile priests--the SSPX, or your guys???

[gbcdoj]

What possible reason would the Vatican have for refusing to pick one of the candidates put forward by Lefebvre?

This one.

In fact, only in modern times have women dreamt of going to university, but the idea has now become so normal that even Catholics, whose Faith guards Nature, may have difficulty in seeing the problem. However, here is a pointer in the direction of normalcy: any Catholic with the least respect for Tradition recognizes that women should not be priests - can he deny that if few women went to university, almost none would wish to be priests? Alas, women going to university is part of the whole massive onslaught on God's Nature which characterizes our times. That girls should not be in universities flows from the nature of universities and from the nature of girls: true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls. (Bishop Richard Williamson, SSPX)

[Land of the Irish]

Ad Apostolorum Principis, His Holiness Pope Pius XII, Encyclical on Communism and the Church in China, June 29, 1958

"47. From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.[18]">

The modernists claim the Pope can't do anything about the evil prelates already in place and in power.

Wrong!

He can do something about it, and he's the only one who can do something about it, yet he refuses to act.

He has voided no canonical appointments of bishops to my knowledge. He even refused to void Reggie "the Queer" Cawcutt's appointment (the flaming homo finally, voluntarily submitted his resignation after exposure by RCF). He certainly didn't void the SSPX bishop's appointments, for they never had any.

[ultima ratio]

Martin Luther--you mean the patron saint of Novus Ordo? He also threw out the Offertory for starters and loathed the notion of a sacrificial liturgy. No wonder the Novus Ordo bishops hate Trent!

[gbcdoj]

And which Catholic Church has paid out billions to the victims of pedophile priests--the SSPX, or your guys???

There is only One Catholic Church, and she has not paid out "billions" to the victims of "pedophile priests".

If you want, we can get into a slugfest into which side has more immoral prelates:

Fidelity Magazine: The Society of St. Pius X Gets Sick

[sinkspur]

Not fair! Williamson's background is filled with audaciousness.

Check out his affection for old Nazis.

It's positively Buchananesque.

[dsc]

"This one."

So, a traditional view of the roles of the sexes would disqualify a person, where a habit of anally raping altar boys does not?

One must glean from your argument that the Pope considers the promotion of feminism to be a litmus test.

[gbcdoj]

He also threw out the Offertory for starters and loathed the notion of a sacrificial liturgy. No wonder the Novus Ordo bishops hate Trent!

Wherefore, O Lord, mindful of the blessed Passion of the same Christ Thy Son, our Lord, and likewise mindful of His resurrection from the nether realm of the dead, but also His glorious ascension into the heavens, we Your servants but also Your holy people, offer up unto Your beautiful majesty from Your own gifts and grants, the sacrificial victim which is pure, the holy victim, the victim stainless, the holy Bread of life everlasting, and the Chalice of eternal salvation. (Novus Ordo Missae, Eucharistic Prayer I)

[gbcdoj]

So, a traditional view of the roles of the sexes would disqualify a person,

"ideas are not for true girls" is not the "traditional view".

where a habit of anally raping altar boys does not?

Don't slander the Pope. He doesn't knowingly appoint bishops who rape altar boys.

[dsc]

"ideas are not for true girls" is not the "traditional view"."

Actually, it is. Even as late as the forties and fifties it wasn't considered to be bigotry on a par with lynching, as it is now.

"Don't slander the Pope. He doesn't knowingly appoint bishops who rape altar boys."

1. He has a duty to know.
2. He has been told, and has done nothing.

[dsc]

"Wherefore, O Lord, mindful of the blessed Passion of the same Christ Thy Son, our Lord, and likewise mindful of His resurrection from the nether realm of the dead, but also His glorious ascension into the heavens, we Your servants but also Your holy people, offer up unto Your beautiful majesty from Your own gifts and grants, the sacrificial victim which is pure, the holy victim, the victim stainless, the holy Bread of life everlasting, and the Chalice of eternal salvation. (Novus Ordo Missae, Eucharistic Prayer I)"

I have never heard those words at an NO mass.

[ultima ratio]

"It is not a 'hit-piece', but an official document of a Pontifical Council."

It is still a hit piece.

As for the Pope's letter--he is wrong. He offers no proof of schism, but makes the false claim that disobedience to him is schism. It is not. The fact that he says it is makes no difference. Not even he can make something so which isn't. The Archbishop's disobedience had nothing to do with denying his authority, but only with preserving Sacred Tradition. Nor did the Pope entertain the possibility that the act of disobedience was committed for motives which were good and just. He assumes the worst, wrongly. And he is culpable in this injustice, since he knew full well that the Archbishop's disobedience was principled and had everything to do with his defense of the faith and nothing to do with denying the papacy itself.

[gbcdoj]

It's a translation of the Latin of the Novus Ordo. The ICEL translation is especially bad at this spot in the Canon (purposefully, I would suspect), but that's probably about what the Canon sounds like in other languages.

[dsc]

"purposefully, I would suspect"

I don't see how it could be otherwise, considering that I didn't even recognize it, and considering the rest of ICEL's Satanic depredations.

[gbcdoj]

6. The chief deceit used to conceal the new schism is the name of "Catholic." The originators and adherents of the schism presumptuously lay claim to this name despite their condemnation by Our authority and judgment. It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead peoples and princes into error. St. Jerome, presbyter, referred to these men, among others, when he said: "The heretics are accustomed to say to their king or to Pharaoh, 'We are the sons of wise men who have handed down to us from the beginning the Apostolic teaching; we are the sons of ancient kings who are called kings of the philosophers; and we possess the knowledge of the scriptures in addition to the wisdom of the world.'"[6]



7. But to prove that they are Catholics, the neo-schismatics appeal to what they call a declaration of faith, published by them on February 6, 1870, which they insist disagrees in no regard with the Catholic faith. However it has never been possible to prove oneself a Catholic by affirming those statements of the faith which one accepts and keeping silence on those doctrines which one decides not to profess. But without exception, all doctrines which the Church proposes must be accepted, as the history of the Church at all times bears witness.



8. That the statement of faith which they published was deceitful and sophistical is proved also by the fact that they rejected the declaration or profession of faith which was proposed to them on Our authority in accordance with custom. They were commanded to accept it by Our venerable brother Anthony Joseph Archbishop of Tyana, Apostolic Delegate at Constantinople, in a letter of warning sent to them on September 29 of the same year. For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree.[7] And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church.[8] As a result, that man is already a schismatic and a sinner who establishes a see in opposition to the unique See of the blessed Peter[9] from which the rights of sacred communion derive for all men.[10]



Authority of the Papacy



9. This fact was well known to the illustrious bishops of the Eastern Churches. Hence at the Council of Constantinople held in the year 536, Mennas the bishop of that city affirmed openly with the approval of the fathers, "We follow and obey the Apostolic See, as Your Charity realizes and we consider those in communion with it to be in communion with us, and we too condemn the men condemned by it."[11] Even more clearly and emphatically St. Maximus, abbot of Chrysopolis, and a confessor of the faith, in refer ring to Pyrrhus the Monothelite, declared: "If he wants neither to be nor to be called a heretic, he toes not need to satisfy random individuals of his orthodoxy, for this is excessive and unreasonable. But just as all men have been scandalized at him since the chief man was scandalized, so also when that one has been satisfied, all men will doubtless be satisfied. He should hasten to satisfy the Roman See before all others. For when this See has been satisfied, all men everywhere will join in declaring him pious and orthodox. For that man wastes his words who thinks that men like me must be persuaded and beguiled when he has not yet satisfied and beseeched the blessed Pope of the holy Roman Church. From the incarnate word of God Himself as well as from the conclusions and sacred canons of all holy councils, the Apostolic See has been granted the command, authority and power of binding and loosing for all God's holy churches in the entire world."[12] For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared-and the entire Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later—"that the names of those who were separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries."[13] This plainly meant that they did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic.

10. Since this does not please the neo-schismatics, they follow the example of heretics of more recent times. They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence. They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church. For "the whole Church throughout the world knows that the See of the blessed Apostle Peter has the right of loosing again what any pontiffs have bound, since this See possesses the right of judging the whole Church, and no one may judge its judgment."[14] The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an excommunication pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice. Each person should perform, as they said, his own particular duty despite an excommunication. Our predecessor of happy memory Clement XI in his constitution Unigenitus against the errors of Quesnell forbade and condemned statements of this kind.[15] These statements were scarcely in any way different from some of John Wyclif's which had previously been condemned by the Council of Constance and Martin V. Through human weakness a person could be unjustly punished with censure by his prelate. But it is still necessary, as Our predecessor St. Gregory the Great warned, "for a bishop's subordinates to fear even an unjust condemnation and not to blame the judgment of the bishop rashly in case the fault which did not exist, since the condemnation was unjust, develops out of the pride of heated reproof."[16] But if one should be afraid even of an unjust condemnation by one's bishop, what must be said of those men who have been condemned for rebelling against their bishop and this Apostolic See and tearing to pieces as they are now doing by a new schism the seamless garment of Christ, which is the Church? (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra)

[sinkspur]

So, a traditional view of the roles of the sexes would disqualify a person,

"Ideas are not for true girls" is "traditional"?

No girls in university?

Would you like a post or two about Williamson's anti-semitism?