Posted on 05/27/2004 10:22:01 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
Archbishop Lefebvre was declared automatically "excommunicated" and schismatic by a modernist Pope. The good Archbishop's crime? Fearing his imminent death, he consecrated bishops to continue the formation and ordination of anti-modernist priests.
Rome had previously agreed, but then delayed, repeatedly, the promised consecration.
It was all planned: wait the good Archbishop out until he died, or declare him "excommunicated" if he performed the consecrations, even if it was from his death-bed. It was a win-win situation for modernist "Rome" and a lose-lose situation for traditional Catholics.
Popes and cardinals sin, that is no surprise! But the Holy See was still fully Catholic when Alexander VI presided in Peter's chair.
By the way, I notice you don't use bold fonts to highlight the exception pronounced by Pius IX: "SO ONLY IT DOES NOT TOUCH THE DOMATA OF FAITH AND MORALS."
That differentiates disciplinary pronouncement from dogmatic pronouncements on faith and morals. That's not an "exception" of Bl. Pius IX, but one invented by the liberals to try to get out of the disciplinary authority of the Church.
You might also have quoted his famous admonition that when a pope does not teach Catholic doctrine, we should not follow him.
You mean this statement: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him", ripped from the context of a letter? The Pope doesn't teach anything contrary to the Catholic faith, so there is no worry there. (Only defined dogmas are de fide Catholica)
He did so in a letter--not formally--and said so wrongly, since no member of SSPX has ever denied papal authority--though the SSPX DID deny that this Pope was orthodox and it DID defend against his heterodox assault on Catholic Tradition and the ancient Mass in particular.
Why do you lie about the Holy Father? He has not assaulted the ancient Mass. If he were truly heterodox as you assert, he would have simply suppressed all the ancient rites, instead of encouraging the Eastern churches to hold to their traditions and establishing the FSSP as a society of Pontifical Right.
And "Ecclesia Dei" is not just a "letter", but an Apostolic Letter given motu proprio, one which enjoys the his supreme apostolic authority. He explicitly states:
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.[Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 751.] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.[Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382.]
He declares that it was a schismatic act and that they are schismatics.
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. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra)
This pontificate is pushing an agenda that has nothing whatever to do with Catholicism or the salvation of souls and is an attempt to establish a new pan-religion by means of the destruction of whatever is specifically and uniquely Catholic.
LOL! This is just nonsense. If the Pope wanted to destroy "whatever is specifically and uniquely Catholic", it would be obvious. 25 years and his "reformation" still hasn't made itself known? These must be part of the attempt to establish a "pan-religion" by the destruction of whatever is "uniquely Catholic":
Those look just like ecumenical pan-religious documents. One can see the spirit of the "Future of God" conference in Fatima in them!
Lefebvre refused to give dossiers on bishops to Ratzinger. The consecration was to be August 15, but Lefebvre refused to offer new, Catholic candidates, even though he stated in a letter that he knew various traditionalists that would be accepted by the Pope as the bishop.
For instance, he stated that "The Traditional Benedictine Prior" Dom Gerard Calvet would be accepted. Dom Gerard knew that Lefebvre's consecrations were schismatic and left - but he still says even today that the New Mass is inferior and doesn't clearly express Catholic dogma, all while in communion with Rome and having his priests ordained.
Your theory is also disproved by the very fact that today the Pope is still willing to allow the Society to return to the Church without having to disavow its errors. It is the Society which stays purposefully outside, because the Pope refused to grant the "universal indult":
His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay: It was February 12,2001. Cardinal Hoyos said, "Listen, we have a problem. The problem is this permission for the Mass. The Pope agrees to say that the old Mass has never been abrogated and that it is legitimate to offer it. Cardinals Ratzinger, Medina and Sodano all agree. But their secretaries and under-secretaries do not agree. Therefore, we cannot say what you want. Instead, we will say that every priest and every group of faithful who wants the old Mass will have the ability to ask permission from a new commission that will oversee the concerns of the traditionalists." I replied, "Well, that's Ecclesia Dei II!" When the Cardinal relayed this information, I said, "That's it. They don't care about the problem."
This is on top of the statement in the Protocol that any bishop in the entire world could ordain the society's priests.
In any case, Lefebvre's bishops lack formal apostolic succession, which is given by the Pope. He made four bishops who are only material and not formal Successors of the Apostles - schismatic, non-Catholic bishops.
That says nothing about denying the Resurrection - just that Kasper considers the tomb stories unhistorical.
It is Fr. Harrison who argues that Kasper's premises lead to the denial of the resurrection and virgin birth - he doesn't cite Kasper on that because Kasper affirms the resurrection and virgin birth in this book!
Reread the piece. Kasper denies miracles happen. That includes the Resurrection. The whole tenor of the Harrison piece concerns the Resurrection and its denial by Bredin and Kasper.
This is not mere sinfulness--it's heresy. Try again--this time with your blinders off.
This Pope teaches syncretism and indifferentism--not in writing, never on paper--but in what he does. That is the scheme--to little by little change the Church and the way Catholics believe by DOING what clearly undermines the faith. His example is bad--and should not be followed.
Avery Dulles clearly states that Kasper treats of and affirms the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. Also sitetest has told me he has read the book and not found it heretical - something impossible if he truly denied the resurrection and divinity of Our Lord as you have falsely claimed.
In compact style, Kasper handles practically all the standard Christological questions, such as the pre-existence of the Son, the hypostatic union (one person in two natures), the virginal conception, the freedom and sinlessness of Jesus, his Messianic claims and titles, his miracles, and his resurrection. Refusing to separate Christology from soteriology, Kasper likewise treats the redemptive character of Jesus's sacrificial death. On all these points, Kasper stands with the ancient councils and with the mainstream of the theological tradition.
That's not the 'scheme' at all. Actually, the Pope is a sinner like all of us. But his teaching is perfectly orthodox as you know.
The Pope's failure to discipline the rector of the shrine is an error in judgment. It has nothing to do with heresy, as can be clearly shown from his Catechism which condemns the worship of false gods.
The motu proprio was about granting the Indult. The comment about "schism" was an aside--and was wrong. It was wrong because it contradicted the Pope's own canon law which provided for exceptions--which the Archbishop appropriately evoked. The exception was the allowance for disobedience during a state of necessity.
Just as when a house is on fire it is all right to break and enter to save the souls inside, so in a time of crisis in the Church it is all right to disobey the Pope. It is a self-deception to think Lefebvre was wrong and the Pope was right about the state of the Church. Of course Lefebvre was right--there WAS a state of necessity--and there still is. The faith is being assaulted--by Rome herself.
If you were honest with yourself, you would recognize the obvious--that this Pope is wrong about many things and it is doing great damage to the faith. But you are not honest. You pretend there's nothing wrong with a pope who opposes Catholic Tradition and punishes it, but approves the worship of false gods in Catholic chapels. But surely you must realize this attitude is unique in all the history of the faith for two thousand years. It is exceedingly shocking and strange--and ultimately inexcusable.
You are ignoring the facts. He declared Lefebvre and his bishops schismatic, spending a paragraph explaining why that was so.
It was wrong because it contradicted the Pope's own canon law which provided for exceptions--which the Archbishop appropriately evoked. The exception was the allowance for disobedience during a state of necessity.
An "exception" which the PCILT has explained does not exist. The PCILT is the authentic interpreter of Canon Law - not you.
You ignore the fact that the schismatic bishops consecrated by Lefebvre lack formal apostolic succession and are therefore non-Catholic bishops. Your own Bishop de Mallerais admits this problem but holds an infallible faith in all of Lefebvre's acts:
IN AN "INTERVIEW" given by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (one of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre and by Bishop de Castro Mayer) in the French magazine of the Society of Saint Pius X, Fideliter, (n. 123, pp. 25-29), candid and baffling admissions were made. Bishop de Mallerais confronts one of the first difficulties, which is that of jurisdiction. Bishop de Mallerais admits that his consecration was "accomplished against the will of the Pope" and that he has not received jurisdiction either from Archbishop Lefebvre ("he was not able to give it to us") neither from the Pope ("the Pope refused to give it to US"). He claims to have jurisdiction from the Church. "It is the Church which gives it to US" as if there could be opposition between the Church ( which concedes the jurisdiction) and the Pope (who denies it), or as if the hierarchical Church were not, in the ultimate analysis, the Pope.Nevertheless, for Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, there is a problem yet more serious than that of jurisdiction. Let us hear Bishop de Mallerais speak: "Are these bishops who are not recognized by the Pope legitimate? Do they enjoy formal apostolic succession? Are they, in a word, Catholic bishops?" This problem, Bishop de Mallerais explains, "concerns the very constitution of the Church, as all tradition teaches: there cannot be a legitimate bishop without the pope, the head by divine right of the episcopal body. Therefore the answer is less clear, and in fact it is not absolutely clear..." Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, therefore, ten years after his consecration, does not know whether his consecration or his being a bishop is a legitimate act!
For a moment, he seems to evoke the sede vacantist "solution." "...unless one were to suppose...it is necessary to recognize that if we were able to affirm that owing to heresy, schism, or some secret problem in the election, the pope would not be truly the pope, if we were able to pronounce such a judgement, then the response to the delicate question of our legitimacy would be clear..." If, according to Bishop de Mallerais, ''sede vacantism'' is the only clear explanation to justify his own consecration, we would expect a public adherence to sede vacantism, or a reasoned refutation. But such is not the case. Sede vacantism is refuted only because Archbishop Lefebvre refused it: "The problem, so to speak, is that neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor my confreres, nor I myself, have been or are sede vacantists....Archbishop Lefebvre was not of this opinion, nor did he have the sufficient principles in order to make such a judgement. It is very important to take this into account." (The Candid Admissions of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais)
Lefebvre wanted traditionalist candidates for consecration who would not buckle under pressure by Rome as soon as he himself passed from the scene. He time and again tried to deal with Ratzinger on the up and up, asking over and over when he could expect the Pope to cite a date for a consecration. No date was ever given. He finally saw through the ruse and told Rome no deal.
As for your statement that "the Pope is still willing to allow the Society to return to the Church without having to disavow its errors"--I ask you--what errors? The errors are on Rome's part, not the Society's. It is Rome which refuses to discuss doctrines and principles, that demands blind obedience to its unCatholic, untraditional novelties that offend against the faith.
As for your notion that the bishops consecrated are not Catholic, that is an absurdity nobody else believes, not even Rome. They are themselves validly ordained and their ordinations of priests are valid. Not only this, but they represent the vanguard of true Catholicism--at a time when Rome herself is of doubtful Catholicity.
Even the Pope makes himself beside the point in the current struggle between faith and apostasy--since he proves himself opposed to Tradition--though he is himself only a servant to it and only holds supreme power expressly to defend and guard that tradition--not to invent a new religion. The faith, in other words, comes first. The Pope must either defend it, or step aside and let others do what he will not do.
Since the latae sententiae was "automatic" and depended on the interior state of Archbishop Lefebvre, how could the Pope know whether the Archbishop was truly excommunicated, let alone schismatic? In fact, he couldn't. The Pope was surmising--wrongly, as it happens, since the Archbishop had never in his life rejected the papacy, and disobeyed only out of necessity. But the Pope's own canon law stated that no one who is inculpable and without malice could incur excommunication. How could the Pope pretend to know what was in the Archbishop's own heart--especially when Lefebvre had made it clear over and over the Church was in the throes of crisis. Clearly he believed there was a state of necessity. The pope ignored this. He was therefore wrong and all-too-fallible.
Avery Dulles was writing a book review, not a theological piece on Kasper's odd notion of a Resurrection that lacks historicity. Harrison is not reviewing a book, he is writing a refutation.
DOM GERARD: No, it is valid. Obviously Holy Church would not have given us an heretical Mass. But this rite is inadequate in expressing the real Presence manifest on the altar, the sacrifice of Christ, the divine majesty. We are attached to the Mass that Pius V formulated because, as the act of promulgation says, "we know that this Mass is the perfect expression of the faith of the Church".But remember too, that the Mass celebrated today is not the one Paul VI wanted and the one Conciliar Fathers approved. The problems of the Church in these past few decades have not been caused by the Council. The problems are the result of a bad interpretation of its texts which are still misunderstood today. The Mass the Council produced is the 1965 one which safeguarded the crux of traditional liturgy. With the use of the vulgate and by means of a few other modifications the Mass was given a more modern tone but all its effectiveness was restored.
However, in 1969 a completely new Mass was produced. The principal person behind this sweeping initiative that prevailed over the wishes of Conciliar Fathers was Msgr Bugnini who described this Mass explicitly as "a new creation". He said it was "evolutionary" to the extent that it could change with the times and the countries where it would be celebrated. Cardinal Ottaviani, who was prefect of the Holy Office at the time and therefore the institutional watchdog of the faith of the Church made a solemn declaration, saying that "this new rite is remarkably far removed in detail and as a whole from sacrificial theology as it had been drafted at the 22nd session of the Council of Trent". But no-one heeded him in those turbulent years.
Today the time has finally come to reform that negative reform, as Cardinal Ratzinger and the Primate of France, Cardinal Decourtray, have requested. In our time here, over 115 priests have come to us to learn and relearn how to say the traditional Mass. Now eight monasteries in France have adopted the ancient rite as we have done. The Pope should lift the restrictions on the traditional Mass and declare that whoever wishes may celebrate it without obtaining the special permission now required.
He time and again tried to deal with Ratzinger on the up and up, asking over and over when he could expect the Pope to cite a date for a consecration. No date was ever given.
August 15th. It's right in Lefebvre's interview in "Fideliter" which I have posted before here. Cardinal Ratzinger asked Lefebvre for candidates and said the date would be August 15, but Lefebvre refused.
As for your notion that the bishops consecrated are not Catholic, that is an absurdity nobody else believes, not even Rome. They are themselves validly ordained and their ordinations of priests are valid.
The same goes for the Old Catholics. Their ordinations are valid too. They were the "vanguard of true Catholicism" once, too, during the "state of emergency" after the First Vatican Council.
Are these bishops who are not recognized by the Pope legitimate? Do they enjoy formal apostolic succession? Are they, in a word, Catholic bishops? ... as all tradition teaches: there cannot be a legitimate bishop without the pope, the head by divine right of the episcopal body. (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais)
"The Pope's failure to discipline the rector of the shrine is an error in judgment. It has nothing to do with heresy, as can be clearly shown from his Catechism which condemns the worship of false gods."
I have said many times--don't look at what this pope writes, look at how he behaves. On paper he is orthodox, in behavior he is unorthodox. In encyclicals he condemns liturgical abuses, in his own papal Masses abuses flourish. On paper he condemns the worship of false gods, in his policies he fosters the practice. On paper he tells bishops that eliminating kneeling for Communion will undermine the dogma of the Real Presence, but in practice he permits it.
In compact style, Kasper handles practically all the standard Christological questions, such as the pre-existence of the Son, the hypostatic union (one person in two natures), the virginal conception, the freedom and sinlessness of Jesus, his Messianic claims and titles, his miracles, and his resurrection. Refusing to separate Christology from soteriology, Kasper likewise treats the redemptive character of Jesus's sacrificial death. On all these points, Kasper stands with the ancient councils and with the mainstream of the theological tradition.Kasper is opposed not only to the liberal Christologies of the nineteenth century but, even more emphatically, to the twentieth century secular and anthropological Christologies, which present Jesus as the culmination of the evolutionary process and as the supreme fulfillment of essential humanity. In Kasper's estimation, such theories (represented by Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, among others) inevitably tend to reduce Christ to a mere symbol of cosmic and human evolution. Particularly sharp are Kasper's criticisms of the Dutch Catholic theologian, Piet Schoonenberg, whom he accuses of falling into modalism and of directly contradicting the ancient councils by holding that Jesus is a human-not a divine-person.
The idea that rejecting the Resurrection constitutes "standing with the ancient councils" in Dulles' mind is simply ridiculous.
This sort of logic means that no Pope has the authority to excommunicate anyone as a schismatic, since schism depends on the interior state of a person.
For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic. (St. Robert Bellarmine)
I think we've been over this on other threads. Time to stop monopolizing this one. This post was about Rome's allowing Hindus to pray to their gods at a Catholic shrine. There is no way to defend this action. It's another in a long list of abominations practiced by the conciliar Church. I have bothered to answer you because you continually spread these slanders--and lurkers may be influenced by what are clearly smears.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.