The Line of Archbishop Lefebvre

The Line of Archbishop Lefebvre - Reboot

JMJ

I haven't written about the 'Resistance' for sometime as ... well frankly ... I'm 'retired' and sometimes you just need to have a face-to-face discussion in order to make any headway in evaluating the various positions that the 'Resistors' take.

But I have some time ... so ...

One item that is a fall back position for 'Resistors' is the statement that Archbishop Lefevbre said "No canonical regularization without a doctrinal agreement".

I challenge any 'Resistor' to provide a reference where the Archbishop said these exact words.

News flash - he didn't.

For those 'Resistors' who aren't mindlessly repeating something they heard elsewhere, this is usually taken as a reference to an interview given to Fideliter in 1988.

I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.”Thus, the positions will be clear. (Fideliter interview Nov / Dec 1988)

Before we go through the quote, I think it is valid to recognize that the "no canonical ..." is actually a principle established by the 2000 or 2006 general chapter of the SSPX in their dealings with Rome. It is also important to note that this interview appeared in the Nov / Dec 1988 issue of the Fideliter and that the whole context of the Archbishop's thoughts need to include the statements made by the Archbishop before and after this interview (for example see this article and these two interviews).

Now back to the principle and the actual words of Archbishop Lefebvre.

We can factually establish that Archbishop Lefebvre did not make the statement the "Resistors" love so much.
The Archbishop was speaking if he was alive and Rome called for a renewed 'dialogue', he was clear that he couldn't "speak much of the future". The Archbishop went to his reward 25 years ago in 1991.
We have the summary statement "If you do not accept the doctrine of your ... as long as you do not accept the correction of the Council ...".

Now this is interesting, as the SSPX discussions were all about expressing and discusssing the core issues with the Council. The endpoint was that the Roman theologians accused the SSPX of being protestants and the SSPX rebuted that they were Modernists.

What 'Resistors' seem to miss is that if the SSPX were regularized while maintaining their position on the Council (read Four Points), this in itself is a doctrinal agreement that the Council can be corrected as Rome will have accepted that one can be Catholic and not accept the Second Vatican Council in the manner of the SSPX.

But, the likes of the Resistors have a fundamental assumption that the ONLY way for this crisis to be resolved is for the immediate abrogation of the Novus Ordo Missae and condemnation of the Second Vatican Council.

That would be a first. It took almost 200 years for Arianism to be purged from the Church.

Seems to be a lack patience and perhaps even more a lack of gratitude.

Be careful, if you find yourself becoming bitter and self-righteous, you may be on the wrong path. Can one really be called "Traditional Catholic" if they disregard Church Teaching???

The fall of Bishop Williamson et al is something to keep before our eyes in order to remain humble and grateful for the gifts that God has granted us with no merit of our own.

P^3

Further Reading
Tradicat: Satis Cognitum and the SSPX - part 1
Tradicat: Satis Cognitum and the SSPX - part 2
Tradicat: One and two years after the consecrations
Tradicat: A theologians questions

Auctorem Fidei

Can the SSPX be right about the Novus Ordo? Revision: Feb 11, 2013 On another web forum, I was engaged in a rather heated discussion about the documents of Vatican II.

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX. This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R

Tradicat

Search This Blog