Author Topic: Archbishop Lefebvre Confirmation Sermon: (Read 5198 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #15 on:** December 15, 2013, 06:43:00 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Mithrandylan
I believe you, Sean. It would be interesting to know when the sermon was given.

I think this is important and it is interesting that the OP states that the date and venue is unknown. What is the source for this sermon?

Bought it at the chapel bookstore about 6 months ago.

2Vermont · « **Reply #16 on:** December 15, 2013, 06:49:43 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Mithrandylan
I believe you, Sean. It would be interesting to know when the sermon was given.

I think this is important and it is interesting that the OP states that the date and venue is unknown. What is the source for this sermon?

Bought it at the chapel bookstore about 6 months ago.

But we still don't know WHEN he gave this sermon. He may have said it at one point, but I have also read quotes where he admits that at some point we may have to consider sedevacantism. I think where ABL stood on SV is inconclusive in the past. Even moreso if he were alive today.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #17 on:** December 15, 2013, 07:00:59 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

I think where ABL stood on SV is inconclusive in the past.

This is ridiculous. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was never a Sedevacantist. His position was clear. A few fleeting moments of questioning the legitimacy of the pope is a few H2O molecules in an ocean of water.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #18 on:** December 15, 2013, 07:06:55 PM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: 2Vermont
I think where ABL stood on SV is inconclusive in the past.

This is ridiculous. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was never a Sedevacantist. His position was clear. A few fleeting moments of questioning the legitimacy of the pope is a few H2O molecules in an ocean of water.

Yep.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #19 on:** December 15, 2013, 08:09:17 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

The following is a verbatim excerpt from an Archbishop Lefebvre English-language confirmation sermon...

This is good.

I find it strange and disappointing that it is only SSPX clergy who are willing to state this sort of thing. Regular clergy needs to get its act together and meet such confusions head on. That is one thing that I really wish to see.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #20 on:** December 16, 2013, 06:51:30 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: 2Vermont
I think where ABL stood on SV is inconclusive in the past.

This is ridiculous. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was never a Sedevacantist. His position was clear. A few fleeting moments of questioning the legitimacy of the pope is a few H2O molecules in an ocean of water.

It would be foolish to think that ABL was a sedevacantist. But no one thinks that. This thread came about due to the recent comments of Fr Pfeiffer who said, "no true Son of ABL could (hold to sede vacante)." He went on to say that it's a scandal to even suggest that it's a possibility. These are the comments that I have argued against. In other words, ABL did not hold that SVism is an impossibility. He not only believed that it was "not impossible," he believed that it was possible.

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre, 1986 Address to Seminarians

What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.

Look at all the "possibilities" ABL addresses in this passage... notice anything? The only thing he says that seems "impossible" is that the pope could be a public heretic... from which he concludes that it is possible (which is the keyword here!) we may be obliged to believe this "pope is not pope."

Salient point: The Archbishop viewed SVism as possibly and one could even say conditionally true. He even described those conditions. "If we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship..."

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #21 on:** December 16, 2013, 06:59:24 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

It would be foolish to think that ABL was a sedevacantist. But no one thinks that. This thread came about due to the recent comments of Fr Pfeiffer who said, "no true Son of ABL could (hold to sede vacante)." He went on to say that it's a scandal to even suggest that it's a possibility. These are the comments that I have argued against. In other words, ABL did not hold that SVism is an impossibility. He not only believed that it was "not impossible," he believed that it was possible.

I believe it is accurate to say that no true son of Archbishop Lefebvre is can hold onto the Sedevacantist position; however, if Fr. Pfeiffer indeed said that it is a scandal to even suggest the possibility, then I believe Father is incorrect. He must have been really excited when he said that!

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #22 on:** December 16, 2013, 07:03:16 AM »

Sean Johnson,

I don't remember where you made the link to the doctrine of necessity, but I read the first part yesterday on the theological justification for the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations written by Si Si No No. It was solid! I look forward to the second part.

The article shows that the proposition that the Church supplies jurisdiction in the case of necessity is not just a canonical one, but a theological one.

Thank you for bringing it up.

2Vermont · « **Reply #23 on:** December 16, 2013, 11:54:59 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: 2Vermont
I think where ABL stood on SV is inconclusive in the past.

This is ridiculous. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was never a Sedevacantist. His position was clear. A few fleeting moments of questioning the legitimacy of the pope is a few H2O molecules in an ocean of water.

It would be foolish to think that ABL was a sedevacantist. But no one thinks that. This thread came about due to the recent comments of Fr Pfeiffer who said, "no true Son of ABL could (hold to sede vacante)." He went on to say that it's a scandal to even suggest that it's a possibility. These are the comments that I have argued against. In other words, ABL did not hold that SVism is an impossibility. He not only believed that it was "not impossible," he believed that it was possible.

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre, 1986 Address to Seminarians
What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.

Look at all the "possibilities" ABL addresses in this passage... notice anything? The only thing he says that seems "impossible" is that the pope could be a public heretic... from which he concludes that it is possible (which is the keyword here!) we may be obliged to believe this "pope is not pope."

Salient point: The Archbishop viewed SVism as possibly and one could even say conditionally true. He even described those conditions. "If we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship..."

Here we have a date: 1986. Clearly ABL was not completely against the basis for SV at this point. Unless folks here are going to deny that he said these things. That is why I still question WHEN the aforementioned sermon was made. I'm going to guess well before 1986.

He was not a SV, but given these comments in 1986 I believe it is absolutely possible that he would at least reconsider the SV position.

Columba · « **Reply #24 on:** December 16, 2013, 12:36:16 PM »

Aside from philosophical differences, there was a genuine turf war between "the Nine" and the rest of the society. "The Nine" seized SSPX-affiliated chapel properties and had to defend them in subsequent court battles. They had incentive to maximize philosophical differences to legally justify retaining control of the properties. This process transformed the sede's into strict dogmatists and resulted in the SSPX loyalists categorizing sedevacantism as "sin." Both sides were to blame. Menzingen similarly categorized Resistance as "sin," but in under circuмstance that are far less understandable because the Resistance never seized property.

The property disputes were real but the philosophical differences are hazy at best and become increasing outdated as memories of injury fade and popes drop all pretense of fidelity.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #25 on:** December 16, 2013, 01:16:02 PM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Sean Johnson,

I don't remember where you made the link to the doctrine of necessity, but I read the first part yesterday on the theological justification for the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations written by Si Si No No. It was solid! I look forward to the second part.

The article shows that the proposition that the Church supplies jurisdiction in the case of necessity is not just a canonical one, but a theological one.

Thank you for bringing it up.

EM-

Both parts are contained here:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=17175&min=0&num=5

So far as I know, this is the best exposition of the doctrine of necessity ever written.

Sedes run from it like vampires from garlic, because it totally evaporates their mantra that there is intrinsic contradiction to the R&R position.

Impossible to maintain that in light of this article.

PS: Yes, you are correct that this article is more persuasive than the 5 part canonical defense the SSPX later published, precisely because moral theology is one of the sources of the canon law, and therefore greater and more binding than it.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #26 on:** March 29, 2014, 07:40:00 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

The following is a verbatim excerpt from an Archbishop Lefebvre English-language confirmation sermon (Date/venue unknown; possibly IHM in St. Paul, Mn).

In this sermon he plainly rejects sedevacantism as schismatic.

Since it is easily anticipated that I will be be accused of quoting out of context, etc., I invite those from IHM chapel in St. Paul to listen to the sermon with me tomorrow after High Mass.

Then there will be no possibility of calling into question context, transcription, etc:

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"You know that some people, and, uh, I must say that some priests were with us, and they tried to lead us into schism.

"And they say there is no pope, no pope now, no cardinals, no bishops, no Catholic Church.

"We are the Catholic Church.

"I don't say that.

"I don't accept that.

"That is schism.

"If we abandon Rome; if we abandon the pope, the successor of St. Peter, where are we going?

"Where?

"Where is the authority of the Church?

"Where is our leader in the Church?

"We can't know where we are going.

"If the pope is weak; if he don't do his duty; it's not good.

"We must pray for this pope.

"But don't say that he is not the pope."

There follows a lengthy dissertation on the case of Paul resisting St. Peter, as well as the condemnation of Pope Honorious, whom the Archbishop also noted never lost the papacy.

I have finally succeeded in tracking down the date of this sermon:

It was given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on May 10, 1983.

It is available from STAS audio for $5 (and the CD also includes other ABL English language sermons from 11-6-1977 and 4-19-1986).

Charlemagne · « **Reply #27 on:** March 29, 2014, 03:03:11 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

In this sermon he plainly rejects sedevacantism as schismatic.

Yet setting up chapels, conducting your own marriage tribunals, and hearing confessions - basically setting up a counter-church - against the wishes of someone you recognize as Pope isn't schismatic? Oh, but they do hang his portrait in the vestibule as a sign of "filial loyalty," so it's all good.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #28 on:** March 29, 2014, 03:11:17 PM »

Quote from: Charlemagne

Quote from: SeanJohnson

In this sermon he plainly rejects sedevacantism as schismatic.

Yet setting up chapels, conducting your own marriage tribunals, and hearing confessions - basically setting up a counter-church - against the wishes of someone you recognize as Pope isn't schismatic? Oh, but they do hang his portrait in the vestibule as a sign of "filial loyalty," so it's all good.

Please read the doctrine of necessity; links provided earlier in thread.

Ambrose · « **Reply #29 on:** March 29, 2014, 03:17:10 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Charlemagne
Quote from: SeanJohnson

In this sermon he plainly rejects sedevacantism as schismatic.

Yet setting up chapels, conducting your own marriage tribunals, and hearing confessions - basically setting up a counter-church - against the wishes of someone you recognize as Pope isn't schismatic? Oh, but they do hang his portrait in the vestibule as a sign of "filial loyalty," so it's all good.

Please read the doctrine of necessity; links provided earlier in thread.

The "doctrine of necessity" is based on a false assumption.