Author Topic: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)  (Read 1677 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 21439
  • Reputation: +18975/-88
  • Gender: Male
Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
« on: April 08, 2018, 10:11:01 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Number DLX (560)
    April 7, 2018
    Anti-”Lefebvrist” Argument – I
    Archbishop Lefebvre was wise – his rule of thumb,
    “Recognise, yet Resist” is not so dumb!

    To attack the French Dominican priests of Avrillé for their “Lefebvrism,” i.e. for their refusal to accept that the Conciliar Popes since Paul VI have not been Popes at all, a French layman – Mr. N.M. – has just written an article accusing the Dominicans of rejecting three Catholic dogmas: that the Pope has primacy of jurisdiction over the Universal Church; that the Church’s Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible; that it is the Church’s living Magisterium which determines what Catholics must believe. Normally such questions of doctrine may be best left to the experts in doctrine, but ours are not normal times. Today Catholics can have to rely on their own Catholic good sense to decide such questions for themselves.
    Let us look at all three questions in a simple and practical way. If I want to accept that the Popes have been true Popes since Paul VI, why should I have to deny firstly that the Pope is head of the Church, secondly that the Church’s normal teaching is infallible and thirdly that the living Pope tells me what I should believe? Let us look at N.M.’s arguments, one by one.
    As to the first point, NM quotes the thoroughly anti-liberal Council of Vatican I (1870–1871) to the effect that the Pope is the direct and immediate head of every diocese, every priest and every Catholic. If then like all Lefebvrists, I refuse to obey him, I am implicitly denying that he is my head as a Catholic, so I am denying that the Pope is what Vatican I defined him to be. Answer: I am not at all denying that the Conciliar Popes have the authority to command me as a Catholic, I am only saying that their Catholic authority does not include the authority to make me turn myself into a Protestant, as I will do if I follow their commands in line with Vatican II.
    Secondly, NM argues that Vatican I also stated that the everyday teaching of Pope and bishops is in fallible . Now if ever we had serious teaching of Pope and Bishops together, it was at Vatican II. If then I refuse that teaching, I am implicitly denying that the Church’s Universal Ordinary Magisterium is infallible. Answer, no, I am not. I fully recognise that when a doctrine has been taught in the Church nearly everywhere, at all times and by all Popes and Bishops, it is infallible, but if it has been taught only
    in modern times by the 20th century Popes and Bishops of Vatican II, then it is contrary to what was taught by Popes and Bishops at all other times of the Church, and I do not consider myself bound to accept it. As I accept the heavyweight UOM of all time, so I reject the lightweight UOM of today, contradicting it.
    Thirdly, NM argues that the true Pope has the living authority to tell me as a Catholic what I must today believe. If then I refuse to believe what the Conciliar Popes have told me to believe, I am rejecting their liv ing authority as arbiters of the Faith. Answer: no, I am not. I am using my eyes to read, and my God-given brain to judge, that what the Conciliar Popes tell me contradicts what all previous Popes back to St Peter tell me, and I prefer to follow the heavy weight of 261 Popes telling me what to believe against the light weight of six Conciliar Popes. “But then you are rejecting the living authority of the living Pope as arbiter of the Faith!” Only because I am following, obeying and submitting to 261 Popes as arbiters of that Faith which my eyes and my brain tell me that the Conciliar Popes are not following. “But then you are backing your own eyes and brain against the Catholic Pope!” God gave me eyes and a brain which function, and when I come before Him to be judged, I shall answer for the use I made of them.
    It is clear that NM’s own answer to the problem of Popes protestantising, modernising and Conciliar, is to deny that they ever were Popes. It should be equally clear that to that problem, which is very real, I am not obliged to adopt NM’s drastic solution. Nor, if I refuse to adopt it, am I obliged to deny three Church dogmas. Peace be to NM.
    Kyrie eleison.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline forlorn

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 389
    • Reputation: +153/-227
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #1 on: April 08, 2018, 08:06:32 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why would a Pope tell you to become Protestant, or so willingly contradict the teachings of 261 Popes before him?


    Offline Incredulous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3944
    • Reputation: +4911/-241
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #2 on: April 08, 2018, 08:50:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why would a Pope tell you to become Protestant, or so willingly contradict the teachings of 261 Popes before him?

    HE can't really explain it... nor the fact that Paul VI, JP II and Benedict XVI were of Jewish extraction.

    We can simply trust that these are visible de facto popes, whose mission has been to execute some facet of destroying Holy Mother Church.

    Christ has allowed it and in this sense, we must hold fast to the truth, while accepting these de facto, anti-Christ, destroyer popes.

    In effect, "We" not Rome, are the resisting remnant of the Church militant here on earth.

    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21439
    • Reputation: +18975/-88
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #3 on: April 08, 2018, 10:25:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why would a Pope tell you to become Protestant, or so willingly contradict the teachings of 261 Popes before him?
    The mystery of iniquity. 
    Why do some souls choose to serve the world or the devil rather than God, Who is an infinitely better Master and Whose yoke is much sweeter?
    Don't ask me! I don't understand it myself.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6734
    • Reputation: +4158/-520
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #4 on: April 09, 2018, 01:40:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I fully recognise that when a doctrine has been taught in the Church nearly everywhere, at all times and by all Popes and Bishops, it is infallible...

    Perhaps he needs to look a bit further into the doctrine of Conciliar infallibility, which "has been taught in the Church nearly everywhere, at all times and by all Popes and Bishops".
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline forlorn

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 389
    • Reputation: +153/-227
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #5 on: April 09, 2018, 04:12:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The mystery of iniquity.
    Why do some souls choose to serve the world or the devil rather than God, Who is an infinitely better Master and Whose yoke is much sweeter?
    Don't ask me! I don't understand it myself.
    So to get this straight, you believe that a Pope who serves the devil and encourages apostasy can somehow not be an apostate himself? 

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8656
    • Reputation: +3397/-714
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #6 on: April 09, 2018, 05:53:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why would a Pope tell you to become Protestant, or so willingly contradict the teachings of 261 Popes before him?
    Because he actually believes that whatever he says or does is infallible, so he is just doing his part to widen that narrow road.
    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline Incredulous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3944
    • Reputation: +4911/-241
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #7 on: April 09, 2018, 06:20:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Is this the "Rock" our Lord referred us to ?



    The "Rock" is hidden like the rest of the Church in Eclipse, according to Our Lady of La Salette.

    And according to Pope Leo XIII's Divinely inspired St. Michael's prayer, the judeo-masons have erected a 2nd papal throne.


    “These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where the See of Holy Peter and the Chair of Truth has been set up as the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be."
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi


    Offline forlorn

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 389
    • Reputation: +153/-227
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #8 on: April 09, 2018, 08:06:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Because he actually believes that whatever he says or does is infallible, so he is just doing his part to widen that narrow road.
    To propose that every Pope since Vatican 2 has had the same extreme misunderstanding of Papal Infallibility that even a layman wouldn't have, is just preposterous. You don't spend decades in the Church, and even become Pope without having at least a basic grasp of what Papal Infallibility actually means. All these men spent decades in the Church, I think they were all well aware of what ex cathedra means. 
    If Bergoglio believes he is infallible in everything he says, then it can't be out of a mistaken belief that that's what the Church teaches. No, anyone can do a 2 minute google search to inform themselves what Papal Infallibility applies to. So his belief in his own infallibility would be a formal heresy, a willing rejection of Church dogma.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8656
    • Reputation: +3397/-714
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #9 on: April 09, 2018, 09:42:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • To propose that every Pope since Vatican 2 has had the same extreme misunderstanding of Papal Infallibility that even a layman wouldn't have, is just preposterous. You don't spend decades in the Church, and even become Pope without having at least a basic grasp of what Papal Infallibility actually means. All these men spent decades in the Church, I think they were all well aware of what ex cathedra means.
    If Bergoglio believes he is infallible in everything he says, then it can't be out of a mistaken belief that that's what the Church teaches. No, anyone can do a 2 minute google search to inform themselves what Papal Infallibility applies to. So his belief in his own infallibility would be a formal heresy, a willing rejection of Church dogma.
    You're preaching to the choir. The fact remains that most NOers, including some trads, believe that it is an infallible teaching of the Church that the pope is always infallible - so who is to say that false belief is limited to the people, why shouldn't the pope himself actually believe it?

    You say he should know better, I say (for the sake of argument) that he doesn't. I say he believes like most everyone else, that whatever he says or does is infallible, that all General Councils are infallible and that whatever all the bishops together teach is infallible - meaning, as Van Noort says, that we all have a "corresponding duty to believe whatever the successors of the Apostles teach" - not go around saying he should know better.

    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline forlorn

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 389
    • Reputation: +153/-227
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #10 on: April 09, 2018, 01:21:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You're preaching to the choir. The fact remains that most NOers, including some trads, believe that it is an infallible teaching of the Church that the pope is always infallible - so who is to say that false belief is limited to the people, why shouldn't the pope himself actually believe it?

    You say he should know better, I say (for the sake of argument) that he doesn't. I say he believes like most everyone else, that whatever he says or does is infallible, that all General Councils are infallible and that whatever all the bishops together teach is infallible - meaning, as Van Noort says, that we all have a "corresponding duty to believe whatever the successors of the Apostles teach" - not go around saying he should know better.
    The quote only applies if they are actually in fact the successors of the Apostles. A formal heretic cannot be the Pope. And while yes it is a possibility, albeit an unlikely one, that Bergoglio is unaware of the limitations of Papal Infallibility, in such a case it'd still be our duty to correct him as St. Paul corrected St. Peter. Not to just sit idly by while he taught errors. 


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8656
    • Reputation: +3397/-714
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #11 on: April 09, 2018, 02:21:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The quote only applies if they are actually in fact the successors of the Apostles. A formal heretic cannot be the Pope. And while yes it is a possibility, albeit an unlikely one, that Bergoglio is unaware of the limitations of Papal Infallibility, in such a case it'd still be our duty to correct him as St. Paul corrected St. Peter. Not to just sit idly by while he taught errors.
    No, the quote is a lie which most people believe (or say they believe) that quote is an infallible teaching of the Church, on that account, it never applies, not ever. It is not a teaching of the Church at all. The only place one can even find an actual official version is in V2's Lumen Gentium #25.2. The reason that's the only place one can find this "totality of bishops doctrine" is because it is a NO teaching.

    The Church has explicitly and infallibly defined who is infallible and under what criteria, to say that we have a "duty to believe *whatever* the successors of the Apostles teach" is taken to mean that *whatever* they teach is infallible. This is wrong and, as has been going on for the last 60 years, leads people into a total rejection of what the Church actually does teach and leads people to the loss of faith.

    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline forlorn

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 389
    • Reputation: +153/-227
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #12 on: April 09, 2018, 02:29:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, the quote is a lie which most people believe (or say they believe) that quote is an infallible teaching of the Church, on that account, it never applies, not ever. It is not a teaching of the Church at all. The only place one can even find an actual official version is in V2's Lumen Gentium #25.2. The reason that's the only place one can find this "totality of bishops doctrine" is because it is a NO teaching.

    The Church has explicitly and infallibly defined who is infallible and under what criteria, to say that we have a "duty to believe *whatever* the successors of the Apostles teach" is taken to mean that *whatever* they teach is infallible. This is wrong and, as has been going on for the last 60 years, leads people into a total rejection of what the Church actually does teach and leads people to the loss of faith.
    Ah yes, excuse me. I took it to mean that we ought to obey and not defy the Pope's teachings insofar as they do not contradict existing doctrine. I didn't take it to mean that everything the Pope says is infallible or is guaranteed to be correct and never revised. 

    Offline King Wenceslas

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 56
    • Reputation: +18/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #13 on: April 10, 2018, 01:04:54 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • No, the quote is a lie which most people believe (or say they believe) that quote is an infallible teaching of the Church, on that account, it never applies, not ever. It is not a teaching of the Church at all. The only place one can even find an actual official version is in V2's Lumen Gentium #25.2. The reason that's the only place one can find this "totality of bishops doctrine" is because it is a NO teaching.

    The Church has explicitly and infallibly defined who is infallible and under what criteria, to say that we have a "duty to believe *whatever* the successors of the Apostles teach" is taken to mean that *whatever* they teach is infallible. This is wrong and, as has been going on for the last 60 years, leads people into a total rejection of what the Church actually does teach and leads people to the loss of faith.
    Thank you Stubborn and Williamson. For a minute here I thought that this had become a sedevacantist blog site. 
    No popes since 1958. Thank God only a few out of 1.2 billion who call themselves Catholic believe this.

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4083
    • Reputation: +1886/-187
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Eleison Comments - Anti-Lefebvrist Argument I (no. 560)
    « Reply #14 on: April 10, 2018, 01:10:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you Stubborn and Williamson. For a minute here I thought that this had become a sedevacantist blog site.
    No popes since 1958. Thank God only a few out of 1.2 billion who call themselves Catholic believe this.
    Because it's demonstrably better that the Vicars of Christ since 1958 have been teaching heresy?
    ::)
    If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. - Council of Trent

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16