Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter  (Read 59602 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Meg

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #280 on: January 26, 2023, 07:21:34 PM »
Great posting, Meg, keep up the good work!

Archbishop Lefebvre was utterly shocked by the antics of some of these popes, so much so that he even publicly asked the question as to whether they could be popes, whether a pope could do such a thing, but he never adopted the theoretical, and certainly not the practical, position of the Sedevacantists. To the contrary.

Even on the eve of his death he gave a conference to the Society Sisters at Saint-Michel-en-Brenne on praying for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass, mocking the SVs understanding of this prayer. There is a short YouTube video of this but I can't find it right now.

I didn't know that he gave a conference just before his death on praying for the Pope in the canon of the Mass. I assume that he believed that the Pope should be prayed for? That's something that he would think, of course, given his good Catholic sense.

Offline Meg

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #281 on: January 26, 2023, 07:23:29 PM »
From what I've learned, it took a while for the sedevacantist view to become clear.

Perhaps in time the contradiction of a "non heretic antichrist pope" would have become more clear?

I don't go by "what if's" when it comes to what +ABL believed. He is no longer with us. We only have access to what he actually did say and do, and that suffices for those of us who do not care to re-make the Archbishop into a sedevacantist.


Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #282 on: January 26, 2023, 07:30:14 PM »
I didn't know that he gave a conference just before his death on praying for the Pope in the canon of the Mass. I assume that he believed that the Pope should be prayed for? That's something that he would think, of course, given his good Catholic sense.
Correction: it was almost 2 years before his death.

I found the text, the good old Avrille Dominicans usually come up with the goods:


Archbishop Lefebvre and the sedevacantists - Dominicans of Avrille, France (dominicansavrille.us)

Archbishop Lefebvre and the sedevacantists
(a little known docuмent)
Concerning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre on the “non una cuм” sedevacantist position, after the Episcopal consecrations of 1988; here is an excerpt from a conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre during a retreat preached to the sisters of Saint-Michel en Brenne 1, France, on April 1st, 1989 (AUDIO excerpt attached).
« … And then, he (Dom Guillou O.S.B. 2) goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una cuм.., una cuм of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cuм? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel-en-Brenne). You say una cuм in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you’re not Catholic; you’re not this; you’re not that; you’re not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cuм summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer.
Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed :
“We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope.”
It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have …, nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!
Then he (Dom Guillou) had a note about that to clarify a little:
“In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Botte O.S.B. 3, the UNA cuм or “in union with” of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction “and ” reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic Tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.
Let us collect the good grain, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be “kept in the holy religion” the “holy orders” and the “Apostolic Lord” himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLIcuм AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES IN SANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS.”
It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? WE ASK TO KEEP THE POPE IN THE TRUE RELIGION. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that… well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possibleWe have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said “There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility”. So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.
Then we must not keep this idea which is FALSE! which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, people no longer understand anything, they are completely desperate, they do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it. »
Archbishop Lefebvre, retreat at Saint-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #283 on: January 26, 2023, 07:34:38 PM »
I don't go by "what if's" when it comes to what +ABL believed. He is no longer with us. We only have access to what he actually did say and do, and that suffices for those of us who do not care to re-make the Archbishop into a sedevacantist.


I understand.  It's important to go by docuмented statements.

How did he explain that an antichrist is not a heretic?

Do you have any quotes for that?



Offline Meg

Re: Miles Christi volume 24 discussion - Fr Chazal's newsletter
« Reply #284 on: January 26, 2023, 07:40:46 PM »

I understand.  It's important to go by docuмented statements.

How did he explain that an antichrist is not a heretic?

Do you have any quotes for that?

No I don't have an explanation or quotes. Why do you need an explanation? Is it only so that you can try to prove that +ABL was really a sedevacantist?