Can one be traditional and not support the SSPX?

[Baskerville]

pissontrads has such a grudge against the sspx one wonders what made it so so so very personal for him.
Sip

I've started to wonder this myself he's so passionate about how evil they are it must be personal.

[Baskerville]

Peteltron, don't worry so much about the sspx.

Thats what he needs to do pissinontrads will give himself a heart attack if he keeps fighting this aggressively against those holy Priests.

[Nic]

Petrelton embodies the spirit of today's "conservative" Novus Ordo neo-Catholics, and that is BLIND OBEDIENCE.  Archbishop Lefebvre did what had to be done, out of a pure necessity to ensure the Church had its true Traditional presence.  His ordaining of bishops was an absolute must, and one day he will be seen as a saint for this.  Petrelton is of the common sentiment among these types of "Catholics."  They refuse to look to the past and see how such things have happened before.  Look at the Arian Crisis, a crisis that parallels our own in a very signifcant way.  Was St. Athanasius wrong to speak out against the errors of his time?  NO, he was not.  He was excommunicated several times by Pope Liberius, who had Arian tendencies.  While under his unjust excommunication, he "illicitly" ordained priests and bishops, even in other dioceses.  He did this out of dire necessity, to protect the Traditional Deposit of Faith from being polluted by a predominately heterodox clergy.  Now tell me, Petrelton, how is Archbishop Lefebvre different from St. Athanasius?  He saw a MAJOR problem in the Church, effecting the very core of the official structure.  He saw a pope who had Modernist tendencies - Paul VI, and later John Paul II (like St. Athanasius who saw Arian tendencies in his pope).  He ordained bishops and priests to ensure the survival of the Church.  He was unlawfully excommunicated, as well as those who he ordained.  But, these "conservative" neo-Caths refuse to look at past examples - they refuse to see what has happened before their very eyes.  They would rather be blindly obedient to a predominately heterodox clergy than be obedient to God and the true teachings of the Church.  It is indeed a heartbreaking time, but one has to open their eyes and see.

To reiterate on the absolute similarities between the Arian Crisis and the Modernist Crisis, between St. Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre, read this quote from St. Athanasius.  It could have easily been written by Archbishop Lefebvre - as a matter of fact when I first read it, I indeed thought it was of modern origins.

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...

"You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." [/b]


Other Patristic Testimony To The Abysmal State of the Church at the Time Of The Arian Heresy

A.D. 360: Saint Gregory Nazianzen says about this date: "Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel (the Church. ed.) by the influence of the Spirit, all temporized, only differing from each other in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle, being overcome by fear, or by interests, or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance.

Cappodocia: Saint Basil says about the year 372: "Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in the Faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude, with groans and tears to the Lord in Heaven." Four years after he writes: "Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assembled in the deserts, – a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snowstorms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven." Again: "Only one offense is now vigorously punished an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries and transported into deserts."


...sounds an awful lot like these days in the modern Church, doesn't it.  Perhaps the awful days of the Arian Crisis were to help show the faithful of this age that something of this magnitude could easily happen again.

[nsper7]

Isn't it true that as Catholic we are supposed to try and assume the best on people's motives and intentions and hope that, even if it looks and/or is sinful what they did, there are extenuating or mitigating circumstances that lessen the person's guilt in the eyes of God?

For example, with +Lefebvre, we should hope that he was driven by a sincere love for God and His Church and that, even though his disobedience maybe objectively wrong, any sin he committed was mitigated by his concerns for the direction he felt the Church was/is heading. In other words, only God can judge his soul. We can judge that disobedience is sinful, but we cannot judge +Lefebvre's soul or motivations and should assume the best about his character since he was a validly ordained Bishop and his writings indicate his love for the Church.

I hope +Lefebvre is in Heaven and is declared a Saint by the Magesterium, along John Paul II and Paul VI and all of us who are sinners who need God's mercy.

[NonSumDignus]

Isn't it true that as Catholic we are supposed to try and assume the best on people's motives and intentions and hope that, even if it looks and/or is sinful what they did, there are extenuating or mitigating circumstances that lessen the person's guilt in the eyes of God?

For example, with +Lefebvre, we should hope that he was driven by a sincere love for God and His Church and that, even though his disobedience maybe objectively wrong, any sin he committed was mitigated by his concerns for the direction he felt the Church was/is heading. In other words, only God can judge his soul. We can judge that disobedience is sinful, but we cannot judge +Lefebvre's soul or motivations and should assume the best about his character since he was a validly ordained Bishop and his writings indicate his love for the Church.

I hope +Lefebvre is in Heaven and is declared a Saint by the Magesterium, along John Paul II and Paul VI and all of us who are sinners who need God's mercy.

There's a difference between being a saint and being declared a saint. Anyone who dies in the state of grace is the former, while the latter is usually reserved for those of exemplary Christian living, and after whom Christians can model themselves.

The idea of both Lefebvre and John Paul II both being canonized is just plain odd- Lefebvre existed in to Pope John Paul II. To canonize Lefebvre would send the message, "It's saintly to disobey Rome if you feel they're not upholding tradition," while to canonize John Paul II would send the message, "It's saintly to always stand fast to the seat of Peter."

[Nic]

Isn't it true that as Catholic we are supposed to try and assume the best on people's motives and intentions and hope that, even if it looks and/or is sinful what they did, there are extenuating or mitigating circumstances that lessen the person's guilt in the eyes of God?

For example, with +Lefebvre, we should hope that he was driven by a sincere love for God and His Church and that, even though his disobedience maybe objectively wrong, any sin he committed was mitigated by his concerns for the direction he felt the Church was/is heading. In other words, only God can judge his soul. We can judge that disobedience is sinful, but we cannot judge +Lefebvre's soul or motivations and should assume the best about his character since he was a validly ordained Bishop and his writings indicate his love for the Church.

I hope +Lefebvre is in Heaven and is declared a Saint by the Magesterium, along John Paul II and Paul VI and all of us who are sinners who need God's mercy.

If John Paul II or Paul VI are declared "saints," then I'll either know that canonization is not infallible or I am no longer in the Church...

[petrelton]

Petrelton embodies the spirit of today's "conservative" Novus Ordo neo-Catholics, and that is BLIND OBEDIENCE.  Archbishop Lefebvre did what had to be done, out of a pure necessity to ensure the Church had its true Traditional presence.  His ordaining of bishops was an absolute must, and one day he will be seen as a saint for this.  Petrelton is of the common sentiment among these types of "Catholics."  They refuse to look to the past and see how such things have happened before.  Look at the Arian Crisis, a crisis that parallels our own in a very signifcant way.  Was St. Athanasius wrong to speak out against the errors of his time?  NO, he was not. 

No he was not. It is not wrong to speak out against error? I have never suggested that. Indeed I speak out against modernist error on this fisheater forum.

He was excommunicated several times by Pope Liberius, who had Arian tendencies.  While under his unjust excommunication, he "illicitly" ordained priests and bishops, even in other dioceses.  He did this out of dire necessity, to protect the Traditional Deposit of Faith from being polluted by a predominately heterodox clergy. 

Please provide evidence of this claim. My understanding is that this is disputed. There is a claim by historian Socrates that he ordained outside his diocese. Even this point is disputed. Even if it could be established that he ordained priests there is absolutely no evidence that he ordained bishops. And even if it could be established that he ordained bishops it cannot be proven that he did so in contravention of the Popes direct command. Neither was there any defined Canon Law as we understand it today so therefore he cannot be accused of breaching any laws of the church even if he did ordain bishops.

Now tell me, Petrelton, how is Archbishop Lefebvre different from St. Athanasius?  He saw a MAJOR problem in the Church, effecting the very core of the official structure.  He saw a pope who had Modernist tendencies - Paul VI, and later John Paul II (like St. Athanasius who saw Arian tendencies in his pope).  He ordained bishops and priests to ensure the survival of the Church.  He was unlawfully excommunicated, as well as those who he ordained.

You are wrong on virtually every point. The Arian crisis was a major problem because the majority of bishops were teaching the Arian heresy. This basically taught that the LORD was a created being. If you think that the current V2 teaching is anywhere approaching such a blatant heresy then you really have a very distorted view. The post-conciliar church is not talking a blatant heresy. In fact it is not teaching any heresy. Some people interpret V2 to be a heresy but they are incorrect. The V2 teaching DO NOT effect the core of the faith. Nor is there any evidence that Pope Liberius believed the Arian heresy or taught it. You might accuse him of weakness in being overly influenced by the modernist bishops, but that is no cause to rebel. Nor can it be shown or proven that Athanasius disobeyed or rebelled against the Pope. Nor was ABL unlawfully excommunicated. I have provided all the canon law to show the legitimacy of the excommunication. You are making a false accusation against JP 2 which you refuse to change even though I have given you manifest evidence to the contrary. Therefore it is clear that you are a person of bad will and I have no doubt that no discourse on this subject no matter how competent will effect your opinion one bit. You simply are not a teachable person and are going to do what you are going to do no matter what anyone says.

  But, these "conservative" neo-Caths refuse to look at past examples - they refuse to see what has happened before their very eyes.  They would rather be blindly obedient to a predominately heterodox clergy than be obedient to God and the true teachings of the Church.  It is indeed a heartbreaking time, but one has to open their eyes and see.

We live in heartbreaking times because of disobedience, not because of obedience. The modernist bishops disobeying the Pope and the traditionalist bishops disobeying the Pope. The church is disintegrating before our eyes. Only obedience to the pontiff can bring unity back to the church. Our obedience to the pontiff is precisely because he is guardian of the living Word of God.

To reiterate on the absolute similarities between the Arian Crisis and the Modernist Crisis, between St. Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre, read this quote from St. Athanasius.  It could have easily been written by Archbishop Lefebvre - as a matter of fact when I first read it, I indeed thought it was of modern origins.

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...

"You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." [/b]

If the V2 constituted a departure of faith then what you say might be true. In fact this sounds like a sermon I heard from Fr. Cekada at St. Gertrudes. However there is nothing in V2 which contradicts the faith. It is the twisted deceptions of misguided individuals who interpret the V2 to be heretical. Some of the private statements of JP 2 I concede tend towards heresy but it is far from a proven point. And even if you say its heresy, how can you be sure it is heresy and not just an error. Some errors do not attack the core of the faith and therefore cannot truly be considered heresy.

Other Patristic Testimony To The Abysmal State of the Church at the Time Of The Arian Heresy

A.D. 360: Saint Gregory Nazianzen says about this date: "Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel (the Church. ed.) by the influence of the Spirit, all temporized, only differing from each other in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle, being overcome by fear, or by interests, or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance.

Cappodocia: Saint Basil says about the year 372: "Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in the Faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude, with groans and tears to the Lord in Heaven." Four years after he writes: "Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assembled in the deserts, – a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snowstorms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven." Again: "Only one offense is now vigorously punished an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries and transported into deserts."


...sounds an awful lot like these days in the modern Church, doesn't it.  Perhaps the awful days of the Arian Crisis were to help show the faithful of this age that something of this magnitude could easily happen again.

The whole basis for this is so flawed its laughable. Are we going to say that every crisis in the church is like the Arian crisis and therefore we are justified to reject the church and call them seperate? The claim that we are departing from tradition is a constant theme in the history of the church. The Old Catholics broke off because they felt the papal infallibility was a break from tradition. The great majority of these breakoffs which supposedly "safeguard tradtion" have proved to be rebellious dissenters who have themselves embraced error or have resisted a truth which God was revealing through his church. Are you really prepared to take the risk that you are write on this point? How do you know that you are an Athanasius and not a Luther? The only way you could be absolutely sure is if the error was a blatant rejection of a core element of the faith, a clear heresy. Beware of the tree knowledge of good and evil which will make one wise (not blind) and will give to you the power to determine right from wrong.

I contend and have no doubt that if there is any error in V2 that it is not intentional and that it does not seek to overturn a core element of the faith and that therefore it is not possible for the laity to judge it as a heresy. Even if the NO mass is a shocker it cannot be said that any of it is heretical. I have answered every charge of heresy against the council that everybody has made giving lengthy explanations as to how the teaching should properly be understood. Nobody has been able to effectively refute what I have said. And I am  just a monkey compared to the best and brightest that God has raised up who offer their wisdom in the Vatican. The vast majority of bishops who oversaw the shining church of the 50's voted 'Yes' to the council documents. Are we really better than the great bishops of the 50's?

Nor am I advocating blind obedience. There are clear examples of heresy by disobedient modernist bishops which we should not follow. There are many modernist practices which I do not blindly follow which is why I attend a TLM each week. Obedience is not blind, it is good. It is a grace from God who frees us from our natural heart of rebellion. The scripture teaches us to obey our rulers in the church because they guard after your soul. If you disobey then you are on your own and your blood is on your own head.

Its like a daughter who disobeys her father. She goes out at night against his instruction. She is on her own as a result, the umbrella of the fathers protection is no longer over her. All she sees is the injustice and unfairness of her fathers directive. But she is deceived and fails to appreciate her fathers love for her.

[nsper7]

Isn't it true that as Catholic we are supposed to try and assume the best on people's motives and intentions and hope that, even if it looks and/or is sinful what they did, there are extenuating or mitigating circumstances that lessen the person's guilt in the eyes of God?

For example, with +Lefebvre, we should hope that he was driven by a sincere love for God and His Church and that, even though his disobedience maybe objectively wrong, any sin he committed was mitigated by his concerns for the direction he felt the Church was/is heading. In other words, only God can judge his soul. We can judge that disobedience is sinful, but we cannot judge +Lefebvre's soul or motivations and should assume the best about his character since he was a validly ordained Bishop and his writings indicate his love for the Church.

I hope +Lefebvre is in Heaven and is declared a Saint by the Magesterium, along John Paul II and Paul VI and all of us who are sinners who need God's mercy.

There's a difference between being a saint and being declared a saint. Anyone who dies in the state of grace is the former, while the latter is usually reserved for those of exemplary Christian living, and after whom Christians can model themselves.

The idea of both Lefebvre and John Paul II both being canonized is just plain odd- Lefebvre existed in to Pope John Paul II. To canonize Lefebvre would send the message, "It's saintly to disobey Rome if you feel they're not upholding tradition," while to canonize John Paul II would send the message, "It's saintly to always stand fast to the seat of Peter."

Actually, I see +Lefebvre and Pope John Paul II as not being that different in their motivations. Both men I think exhibited a great love for the Church and God (John Paul II also had an extremely strong devotion to Mother Mary). Although some here see John Paul II as an enemy of Tradition or something, I think that's kind of ridiculous. Remember that John Paul II was under pressure to renounce elements of Church doctrine (i.e. allowing "women priests", allowing contraception/abortion and homosexual activity, etc.), but he NEVER gave in and was an ardent defender of Church doctrine and one can see that, especially in his early life in Poland, he risked his life for the Church during the Nazi and later Soviet occupations. John Paul II was even willing to forgive the man who shot him--how many of us could honestly we could do that? Remember, John Paul II suffered greatly from his wounds and almost died.

Although +Lefebvre's disobedience to the Pope was not objectively good, one can certainly respect his love for God and His Church and his willingness to sacrifice his position to do what he thought was right. Also, many of +Lefebvre's concerns are definitely valid, even if some of his responses were not the best

EDIT: Remember, Sainthood does not mean that everything the person did was 'good'. Certainly, I think some of John Paul II's ecumenical efforts were not the best, but I think one should see that his desire was to show people the love of Christ and invite them into the loving arms of His Church. Just as I think +Lefebvre's act of disobedience was not the best, but it seems his motivation was a great devotion to God and His Church and a willingness to sacrifice much for his ideals.

EDIT 2: To Petrelton, read +Lefebvre's "Open Letter to Confused Catholics". You cannot read that and walk away being Anti-Archbishop Lefebvre.

[petrelton]

Isn't it true that as Catholic we are supposed to try and assume the best on people's motives and intentions and hope that, even if it looks and/or is sinful what they did, there are extenuating or mitigating circumstances that lessen the person's guilt in the eyes of God?

For example, with +Lefebvre, we should hope that he was driven by a sincere love for God and His Church and that, even though his disobedience maybe objectively wrong, any sin he committed was mitigated by his concerns for the direction he felt the Church was/is heading. In other words, only God can judge his soul. We can judge that disobedience is sinful, but we cannot judge +Lefebvre's soul or motivations and should assume the best about his character since he was a validly ordained Bishop and his writings indicate his love for the Church.

I hope +Lefebvre is in Heaven and is declared a Saint by the Magesterium, along John Paul II and Paul VI and all of us who are sinners who need God's mercy.

You need to take a good hard look at yourself nsper. The church has a responsibility to administer, judge and manage the church according to the proper exercising of its laws. If the church does not uphold her laws then what is the point of having laws? ABL clearly breached the law. It is not a matter of judging his motives, it is a matter of judging his manifest deeds. His deeds were wrong therefore he was properly excommunicated by the pope. Therefore we should obey and follow the Pope rather than he who was excommunicated.

The motive is irrelevant. Korah was probably perfectly motivated when he spoke out against Moses. He was worried that the people of Israel were all going to die in the wilderness. He was thinking of the people because of his great love for them. Miriam and Aaron said "Does God talk to Moses alone" Is he not also revealing himself to us also". They lacked regard for Moses just as many of us lack regard for the Pope. No God required what you would call blind obedience from Korah, Miriam and Aaron. He required them to go the bewildering chaos of the wilderness, endure the confusion with faith that Moses would lead them to the promised land. The only rebellion sanctioned in the scripture was the Maccabbean rebellion. Again in that case the error was blatant. An illegitimate authority perverting the temple with a pig. If you really think that V2 is in that category then you surely have no sense of scale.

The Pope is a legitimate authority therefore we must obey him. The False Obedience / True Obedience /False Disobedience /True Disobedience teaching that gets noised about in traditionalist circles is a blatant lie and heresy. There is only obedience and disobedience. If the authority is legitimate it must be obeyed. If the authority is illegitimate it must be disobeyed. The Pope was legitimately elected, the SSPX bishops were illegitimately ordained. Therefore the Pope must be obeyed and the SSPX bishop not obeyed. Its not rocket science. Its basic building blocks of true religion and an ordered life.

[Scipio_a]

A Popalotor telling someone they need to really look hard at themselves...that's really funny...'cause here the petrolltron is...Calling various trads heretics or borderline heretics and schismatics or at least of a schismatic disposition...And he's been promoting the Heresy of Pope worship almost this entire thread



WOW

[IrishCowboy]

Therefore it is clear that you are a person of bad will and I have no doubt that no discourse on this subject no matter how competent will effect your opinion one bit. You simply are not a teachable person and are going to do what you are going to do no matter what anyone says.

Look to yourself, petrelton.  These words you've given apply to you more than to anyone you've been "teaching."

[Meg]

Isn't it true that as Catholic we are supposed to try and assume the best on people's motives and intentions and hope that, even if it looks and/or is sinful what they did, there are extenuating or mitigating circumstances that lessen the person's guilt in the eyes of God?

For example, with +Lefebvre, we should hope that he was driven by a sincere love for God and His Church and that, even though his disobedience maybe objectively wrong, any sin he committed was mitigated by his concerns for the direction he felt the Church was/is heading. In other words, only God can judge his soul. We can judge that disobedience is sinful, but we cannot judge +Lefebvre's soul or motivations and should assume the best about his character since he was a validly ordained Bishop and his writings indicate his love for the Church.

I hope +Lefebvre is in Heaven and is declared a Saint by the Magesterium, along John Paul II and Paul VI and all of us who are sinners who need God's mercy.

You need to take a good hard look at yourself nsper. The church has a responsibility to administer, judge and manage the church according to the proper exercising of its laws. If the church does not uphold her laws then what is the point of having laws? ABL clearly breached the law. It is not a matter of judging his motives, it is a matter of judging his manifest deeds. His deeds were wrong therefore he was properly excommunicated by the pope. Therefore we should obey and follow the Pope rather than he who was excommunicated.

The motive is irrelevant. Korah was probably perfectly motivated when he spoke out against Moses. He was worried that the people of Israel were all going to die in the wilderness. He was thinking of the people because of his great love for them. Miriam and Aaron said "Does God talk to Moses alone" Is he not also revealing himself to us also". They lacked regard for Moses just as many of us lack regard for the Pope. No God required what you would call blind obedience from Korah, Miriam and Aaron. He required them to go the bewildering chaos of the wilderness, endure the confusion with faith that Moses would lead them to the promised land. The only rebellion sanctioned in the scripture was the Maccabbean rebellion. Again in that case the error was blatant. An illegitimate authority perverting the temple with a pig. If you really think that V2 is in that category then you surely have no sense of scale.

The Pope is a legitimate authority therefore we must obey him. The False Obedience / True Obedience /False Disobedience /True Disobedience teaching that gets noised about in traditionalist circles is a blatant lie and heresy. There is only obedience and disobedience. If the authority is legitimate it must be obeyed. If the authority is illegitimate it must be disobeyed. The Pope was legitimately elected, the SSPX bishops were illegitimately ordained. Therefore the Pope must be obeyed and the SSPX bishop not obeyed. Its not rocket science. Its basic building blocks of true religion and an ordered life.

you wrote..."The motive is irrelevant."

Okay, so if the motive is irrelevant, then why does canon law provide for many grave reasons for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate?
Also, I don't get why you're quoting the OT. Maybe you are unaware that this is Catholic forum, and instead think that it's some of traditional Jewish gnostic messianic forum or some such.
For someone who supposedly attends a TLM, you sure have some odd beliefs.

[nsper7]

Isn't it true that as Catholic we are supposed to try and assume the best on people's motives and intentions and hope that, even if it looks and/or is sinful what they did, there are extenuating or mitigating circumstances that lessen the person's guilt in the eyes of God?

For example, with +Lefebvre, we should hope that he was driven by a sincere love for God and His Church and that, even though his disobedience maybe objectively wrong, any sin he committed was mitigated by his concerns for the direction he felt the Church was/is heading. In other words, only God can judge his soul. We can judge that disobedience is sinful, but we cannot judge +Lefebvre's soul or motivations and should assume the best about his character since he was a validly ordained Bishop and his writings indicate his love for the Church.

I hope +Lefebvre is in Heaven and is declared a Saint by the Magesterium, along John Paul II and Paul VI and all of us who are sinners who need God's mercy.

You need to take a good hard look at yourself nsper. The church has a responsibility to administer, judge and manage the church according to the proper exercising of its laws. If the church does not uphold her laws then what is the point of having laws? ABL clearly breached the law. It is not a matter of judging his motives, it is a matter of judging his manifest deeds. His deeds were wrong therefore he was properly excommunicated by the pope. Therefore we should obey and follow the Pope rather than he who was excommunicated.

The motive is irrelevant. Korah was probably perfectly motivated when he spoke out against Moses. He was worried that the people of Israel were all going to die in the wilderness. He was thinking of the people because of his great love for them. Miriam and Aaron said "Does God talk to Moses alone" Is he not also revealing himself to us also". They lacked regard for Moses just as many of us lack regard for the Pope. No God required what you would call blind obedience from Korah, Miriam and Aaron. He required them to go the bewildering chaos of the wilderness, endure the confusion with faith that Moses would lead them to the promised land. The only rebellion sanctioned in the scripture was the Maccabbean rebellion. Again in that case the error was blatant. An illegitimate authority perverting the temple with a pig. If you really think that V2 is in that category then you surely have no sense of scale.

The Pope is a legitimate authority therefore we must obey him. The False Obedience / True Obedience /False Disobedience /True Disobedience teaching that gets noised about in traditionalist circles is a blatant lie and heresy. There is only obedience and disobedience. If the authority is legitimate it must be obeyed. If the authority is illegitimate it must be disobeyed. The Pope was legitimately elected, the SSPX bishops were illegitimately ordained. Therefore the Pope must be obeyed and the SSPX bishop not obeyed. Its not rocket science. Its basic building blocks of true religion and an ordered life.

you wrote..."The motive is irrelevant."

Okay, so if the motive is irrelevant, then why does canon law provide for many grave reasons for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate?
Also, I don't get why you're quoting the OT. Maybe you are unaware that this is Catholic forum, and instead think that it's some of traditional Jewish gnostic messianic forum or some such.
For someone who supposedly attends a TLM, you sure have some odd beliefs.

Also, Korah's rebellion really cannot be compared to +Lefebvre's disobedience. Korah was not trying to correct some perceived doctrinal problem (i.e. +Lefebvre's concern that modernism was infesting the Church and had affected the liturgy and theology taught by the elements of the Church), but it appears he was jealous of Moses' authority and relationship to God:

and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, "You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?"

[petrelton]

EDIT 2: To Petrelton, read +Lefebvre's "Open Letter to Confused Catholics". You cannot read that and walk away being Anti-Archbishop Lefebvre.

You need to take a good hard look at yourself nsper. You know from our previous posts that I support many of ABL's arguments. ABL was a valuable force against modernism in the church. Where he went wrong was in disobeying the Pope. He lost the support of the FSSP at that time and rightly so. The FSSP preserve the original aims of ABL without the many distortions to the cause which have come about since 1988. I've explained this to you and yet you have made this ridiculous accusation that I am rejecting of the letter to confused catholics.

I also agree with many of Luther's objections which he placed in his thesis nailed to the church door. Where Luther went wrong was in defying the Pope. ABL made the same calamitous mistake. Right on the verge of where he signed a reconciliation with the Vatican he then went back on what he signed and illicitly ordained bishops. That is unsanctionable no matter how right some of his points in the letter to confused catholics might be.

[Herr_Mannelig]

He lost the support of the FSSP at that time and rightly so.

You mean he "lost the support of those who would later form the FSSP".