Name change?

[Catholicmilkman]

I suppose the unknown number of top-level cardinals and bishops back then who opposed the changes in the Council were in schism too.

That I don't know about because every each single one of those cardinals and bishop still obeyed and went along with the changes, even Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci.

Lefebvre was "excommunicated" because he supposedly had no reason to consecrate the bishops, not because of his views on Vat II. If he were in schism for his views, then the ones in power were inept "in dealing with the pest for the last couple decades or so" and he died 3 years after the consecrations anyway.

That's not what Ecclesia Dei Afflicta said which clearly spoke about a "contradictory notion of tradition".

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

Lefebvre was "excommunicated" because he supposedly had no reason to consecrate the bishops, not because of his views on Vat II. If he were in schism for his views, then the ones in power were inept "in dealing with the pest for the last couple decades or so" and he died 3 years after the consecrations anyway.

That's not what Ecclesia Dei Afflicta said which clearly spoke about a "contradictory notion of tradition".

Pope John Paul II doesn't tell us the reason why he sees Archbishop Lefebvre had a "contradictory notion of Tradition." In all documents before Vatican II, they have the reason why such and such a thing was said, done, etc.

[Catholicmilkman]

Lefebvre was "excommunicated" because he supposedly had no reason to consecrate the bishops, not because of his views on Vat II. If he were in schism for his views, then the ones in power were inept "in dealing with the pest for the last couple decades or so" and he died 3 years after the consecrations anyway.

That's not what Ecclesia Dei Afflicta said which clearly spoke about a "contradictory notion of tradition".

Pope John Paul II doesn't tell us the reason why he sees Archbishop Lefebvre had a "contradictory notion of Tradition." In all documents before Vatican II, they have the reason why such and such a thing was said, done, etc.

I think was clear, QVP, it was because the Archbishop denied the legitimacy and orthodoxy of the new Roman Missal (and possibly Vatican II also).

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

Lefebvre was "excommunicated" because he supposedly had no reason to consecrate the bishops, not because of his views on Vat II. If he were in schism for his views, then the ones in power were inept "in dealing with the pest for the last couple decades or so" and he died 3 years after the consecrations anyway.

That's not what Ecclesia Dei Afflicta said which clearly spoke about a "contradictory notion of tradition".

Pope John Paul II doesn't tell us the reason why he sees Archbishop Lefebvre had a "contradictory notion of Tradition." In all documents before Vatican II, they have the reason why such and such a thing was said, done, etc.

I think was clear, QVP, it was because the Archbishop denied the legitimacy and orthodoxy of the new Roman Missal (and possibly Vatican II also).

Now that is where you are wrong. He never said the Novus Ordo was a schismatic bastard rite (bastard rite, yes, that is what he said). And Pope Paul VI knew about his opposition to the 1970 Missal. Opposition to a new liturgy doth not make one a schismatic.

[Catholicmilkman]

Not at all. But did Pope Paul VI not decree the council binding himself at it's closing? A general council is only a general council by decree and validation of the Pope. This is the only way General Councils can be infallible and define dogma since the universal Extraordinary Magisterium is only exercised by the Pope. The infallible decrees and dogmas of Trent, Vatican I, and all the others are infallible only by the fact that the Popes approved and validated them as such.

From GrumpyTroll's post:

Pope Paul VI, in his General Audience of January the 12th, 1966, said:

There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.

QVP, defining dogmas with the infallible Extraordinary Magisterium and bind such a council with the ordinary Magisterium are too different thing and no one is doubting this. What you are doubting (or denying?) is that Vatican II is part of the ordinary Magisterium and hence binding. So I ask again, why did Pope Paul VI say this at the end of the council:

At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquility and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on. (APOSTOLIC BRIEF "IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL)

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

Not at all. But did Pope Paul VI not decree the council binding himself at it's closing? A general council is only a general council by decree and validation of the Pope. This is the only way General Councils can be infallible and define dogma since the universal Extraordinary Magisterium is only exercised by the Pope. The infallible decrees and dogmas of Trent, Vatican I, and all the others are infallible only by the fact that the Popes approved and validated them as such.

From GrumpyTroll's post:

Pope Paul VI, in his General Audience of January the 12th, 1966, said:

There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.

QVP, defining dogmas with the infallible Extraordinary Magisterium and bind such a council with the ordinary Magisterium are too different thing and no one is doubting this. What you are doubting (or denying?) is that Vatican II is part of the ordinary Magisterium and hence binding. So I ask again, why did Pope Paul VI say this at the end of the council:

At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquility and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on. (APOSTOLIC BRIEF "IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL)

Did not Cardinal Felici, in giving the theological note of the Council, say that in the documents which have novelties, we may make reservations?

[Cephas]

Lefebvre was excommunicated latae sententiae, not ferendae sententiae. Since his views were not hidden from the hierarchy for 20+ years, they obviously had trouble with mail delivery for 20+years and thus could not notify him that his opposition to the changes that came about in and after the Council was against Canon Law and this he was excommunicated. Somehow, since he consecrated bishops while mail delivery was failing, they decided to write a new letter of excommunication to him stating he was excommunicated for consecrating the bishops, though the modernists didn't get the kangaroo court to give him the ferendae sententiae excommunication smackdown that they wanted when they had the PERFECT oppurtunity to do so.

[Catholicmilkman]

I think was clear, QVP, it was because the Archbishop denied the legitimacy and orthodoxy of the new Roman Missal (and possibly Vatican II also).

Now that is where you are wrong. He never said the Novus Ordo was a schismatic bastard rite (bastard rite, yes, that is what he said). And Pope Paul VI knew about his opposition to the 1970 Missal. Opposition to a new liturgy doth not make one a schismatic.

QVP, what is a bastard? A bastard is someone that is illegitimate, no? So it doesn't matter if he said schismatic or not. Opposition to a legitimate liturgy sure would make one schismatic. Try opposing one of the Eastern Liturgies as orthodox and you'll be in schism (naturally because then you would not want to communicate with Eastern Catholics thus schisming from them). FYI I hope the Archbishop was right on the new Missal. But what is the truth?

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

I think was clear, QVP, it was because the Archbishop denied the legitimacy and orthodoxy of the new Roman Missal (and possibly Vatican II also).

Now that is where you are wrong. He never said the Novus Ordo was a schismatic bastard rite (bastard rite, yes, that is what he said). And Pope Paul VI knew about his opposition to the 1970 Missal. Opposition to a new liturgy doth not make one a schismatic.

QVP, what is a bastard? A bastard is someone that is illegitimate, no? So it doesn't matter if he said schismatic or not. Opposition to a legitimate liturgy sure would make one schismatic. Try opposing one of the Eastern Liturgies as orthodox and you'll be in schism (naturally because then you would not want to communicate with Eastern Catholics thus schisming from them). FYI I hope the Archbishop was right on the new Missal. But what is the truth?

Sorry, but that is only your view. It wasn't the view of Pope Paul VI and it certainly wasn't that of Pope John Paul II, up to the time of the Archbishop's consecrations.

[Catholicmilkman]

Sorry, but that is only your view. It wasn't the view of Pope Paul VI and it certainly wasn't that of Pope John Paul II, up to the time of the Archbishop's consecrations.

So how? Are you in communion with Catholics who attend Mass according to the new Missal? Would the four bishops participate in a Mass according to the Missal? I hope it's only the consecrations and not refusing the new Missal. You make a good case and I hope your reasoning is right.