What instructions did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre give to the four men he had chosen to consecrate to the episcopate in 1988? Some might find them surprising.
These late statements and exchanges between the +Abp. and various parties, including Ratzinger, have been most illuminating and interesting to say the least.
I will admit, having not ever read before what was said at the Holy Office in those days, I cheered out loud. I can almost see Ratzinger's perfectly possessed expression when faced with actual Catholicism.
Hindsight is 20/20. Wherefore, but for the graces of God would we be if Saint Lefebvre would not have existed?? If no one in the church fought for Christ? Common sense dictates here. Popes are imperfect and therefore, can also be bought and sold. The laity of those days suffered immensely as we still do today because as ALL reverts would say, “Christ was stolen from us”. God Bless Archbishop Lefebvre!
May this note find us all ever closer to God, and His Love.
My Dubium (in English)
Brief Context —
There exists a theological controversy concerning the status of the Roman Pontiff who appears to persistently profess, promote, or apply doctrines identified by the Church’s Magisterium as Modernist.
Dubium
Whether a Roman Pontiff who pertinaciously professes, defends, or effectively applies, in magisterial acts, doctrines of Modernism—previously and solemnly condemned by the Magisterium—must be considered to be in a state of sedeprivation, that is, legitimately elected yet deprived of the full form and authority of the papal office due to defect of intention or public heresy.
Yes, No, or with Conditions.
---
I wrote an Apologetic linking The Trinity, One-Flesh, Holy Marriage of Christ with Church and Church Offices and the Men, and more.
Published on SubStack. Consider the audio-overview before the nuts & bolts.
All those with Ears to Hear know Vatican II was public announcement by Vatican that Satan has been enthroned there. None so Deft then those too weak to Hear.
Feedback Welcome - use SubStack comment to contact.
"Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right. It includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one's conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship. It includes the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one's beliefs in public."
-Antipope Benedict XVI, Vicar of Satan (Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, 14 September 2012)
Condemned heresy:
"Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true."
-Condemned Statement #15 from The Syllabus Of Errors, by Pope Pius IX (1864); also see Quanta Cura, Condemning Current Errors, by Pope Pius IX (1864)
I don’t think this account is very reliable at all. For a start if you read “Church, Ecumenism and Politics” by Ratzinger from around this time he argues the exact opposite of what this article claims.
But more bluntly, if Lefevre really did think Ratzinger was a bad man and Williamson a good one then he had lost his marbles.
These late statements and exchanges between the +Abp. and various parties, including Ratzinger, have been most illuminating and interesting to say the least.
I will admit, having not ever read before what was said at the Holy Office in those days, I cheered out loud. I can almost see Ratzinger's perfectly possessed expression when faced with actual Catholicism.
Ratzinger really was horrible.
No he wasn’t.
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.
Hindsight is 20/20. Wherefore, but for the graces of God would we be if Saint Lefebvre would not have existed?? If no one in the church fought for Christ? Common sense dictates here. Popes are imperfect and therefore, can also be bought and sold. The laity of those days suffered immensely as we still do today because as ALL reverts would say, “Christ was stolen from us”. God Bless Archbishop Lefebvre!
May this note find us all ever closer to God, and His Love.
My Dubium (in English)
Brief Context —
There exists a theological controversy concerning the status of the Roman Pontiff who appears to persistently profess, promote, or apply doctrines identified by the Church’s Magisterium as Modernist.
Dubium
Whether a Roman Pontiff who pertinaciously professes, defends, or effectively applies, in magisterial acts, doctrines of Modernism—previously and solemnly condemned by the Magisterium—must be considered to be in a state of sedeprivation, that is, legitimately elected yet deprived of the full form and authority of the papal office due to defect of intention or public heresy.
Yes, No, or with Conditions.
---
I wrote an Apologetic linking The Trinity, One-Flesh, Holy Marriage of Christ with Church and Church Offices and the Men, and more.
Published on SubStack. Consider the audio-overview before the nuts & bolts.
".. Catholic Apologetics: On the Threefold Unions, Crisis of the Modern World" https://stevenwork.substack.com/p/multiverse-journal-index-number-2230 https://archive.is/E30mN
--
All those with Ears to Hear know Vatican II was public announcement by Vatican that Satan has been enthroned there. None so Deft then those too weak to Hear.
Feedback Welcome - use SubStack comment to contact.
God Bless., Steve
"Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right. It includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one's conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship. It includes the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one's beliefs in public."
-Antipope Benedict XVI, Vicar of Satan (Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, 14 September 2012)
Condemned heresy:
"Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true."
-Condemned Statement #15 from The Syllabus Of Errors, by Pope Pius IX (1864); also see Quanta Cura, Condemning Current Errors, by Pope Pius IX (1864)
I don’t think this account is very reliable at all. For a start if you read “Church, Ecumenism and Politics” by Ratzinger from around this time he argues the exact opposite of what this article claims.
But more bluntly, if Lefevre really did think Ratzinger was a bad man and Williamson a good one then he had lost his marbles.