Other brief remarks heresy Lefebvrian

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS SHORT heresy Lefebvrian

[…] if the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, as he wrote and reiterated, says the Bishop Marcel Lefebvre that his ideas are "against the faith" and invited him to submit in obedience to the Church and to the Successor of Peter, it is clear that it intends to accuse him of heresy. For what is the heresy, if not a proposition against the faith arising from the refusal to pay obedience to the doctrines of the Church and its Supreme Apostolic Authority? But, as we have recently seen, exist “Catholic” that while before such evidence attempt to quibble with futile sophistry, but in fact there is little to quibble because of futile sophistry is precisely.

 

Author of Patmos Island Editorial
Author
Drafting
Island of Patmos

The concept of heresy can be expressed with various expressions verbal equivalent. There you have to stick to the words, but paying attention to the concept; otherwise you are hypocrites, Pharisees obtuse, or fanatics closed in themselves.

the Pharisees 2
"Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" [Mt 16, 6]

For example, if we say that Joseph no longer lives, is clearly meant to say that he is dead. It is therefore easy to say that if the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, as he wrote and reiterated, says the Bishop Marcel Lefebvre that his ideas are "against the faith" [which] and invites him to submit in obedience to the Church and to the Successor of Peter, it is clear that it intends to accuse him of heresy. For what is the heresy, if not a proposition against the faith arising from the refusal to pay obedience to the doctrines of the Church and its Supreme Apostolic Authority? But, as we have recently seen, exist “Catholic” that while before such evidence attempt to quibble with futile sophistry, but in fact there is little to quibble because of futile sophistry is precisely.

How to assert that this error was not the heretic and schismatic bishop Marcel Lefebvre but the whole of the Second Vatican Ecumenical seated, then the Holy Father John XXIII, Blessed Pope Paul VI, the Holy Father John Paul II, The Popes Benedict XVI and Francis as they say “responsible” of the continuity of these “errors” caused by none other than an ecumenical council “Pastoral only” therefore “undogmatic“, for the sake of which the Church would be made even slip in “apostasy from the faith” [see WHO], affirming that are themselves heretics and speakers of dangerous heresies, without any possibility of pettifogging sophistry Justifiers on the theological, metaphysical and epistemological, if we really want to be serious. The Vatican, as repeatedly wrote and explained the Fathers John Cavalcoli and Ariel S. Levi Gualdo in their various articles, although not sanctioned new dogmas, according to the principles and the three different degrees of infallibility [cf. To defend the faith, WHO] has sanctioned the new doctrines binding and not subject to rejection by anyone [on the degree of infallibility, see our previous article WHO].

Pope Benedict XVI poses during a meeting with Roman Rota members at the Vatican
The judges of the ecclesiastical court at the hearing by the Supreme Pontiff

Even if so and so is a heretic and manifest, the Apostolic, reasons for its, is free to speak or not to pronounce a judgment of heresy. It is therefore necessary to distinguish the problems of heresy that is the task of the theologian and what is the task of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is in fact two orientations or pastoral functions different and somewhat independent of each other. The Apostolic See has never supported certain theories and let theologians always free to express their views.

 

 

rebuke
many theologians should be reprimanded for the good of the Church and the faithful?

The Apostolic See can blame the theologian who is wrong in judging another as a heretic; but does not prohibit all a theologian detect in another the germs of a heretical thought. As the theologian who is accused by a colleague of heresy, he must guard - something which unfortunately happens - dall'indignarsi as if he had been defamed; anything, the accused must examine the charges that are facts and act accordingly. If the charges are fair, will mend; if it is wrong to be the theologian accuser having to apologize or repair the wrong done.

Archbishop-Marcel-Lefebvre4
the schismatic bishop Marcel Lefebvre

One might wonder if the highlight the fact that Marcel Lefebvre is a heretic can be useful for obtaining the return of lefevriani. The Apostolic until now proceeded with too much delicacy and lefevriani took advantage to drag the dispute to infintum.

The Apostolic See has so far been too frugal using the term “heresy”, perhaps not evoke dark ghosts of the past? This overindulgence, not to say negligence, But he finished with allow the rise, the resurgence and the free flow of many and various heresies, existing in certain subjects particularly aggressive as "natural" fruits of the Council, by the College of Cardinals until the sacristan of a country parish; a Council that these heretics overt and posters indicate as "evil" and then as the "natural" source and origin of all evil.

Clearly, so you can not go on, perché l’eresia pone ostacolo alla salvezza. We must therefore go back to using that term when appropriate, so well considered and examined; as well as a conscientious doctor makes the diagnosis of a cancer or leukemia, with the difference that from these evils almost always not heals, while it heals from heresies.

field hospital
religious assistance in a field hospital

The fear of repeating the mistakes of the past It should not be so high up to push the Ecclesiastical Authority to do nothing or to remain silent, otherwise they perform opposite and worst mistakes, as it is clear today, as we are invaded by a large amount of disease-free and that the medical care.

The Church, says Pope, It is a "field hospital". D’accordo. But where are the doctors? It is not that heresy disappear by itself for the fact that it is not spoken or not treated. On the contrary, as the facts, heresies increase and the word ends up being misused by senseless exasperated as demonstrated for example by the extremists that today even accuse the Supreme Pontiff of heresy, and its predecessors succeeded on the Chair of Peter from 1958 to follow.

medical error
medical error …

If a doctor misses a cure, Perhaps that is why you should stop being a doctor? L’uso pudico di circonlocuzioni per alludere all’eresia può essere utile in certe situazioni incandescenti, ma l’usarlo sistematicamente non ha per effetto, come è dimostrato dell’esperienza, altro che il dare il permesso a chiunque di abbracciare l’eresia sotto i più speciosi pretesti che tutti conosciamo.

.

reproach 2
il rimprovero è un atto di amore e di misericordia al quale la Chiesa non può e non deve all’occorrenza sottrarsi

If we apply wherever this devastating principle, None, since we are all fallible, It should do nothing for fear of making mistakes. That's why perhaps it is time to address decisively the doctrinal question from this angle.

We must make it clear once and for all to Lefebvre in good faith, who they love the truth and sincerely want to be Catholic and respect the Tradition, che sono vittime dell’eresia, hoping that they listen. Otherwise you have to clearly warn the faithful of the danger, perché questi falsi cattolici continuano a far proseliti aumentando l’odio contro Roma, against the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, against the teachings and doctrines of Vatican II.

the rebuke, la correzione dell’errore e la lotta contro l’eresia, is an act of love and mercy to which the Church can not and must not shirk if necessary, especially during the Jubilee of Mercy, indetto dal Sommo Pontefice Francesco per l’anno 2015/2016.

.

___________________________________________________________________

.

ATTI E DOCUMENTI DELLA SANTA SEDE SUL CASO DELL’ERESIA LEFEBVRIANA

– «Letter S.S. Paul VI to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre», 29 June 1975 [text WHO]

– Apostolic Letter of SS. Paul VI, «New admonition to S.It is. Mons. Marcel Lefebvre», 8 September 1975 [text, WHO]

– S.S. Paul VI, «Letter to Bishop. Marcel Lefebvre», 15 August 1976 [text WHO]

– Speech by SS. Paul VI «On the painful story of Mons. Marcello Lefebvre», 1September 1976 [text WHO]

– «Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei"The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in the form of Motu Proprio, 2 July 1988 [text WHO].

– Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note "On the excommunication for schism they face the adherents to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre», 24 August 1996 [text WHO].

– Congregation for Bishops: «Decree of remission of the excommunication latae sententiae to the Bishops of the Fraternity of St. Pius X», 21 January 2009 [text WHO]

– «Note from the Secretary of State about the four bishops of the Fraternity of St. Pius X», 4 February 2009 [text WHO]

Letter of the Holy Father Benedict XVI to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of 4 Bishops consecrated by 'Archbishop Lefebvre [text, 10 March 2009 WHO].

About isoladipatmos

21 thoughts on "Other brief remarks heresy Lefebvrian

  1. I was wrong when Providence made me find out the time when you, He published my post and the response to it, as full of: ” ….confuse, logorrheic futile etc.”? because it does not allow the publication of my posts with precise answers to precise questions that I make them? Already this suggests!
    Meanwhile, still does not give me precise answers: which dogma denied Mons. Lefebvure to be painted as a heretic? And what unlimited power has the Roman Pontiff, He can do anything he wants just because he has the Vatican stamps?
    It must take into account even the definitions of the First Vatican Council (cfr Pastor Aaeternus) what he said: how and when the Pope is worthy of obedience?

  2. she can present all documents he wants, the fact remains that even a pope is allowed to abuse his power with vague speeches.

    Mons.Lefebvre had no personal ideas to defend as part of his pastoral responsibility before God, but only by virtue of fidelity to the Magisterium to preserve irreformable!

    Paul VI was wrong twice:
    1) because it had no clear language in condemning the heresies in Monseigneur if ever there were;
    2)because, He suggested that the faith coincides with the ideas and the ideas of Monsignor then did not coincide with obedience to the Magisterium irreformable, but: personal ideas(!!!); doing achieve that only the ideas of Pope Montini because they could be the faith and ecclesial communion claimants: submission!
    Submission to what then the personal ideas of the pope that doing and thinking so described himself alone?
    No mio caro, she was wrong institution, in the Church it is not a political party, Jesus Christ commands only true Shepherd Good, I am wrong?.

    1. You're wrong all over, But explain point by point the elements of its serious errors would be pointless, as always it is useless to speak with those who are totally closed to listening.
      On our columns several articles on this subject have been published, with theological rigor "surgical", based not on interpretations, assumptions or subjective moods of the Authors, but of acts and facts that constitute official documents of the Church. Articles but you have not read, or if you have past them he did so blinded by total closure listening.
      She is in its way the obvious paradigm of what Lefebvre collect half a century and what they produce in those who then proclaimed himself "real" and "pure" Catholic, leave angrily turning to the right and to the left to give the heretics to the Popes, to declare an entire apostate ecumenical council, to sconfessarne proudly doctrines and declare valid or invalid the Eucharistic celebrations.
      We tell them with genuine sorrow: with people as she can reason with the same success with which a Catholic could reason with an ISIS terrorist in an attempt to convince him that you can not cut the throats of their fellow humans in the name of the one true God.
      Who within the Holy See attempted, moving without bias, to reach out to Lefebvre, without placing either-or, and seeking dialogue with them, He found himself bouncing on rubber wall of a total refusal to dialogue by parties literally blinded by pride. These are the proven facts, and she, in his own way, is the confirmation of what was sown by them.

  3. thank you for the offenses, when you compare me to an ISIS terrorist, so I do penance, I stress, however,: than ever in no “lefebvriano” such a spirit has reigned through “dichotomy” between Doctrine and practice there for religious freedom, that Bishop. Lefebvre has been able to teach, in accordance with the pre-conciliar Church; otherwise you have the honesty to define in this way the same pre-conciliar Church, since -until proven guilty- we are conformed to It! I assure you that for us there is anger at the popes, but only the appealing invitation to reflect on the errors of ONLY THREE DECREES council and the New Mass that is not even according to the demands of the Ecumenical Council!. The “pure and true Catholics” It concerns the profession of faith that is different from the personal holiness!
    The Holy See instead of using the word “dialogue” then impose what (Cattolica) Lefebvrian conscience can not accept, It would have done better to say that the dialogue does not need to reach the Objective Truth of Tradition, but that: Tradition is created by the use and consumption in Pope Pope! Pride does not exist in these areas, because the tradition is not the work of our ego.

    1. She confuses tradition with L’immobilism and the absolute fixism.
      She “wreaks” his reasons under the pretext of moving to legitimate criticism of precise and detailed written, but not read.
      You would be able, before an article which talks about culinary arts and wine tasting, to review: ” … and, however, the The old order is posted …”.
      In conclusion, She does not read exactly what this magazine is written by most theologians, that in deference to dogma and more orthodox doctrine, referring to St. Thomas Aquinas and not to the theologians of new Thelogie, explained, alas to no avail, to those like her, stubborn do not understand why absolutely require not understand, a fundamental fact to understand is the concept of Tradition is the liturgy: the immutable substances he damn external which are and must be changeable by their very nature.
      And this his stubborn refusal to understand she gave evidence with this further comment mo’ blind sfogatoio.
      For this and only for this it used the hyperbole: “would like groped to convince with arguments one Christian ISIS“.

  4. If she puts Tradzione and the Liturgy of the external accidents she poses directly Modernist heresy. Tradition and Liturgy are immutable substances because coming directly from him who is Being immutable essence that is God.

    1. She does not know the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and never fails to give evidence in his comments, consequently it is not able to transpose (or do not want to transpose) the fact that the Church can not, because he does not have power, changing the substance and / or essence of the Sacraments; while on the other hand can, indeed necessary should be amended those external accidents that not only does not change the substance, but the show and even strengthen more.

  5. Tradition is not just about the Sacraments.
    What is Tradition?: “It can be defined as the teaching of Jesus Christ and the apostles did in speakerphone and transmitted by the Church down to us without any alteration”. Catechism of St. Pius X.

    1. Dear Suresh Babu.

      Catechism of St. Pius X, “Ten Commandments“, n. 6:
      Not commit adultery“.
      Please, You can look for in all of the Old Testament and in the preaching of Jesus in the New Testament collection, this exact phrase: “Not commit adultery“?
      I quote the Ancient step or the New Testament where this precept is expressed in a clear and imperative according “the teaching of Jesus Christ and the apostles did in speakerphone and transmitted by the Church down to us without any alteration“.
      I await a prompt reply, Thanks!

      1. But she knows that the sources of Revelation are two? Sacred Scripture and Tradition? It seems a Protestant (indeed it is how rages on Lefevbrians).

        1. Of course I know what the Scripture and what Tradition, I know so well that I asked a very specific question, having to do with both the Scripture and the Tradition; but since she did not respond, then I repeat it to him yet another time:

          Catechism of St. Pius X, “Ten Commandments“, n. 6:
          Not commit adultery“.
          Please, You can look for in all of the Old Testament and in the preaching of Jesus in the New Testament collection, this exact phrase: “Not commit adultery“?
          I quote the Ancient step or the New Testament where this precept is expressed in a clear and imperative second "the teaching of Jesus Christ and the apostles did in speakerphone and transmitted by the Church down to us without any alteration“.

          And for the second time rest waiting for response, because one would like her to be turning to the net to give the Protestant and Catholic priests who know so well the Scripture and Tradition, I think this simple question should answer with the most accurate and the best Scripture Tradition, Also because neither writing nor Tradition can be subjected to “alteration“.
          Thanks.

          1. Father, but when she puts one inside the bag also it makes us the knot tight because they do not come out more?

          2. Why should I look for in Sacred Scripture that which is only in Tradition? "The teaching of Jesus Christ and the apostles did in speakerphone and transmitted by the Church down to us without any alteration" affects only the Tradition. She recognizes the Catechism of St. PioX which the Magisterium of the Church? or a complete for her, the Church comes into existence from CVII?

          3. Bazzorini,

            his theologian consultant the one is suggesting the wrong answers, namely of “no answers”.
            I I asked a question that she continues to elude.
            If someone question to me: “You believe in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception”? I answer with one word: “Yes”. I never try to make turns of phrase not to give answers on the one hand, and to attack the other person on the other hand, things like that made her – as evidence in detail the Holy Scriptures – the Pharisees, why the Lord advised his disciples: your talking about is when it is yes and no when it is not.
            Well: my indicates if, in the.

            In any case, knowing that she did not clear the link between Scripture, Tradition, Teaching; or between Scripture and Tradition and vice versa. Therefore, far from me quote them the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum (n. 10) of “' trembling” and “apostate” Vatican, the even I quote the teaching of St. Pius X, but that even before, by Pius IX down, in which it clearly states that Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium are so connected to each other, they are together or fall together.

            This should be enough to make her understand that you can not separate these elements to draw poisoned water to their mill.

            I recognize the Magisterium of the Church as a whole: by the Council of Nicaea to Vatican II. And’ she rejects ereticalmente the Magisterium of the Church of the last fifty years and of what he boasts well around, I am not sure to deny or reject anything, place that the councils of the Church and its magisterium accept them in faith everyone.

  6. Tradition is one thing: God's Word NOT WRITTEN, that demands fidelity and remote Rule of Faith, against which even a Pope can go.
    If you want to trivialize with intellectualized demonization Tradition, with the word ” fissismo”, you can say it's just:
    “intellectualism pro destruction of the Faith”
    Lieto of obstinacy, testify that “fissismo ” You are needed to avoid drowning in Faith, since there is only modernism but also a Modernism mitigated, more dangerous than the first, seen that the hybrids, I'm there “incarnation” of Lucifer!
    in the Liturgy, Form is: Substance – it tells your former Negri Bishop – therefore, considering that, l 'altar-table condemned the imposition Mediator Dei, that your say, they are: external accidents -dimentichi Lex orandi, Lex credendi- you understand that everything you just said not to displease Montini who, in spite of the Ecumenical Council itself!, He wanted to impose a Rite Lutheran( cf.. Jean Guitton, a close friend of Montini) elaborated with the help of 6 Lutherans! When the culinary, I make sure to taste “Strozzapreti salmon” which make it a cardinal in pectore.

    1. When the culinary, I'll try some "Strozzapreti salmon" which make it a cardinal in pectore.

      No, Thank you, I am on a diet since I became a priest and I will not get fat in red robes, I'm comfortable in black, is a more elegant color and austere. But it must be a delicious dish, if anything, it does taste to my venerable ordaining bishop and my previous diocesan ordinary S.It is. Mons. Luigi Negri who, as I now know, before a comment like this appalled her instantly, seeing himself brought up in the midst of certain rants; and is appalled at how diligent speaker of the Magisterium of Vatican II, both as speaker of the social doctrine of the Church that he has pursued for years in an exemplary manner through the International John Paul II Foundation.
      This to say: affirms what he wants, but do not use the name of the Archbishop of Ferrara to legitimize its absurdities like because I do not allow him, so I know this bishop, his thought and his devotion to the doctrine and the magisterium of Vatican II.

  7. Non so, up to how: “sproloqui” my, if you have no pity for arguments to refute them and not with offenses per person!
    The entire Mons. Negri for single sentence: “in the Liturgy, Form is: Substance” and certainly not to use your name, but do understand that even in Bishops “so devotees of the Ecumenical Council” it happens some times, for ancient wisdom, intellectual honesty, that there may be courage to uncomfortable truth. That's it! and also confirm, what he believed mon.Lefebvre against sedevacantism, that is: the Episcopate is more a victim than victimizer; victim of modern philosophies that has “manipulated” the mindset. The legitimacy to “My nonsense – as he calls Leica” already there, because of everything I mentioned it has reflected in the documents of the Church of the past – I see that you are nothing- and recent history: It would be enough to study them without prejudice and with humility, It is anything, About of “..seek peace and pursue it”, would begin to move. But mine are wishful thinking that make me believe too much to the good faith of the powerful Church! Eat Strozzapreti, salmon do not make you fat.

Leave a Reply