Bellarmine Forums

Fr. Barbara claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre was a sede
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Admin [ Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:36 am ]
Post subject:  Fr. Barbara claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre was a sede

Fr. Barbara, Fortes in Fide No. 12, 1993.

I subsequently learned that I was not the only person to press the Archbishop to break with John Paul II. Mgr. Antonio de Castro Mayer, the Bishop of Campos in Brazil, shared this attitude and openly expressed his opinion to your founder. But the Archbishop refused to listen to reason. - This however did not prevent the Brazilian prelate from declaring and from saying out loud, as he walked through the crowds of the faithful on the day of the consecrations, that "We do not have a pope! We do not have a pope!" - This was confirmed to me by two reliable people.

The first confirmation was provided to me at Steffeshausen in Belgium. During the course of a lecture which I was giving on the crisis in the Church at Father Paul Schoonbroodt's, one of the auditors, surprised to hear me declare that, since he lacked Authority, John Paul II could not be a true pope, stood up and said, "You are surely aware, Reverend Father, that Mgr. Lefebvre has said exactly the opposite." Father Paul Schoonbroodt did not give me an opportunity to answer. Standing up, he declared: "The Reverend Father is only saying out loud what Mgr. Lefebvre thinks but doesn't say." He added, "On the day of the consecrations, after the ceremony, I went to Mgr. Lefebvre. "Your Excellency," I said to him, "in my name and in the name of the German-speaking faithful who have come with me to these consecrations, I have come to tell you our surprise and our disappointment. We were expecting a frank and open declaration of your break with John Paul II. Your confrere, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, did not hesitate to say to anyone interested in listening: "We do not have a pope!". "Yes indeed," replied the Archbishop, "some priests from Campos asked that I do this. But such a declaration would turn too many of the faithful away from us."

The second confirmation also came from Belgium. A young man sent me a signed statement. Here it is. "On the occasion of a conference given in Bruxelles by Mgr. Lefebvre, I had the opportunity to meet a priest who knew me and who shared with me the contents of a conversation he had had with the Archbishop. The priest had said to Mgr. Lefebvre: "I know a young man who thinks that John Paul II is not a true pope." The Archbishop replied: "I think that this young man is correct, but I cannot say so because it would cause harm in my priories and seminaries."

Two other witnesses confirmed Bishop de Castro Mayer's actions on the day of the episcopal consecrations. William Morgan, of Great Britain, who was present, published his testimony in his newsletter afterwards, and Fr. Schmidberger, in person to me, confirmed that he heard the bishop express the words given above on that day.

Author:  Gandolfo 1958 [ Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fr. Barbara claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre was a sede

This seems a very dangerous position for ABL to take. He was lying if he believed that the Church is in a state of sedevancante and he said that he did not know for temporary and practical reasons. In any case, if we accept that 'Rome' has defected from the faith and from the Church along with all its hierarchy then we must consider the possibility that Newchurch will never return to the faith. There is no guarantee that 'Rome' will return within 70 years, let alone 40 -- or ever. 'Rome' is no longer the Catholic church and it possesses no divine guarantee. Indeed it has already defected and it shows no sign of ever returning, no more than the Orthodox or the Anglicans. On the contrary it pushes on deeper and further into heresy and scandal. ABL has in effect tied the SSPX to a belief that Newchurch is the Catholic church. SSPX has adopted an anti-sedevacantist polemic and it would be very difficult for SSPX to reverse its doctrinal position. That circumstance makes it much harder for the papacy to ever be restored, when the bulk of traditionalists are against any such move in principle. Perhaps thanks to ABL's temporary and practical considerations, we may envisage a course of centuries without a pope or a true bishop of Rome and without a visible hierarchy -- centuries in which the true faith and Church grow ever more obscure. That would be a extremely grave evil and its consideration surely outweighs any temporary inconvenience for the SSPX.

Author:  Admin [ Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fr. Barbara claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre was a sede


The Archbishop's view is there being characterised in a specific way by Fr. Barbara, a man without imagination or real sympathy with the outlook and judgements of others.

Try and grasp the Archbishop's real view, which was actually humble and diffident. He was either convinced that JP2 wasn't pope, or he was at least strongly inclined to form that judgement, but either way he knew it was only his opinion. So he was faced with a choice - declare his opinion and split the traditional world in two, and render uncertain the work that the Fraternity was actually founded to perform, which was to bring the goods of the Church to those who requested them; or, keep his opinion to himself, at least publicly, and leave the problem to be solved by God in His good time.

What any bishop who was familiar with Christian doctrine and the history of the Church would instinctively believe to be necessary in such a crisis was the calling of a council to clarify doctrine and drive out the heretics. Yet until 1981, when Bishop de Castro Mayer joined him publicly, the Archbishop could not even get one other bishop to recognise publicly the crisis in the Church. Many were telling him privately that they agreed with him; none would take the decisive step of announcing publicly their opposition to Vatican II and the New Mass. Not one. How could a council be called? Any call for such a meeting would dissolve into a ridiculous spectacle and do more harm than good. He didn't know what to do, except continue his work. So that's what he did.

Can we blame him?

As for the disappearance of the hierarchy, that's impossible, so if your theory implies that or even perceives it to be possible, it needs radical reformation in order to bring it into harmony with sacred doctrine.

Author:  Gandolfo 1958 [ Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fr. Barbara claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre was a sede

John, I take your point that the situation was extremely difficult with no further bishops to form a council but sometimes we only have the most difficult circumstances in which to act. ABL judged his course most prudent but I doubt that. God works in his own way but generally through the prudence of men, especially where the Church is concerned. We must consider the possibility that Newchurch will never return to the faith; in that case the restoration will come rather through the election of a true pope by the remant traditionalists. ABL would have made that eventuality easier if he had come out as a sedevacantist. Of course none of us has a crystal ball but my point remains hypothetically true.

Can you explain to me where the visible hierarchy is today? Do you adhere to a material papacy? Would that not contradict the indefectibility of the true church, that the hierarchy would promulgate heresy and evil?

Author:  Admin [ Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fr. Barbara claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre was a sede

No problem with any of that, except the idea that a pope can be elected by men without ordinary jurisdiction or membership in the body of the clergy of Rome (i.e. clerics who are members of the Local Church of Rome). Either the ordinaries, or the clerics of Rome, could elect, but not clerics who have not got either qualification, and that means all today's trads are out of consideration as electors. This is divine law. Read: ... p?p=35#p35 and ... p?p=78#p78

The situation in the Church is certainly confused, but these principles ought to assist clarity.

1. The acts of a false pope who was considered pope by most members of the Church would be validated by supplied jurisdiction due to common error. Exceptions would be acts such as accepting the resignation of Bishop de Castro Mayer in order to replace him with a Modernist, or the suppression of the SSPX, or the 1988 declaration of excommunications.

2 A non-Catholic cannot validly possess an office in the Church.

3. Merely going along with the reforms of V2 (e.g. Cardinals Siri, Bacci, Ottaviani, Archbishops Graber and Pintonello), did not suffice to put a man out of the Church, precisely because the reforms appeared to come from the Church. A fortiori this applies in the Eastern Rites, which of course were not affected by the Novus Ordo Missae or most of the other reforms.

4. Jurisdiction and orders are meant, by divine law, to coincide in the same persons. By divine law a woman cannot maintain habitual jurisdiction. But there is no divine law preventing jurisdiction being maintained by a layman who is a Catholic. This is not controversial. The layman ought not to possess jurisdiction, and is obliged to seek the relevant degree of orders once he has jurisdiction, but he maintains it prior to receiving the relevant orders.

Therefore many of the appointments to the episcopate by Paul VI, and possibly even JP2, would have been valid by supplied jurisdiction. Those ordinaries who are Catholics would truly be the ordinaries of their dioceses. Who these men are may become clear only after some climax of the crisis and a consequent reaction to orthodoxy, but the lack of clarity on our behalf doesn't change the fact that the true ordinaries are objectively visible. This is analogous to the situation which Franzelin held to be the case during the Great Western Schism, when there was a true pope at all times, of the Roman line, but that this was impossibly obscure to nearly all. He was objectively visible as true pope, but this was not able to be determined by all who needed to know it.

Do you see more clearly now? A crass application of the notion of the Conciliar Church doesn't settle the matter. There is certainly a real social body which can be designated by that name, and it's certainly not possible to belong both to it and to the Catholic Church, but which men belong to each is not always clear. In many cases it's obviously unclear. Read this for a fuller explanation: ... Church.pdf

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group