Bps. Lefebvre & Mayer in Hell‽
#21
We can "reasonably hope" that all men will be saved.

Relax.
Reply
#22
I would not say tha,t but I believe Bishops LeFebvre and De Castro Meyer have an excellent chance of being in either Heaven or Purgatory.
Reply
#23
No one commented on Geremia's use of the interrobang?
Reply
#24
(06-02-2012, 08:24 AM)Old Salt Wrote: At death an excommunication ceases to exist. There is need for a Pope to make a formal declaration.
Its gone.

Christ judges the soul apart from our knowledge.

Good to dwell on.

I'm sure the two are close to heaven, if not there already.
Reply
#25
I'll say this, and this is all I'll say to the OP:

Learn what Abp. Lefebvre would have taught you, which is nothing more than Catholic doctrine, before pontificating on whether or not he, or anyone, is in Hell- particularly when something like excommunication ceases at death, no one here likely knows if Abp. Lefebvre made an act of contrition or was otherwise disposed to have this "lifted" via his own works, i.e. going along with CCC 1463, wherein, in danger of death, any priest could have absolved him and the excommunication was lifted. Of course, it being within the context of a deathbed confession, why would we have heard about it?

CCC1463: "Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication."

---------

And for the record, if Abp. Lefebvre is or will be in Hell-proper, there is no other answer to "why" other than he chose it. The Pope can't send anyone to Hell. The Church Herself can't send anyone to Hell. ALL JUDGEMENT is given to Christ alone.

Even the Protestants get this right, why don't you, OP?
Reply
#26
(06-02-2012, 03:31 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: I'll say this, and this is all I'll say to the OP:

Learn what Abp. Lefebvre would have taught you, which is nothing more than Catholic doctrine, before pontificating on whether or not he, or anyone, is in Hell- particularly when something like excommunication ceases at death, no one here likely knows if Abp. Lefebvre made an act of contrition or was otherwise disposed to have this "lifted" via his own works, i.e. going along with CCC 1463, wherein, in danger of death, any priest could have absolved him and the excommunication was lifted. Of course, it being within the context of a deathbed confession, why would we have heard about it?

CCC1463: "Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication."

---------

And for the record, if Abp. Lefebvre is or will be in Hell-proper, there is no other answer to "why" other than he chose it. The Pope can't send anyone to Hell. The Church Herself can't send anyone to Hell. ALL JUDGEMENT is given to Christ alone.

Even the Protestants get this right, why don't you, OP?

Good post, but I think the OP didn't mean anything out of ignorance, a lot of us didn't realize at first thought that excommunication isn't a one way ticket to hell, but after some thought, you're absolutely right. It just means the church, kicking you out of the church. But if we are to understand "There is no salvation outside the Church" then you can see how confusing it can be.

Anyways, I am by no means a sede, but giving every clergyman including Paul VI breaking the Oath Against Modernism at vII, who is to say the excommunications were valid? The whole church technically went Anathema according to past popes, you cannot deny their teaching on modernism. Yet you cannot refute the present church without being called a sede.

I can see why the question was asked in the first place.
Reply
#27
No salvation outside the Church is still taught... CCC846. It's just not taught from Feeney's view, as Feeney was wrong.

Even Bishop Morrow, in his amazing work "My Catholic Faith" (e-version) http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyC...uction.htm, pg 140 (print version), original copyright 1949, explains it as such:
"70. Salvation and the Catholic Church

    What do we mean when we say, "Outside the Church there is no salvation? --When we say, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", we mean that those who through their own grave fault do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, or knowing it, refuse to join it, cannot be saved. "


The same book is drawn largely from Baltimore Catechism 3.

Abp. Sheen wrote this introduction to it:
"Anyone deeply interested in converts seeks an exposition of the Catholic Faith which not only defines each article of the Creed and each doctrine of the Church, but which also gives an explanation and a reason for the doctrine. Such an ideal is beautifully satisfied in a Catechism written by one of our zealous missionary Bishops, Most Reverend Louis L. R. Morrow, S.T.D., Bishop of Krishnagar.

This is not the kind of Catechism that can be carried in one's pocket, for it containes 415 pages. But once it is read, it can be carried both in the head and in the heart. The presentation is such as to satisfy the mentality of both children and adults, and is even not beyond an excellent review for those who have studied both Dogmatic and Moral Theology

+ Fulton J. Sheen

National Director
Society for the Propogation
of the Faith
March, 1954 "
------

Seems pretty simple to me, and the creds backing it up are there.

As for whether or not the excommunications were valid, they were automatically incurred with full knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-SSPX or Abp. Lefebvre, I'm just saying.

Vatican 2, while obfuscatory, poorly written and stupidly phrased, doesn't, and can't, become the catch-all whipping boy of what was an act of rebellion incurring a known automatic excommunication.

The question has no need of being asked because:

1) it uses misunderstood Catholic doctrine to formulate a question, to make an accusation.
2) it seeks to attack the Holy See
3) if Abp. Lefebvre is destined to Hell, stomping feet and entering into sedevacantism's exit lane doesn't get Abp. Lefebvre out, or help one avoid Hell.

Reply
#28
I was going to post the Canons of the Council of Trent, and relate it to the validity of the 1988 'excommunication' but before I posted it I re-read the forum rules and decided against it.

Reply
#29
(06-02-2012, 07:20 PM)galilean Wrote: I was going to post the Canons of the Council of Trent, and relate it to the validity of the 1988 'excommunication' but before I posted it I re-read the forum rules and decided against it.
How'd it be against the forum rules?
Reply
#30
(06-02-2012, 03:08 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: No one commented on Geremia's use of the interrobang?

Love me some interrobang.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)