The Heresy of Marcel Lefebvre
And Of Richard Williamson & M.E. Morrisson (Traditio.com)
Contradicting The Vatican Council, 1869-1870
Lefebvre Contra Christus
Fair Use Notice
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Lúcio Mascarenhas
|
|
This is part of a three document refutation of the Heresy of Lefebvrism
|
|
|
|
|
In late Jan. 2006, an interesting article was brought to my notice. It was "Richard Williamson's thoughts for January"; Williamson being one of the four men consecrated by Marcel Lefebvre for his followers.
On Jan. 13, 2006, I wrote an initial response:
Being all by myself, I am overburdened with data and the need to combat error.... (A matter) that has come to my attention is an article by 'Bishop' Richard Williamson on the Lefebvrist site Angelqueen.org (http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5090).
...Less than halfway through it... I can already recognize that he is deliberately talking garbage.
Williamson is being flaunted by some Lefebvrists as being the leader of the near-Sedevacantist faction of the Lefebvre sect who will in all probability reject any move by the Fellay-Schmidberger faction to integrate into Roman Modernism.
Williamson here debunks that misconception and demonstrates himself as being yet another fraud and deceiver, one who goes about deliberately confusing things and misrepresenting the truth in order to continue souls in slavery to darkness.
Needless to state, Williamson's idiotic and conceitedly patronising statements have drawn flak from various proponents of Sedevacantism.
Thus, for example, in Jan. 2006, Mario Derksen, webmaster of Catholic Insight and the Novus Ordo Watch, wrote drawing attention to a February 2001 statement by Williamson, repeating the same heretical ideas, and the rebuttal provided by Mr. John Lane of Australia:
http://www.sedevacantist.org/misc/williamson.html.
While I kept Williamson's pompous drivel aside for a time when I could devote time to draft a refutation, on Feb. 19, 2006, while investigating the viciously anti-Catholic site, Traditio.com operated by the Protestant conman M.E. Morrison and his collaborators, I found quotes from Marcel Lefebvre which unequivocally contradict the last Holy Ecumenical Council (Vatican, 1870)'s infallible and Dogmatic Constitution
Pastor Æternus and repeating the false "prophecy" put out by Melanie Calvet after 1870 as part of the "message" of La Salette, that Rome will / has apostatized; which invented message was adopted, near verbatim, from the apostate Martin Luther!
Since this is a heresy that has been condemned time and again by the Church, teaching or publicly holding it is unexcusable (as Pope John XX's error on the Beatific Vision was excusable since it had not been formally defined) and therefore Lefebvre demonstrates himself to be a public, formal and manifest heretic who had thereby, by these public pronouncements, incurred automatic excommunication.
Catholics with knowledge of the Catholic-Anglican conflict will remember that one of the central principles of the Anglican apostates was that "Rome has often erred", a heresy that the Church formally anathematized, affirming that the Holy Church of Rome can never apostatize or fall into error (as a whole or as a formal institution, a fact proven even more strongly by the fact that even the Novatians and Donatists, formal heretics and schismatics, erected themselves Antipopes in Rome in opposition to the true Popes).
Anyone who affirms that Rome has or could have fallen repudiates the Catholic faith.
Pastor Æternus, or "The First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ" issued by the last Holy Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, held at the Vatican, 1869-1870, clearly teaches, reiterating previous magisterial pronouncements, the Doctrine of the Indefectibility of the Roman Church. In order to assist readers who are not able to recognize this by themselves, I have included this docuement in my website, with the relevant texts highlighted, and interpretations provided. You can view this here:
http://www.oocities.org/prakashjm45/pastoraeternas.html.
I have put up a page with the heretical statements of Marcel Lefebvre and Richard Williamson at
http://www.oocities.org/prakashjm45/lefebvrist_quotes.html.
Let us now consider the heretical teachings of Lefebvre, echoed by Williamson and blindly endorsed by Mr. Morrison of Traditio.com; my comments are interspersed, in blue:
-
Excerpts from the 3 Statements of Marcel Lefebvre quoted by Traditio.com
Rome has lost the Faith... Rome is in apostasy.
Contrast this with Pastor Æternus, which repeatedly affirms that Rome never did, cannot and will not defect from the True Faith: Is there any identity of belief between the two? None!
The Chair of Peter... being occupied by Antichrists....
In the face of the teachings of Pastor Æternus, which was not an innovation, but a reiteration of age-old Catholic doctrine, is it possible that one who is a Catholic can affirm that "The Chair of Peter... (is) occupied by Antichrists"?
The destruction of the Reign of Our Lord proceeds rapidly at the very heart of His Mystical Body here ("here", is obviously, in context, "Rome").
Again, can this claim be reconciled with what Pastor Æternus teaches?
Once the Chair of Peter shall be occupied by a successor of Peter perfectly Catholic, you (Fellay, Gallerata, Mallerais & Williamson; henceforth "Fellay et al") will be able to deposit the grace of your episcopacy into his hands for him to confirm.
Here we have Lefebvre repeating his heresy that "The Chair of Peter" is occupied by "successors of Peter" not "perfectly Catholic", a claim that cannot be reconciled with Pastor Æternus.
I implore you (Fellay et al) to remain attached to the See of Peter, in the Roman Church, Mother and Teacher of all the Churches.
"Remain attached" to whom? If, as Lefebvre teaches, the See of Peter is occupied by "Antichrists", how can Catholics remain attached to it and yet save their souls?
... This compilation throws a so searing a light on the doctrinal Revolution inaugurated officially in the Church by the Council and continued until our days, that one cannot help but think of the Seat of Iniquity predicted by Leo XIII, or in the loss of the Faith of Rome predicted by Our Lady at LaSalette.
The reference to Pope Leo XIII's prayer against the setting up of the "seat of Iniquity" in Rome is a misrepresentation of Pope Leo's words and intentions.
Our Lady did not predict at La Salette any "lost of the Faith of Rome", as is alleged by Lefebvre, and the false Pseudo-Melanist Message has been strictly forbidden by the Church from the time of its first publication, in the 1870s itself, so that Lefebvre, by repeating these anti-Catholic canards, only demonstrates and teaches contempt for the Catholic Church!
The publication and adherence of the Roman officials to Masonic errors condemned many times by their predecessors is a great mystery of evil that undermines the foundations of the Catholic Faith.
Is it possible to reconcile with Pastor Æternus the pretension that certain people are able to "undermine the foundations of the Catholic Faith"? What of the Catholic doctrine that the Church as a whole is the Bride of Christ, is immaculate and will always be preserved immaculate?
The fact of being seated in the seats of authority is no longer, alas!, a guarantee of orthodoxy in the Faith of those who occupy them.
Again, an open contradiction of Pastor Æternus!
The Pope himself henceforth publishes without interruption the principles of a false religion, which has as its result a general apostasy....
Some more of that tiresome, tendentious, viciously anti-Catholic propaganda by Lefebvre!
And this was Marcel Lefebvre, reputedly a Catholic in good standing, with a more than adequate grasp of Catholic theology so that he was made first a bishop and then an Archbishop! We have further proof of the intellectual rot that preceded and paved the way for the Great Modernist Apostasy!
-
It was inevitable that Rome would re-open contacts with the Society because, by the grace of God and by a measure of human cooperaton with His grace, the Society happens to have guarded the Deposit of the Faith.
An audacious, conceited, breathtaking claim. Never did Sts. Cyril and Athanasius, champions against the Arians, or St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem and champion against the Monothelite heresy, make so audacious a claim. The nearest parallel is that of the Byzantine schismatic Antipatriarchs, who claimed for themselves supreme and sole episcopacy!
The "Society" can attain to the office of guardian of the Deposit of the Faith only by substituting itself in place of the Pope!
So long as any organization like the Society has the Truth while Rome has not, then the Society is in the driving-seat for all Catholic purposes. Of course, from the moment when Rome returned to the Truth, Rome would be back in the driving-seat.
See as above.
Peter has for a prolonged period of time demonstrated in word but above all in action that he has to a significant extent — albeit not entirely — lost the Truth.
Can the claim that "Peter has, for a prolonged period of time, demonstrated, in words but above all in action, that he has to a significant extent — although not entirely — lost the Truth" be reconciled with the clear and contrary teaching of Pastor Æternus?
Roman Church officials are masters of negotiating, of dealing, of manoeuvring, of out-manoeuvring their opponents. They have top-class brains, state-of-the-art networks of informants and information, and 2,000 years of experience in out-witting whoever happens to be facing them. When all these assets are used truly in the service of Our Lord, the results are magnificent. But when they are used, as today, in the service of Vatican II, then automatically the Society is in peril if it tries to cut a deal with these Romans.
A breathtaking and wideranging slander of Catholic Rome and a mendacious pretension to be unable to distinguish between Catholic Rome and Anti-Catholic Rome — or, more precisely, Antirome — that cannot be reconciled with the Catholic faith. This statement contradicts so many doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church than I care to catalog!
However, Rome still being, by Our Lord's design, the command-center of the Catholic Church, it follows that if an organization like the Society can, by negotiating, wring important concessions from the "sharks", then those concessions may benefit the Universal Church, and this is the best-case scenario which must tempt an organization in the Society's position.
The claims and implications made in this quote are a gross aggravation of the lies and misrepresentations made in the previous quote.
-
Catholics are in great confusion because the dogma of the faith has been lost.
Is it possible that the "Dogma of the Faith" can be lost? To so teach, is to publicly contradict the Doctrine of the Indefectibility of the Church Universal, a grave heresy.
Oh, well, the future Superior-General will have to guide the small barque of the Fraternity amidst increasingly high waves!
Catholics only know of the "Barque of Peter"; this will suffice for them until the Return of Our Lord, by His Express Will and Express and Daily, Positive Government.
What is this "Barque of Lefebvre" that Williamson speaks of?
If anyone has any other "Barque", or speaks of any other "Barque", they are only certifying themselves as not being part of Peter's flock, as the Greek schismatics do, and to which claims the Holy Pope Boniface VIII replied in his 1302 bull Unam Sanctam:
If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, as the Lord says in John that there is one fold and one shepherd (see John x. 16).
Futher reading:
- http://www.oocities.org/prakashjm45/roman.html;
- http://www.oocities.org/prakashjm45/romanism.html &
- Jean Andre Perlant's Vindication of Pope Honorius I: http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/HonoriusCalumny.htm
Regards,
Lucio
|
This is part of a three document refutation of the Heresy of Lefebvrism
|
|
|
|
|