UR: Ummmmmm, at the risk of spoiling your schismatic fantasies' you might recall that "they" did NOT SEEK to condemn impudent and disobedient Marcel. Instead "they" (actually Pope John Paul II) gave cry7baby Marcel a new status: excommunicated. God rendered Marcel dead as an excommicatus. Also that is SSPX seminaries filled with disobedient anti-Catholic vipers studying to defraud the public in the role of illicitly consecrated priests, consecrated by the excommunicated few. You can put lipstick on these disobedient pigs but pigs they remain.
First, you need to straighten-out the timeline here. When I referred to "they", I was speaking of Commission of Cardinals in Rome who made it abundantly clear they were out to "get" the Archbishop by hook or by crook and close-down his seminary at Econe. Michael Davies documents a meeting at which Cardinal Garrone presided where it was decided a canonical visit to the Econe would take place to evaluate the seminary. Michael Davies, in his Apologia, writes the following:
"At some time in June 1974, Pope Paul is alleged to have convoked the ad hoc Commission of Cardinals. While it cannot be claimed with certainty that this is untrue, it is certain that the document convoking the Commission has never been produced. As will be shown later, this document was one of the items which Mgr. Lefebvre's advocate would have demanded to see had not the Archbishop's appeal been blocked. It is not unreasonable to presume that one reason why the Archbishop was denied due legal process was that a number of serious irregularities would have been brought to light. It can hardly be a coincidence, in view of the criticisms aroused by the doubtful legality of the proceedings against Mgr. Lefebvre...[N]ot one shred of evidence proving that the Pope had approved of the action taken against the Archbishop and his Seminary was produced until 29 June 1975. Pope Paul stated in a letter of this date, which is included in its chronological order, that he had approved of the action taken against the Archbishop in forma specifica (this term will also be explained under the same date). It is not unreasonable to conclude that this was an attempt to give retrospective legality to what must certainly be one of the greatest travesties of justice in the history of the Church...
"The Apostolic Visitation of the Seminary at Ecône took place from 11-13 November 1974. The two Visitors were both Belgians: Mgr. Descamps, a biblical scholar, and Mgr. Onclin, a canonist. The Apostolic Visitation was carried out with great thoroughness. Professors and students were subjected to searching and detailed questions concerning every aspect of life in the Seminary. However, considerable scandal was occasioned by opinions which the two Roman Visitors expressed in the presence of the students and staff. For, according to Mgr. Lefebvre, these two Visitors considered it normal and indeed inevitable that there should be a married clergy; they did not believe there was an immutable Truth; and they also had doubts concerning the traditional concept of our Lord 's Resurrection.
"On 21 November 1974, in reaction to the scandal occasioned by these opinions of the Apostolic Visitors, Mgr. Lefebvre considered it necessary to make clear where he stood in relation to the Rome represented by this attitude of mind. 'This,' he said, 'was the origin of my Declaration which was, it is true, drawn up in a spirit of doubtlessly excessive indignation.'
"In this Declaration he rejected the views expressed by the Visitors, even if they were currently acceptable in the Rome which the Visitors represented in an official capacity.
"In this Declaration, he stated:
"...we refuse...and have always refused to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies...
"No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries."
Davies continues, "It is difficult to see how any orthodox Catholic could possibly disagree with Mgr. Lefebvre concerning this. It is all the more significant, therefore, that the Commission of Cardinals subsequently stated that the Declaration 'seemed unacceptable to them on all points.'
"It is also important to note that this Declaration was not intended as a public statement, let alone as a Manifesto defying the Holy See. It was intended to be a private statement solely for the benefit of the members of the Society of Saint Pius X."
In fact, the Declaration was not only leaked, but it was edited, leaving out the Archbishop's profession of loyalty to the Pontiff! The effort was clearly an attempt to smear the Archbishop. Davies continues:
"It is particularly significant that the Commission of Cardinals persistently refused to view this Declaration in the context of its origin: as a private reaction of righteous indignation to the scandal occasioned by the views propagated by the two Apostolic Visitors who had been sent to Ecône by the Commission of Cardinals."
Yet it was on the basis of this declaration that the campaign against the Econe was launched. Davies says the following, regarding this:
"Examples of this preparatory stage of the offensive can be found in La Croix of 17, 18, 21,and 22 January and 1 February 1975. A change of tactics can be discerned from 8 February onwards, clearly resulting from a realization that proving the Archbishop wrong with regard to the legal position of the Mass would not be easy. From 8 February 1975, the charge against Ecône was one of a 'Refusal of the Council and the Pope.' Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration of 21 November 1974 was cited in order to try to justify this charge.
"The Commission of Cardinals met on 21 January 1975 to discuss the Report of the Apostolic Visitors. However, the Report of the Visitors (who seem to have been honest men though far from impeccably orthodox) was not only favorable to the Seminary but even flattering. It was therefore quite unusable as a basis for the condemnation of Ecône."
Instead, the Commission focused on the Archbishop. Davies cites Lefebvre: "After telling me of the favorable impression the Seminary had made on the Apostolic Visitors no further reference was made to the Society or to the Seminary either on 13 February or 3 March. It was exclusively a question of my Declaration of 21 November 1974, which had been made as a result of the Apostolic Visitation."
Davies continues, "In this connection, it is important to repeat that, in the opinion of most well-informed commentators, the action taken against Ecône by the Swiss bishops, in conjunction with Rome, had been instigated by the French hierarchy, with the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot, acting as its instrument.
"As Mgr. Lefebvre points out, the Apostolic Visitation was the first step towards the suppression of the Seminary. And this action was taken only after a prolonged press campaign in which the Seminary had been subjected to the most odious calumnies, which had been taken up first by the French bishops and then by the Swiss episcopate. One French Archbishop had indeed been reported as stating that he would have 'the scalp of the Seminary' before 1975 was out.
"But the most convincing evidence that the Commission of Cardinals was determined at all costs to close the Seminary was the fact that nothing more was heard of the Apostolic Visitation after its report was found to be favorable.
"In a letter dated 21 May 1975, accompanying his appeal which was lodged at the Apostolic Signature on 5 June, Mgr. Lefebvre demanded that, if there was anything in his Declaration which should be condemned, the Commission of Cardinals should condemn him personally rather than suppress the Society of St. Pius X, the Seminary, and the other houses which had been founded by the Society.
"The Archbishop has yet to be given one word from the Commission specifying anything in the Declaration which is alleged to deviate from orthodoxy. He insists that should such an allegation be made he must be tried by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the only tribunal competent to decide in such a matter.
"Certainly to close down the most flourishing and the most orthodox seminary in the West on the basis of alleged but unspecified unorthodoxy found in a single document is an unprecedented enormity. It is all the more outrageous, given the total inactivity (if not the connivance) of the Vatican concerning the travesty of the Catholic Faith and priestly formation that has for long been perpetrated in so many other seminaries, above all in French seminaries.
"Indeed, one would have to go to Soviet Russia to discover a comparable caricature of justice. But concerning even the worst travesties of justice behind the Iron Curtain, it can at least be said that they are not perpetrated in the name of Christ's Church, let alone during a Holy Year of Reconciliation!"
BlackElk wakes up from hibernation and doesn't waste any time. Haven't noticed you around for a while, but you jump right into your usual routine. It's been a bit boring around here without someone to bring this sort of incisive logic to bear on the situation: "vipers" and "pigs." Well we can't say we haven't been warned.
To be fair, Christ himself was prone to use similar language. But in His case, it was always directed at those who glorified themselves for sticking to the letter of law, while entirely failing to grasp the supernatural reality behind it. Kind of reminds me of certain neo-Catholics who are fond of excommunicating all those who disagree with them, but don't seem to have much grasp of faith, hope or charity.
The more desperate you and your ilk become, the more vile the rhetoric. This comment truly illustrates your dark motives.