Fr. Bourmaud, SSPX, is likely in his last agony. His lungs are not working, and the only thing keeping him breathing is a ventilator. He has a relic of Abp. Lefebvre, who ordained him, at his side. …More
Fr. Bourmaud, SSPX, is likely in his last agony. His lungs are not working, and the only thing keeping him breathing is a ventilator. He has a relic of Abp. Lefebvre, who ordained him, at his side. Would you please say a prayer to the holy Archbishop for a miraculous healing?
onda
R.I.P.
De Profundis shares this
31
Fr. Dominic Bourmaud, SSPX. RIP
Scholar, Gentleman. A Frenchman who was not at all "French."More
Fr. Dominic Bourmaud, SSPX. RIP

Scholar, Gentleman. A Frenchman who was not at all "French."
Darice Henriques
🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Ultraviolet
"He has a relic of Abp. Lefebvre..." A relic,refers the remains of a saint not an excommunicated schismatic who died outside The Church. Once again, in terminology, use, and religious practice, the SSPX demonstrate they've already begun canonizing their own "saints" outside the Catholic Church, just like the schismatic orthodox do.
DJRESQ
What knowledge do you have regarding Archbishop Lefebvre's final confession? Is it safe to assume that you're not the priest who heard his last confession?
And if you are not the priest who heard the archbishop's last confession, you have no idea whatsoever whether he "died outside the Church," and thus you have no basis to publicly make such a claim.
Isn't that the truth of the matter?
So, if you …More
What knowledge do you have regarding Archbishop Lefebvre's final confession? Is it safe to assume that you're not the priest who heard his last confession?

And if you are not the priest who heard the archbishop's last confession, you have no idea whatsoever whether he "died outside the Church," and thus you have no basis to publicly make such a claim.

Isn't that the truth of the matter?

So, if you can't say with certainty whether your claim is true -- and everyone reading this knows you can't -- what moral right do you have to publicly make such a claim? At best, you could assert that the archbishop may have died outside the Church or that it may appear that he did, but you have no basis to state is as a fact, do you?

The Catholic Church has a thing called "Confession," and there are, no doubt, people in Heaven who have made use of it in their final hours to enter therein.

As far as "schismatics who died outside the Church" and "schismatic Orthodox" saints go, Saint Seraphim of Sarov, who died in 1833, was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1903. Saint Seraphim is venerated as a saint by the Catholic Church (those of us who worship in the Byzantine Rite), and his feastday is January 2.

Likewise, Saint Sergius of Radonezh, who died in the 14th century and was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church in the mid 15th century, is venerated as a Catholic saint, even in the Latin Rite. His feastday is September 25.

Saint Stephen of Perm (died mid 14th century) was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church and is venerated as a saint by the Catholic Church. His feastday is April 26.

Further, Saint Anthony of the Caves is considered a saint by the Catholic Church (feastday in the Martyrologium Romanum of May 7), along with Saint Theodosius of the Caves (feastday May 3). They are often refered to on feastdays during the service of Litija, which we just had this past week.

Finally, if you remember, in 2015 Pope Francis declared Saint Gregory of Narek a Doctor of the Catholic Church, and he is now venerated as a Catholic saint. Saint Gregory was part of the Armenian Apostolic Church. His feastday in the Catholic Church is February 27.

For those who like Wikipedia: Gregory of Narek - Wikipedia

From the link: He is also the "second saint coming out of the Eastern Church to become a Doctor and the only Doctor "who was not in communion with the Catholic Church during his lifetime."

Thus, Saint Gregory of Narek, who was canonized "outside the Catholic Church" by "schismatics," is not only venerated as a saint by the Catholic Church, he is considered a Doctor of the Church by the Catholic Church.
DJRESQ
Correction: "state it as a fact..."
Ultraviolet
"And if you are not the priest who heard the archbishop's last confession, you have no idea whatsoever whether he "died outside the Church"
Wrong. Apb. Lefebvre was excommunicated and remained excommunicated at the time of his death. Those who are excommunicated from The Church are no longer part of The Church.
That's how excommunication works. Apb. Lefebvre's confessor did not have the ecclesiastic …More
"And if you are not the priest who heard the archbishop's last confession, you have no idea whatsoever whether he "died outside the Church"

Wrong. Apb. Lefebvre was excommunicated and remained excommunicated at the time of his death. Those who are excommunicated from The Church are no longer part of The Church.

That's how excommunication works. Apb. Lefebvre's confessor did not have the ecclesiastic authority to lift that excommunication.

"So, if you can't say with certainty whether your claim is true...- and everyone reading this knows you can't -- what moral right do you have to publicly make such a claim?"

Failed first (negative) premise since I can say with certainty my claim is true and a Band-Wagon Fallacy on using popular knowledge as support.... i.e. what "everyone reading this knows" .

Now then...let's examine this claim of yours more closely. You wrote: "and everyone reading this knows you can't".

Since I've answered your questions, now you answer mine.

1.) Have you personally interviewed "everyone reading this?" Yes or no?

2.) Can you show factual evidence to support your claim if you supposedly did? Yes or no?


If you can answer 1.) with a "yes" you're in for a nasty surprise because logic is going to tear your throat out.

If you can answer 2.) with a "yes", please upload your evidence.

If you must answer either question with a "no" then I ask you what yo asked me:

"what moral right do you have to publicly make such a claim?"

Go tie your shoe-laces, you just tripped over your own questions. ;-)

"At best, you could assert that the archbishop may have died outside the Church or that it may appear that he did, but you have no basis to state is as a fact, do you?

Canon Law 1382, read it. "A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."

"Ecclesia Dei," read it.

"Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.

-Given at Rome, at St. Peter's. 2 July 1988, the tenth year of the pontificate.

Joannes Paulus PP. II

That's the Pope confirming the excommunication while speaking in his capacity as the Supreme Pontiff of The Catholic Church on the subject of faith and morals.

That is my "basis to publicly make such a claim."

Your long list of examples all share one basic logical error. Showing what happened in the past to other people not show the same happened here to Abp. Lefebvre.

See how easy that was? ;-)
DJRESQ
All that explanation, and you didn't demonstrate a single thing about whether Archbishop Lefebvre died excommunicated. You have no idea whether he did, and it is not something you can demonstrate. That's a fact.
"That's how excommunication works. Apb. Lefebvre's confessor did not have the ecclesiastic authority to lift that excommunication."
A non sequitur. No one said anything about his "confessor …More
All that explanation, and you didn't demonstrate a single thing about whether Archbishop Lefebvre died excommunicated. You have no idea whether he did, and it is not something you can demonstrate. That's a fact.

"That's how excommunication works. Apb. Lefebvre's confessor did not have the ecclesiastic authority to lift that excommunication."

A non sequitur. No one said anything about his "confessor." You have no idea what occurred between the archbishop and any authorities in his last days.

Do you?

If you do, please tell the people reading this how you know that with any certainty. You won't, because you can't. You weren't privy to anything in that regard.

Were you?

What Pope John Paul II stated in 1988 is irrelevant to what happened at the end of the archbishop's life, and it is the end of his life that determines whether he died excommunicated, not something done 3 years before he died.

Again, I state: Prove to those reading that you know for a fact he died excommunicated. And you certainly have not done so with anything written above.

See how easy it was to show that you have no knowledge of how the archbishop died?
DJRESQ
By the way, you are also incorrect about a priest not being able to absolve the archbishop. In danger of death, even a laicized priest can validly confer absolution on a person, regardless of what he has done, and even with regard to things reserved to the Holy See. And the laicized priest could do that even if a priest in good standing is right there in the room with him.
Canon 976 applies in such …More
By the way, you are also incorrect about a priest not being able to absolve the archbishop. In danger of death, even a laicized priest can validly confer absolution on a person, regardless of what he has done, and even with regard to things reserved to the Holy See. And the laicized priest could do that even if a priest in good standing is right there in the room with him.

Canon 976 applies in such cases, and "any censures" are absolved. That's what Last Rites are all about. It's an absolute absurdity to believe that a contrite person who confesses the sin of schism cannot be absolved on his deathbed.

You're incorrect.

And "the long list" of people I mentioned, which you obviously had no knowledge of, demonstrates the fact that you don't know, one way or the other, whether any particular person is "part of the Church."

My guess is that you have probably never even heard of those saints, and even more, you didn't realize that it is even possible for the Catholic Church to venerate those people as saints.
Ultraviolet
"you didn't demonstrate a single thing about whether Archbishop Lefebvre died excommunicated."
...except show that The Pope personally confirmed Lefebvre was excommunictaed and Lefebvre died before Benedict XVI rescinded it. What part DON'T you understand?
"You have no idea whether he did, and it is not something you can demonstrate. That's a fact."
I cite The Catholic Church and that's a fact,…More
"you didn't demonstrate a single thing about whether Archbishop Lefebvre died excommunicated."

...except show that The Pope personally confirmed Lefebvre was excommunictaed and Lefebvre died before Benedict XVI rescinded it. What part DON'T you understand?

"You have no idea whether he did, and it is not something you can demonstrate. That's a fact."

I cite The Catholic Church and that's a fact, bucko.

"A non sequitur. No one said anything about his "confessor."

Except for you. First two sentences of your comment I replied to, quoted verbatim. "What knowledge do you have regarding Archbishop Lefebvre's final confession? Is it safe to assume that you're not the priest who heard his last confession?"

That priest is is his "confessor" and YOU built your argument around Abp> Lefebvre's confessor. So it isn't a "non sequitur". You don't know how that fallacy works and it shows.

"You have no idea what occurred between the archbishop and any authorities in his last days."

Burden of proof is on the person advancing a theory contrary to known facts. Which are:
1.) JP II confirmed Abp. Lefebvre was excommunicated
2.) Benedict XVI rescinded it much later, after Abp. Lefebvre was dead.

The fact BXVI did so shows the excommunication was still in effect, else the ever-punctilious BXVI wouldn NEED to rescind it. :P

"If you do, please tell the people reading this how you know that with any certainty. You won't, because you can't. You weren't privy to anything in that regard.

I just did because I can and the burden of proof is on YOU to show otherwise

If you wish to raise the issue of some mysterious private Vatican rescindment of the excommunication. YOU prove it happened.

"What Pope John Paul II stated in 1988 is irrelevant to what happened at the end of the archbishop's life"

See my last two points.

If YOU wish to claim the excommunication was rescinded at the end for Abp. Lefebvre's life, then YOU have to show proof. --because your claim is contradicted by Benedict XVI's later actions.

"Again, I state: Prove to those reading that you know for a fact he died excommunicated. And you certainly have not done so with anything written above."

I certainly have and you simply saying otherwise does not make it so.

The time-line is clear and irrefutable.Benedict XVI wouldn't NEED to rescind Lefebvre's excommunication if it had already been rescinded.

The excommunication wasn't rescinded until Benedict XVI did so. Therefore, it was still in effect at the time of Abp. Lefebvre's death.

See how easy it is to show you fail at logic as you do rhetoric?

I can and have shown, based on the history of The Church that Abp. Lefebvre was excommunicated at the time of his death.

Burden of proof is on you to show otherwise since that's what you're insinuating.
Ultraviolet
"By the way, you are also incorrect about a priest not being able to absolve the archbishop."
Absolution of sins and rescinding an excommunication from The Church are two different things.
Here's your burden of proof problem again, bro.
Cite Canon Law where " In danger of death, even a laicized priest" (your words) can rescind an excommunication confirmed by the Pope. I suggest you get cracking …More
"By the way, you are also incorrect about a priest not being able to absolve the archbishop."

Absolution of sins and rescinding an excommunication from The Church are two different things.

Here's your burden of proof problem again, bro.

Cite Canon Law where " In danger of death, even a laicized priest" (your words) can rescind an excommunication confirmed by the Pope. I suggest you get cracking on that, because I'm going to remind you of your lapse in every subsequent reply. ;-)

Your wishful thinking about Abp. Lefebvre's last hours is directly contradicted by Church history and you haven't shown a single thing in support of those fantasies.

You're also forgetting one other thing...

Given the archbishop's attitude towards the papacy, he wouldn't even NEED the Vatican to rescind his excommunication. He simply did it himself on his OWN authority just as he did with his orignal consecrations.

After all, if Abp. Lefebvre was submissive to the Pope's authority, he wouldn't have gotten himself excommunicated in the first place.

You Lefebvre fan-boys always crack me up. :D
Quo Primum shares this
5748
Scapular
He has absolved me of my sins many times. Ave Maria
salliperson
Praying.
Quo Primum
He died at 1:30 am today, 1st Saturday. 🙏 RIP
salliperson
Rest in peace Father Bourmaud.
mccallansteve
God bless him