Marcel Lefebvre: Why was he the only Archbishop to disagree?

[Pax et Caritas]

Originally Posted by cam100

You’re missing the point here. In Athanasius’ case, it had nothing do with being unjust. Rather, it had to do with the fact that the pope never willfully ordered the excommunication, so it never took place.

This is what you are saying: You are saying the, although Pope Liberius did objectively sign the excommunication, it was not valid due to subjective reasons. In other words, he was forced to sign it, which means he signed under duress. Therefore, the subjective disposition of the Pope nullified the objective act of signing the excommunication.

Well, with respect to Archbishop Lefebvre, it was similar (but the role was reversed). In the case of St. Athanasius, it was the Pope himself who determined if the excommunicaiton was valid. Therefore, the subjective state of the Pope would determine the validity. In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre (which was an ipso facto excommunication), it was the Archbishop who made the excommunication valid or invalid.

Since we are dealing with an ipso facto excommunication, which requries a subjective mortal sin, the objective act of consecrating Bishops against the will of the Pope brought about the statement of John Paul II saying that Archbishop Lefebvre incurred excommunication. But, just as the disposition of Pope Liberius nullified the excommunication of St. Athanaius, so too the subjective discposition of Archbishop Lefebvre nullified the ipso facto excommunication, since it was done out of necessity.

If John Paul II had come out and excommunication the Archbishop I could not argue with it, but he did not. The most anyone would be able to claim is that he did so under durres. All John Paul II did was declare that the Archbishop commited the act and thus incurred the ipsp facto excommunication.

I know about the “outs”, as do the experts on canon law in the Vatican, including the pope, who maintain that Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated.

You mean the same Pope who believed that the heretical and schismatic Orthodox are part of the one true Church (See the Bellamand Agreement), and should not be converted, and who believed that the "Old Covenant was never revoked by God". The same Pope who believed that a Mass containing NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION, was valid? Are you referring to that Pope?

Again, the pope is the final judge of the application of canon law, and he judged that the Lefebvre situation did not meet the criteria that would render the excommunication null.

It's more likely that John Paul II just went along with whatever the Liberals around him told him to do. They said he should sign the decree, so that is what he did.

Catholic moral theology teaches that ends do not justify the means,

That's not is not the principle that applies in this case. The principle you should be considering is the one that says "in the time of necessity there is no law".

I agree that it is never permitted to sin in the hope of brining about a good. However, we are not dealing with the natural law, or Divine positive law. We are dealing with positive ecclesiastical law, which is similar to human law. Let me give you an example.

Is it wrong to run a red light? Yes it is. However, if your wife is having a baby, it is OK to violate that law in order to get her to the hospital. Yes it is. That is not doing evil to bring about a good.

Human laws and Ecclesiastical laws are for the good of the society or the Church. When necessity requires, those laws can be violated without the person committing a sin. That is where the principle of "in the time of necessity there is no law" comes from.

so you can’t argue that the Archbishop was right because his actions produced good effects.

I didn't argue that. I am not saying he was right because the fruits are good. If anything I would say the fruits are good because he was right. The results (fruits) do not determine the goodness or malice of the act. That is determined at the time of the act and is independent of the fruits.

From a completely practical standpoint, the case can actually be made that the Archbishop’s actions hurt the traditional movement because his disobedience left a bad taste in the Vatican’s mouth and biased the officials against the movement for quite some time.

You can judge the fruits that way if you want. But if Archbishop Lefebvre would have simply retired and not persisted in his defense of the faith, the old Mass would be gone and the Church just might have been destroyed. Fortunately, God was faithful to his promise and raised up Archbishop Lefebvre the Great to save his Church, just like he did with St. Athanasius in the 4th century.

Consider this: How often did you argue with the Traditioanalists in claiming that the Old Mass had been abrogated and the pro multis meant "for all". I argued that for years, and was called all kinds of names, since Rome was saying and implying the exact contrary. Then what happened? A new Pope was elected and Rome did a complete 180 and reversed everything it had said on the subject for the previous 37 years (whcih was, of course, exactly opposite of what the Church said for the previous 1965 years.)

With the track record of John Paul II's Papacy, would anyone really be surprised if the "excommunication" of Archbishop Lefebvre was declared null and void?

[cam100]

Originally Posted by Pax et Caritas

Since we are dealing with an ipso facto excommunication, which requries a subjective mortal sin, the objective act of consecrating Bishops against the will of the Pope brought about the statement of John Paul II saying that Archbishop Lefebvre incurred excommunication. But, just as the disposition of Pope Liberius nullified the excommunication of St. Athanaius, so too the subjective discposition of Archbishop Lefebvre nullified the ipso facto excommunication, since it was done out of necessity.

I understand that necessity can override canon law. However, as the pope pointed out, it is never a necessity in any particular case to consecrate bishops. As a matter of fact, the pope didn't forbid Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate bishops, he just told him to wait.

Originally Posted by Pax et Caritas

You mean the same Pope who believed that the heretical and schismatic Orthodox are part of the one true Church (See the Bellamand Agreement), and should not be converted, and who believed that the "Old Covenant was never revoked by God". The same Pope who believed that a Mass containing NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION, was valid? Are you referring to that Pope?

I'm referring to the ONLY pope occupying the Chair of Peter at that that time. Regardless of what you think he said (and your interpretations are debateable), unless you are a sedevacantist (and think you are not), you must acknowledge that the pope continues to hold authority and is the final judge in matters of canon law.

Originally Posted by Pax et Caritas

That's not is not the principle that applies in this case. The principle you should be considering is the one that says "in the time of necessity there is no law".

This liberal interpretation of "necessesity" would let just about everyone off the hook. Refer to my comment above that it is never a necessity in any particular case to consecrate bishops.

Originally Posted by Pax et Caritas

You can judge the fruits that way if you want. But if Archbishop Lefebvre would have simply retired and not persisted in his defense of the faith, the old Mass would be gone and the Church just might have been destroyed.

He wasn't excommunicated for not retiring. He was excommunicated for rushing to consecrate bishops without papal permission.

Originally Posted by Pax et Caritas

Consider this: How often did you argue with the Traditioanalists in claiming that the Old Mass had been abrogated and the pro multis meant "for all". I argued that for years, and was called all kinds of names, since Rome was saying and implying the exact contrary. Then what happened? A new Pope was elected and Rome did a complete 180 and reversed everything it had said on the subject for the previous 37 years (whcih was, of course, exactly opposite of what the Church said for the previous 1965 years.)

Except that Pope John Paul II never said that the TLM was abogated, or that pro multis translated to "for all". And Pope Benedicty never said that the TLM wasn't previously restricted, or that pro multis had no relation to "for all". There is no contradiction.

Originally Posted by Pax et Caritas

With the track record of John Paul II's Papacy, would anyone really be surprised if the "excommunication" of Archbishop Lefebvre was declared null and void?

Yes.

[PrayforMallory]

I think this discussion is ignoring the reality of the 1970's and 80's.


Our discussions about Archbishop Lefebvre usually take a JPII vs. Archbishop Lefebvre tone.

In reality, liberal theologians and prelates had a hand in suppressing the SSPX during the pontificate of Paul VI. These same liberals also attacked the Papacy of JPII.

I'm not convinced that JPII had the level of freedom that people normally attribute to his pontificate. JPII was such a brave man, and such a stoic man, and he was such a paragon of confidence in the Church, that I think we now forget how limited his power was at the beginning of his pontificate.

With all the cries of "Saint him," that we heard just a couple of years ago, we forget that Pope John Paul II was hated by virtually the entire left, who wanted to suppress and violate ancient Church teaching regarding faith and morals. How many times, at a Catholic University, have lectures been given on how Jesus is one God among many, or that the Church can be democratized, etc. Given this reality, it becomes clear that John Paul II had to deal with an extremely volatile situation, and fortunately for the Chuch, he had a heroic character to aid him.

This crisis is due to the pontificate of Paul VI, and Paul VI's inability to be decisive.

It was in the pontificate of Paul VI that the traditional Mass was suppressed. It was in the pontificate of Paul VI that heterodox theologians were granted free reign, and it was during the pontificate of Paul VI that even heterodox prelates like Suenens were allowed to tromp all over the Church, creating the problems of heterodoxy we have today, such as the popularity of Hans Kung and others.

These same heterodox people were behind the suppression of the SSPX before the 1988 consecrations. They were hellbent on pushing the SSPX into schism, not to defend the Mass of Paul VI, not to defend religious liberty, but to attack the timeless teachings of the Magisterium on faith and morals, in particular abortion, birth control, homosexuality, the economic system, etc.

That was why, in my opinion, Pope John Paul II had to focus so much on life issues. It was during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II that human life was defended from the throne. I think traditionalists (and non-traditionalists) should really step back and realize how much danger there was in the Church in 1988. Fortunately, God sent Pope John Paul II Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, to enforce the Church's teaching and to take the brunt of heterodox assaults, so that he could effectively pastor faithful people during an unprecedented crisis of faith. I think a passage from the book "American Catholic," written by liberal Church historian Charles Morris best illustrates the scope of the crisis, and the steps to renew the Church's discipline and orthodoxy in the wake of it:

"By 1970 "new theology" meant a very different thing from what it meant at Vatican II. For Ratzinger, in particular, who was considered a progressive at the Council, the "road back to traditionalism could appear the only way to escape a theological disintegration." Whatever the motivation, the Vatican's reactions have steadily escalated from expressions of concern to increasingly heavy-handed interventions, and most recently (1997), to what could reasonably be construed as a declaration of all out war."

"A gradual hardening Vatican line on theological heterodoxy was evident by the mid-1970's. Policy toughened further when John Paul II assumed the Papacy in 1978, and even more so after Cardinal Ratzinger took over the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's ideological bureau, in 1982. Pope Paul had decentralized Curial operations after the Council, but in the new regime, there was a steady recentralization, and by 1989 Ratzinger had regained more or less all the power that Ottaviani had enjoyed. Edward Schillebeeckx's Christology was subjected to detailed, hostile examinations in the late 1970's, and Hans Kung was forbidden to represent himself as a Catholic theologian, mostly because of his challenge to the doctrine of papal infallibility........................... ........................................ ...........
.................... There was also a crackdown on the ultraright French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who eventually led a traditionalist schismatic movement."


What would the supporters of Kung and Schillebeeckx say if Lefebvre wasn't punished? What would the heterodox theologians have said when they were punished for dissent, while Lefebvre was given a free hand? John Paul II was a very intellectual man. He knew Lefebvre would need more than one bishop, it's common sense, and he knew Lefebvre was sure of his faith and his position, and would consecrate more than one anyway, and remain unphased by the excommunication.

This is just my opinion, but I think given the situation, Marcel Lefebvre "took one for the team." Kung and Schillebeeckx don't have any credibility anymore, and Lefebvre's excommunication can be lifted without difficulty, if the SSPX agrees to play ball. The traditionalists who were regularized apparently only had to accept Lumen Gentium, if someone was correct on this forum.

[Dempsey1919]

This is just my opinion, but I think given the situation, Marcel Lefebvre "took one for the team." Kung and Schillebeeckx don't have any credibility anymore, and Lefebvre's excommunication can be lifted without difficulty, if the SSPX agrees to play ball. The traditionalists who were regularized apparently only had to accept Lumen Gentium, if someone was correct on this forum.

This is a very interesting way of looking at things. I think there is a lot of sense in what you have written.

The problems with the SSPX could evaporate in a matter of weeks. All Bishop Fellay has to do is be willing to compromise with the Holy Father. Pope Benedict XVI is doing all he can to bring them back, all they need to do now is accept his invitation.

[ChristopherM]

wow
what an interesting thread.. thanks for the great reading.

I can't believe how awful the 70's must have been for the church. I was born in '84 and by the grace of God raised in a Catholic home with traditions and in a small town Catholic school that taught the faith as it should be- it wasn't a full on Latin, and traditional school. Yet we did have daily mass!

I digress..

I pray that the SSPX comes back soon! I for one am of the mind that they can do much better work with full communion from Rome than in their imperfect communion state

[piojunbabia]

Originally Posted by Dempsey1919

What do you mean by this?

The FSSP recognize the validity of the OF as did Marcel Lefebvre. Lefebvre never stated that the Pauline Mass was invalid. Rather, he stated that the EF was superior because it more perfectly articulated true Catholic doctrine.

The OF certainly is valid and the FSSP recognise this truth. However, the FSSP obviously prefer the EF but do not look for the supression of another perfectly valid Mass.

I ask apology for my statement.

What i was trying to say is that they have the tendency to believe that OF and EF is of the same value (tendency because they compromised and "required" to accept the teachings of V2) wihch is i think they really are not the same in value. I dont really know about the stand of FSSP regarding this matter and i am just speculating due to the fact that FSSP had compromised. Please correct me if im wrong and i have no bad intentions about my comments. I admit to the fact that I know nothing about the true stand of FSSP regarding their acceptance of V2 but correct me if im wrong. Did Archbishop Lefebvre rejection of V2 has some weird or evil intentions? He just did it for Catholic's truth sake. Please know also the true stand of SSPX why they cannot accept V2..Fair? For objective truth's sake.

We are all under one roof, Catholicism, under the Pope as our head, but arguments is inevitable due to V2 departure of the Catholic doctrines.Its true.

by the way, do FSSP celebrate the OF?

-not an official SSPX statement

Ave Maria!

[piojunbabia]

Originally Posted by LJN21

Not at all.

They believe the NO is a valid Mass, it seems to me they tend to think the TLM is better or they would not dedicate their lives to promulgate it.

That is just pure poppycock.

Right, Satanist.. seriously is that what SSPX is teaching now days?

Yes and lying and calling a group of people Satanist is wrong.

and they tend to agree that all religions are equal.

what i was trying to say: since they accepted V2, then they also accept the V2 teachings that all relgions are equal. Documents can be found in Ecumenism (note: Not only Christian religions are included in this "all" but also other non-Christian religions eg. Bud. Isalm, Jewish, even pagan religions, etc.) Since they accept v2, then they also acept this ecumenism. ( Again, I am not sure about their true stand regarding their acceptance of V2 so correct me if im wrong. I am just speculating due to the fact that they accept v2. Including other errors of V2. I think its comprehensible.

Poppycock? ur so mean...please comprehend my statement.

Originally Posted by piojunbabia

I wonder if these ALL include Satanist, But SSPX had firm belief in oure Catholic teaching pure Catholic faith. No compromise, wrong is wrong!

Originally Posted by LJN21

Right, SAtansit.. seriously is that what SSPX is teaching now days..

Yes and lying and calling a group of people Satanist is wrong.

Did i say that some groups are Satanist?, please re-read again and again my statement twice repeatedly all over again. I said that " I wonder if this "ALL", includes Satanist - I never mentioned that somebody or any group here belongs to Satanist. I think there wasnt any offensive by that statement of mine.I'd like to explain it to you in my dialect so that i could explain beter but u sure couldnt understand.

The SSPX had nothing to do about my statement. It is my personal opinion. I ( me not the SSPX) was just wondering if Satanist is included in the "ALL" (since V2 said "ALL religions are equal" something like that.but they[SSPX] never teach us that way.

-not an official SSPX statement!

Ave Maria!

[LJN21]

Originally Posted by piojunbabia

I ask apology for my statement.

What i was trying to say is that they have the tendency to believe that OF and EF is of the same value (tendency because they compromised and "required" to accept the teachings of V2)
wihch is i think they really are not the same in value.

Out of curiosity, where are you getting this stuff?

No FSSP priest I know things the OF and the EF are of the same "value", why wouldn't they just becomes OF priest then? They believe the OF is valid, but don't tend to think its of the same "value".

I'm also confused about being required to accept the teaching of V2. V2 didn't really teach anything, one of the documents is on ecumenical nonsenses (problem going to get flamed for that comment) but none of it is infallible or binding.

Originally Posted by piojunbabia

I dont really know about the stand of FSSP regarding this matter and i am just speculating due to the fact that FSSP had compromised.

Compromised, Again what makes you say that? So far all of your statements supporting that idea are blatantly false.

Originally Posted by piojunbabia

Please correct me if im wrong and i have no bad intentions about my comments. I admit to the fact that I know nothing about the true stand of FSSP regarding their acceptance of V2 but correct me if im wrong. Did Archbishop Lefebvre rejection of V2 has some weird or evil intentions?

It wasn't rejecting V2 that got Lefebvre in trouble, it was consecrating bishops when the pope told him not to. It was an act of disobedience to the proper authority.

Originally Posted by piojunbabia

He just did it for Catholic's truth sake. Please know also the true stand of SSPX why they cannot accept V2..Fair? For objective truth's sake.

What? How does V2 even apply to anyone celebrating the Old Mass? How is there anything in V2 that effects the teachings of the Church?

Originally Posted by piojunbabia

We are all under one roof, Catholicism, under the Pope as our head, but arguments is inevitable due to V2 departure of the Catholic doctrines.Its true.

Yes, the "Spirit of Vatican 2" made a lot of people think it change its doctrines but the fact of the matter is they can't change, V2 was not infallible, nor were the documents, nor did any of it actually change Church teaching.

Originally Posted by piojunbabia

by the way, do FSSP celebrate the OF?

No

[LJN21]

Originally Posted by piojunbabia

and they tend to agree that all religions are equal.

what i was trying to say: since they accepted V2, then they also accept the V2 teachings that all relgions are equal. Documents can be found in Ecumenism (note: Not only Christian religions are included in this "all" but also other non-Christian religions eg. Bud. Isalm, Jewish, even pagan religions, etc.) Since they accept v2, then they also acept this ecumenism. ( Again, I am not sure about their true stand regarding their acceptance of V2 so correct me if im wrong. I am just speculating due to the fact that they accept v2. Including other errors of V2. I think its comprehensible.

Poppycock? ur so mean...please comprehend my statement.

The part in bold is pure poppycock.

All religions are not equal. The Church has never taught that and the FSSP certainly do not remotely believe that.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Pax et Caritas

I have no doubt at all that when this crisis is over, Lefebvre will be proven right and canonized.

Oh, he may be a saint but I don't know if he will ever be canonized.

Anyway, everyone who loves and appreciates the Traditional Latin Mass, now called the Extraordinary Form, owes him a debt of gratitude and some prayers.

He saved it.

[Aramis]

Originally Posted by Dempsey1919

In the years preceding the Second Vatican Council, Marcel Lefebvre was a faithful Catholic in high standing. He was a close friend of Pius XII and held many high ranking positions within the Church. He was even involved in the drafting of the original schemata of the Second Vatican Council. He was present at the Council from the beginning until the end. At that time, Lefebvre was part of the mainstream and seemed to enjoy the favor of the two pre Vatican II popes.

Why was he the only Archbishop who had problems with Vatican II? Why did none of his contemporaries take the same action that he did? Surely they would have agreed with his objections.

Lefebvre always said he was simply defending the faith as it was given to him. He also stated his dismay that many of his peers within the Church were educated in the same way he was. If there were others within the Church who received the same priestly formation as him, why didn't they take a stand with him?

The thing that bothers me about the SSPX is that they claim to be the only ones who defended the true Catholic faith in the days after the Council. Many of their claims sound like conspiracy theories. They also state that many within the Church at the time supported them but could not do so in a public way. Why couldn't they support the work of Lefebvre? Especially when it became apparent that his opponents were seeking to destroy him? If they agreed with Lefebvre, why didn't they help to clear his name?

Some of Lefebvre's claims don't sit right with me. I don't understand why he was the only one out of thousands of clergy to take the actions he did.

I assure you, not all archbishops agree with V II... but the rest acceded to the Holy Mother Church's decision... mostly. A few others quietly resigned, from what I've read.

Only Archbishop Lefebvre created material schism over it.

[Dempsey1919]

I assure you, not all archbishops agree with V II... but the rest acceded to the Holy Mother Church's decision... mostly. A few others quietly resigned, from what I've read.

Only Archbishop Lefebvre created material schism over it.

Who else disagreed? And what did they disagree with?

I don't understand the lack of support Lefebvre received. If he was correct, why didn't more people stand up for the truth? Surely the truth is the most important thing, far more important than offending the other clergy?

We can all see that Lefebvre was unfairly treated in the early 1970's. However, his later actions were wrong. The more he resisted, the more disobedient he became.

While I thank Archbishop Lefebvre for saving the Tridentine Mass, I think he confused changeable liturgical traditions with the unchangeable TRADITION which forms part of Divine Revelation.

[Sepharad]

This is a little off-topic, just wanted to mention this without starting a new thread just about it.

I was watching a VHS documentary earlier today which I recently got,about the Waldensians (medieval Italian Protestants persecuted by Pope Innocent III, I think it was.)

Anyway, during the documentary they showed some footage from a Catholic High Mass in modern times, and I did a doubletake because after re-winding it a couple of times, I can now say for sure it was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the footage!

I guess they chose SSPX footage because they wanted the clip to seem "really" Catholic (with all the ceremonies,etc)?

[Timothysis]

Can someone explain to me why an excommunicated bishop would ever be sainted by the Church? Most tend to ignore the fact that the Archbishop's excommunication had to do with DISOBEDIENCE, not saying the TLM. As stated above, he excommunicated himself; why should this ever be lifted?

Can you also explain to me how he "saved" the TLM? My parish has been having the indult TLM since 1983, 5 years before the Archbishop was excommunicated. I'll bet that you would be lucky to find 1 out of 100 church-going Catholics who know anything of the sspx, much less have even ever heard of it.

[Gottle of Geer]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

Oh, he may be a saint but I don't know if he will ever be canonized.

## There's nothing to prevent those who feel led to do so from praying to him - that's how causes get off the ground.

Anyway, everyone who loves and appreciates the Traditional Latin Mass, now called the Extraordinary Form, owes him a debt of gratitude and some prayers.

He saved it.