Abp. Lefebvre and Vatican II

[DavidPalm]

Over in another thread, a supporter of Abp. Lefevbre wrote:

In a healthier Church Archbishop Lefebvre would be the hero, rather than the villan [sic]; . . . One more reason to thank God for giving us Archbishop Lefebvre who cared enough about the Mass and the faith that goes along with it, to take actions to preserve them that caused his a tremendous amount of difficulties in this life (but a great reward in heaven).

We will recognize health returning to the Church when the Pope finally admits that the banning of the Mass was a lie (Oh yeah, he already did that), and when the “ecommunications” [sic] of the SSPX are lifted (right, that too has been done), the finally when Vatican II and its “reforms” are condemned and the council itself is tossed into the trash can where they belong. Let us pray for that glorious day.

The problem with Vatican II is not that it is being misinderpreted. The problem is that it is being interpreted as it was written, and as it is written it teaches explicitly what has been condemned by the Church - and I am ready and willing to back up that statement. The only way to not arrive at a heretical interpretation of Vatican II is by twisting its words to make them fit with what the Church has always taught, and this task is either impossible, or almost impossible.

This sort of thing has come up any number of times on this forum. In answer to this, I would point out the undisputed fact that Abp. Lefebvre signed all of the documents of Vatican II with his own hand.

Here are the options as I see them:

1. Abp. Lefebvre was so addled that he couldn’t see the explicit heresy that even his lowly lay followers can plainly see, marking him as an incompetent.
2. Abp. Lefevbre didn’t actually read the documents he was signing but signed anyway, marking him as slovenly, careless, and incompetent.
3. Abp. Lefevbre knew that what he was going to sign contained explicit heresy but he signed anyway out of deference to the Pope and/or his colleagues, marking him as a sycophant and incompetent.
4. Abp. Lefevbre and the other traditionally minded bishops at Vatican II believed that the documents of Vatican II, despite remaining difficulties and despite questions about their note of authority, admitted of an orthodox interpretation, marking him as a competent bishop.

Take your pick. Or is there perhaps another explanation? The central fact remains, he signed them all and that fact must be dealt with.

I propose that if certain followers of Abp. Lefebvre are waiting for “the day [Vatican II’s] ‘reforms’ are condemned and the council itself is tossed into the trash” and will be content with nothing less, then they will indeed be disappointed. It’s not going to happen that way and if that’s the only thing that will satisfy them then they will inevitably go well and truly into schism and reap the eternal consequences of schismatics.

What say you?

 

[maurin]

A couple of things to keep in mind:

1. The Documents of the Second Vatican Council, according to Archbishop Lefebvre, CAN be read in the light of Tradition.
2. There were many promises made–officially–by Pope Paul VI that the Canon would not only not be changed, but it would never be prayed in the vernacular. Ad Orientum posture would remain in usage.
3. The Archbishop spoke out strongly against what he termed “the Time Bombs” within the Documents themselves that allowed much of what we see today.
4. Hindsight is 20-20. The Society was not formed until well after the Council itself concluded.

Of course, I may not have gotten much of the above absolutely correct, and I do concede that some cleaning up of what I have written may be called for, but I do believe the gist of what I have written is correct, although it may be inadequate.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Vatican II defined no new dogma, and no dogmas developed during the Council. The fact is that Vatican II was pastoral, not doctrinal. The documents of Vatican II, in my opinion, merely express the doctrines of the Faith in a more positive manner.

Vatican II was a valid ecumenical Council. It was attended by thousands of Bishops from around the world. Are we supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit wasn’t there to guide the legitimate Successors of the Apostles? The Holy Spirit promised to protect the Church, and be with her until the end of time. Traditionalists who question the validity of Vatican II are calling the Lord a liar. He promised to lead us into all truth until the end of time. He was there at Vatican II. And he safeguarded his Vicar and those united with him from preaching and teaching heresy.

With that said, the Council has been used to justify all manner of abuses. Many reforms that came in the wake of the Council in the name of Vatican II were false. They had nothing to do with the Council. The people doing the reforming used the Council as an excuse to do whatever they wanted. Ignorance of what the Council actually says is a problem. The laypeople need to read the documents for themselves. Only then will they see that the Church has been lead astray by people who are using the Council to justify anything and everything.

 

[Brian777]

Vatican II defined no new dogma, and no dogmas developed during the Council. The fact is that Vatican II was pastoral, not doctrinal. The documents of Vatican II, in my opinion, merely express the doctrines of the Faith in a more positive manner.

Vatican II was a valid ecumenical Council. It was attended by thousands of Bishops from around the world. Are we supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit wasn’t there to guide the legitimate Successors of the Apostles? The Holy Spirit promised to protect the Church, and be with her until the end of time. Traditionalists who question the validity of Vatican II are calling the Lord a liar. He promised to lead us into all truth until the end of time. He was there at Vatican II. And he safeguarded his Vicar and those united with him from preaching and teaching heresy.

Amen Alleluia!

With that said, the Council has been used to justify all manner of abuses. Many reforms that came in the wake of the Council in the name of Vatican II were false. They had nothing to do with the Council. The people doing the reforming used the Council as an excuse to do whatever they wanted. Ignorance of what the Council actually says is a problem. The laypeople need to read the documents for themselves. Only then will they see that the Church has been lead astray by people who are using the Council to justify anything and everything.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Over in another thread, a supporter of Abp. Lefevbre wrote:

Here are the options as I see them:

1. Abp. Lefebvre was so addled that he couldn’t see the explicit heresy that even his lowly lay followers can plainly see, marking him as an incompetent.
2. Abp. Lefevbre didn’t actually read the documents he was signing but signed anyway, marking him as slovenly, careless, and incompetent.
3. Abp. Lefevbre knew that what he was going to sign contained explicit heresy but he signed anyway out of deference to the Pope and/or his colleagues, marking him as a sycophant and incompetent.
4. Abp. Lefevbre and the other traditionally minded bishops at Vatican II believed that the documents of Vatican II, despite remaining difficulties and despite questions about their note of authority, admitted of an orthodox interpretation, marking him as a competent bishop.

Take your pick. Or is there perhaps another explanation? The central fact remains, he signed them all and that fact must be dealt with.

A few comments. First, Archbishop Lefebvre said he DID NOT sign the document on religious liberty. When presented with the document that circulates the interenet he said “I was there, I know if I signed the document or not”. He went on to say that there was some kind of roster that all present signed, which is what he signed. He stated that he voted against the document on religious liberty every occaision. That is what Archbishop Lefebvre himself said.

Now, I have read something a little different from one of the other SSPX Bishops. I’d have to re-read it, but I thought he said that Archbishop Lefebvre did sign the document on religious liberty, but that he did so in deference to the Pope, even though he himself voted against it in each of the votes. But this is NOT what Archbishop Lefebvre himself said.

I propose that if certain followers of Abp. Lefebvre are waiting for “the day [Vatican II’s] ‘reforms’ are condemned and the council itself is tossed into the trash” and will be content with nothing less, then they will indeed be disappointed.

I disagree. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. God allowed the Arian crisis, in which, according to Fr. Jerfins who edited the book Faith of Our Fathers, between 97 and 99% of the Bishops fell into the Arian heresy, and he allowed the Great Schism in which there were three men claiming to be the Pope - with most of the Cardinal following an anti-Pope; and worst of all he has allowed Vatican II and its aftermath. But just as the Church recovered from difficult times in the past, so too will it survive Vatican II, in spite of Vatican II.

It’s not going to happen that way

Do you pretend to possess some kind of Divine knowledge of the future events that average mortals do not, or is there merely you fallible opinion that is worth very little?

and if that’s the only thing that will satisfy them then they will inevitably go well and truly into schism and reap the eternal consequences of schismatics.

Just as St. Athanasius, who, by all appearances was an excommunicated schimsmatic, was proven correct by holding to the teaching of the Fathers (and contrary to virtually every Bishop of his day - being condemned by a council of 300 Bishops), so too will the Traditionalist in our day.

This, in fact, has already begun. Consider that Pope Paul VI and John Paul II the Great both used their office as Pope to supress the Traditional Mass and impose, as a necessity, the Protestantised Novus Ordo - **that had the wong words of consecration in the vernacular. ** For years the Traditionalists were criticized and ridiculed for claiming that the old Mass was never abrogated, ans was actually permitted. Their opponents would argue *“if the old Mass was never abrogated, why would John Paul II have issued an indult for it, since an indult is special permission to do what is not legal? Do you claim to know better than the Pope” *. Then came Summorum Pontificum and their arguments ceased along with any mention of their previous position. The blind followers of the blind were exposed once again and they were left in a state of embarrasement.

These same blind followers of the blind (Jimmy Akin comes to mind) defended the erroneous translation of “pro multis” (basing himself of the erroneous document Rome issued in 1971, or was it '73) to argue that “for all” was the correct translation of “pro multis”. Once again he, and the others “who loved not the truth”, were put to shame when Rome issued, back in '05, the document stating that “for all” was the incorrect translation and giving the Bishops two years to correct it - which of course they never did.

God may allow errors to persist for good and just reasons, but he exposes them in His good time. Fortunately, he leaves a small remnant who are able to see the errors for what they are from the beginning, in order to preserve the true faith which will come back stronger than ever.

Thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre, for example, we still have the Traditional Mass, which is not making a comeback and producing the fruits that would be expected. Soon the day will come when Vatican II will be exposed and the true faith will return, and bring the fruits that will be expected. For now we will have to continue to deal with the false ecumenism of Kasper, for example - who is the Popes point man for promoting that error.

I could on on to discuss the heretical Taize community (a religious comminity of Catholics and heretics living together as “one” - “a true communion of the unholy” (as Ann Catherine Emmerick puts it), but I’ll stop here for now.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Either the Church, our Church, including Vat II, is led by the Holy Spirit or it isn’t. I say it is. The document Mysterium Fidei vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html is a defense of the Real Presence in the Eucharist that some at the council wished to object to and reject.

This is not a conciliar document but was released at the same time as the council and shows Pope Paul VI to be a defender of the faith as does Humanae Vitae. The changes within the Mass (with reason, Lifeteen!, and if approved by that same Church) that lead more people to the Catholic Faith is good in these times leading to the Return of the Bridegroom.

 

[Timothysis]

the Protestantised Novus Ordo - **that had the wong words of consecration in the vernacular. **

Are you aware that there are no definitive formulas of consecration? For every rite that the Church recognizes as valid there are differing formulas of consecration, none of which contain word for word copies as employed in the latin missal. To say that the words used are “wrong” implies that no consecration has taken place. Are you saying that the consecration in a Pauline Mass is invalid because the celebrating priest is using the [your words] “wrong” words???

I am constantly amazed at the mindset here that treats the words of a prayer as some sort of “magical spell” which makes things happen only by the virtue of the words used, instead of the intention of the one celebrating. It has been argued that the only essential words to have a valid consecration are “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” Would you suggest that it is not valid because “many” isn’t used?

 

[eelpis]

Who cares what a dead old Frenchman thought about the council. Let’s pray for the repose of his soul instead and let’s leave the government of the Church to the pope.

He was just an archbishop and although some of his citicisms were valid some just went totally over the line, he argued a bit like Luther… pope being the Antichrist and all…

 

[Yours_Truly]

Are you aware that there are no definitive formulas of consecration? For every rite that the Church recognizes as valid there are differing formulas of consecration, none of which contain word for word copies as employed in the latin missal. To say that the words used are “wrong” implies that no consecration has taken place. Are you saying that the consecration in a Pauline Mass is invalid because the celebrating priest is using the [your words] “wrong” words???

Setting aside the Council of Florence for now (we can come back to this if you want), here’s what the Roman Catechism of Trent teaches. Be sure to notice what it says about the words “for all”, which is the incorrect translation used for the consecration is the Novus Ordo Mass.

Catechism of Trent:

Form Of The Eucharist …

**Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine **

With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

**Concerning this form no one can doubt, **if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form. …

**Explanation Of The Form Used In The Consecration Of The Wine **

Since these very words of consecration are replete with mysteries and most appropriately suitable to the subject, they demand a more minute consideration. …

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. **For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. **When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.

So according to the teaching of the Church, by translating pro multis as “for all” teaches universal salvation, since the words in question do not refer to those for whom our Lord died, by only for those who will actually be saved: the fruit of His Passion - the elect. Thus, the words “for all” are not only wrong, they are heretical because they express a false teaching that is rampant in the Church today - the teaching of universal salvation.

Timothysis:

I am constantly amazed at the mindset here that treats the words of a prayer as some sort of “magical spell” which makes things happen only by the virtue of the words used, instead of the intention of the one celebrating.

It is both the “magical words” and the intention. If either one is lacking the sacrament is invalid. It is not one or the other that is necessary, but both.

Timothysis:

It has been argued that the only essential words to have a valid consecration are “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” Would you suggest that it is not valid because “many” isn’t used?

I won’t respond to that part yet. I’ll waite and see if you respond to the quote from the Catechism first. But I will warn you, you probably don’t want to see my reply to that question, since the reply will not be merely my words, but instead those of an infallible General Council of the Church.

 

[eelpis]

If the words of consecration in the Roman Missal of 2002 would be invalid the Church would have defected and the gates of hell prevailed.

Thanks be to God, that is not the way it is.

 

[DavidPalm]

If the words of consecration in the Roman Missal of 2002 would be invalid the Church would have defected and the gates of hell prevailed.

Thanks be to God, that is not the way it is.

Strictly speaking, the English translation of the Mass is not protected by the promises of our Lord to protect His Church; translations into the vernacular can be in error. And indeed, there was a clearly erroneous translation in this case, as the Vatican has now admitted. Did it invalidate the consecration? Good arguments have been made to say No. But the fact is that the official text of the Novus Ordo has always said pro multis = “for many” and that is ultimately all that matters.

I’ll get to YT’s arguments with respect to Abp. Lefebvre as I can. God bless.

 

[Dauphin]

I think Vatican II should be forgotten, like Lateran V.

The Traditional Latin Mass is free and we can’t be condemned for simply teaching Catholic doctrine exactly as it was before the Council. So, let’s just get on with being Catholic.

 

[eelpis]

Strictly speaking, the English translation of the Mass is not protected by the promises of our Lord to protect His Church; translations into the vernacular can be in error. And indeed, there was a clearly erroneous translation in this case, as the Vatican has now admitted. Did it invalidate the consecration? Good arguments have been made to say No. But the fact is that the official text of the Novus Ordo has always said pro multis = “for many” and that is ultimately all that matters.

I’ll get to YT’s arguments with respect to Abp. Lefebvre as I can. God bless.

The Latin does not say “mysterium fidei” either, anymore and guess what it’s still valid.

 

[DavidPalm]

I think Vatican II should be forgotten, like Lateran V.

The Traditional Latin Mass is free and we can’t be condemned for simply teaching Catholic doctrine exactly as it was before the Council. So, let’s just get on with being Catholic.

I tend to agree with this approach. An ecumenical council of the Church isn’t going to be formally and publicly condemned, as YT would wish for. But it can eventually be more or less, forgotten. That would probably be best in this instance.

 

[eelpis]

I think Vatican II should be forgotten, like Lateran V.

The Traditional Latin Mass is free and we can’t be condemned for simply teaching Catholic doctrine exactly as it was before the Council. So, let’s just get on with being Catholic.

There will be another council and another and so on, so what’s the big deal?

Vatican II gave us no definitions, no new teachings, just a new approach that seems to be outmoded already.

Or might it be that we have not seen it implemented yet?

Collegiality, Ecumenism and religious freedom. An aggiornamento of how the Church sees herself. I think I’m getting on to something here. Ooops, I think I’ve stopped being a Traditional Catholic. Deo gratias!!!

I like the EF but I totally support Vatican II because it’s the Catholic truth.

 

[Timothysis]

Thus, the words “for all” are not only wrong, they are heretical because they express a false teaching that is rampant in the Church today - the teaching of universal salvation.

I take it you maintain that Mass as celebrated according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI is invalid, then?

Thank you for your time.

 

[Dauphin]

I take it you maintain that Mass as celebrated according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI is invalid, then?

Thank you for your time.

I won’t get involved in the argument, but the Missal of Paul VI didn’t contain the words “pro omnibus”. The consecration instead contains the words “pro multis”.

The Mass commonly celebrated in English today is not according to the Missal of Paul VI.

 

[Timothysis]

I won’t get involved in the argument, but the Missal of Paul VI didn’t contain the words “pro omnibus”. The consecration instead contains the words “pro multis”.

From The Eucharist, The Heart of Life by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

*What, then, should we make of the new translation? Both formulations, “for all” and “for many”, are found in Scripture and in tradition. Each expresses one aspect of the matter: on one hand, the all-embracing salvation inherent in the death of Christ, which he suffered for all men; on the other hand, the freedom to refuse, as setting a limit to salvation. Neither of the two formulae can express the whole of this; each needs correct interpretation, which sets it in the context of the Christian gospel as a whole. I leave open the question of whether it was sensible to choose the translation “for all” here and, thus, to confuse translation with interpretation, at a point at which the process of interpretation re- mains in any case indispensable. [10] There can be no question of misrepresentation here, since whichever of the formulations is allowed to stand, we must in any case listen to the whole of the gospel message: that the Lord truly loves everyone and that he died for all. And the other aspect: that he does not, by some magic trick, set aside our freedom but allows us to choose to enter into his great mercy. *

The Mass commonly celebrated in English today is not according to the Missal of Paul VI.

I find this statement to be confusing. The Mass I attend adheres to the missal; how is it not according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI?

 

[Frosty]

The Mass commonly celebrated in English today is not according to the Missal of Paul VI.

So, are you implying that the tens of millions of Catholics in the English speaking world who attend and have attended the Mass of PaulVI over the years have actually been assisting at an invalid Mass and therefore have not received any of the sanctifying graces inherent in the Mass? Wow, what a cruel joke on us!

 

[Dauphin]

From The Eucharist, The Heart of Life by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

What, then, should we make of the new translation? Both formulations, “for all” and “for many”, are found in Scripture and in tradition. Each expresses one aspect of the matter: on one hand, the all-embracing salvation inherent in the death of Christ, which he suffered for all men; on the other hand, the freedom to refuse, as setting a limit to salvation. Neither of the two formulae can express the whole of this; each needs correct interpretation, which sets it in the context of the Christian gospel as a whole. I leave open the question of whether it was sensible to choose the translation “for all” here and, thus, to confuse translation with interpretation, at a point at which the process of interpretation re- mains in any case indispensable. [10] There can be no question of misrepresentation here, since whichever of the formulations is allowed to stand, we must in any case listen to the whole of the gospel message: that the Lord truly loves everyone and that he died for all. And the other aspect: that he does not, by some magic trick, set aside our freedom but allows us to choose to enter into his great mercy.

Right, but that doesn’t mean “for all” is contained in the missal of Paul VI. It plainly isn’t.

I find this statement to be confusing. The Mass I attend adheres to the missal; how is it not according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI?

The Missal of Paul VI contains the words “for many”. When the words “for all” are used, this missal is not being adhered to.