Archbishop Lefebvre

[latinmasslover]

What a very Catholic attitude you have.

That statement was more Catholic than denying facts. Anyway, you’re essentially calling all Catholics and nonCatholics who’ve witnessed these abuses liars. You ever witnessed a murder? If not, it must never happen, yes? See how ridiculous it sounds?

 

[Timothysis]

That statement was more Catholic than denying facts. Anyway, you’re essentially calling all Catholics and nonCatholics who’ve witnessed these abuses liars. You ever witnessed a murder? If not, it must never happen, yes? See how ridiculous it sounds?

Nothing can sound as ridiculous as this post of yours.

 

[cathguy]

Nothing can sound as ridiculous as this post of yours.

Any support for this statement Tim? I am not saying I entirely disagree with you. I am just saying that you are making unsubstantiated statements quite a bit.

 

[Timothysis]

Any support for this statement Tim? I am not saying I entirely disagree with you. I am just saying that you are making unsubstantiated statements quite a bit.

Why should I have to “substantiate” that I have not seen one of the abuses as posted earlier? For saying so I had someone hope to declare “open season” on me. Are you telling me that is a “catholic” attitude?

Then I was accused of "calling all Catholics and nonCatholics who’ve witnessed these abuses liars" and then am accused of being “ridiculous.”

Finally, you ask me for “support” about my opinion thinking that all of this is “ridiculous.”

Prey, what “support” would you like to see? Would the attitude of the good catholics here suffice?

 

[cathguy]

Why should I have to “substantiate” that I have not seen one of the abuses as posted earlier? For saying so I had someone hope to declare “open season” on me. Are you telling me that is a “catholic” attitude?

Then I was accused of "calling all Catholics and nonCatholics who’ve witnessed these abuses liars" and then am accused of being “ridiculous.”

Finally, you ask me for “support” about my opinion thinking that all of this is “ridiculous.”

Prey, what “support” would you like to see? Would the attitude of the good catholics here suffice?

Huh?

Tim, brother, you aren’t making any sense.

Look, I asked you to substantiate why you thought the prior poster’s comment was rediculous. I did NOT ask you substantiate that you haven’t seen these abuses. In fact, I will grant you that as a given.

However, when someone posted their concerns with the abuses they had seen, you DID call them a liar. “I don’t believe you at all” is what I believe you said.

You have engaged in plenty of name calling too.

Why?

What is it about the fact the many have experienced abuses in the Church you find so difficult?

 

[Virgile]

Hello Tim,

This is Virgile.
I’m not surprised by the fact that you do not believe one word of my post.
As a matter of fact these stories are really unbelievabal.
When I remember the 15 years I spent trying to become a priest (15 years of my life), I have myself some difficulty to believe that all of this really happened.
Just one more thing. I never was a supporter of Mgr Lefebvre, and I never went to a latin Mass (even a Paul VI Mass). I just was an ordinary catholic, and I was persecuted precisely because of my very odinary catholic faith.
I now will explain the word “persecuted” to you, and it will be simple to understand. I was a very strong man, but the whole thing finished with a depressive man taking medicine for years.
I’m still not a supporter of Mgr Lefebvre, and I do not go to a Latin Mass. I go to church of my parish… and you would not believe what the priest there has to say about SS Benedict XVI.
No, probably, you would not believe it. Because this also is unbelievable.

V.

 

[latinmasslover]

Nothing can sound as ridiculous as this post of yours.

That’s the best you can come up with? Apparently I hit a nerve…hard. So sorry. Here’s a hint: reread your posts on this thread and quit making yourself a martyr.

 

[cathguy]

That’s the best you can come up with? Apparently I hit a nerve…hard. So sorry. Here’s a hint: reread your posts on this thread and quit making yourself a martyr.

 

[Virgile]

I do not think that Tim is making of himself a martyr.

I would say that he is a catholic man, and certainly a very honest one, who just can’t believe one word of my post.
I have no problem whith that. He did not write that I was a liar and I suppose that he had no intention to mean that.
Simply speaking, we did not had exactly the same experience in the Church and we did not saw the same things. That’s all.
He is a lucky man, in a way, and I am very happy for him.

The initial question was why Mgr Lefebvre did what he did? My first post was to try to give an explanation with some examples taken in my personal experience.

If someone ask why did Mgr Lefebvre asked the Pope Paul VI something like “give us back our catholic catechism”, then what could be the answer?

Well, because, may be, he felt or thought that there was not anymore any catholic catechism in France at that time. Who knows?

Then I remember the day when I was dismissed from my position as a religious teacher in a catholic school (in 1989) for the reason that I repeatedly asked the students to make the sign of Cross at the beginning of the course.

You do believe that or you do not, the problem is still there.
Still remains the question, why Mgr Lefebvre dit what he did and for what reasons?

If you try honestly to find these reasons, Tim, you will have to listen to people with a different experience than yours. Even if you do not believe them, just listen to what they have to say. And try to understand them. This is very important for them and may be for you.

V.

 

[otjm]

I’m wondering why Archbishop Lefebvre started the SSPX and ordained new priests. Why did he do this? What was the purpose?

Part of whatr wwould help understanding this would be to immerse oneself in the recent past hsitory of France, going back about 200+ years.

One of the things that is truly amazing is the lack of any knowledge of, let alone any understanding of, the intertwining of the Church with political structures in Europe. That has made for a truly interesting stew, one that we in the US have no coantact with at all on a daily, weekly, of even life time of living in a completely different social and political structure.

I do not suggest that I am making apologies for anyone caught up in the European experience; and that experience varied by country. I have, however, had the opportunity of some interesting observations of Europeans. They (like everyone else) often do not realize how completely biased their opinions are by their experiences.

The Archbishop was a Frenchman. Without even getting into whether or not he was right or wrong (and anecdotes are just that - not general proofs), trying to understand what he did by looking at it through the “glasses” of someone in the US, without understanding that the “glasses” of someone in France would give a markedly different picture is to miss significant factors in the “why” that someone does what they do.

 

[Virgile]

Part of whatr wwould help understanding this would be to immerse oneself in the recent past hsitory of France, going back about 200+ years.

One of the things that is truly amazing is the lack of any knowledge of, let alone any understanding of, the intertwining of the Church with political structures in Europe. That has made for a truly interesting stew, one that we in the US have no coantact with at all on a daily, weekly, of even life time of living in a completely different social and political structure.

I do not suggest that I am making apologies for anyone caught up in the European experience; and that experience varied by country. I have, however, had the opportunity of some interesting observations of Europeans. They (like everyone else) often do not realize how completely biased their opinions are by their experiences.

The Archbishop was a Frenchman. Without even getting into whether or not he was right or wrong (and anecdotes are just that - not general proofs), trying to understand what he did by looking at it through the “glasses” of someone in the US, without understanding that the “glasses” of someone in France would give a markedly different picture is to miss significant factors in the “why” that someone does what they do.

You are perfectly right. Anecdotes are not general proofs and I am particularly aware of the “glasses” problem (I’m not living anymore in France, and it has been now for 15 years, so my “glasses” are now a little bit “thinner”).
We could be more explicit by saying that for a Frenchman like Mgr Lefebvre some of his action were taken in reference to a very particular context an American may have some difficulty to understand (French Revolution, relation between State and Church, meaning of the word “liberty”, etc).
“Traditional catholicism” for a Frenchman has a great different meaning than it has for an American. As a French, if I hear the word “traditional catholic”, I would immediatly think about and refer to the French Revolution and its consequences for the French society, politics, economy, religion, etc.
Hence the confusion made by many “traditionalist” in France between religion and politics (some 'traditionalist" being royalist, or still partisan of the Action française of Maurras, or now voting for the far-right party of Le Pen, or just being conservative, etc.). Mgr Lefebvre himself in his actions was not exempt from this confusion.
If you study French history, the 18th century, French Revolution, relation between the State and the French Catholic Church during the 19th century, then you will understand quite a lot of Mgr Lefebvre reaction.
On the other side, “progressist” French people, exactly for the same reason, made and are making the same type of confusion.
By the way, look at the way French people are dealing with ethnic/religious minorities (like Islam) today. This too is very interesting and may be quite difficult to understand for an American.

Virgile.

 

[Extempore]

If you study French history, the 18th century, French Revolution, relation between the State and the French Catholic Church during the 19th century, then you will understand quite a lot of Mgr Lefebvre reaction.

Virgile.

This is very interesting, because you do not hear very many Americans who would say that the “thinking” behind Vatican II arose as a result of the revolutionary thought that began to spread through France in the 18th century. Yet, in reading some of the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre (and speaking with a number of traditional priests) it is quite clear that this was what he thought was the primary source from which many ideas of Vatican II flowed. For example, I think of a liberalization of the concept of freedom, and of religious liberty as opposed to religious tolerance.

I am not sure if this understanding is simply unpopular or that many people tend to not believe it (after all, how could the ideas behind a single political movement affect the whole Church, one might argue?) and yet it is a compelling argument for those who add 2 and 2 together. Indeed, it can be argued that even the liberalization of things in America may have found root in these original ideas.

 

[Virgile]

In a way, the SSSPX results from the encounter of 1) the resentment of numerous French catholic against the Republican regime and the Revolution with 2) a single man, Mgr Lefebvre.

Mgr Lefebvre studied in the French seminary of Rome, and he entered in contact there with the thinking of Charles Maurras and the Action française through the influence of the Superior of the seminary, the R.P. Le Floch.

Then, after his ordination, he left France for Africa and was a missionary there for many years. He was not in direct contact and knew little, if anything, about the evolution of French society during the 30’. He was not in France during World War II and not in France after either. He did not knew very much about the modern France of the 50’ and 60’.

After Vatican II, most of those who joined him were 1) French catholic with a profound hostility towards French Revolution 2) French people who supported the Maréchal Pétain during WWII and 3) French people who supported the colonization in Algeria and could not accept the political decision taken by de Gaulle in 1962.

The opposition to Vatican II, and the identification of it with the “collapse of Catholicism”, the “Revolution inside the Church” (the word Revolution is in direct reference to the French Revolution), was the cement of all these different people’s resentment.

It had almost nothing to do with the question of Latin or not Latin, of Mass back to the people or in front the people. The opposition of Mgr Lefebvre had to do mainly with a certain idea he had of the relation between Catholicism and modernity. In “religious liberty”, there was the word “liberty”, for him and for many French Catholics this word was inacceptable because it had to do with the vocabulary of the French Revolution.

The Latin mass was a very useful banner in the 70’, just because it permitted to gather people with very different ideologies around the same opposition to Vatican II.

Of course we are now in 2009, and I would say that most young people in their 20 or 30 now in the SSSPX are not there because they strongly oppose to Vatican II (like many young people, they do know history quite well) or are ideologically oriented (they don’t care at all about ideologies).

In their case, it is obvious that you have to resort to other explanations. Notably the fact that the Catholic Church in France has nothing to tell them, the fact that most priest are now old and living in their own past, the fact that the Mass in French are so boring, etc.

This is with these young people, and mainly for them, that the Pope Benedict XVI is seeking a reconciliation. Not for the old people who followed Mgr Lefebvre many years ago.

V.

 

[pnewton]

Hello,

the catholic Church in France experienced a real Revolution after Vatican II. Beginning around 1965, a kind of “new religion” arouse from this Revolution.

Some exemples…

From 1970 to 1976, I was an altar boy. It was absolutely normal, after the Mass, to throw the “bread” in the garbage… except when the priest had to “re-use” the “bread” for another “celebration”…

In a French seminary, in 1986, it was a motive of expulsion if you were seen praying at the “oratory”… especially if the prayer was an official prayer of the Church…

In the same French seminary, in 1988, a priest in charge of teaching theology to the seminarist began his first course by these words: “the Resurrection of Christ was a mythological event and Christ never ressuscited from the deads”…
I have hundred of other exemples at your disposal.
By the way, I’m French, and I was a seminarist in the 80’s.

V.

So you think it provential think on his part. If that was what his experience was in France, then the whole world was at jeopardy?

 

[Virgile]

So you think it provential think on his part. If that was what his experience was in France, then the whole world was at jeopardy?

Well no,

my intention was to provide some examples of abuses and to say that in my country, except Mgr Lefebvre, nobody tried to or even could say NO to these abuses.

Saying NO to a liturgical, theological or pastoral abuse would have put you immediately in great danger of suffering exclusion and ostracism (what we called in our seminary “falling in the battlefield” or “dying for the motherland”).

For some ordinary lay catholics, the situation was really very difficult. Thousand of people had to choose between staying in the Church or leaving the Church: most of them choose the second option. At some time, in my little town, the Orthodox parish was full of… catholics seeking for something of the like of a Mass!

Now, as I tried to explain in a previous post, the experience of Mgr Lefebvre must be understood also in a French context. I do not think he was a providential man at all, but I tend to believe that without him 1) the Extraordinary Form of the Mass would not have survived at all 2) many liturgical, theological and pastoral abuses would have gone on for ever and ever: the priests of the SSSPX provided us with the informations we could not get in our churches (in a time were there was no Internet in my country).

Virgile.

 

[otjm]

In a way, the SSSPX results from the encounter of 1) the resentment of numerous French catholic against the Republican regime and the Revolution with 2) a single man, Mgr Lefebvre.

Mgr Lefebvre studied in the French seminary of Rome, and he entered in contact there with the thinking of Charles Maurras and the Action française through the influence of the Superior of the seminary, the R.P. Le Floch.

Then, after his ordination, he left France for Africa and was a missionary there for many years. He was not in direct contact and knew little, if anything, about the evolution of French society during the 30’. He was not in France during World War II and not in France after either. He did not knew very much about the modern France of the 50’ and 60’.

After Vatican II, most of those who joined him were 1) French catholic with a profound hostility towards French Revolution 2) French people who supported the Maréchal Pétain during WWII and 3) French people who supported the colonization in Algeria and could not accept the political decision taken by de Gaulle in 1962.

The opposition to Vatican II, and the identification of it with the “collapse of Catholicism”, the “Revolution inside the Church” (the word Revolution is in direct reference to the French Revolution), was the cement of all these different people’s resentment.

It had almost nothing to do with the question of Latin or not Latin, of Mass back to the people or in front the people. The opposition of Mgr Lefebvre had to do mainly with a certain idea he had of the relation between Catholicism and modernity. In “religious liberty”, there was the word “liberty”, for him and for many French Catholics this word was inacceptable because it had to do with the vocabulary of the French Revolution.

The Latin mass was a very useful banner in the 70’, just because it permitted to gather people with very different ideologies around the same opposition to Vatican II.

Of course we are now in 2009, and I would say that most young people in their 20 or 30 now in the SSSPX are not there because they strongly oppose to Vatican II (like many young people, they do know history quite well) or are ideologically oriented (they don’t care at all about ideologies).

In their case, it is obvious that you have to resort to other explanations. Notably the fact that the Catholic Church in France has nothing to tell them, the fact that most priest are now old and living in their own past, the fact that the Mass in French are so boring, etc.

This is with these young people, and mainly for them, that the Pope Benedict XVI is seeking a reconciliation. Not for the old people who followed Mgr Lefebvre many years ago.

V.

Your comments are very interesting, particularly in the light in which the Archbishop is viewed in the US. Just as he and the French segment who followed him had particular reasons for why they chose the path they trod, so in the US those who have followed him had their particular reasons for the path they trod. Much of the trouble in having an intelligent discussion about the postion(s) of the SSPX stem from the fact that in the US, there is an over-riding presumption that the two groups are of the same foundation and motivation. Such is not the case, but we hear all to often what we want to hear through the filters that we do not realize exist. I have a strong suspicion that if the whole SSPX issue were limited to the people in the US, that Rome might by and large simply ignore it; given the history of the Church in Europe over the last 50 years, and in particular the response of Catholics there to the corrosivenss of secularism (and average weekly attendance somewhere between 5 and 10%) Rome is strongly interested in what the “Remenant Church” (to which B16 has made numerous references) is going to look like. One that is strongly opposed to Vatican 2 isn’t going to fly too far, whether that strong opposition comes from the left or the right. B16 doesn’t seem to be mincing too many words in his indication that those of the SSPX who wish to be regularized (and I am referring to the bishops and priests) need to have a long, hard conversation with Rome re:Vatican 2 documents. Neither he nor JP2 show or hav e shown any hesitancy at all about their support for the value and authenticity of the documents, nor the need to fully implement the documents.

 

[otjm]

So you think it provential think on his part. If that was what his experience was in France, then the whole world was at jeopardy?

I think if you re-read what Virgile wrote, you may find that he (virgile) didn’t say that it was teh Archbishop’s experience in France, so much as it was the Archbishop’s early life experiences and political/philosophical upbringing that lead the Archbishop to view Vatican 2 documents through the lense of the French Revolution, Enlightenment, and the previous two hundred years of Church-State relations. The Archbishop may well have felt that the world was at jeopardy, without considering that other countries had different histories and experiences, as well as different cultures, all of which could and would provied a different basis from which to judge Vatican 2 documents and impement them.

For example, the implementation of the documents in Poland, and the response to the Church in Poland subsequently (including how the OF was implemented, and the lack of such serious abuses as occured elswhere) are prima facia evidence that it is not the documents themselves that are the source of the problems occuring elsewhere. Were the documents themselves at fault, then the reaction to them (aka the “spirit” of Vatican 2) should have been universal. It wasn’t.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I think if you re-read what Virgile wrote, you may find that he (virgile) didn’t say that it was teh Archbishop’s experience in France, so much as it was the Archbishop’s early life experiences and political/philosophical upbringing that lead the Archbishop to view Vatican 2 documents through the lense of the French Revolution, Enlightenment, and the previous two hundred years of Church-State relations. The Archbishop may well have felt that the world was at jeopardy, without considering that other countries had different histories and experiences, as well as different cultures, all of which could and would provied a different basis from which to judge Vatican 2 documents and impement them.

For example, the implementation of the documents in Poland, and the response to the Church in Poland subsequently (including how the OF was implemented, and the lack of such serious abuses as occured elswhere) are prima facia evidence that it is not the documents themselves that are the source of the problems occuring elsewhere. Were the documents themselves at fault, then the reaction to them (aka the “spirit” of Vatican 2) should have been universal. It wasn’t.

I wouldn’t quite agree. The same spirit was abroad, but with great cunning, it was tailored to the mentality and concrete situation of each country. I clearly remember Pope Pius XII & have lived in England, Australia and Ireland at different times since Vatican II. In Australia, there was enthusiastic jettisoning of ‘the Old’, led from The Top. In England, ‘the changes’ were there to allow Our Separated Bretheren to return to the Church with the fewest barriers to it. In Ireland, it was 'There’ll be no changes here!"
But they all got it anyway.
I know quite a few French people. the entire thing was done on a far more intellectual level than across the English Channel, and with far more partisanship. “You French are very, er, individualistic”, I said once. “Yes, it is our strength - and our weakness”, he replied. In Ireland, it was more a question of overwhelming personal loyalty to the Holy Father, the Irish Bishops, the Parish priest, the school, and everything else whose integrity went completely unchallenged. To this day, many of the NO Masses in Ireland are dignified and reverent - although not all!
But the actual drift in all cases has been the same: from God-centred to man-centred. and no matter how remote the church or chapel, money was no object in removing the altar (and much else besides). If anything in the landscape looks like a caricature of an American pizza-hut (meaning no offence, lads) it is likely to be the local Catholic church.
What I saw in 3 countries was fascinating: my movements were Australia ->England ->Ireland, and I have seen the same game played out three times, because Australia reacted the quickest & Ireland the slowest. The excuses were different, but the game was the same. And as often as not, the identical stuff has been trumpeted as something entirely novel, original, and adapted to the local situation. As we say here, “Local muryaa”.

 

[pnewton]

I think if you re-read what Virgile wrote, you may find that he (virgile) didn’t say that it was teh Archbishop’s experience in France,…

Uh, that is why I asked for clarification, maybe?

 

[otjm]

Uh, that is why I asked for clarification, maybe?

I can live with that.

What sometimes frustrates me is that we (and I don’t exclude myself) look at things as if our point of view was universal, along with our experiences. I would be surprised if there was anywhere in the world that the local church did not have some issues since the publication of the V2 documents. However, all too many are all too quick to presume that what happens in, say, Boston or Chicago or Seattle or Atlanta is what is happening in Poland or Viet Nam or China of Zimbabwe, and what happens in France is identical to and of the same source as Boston, Chicago…

From what I have read (and I don’t presume to have read it all, or necessarily even a lot) the SSPX is most prevalent in France and Brazil. There seems to be an assumption that what we perceive to be the source(s) of the SSPX all fit into our somewhat provincial US experience of Church - liturgy, praxis, etc. That presumption is dangerous at best, if one truly wants to understand what is going on in the Church. The Church may be universal, but our experience of it is local, soemething we seem to forget - or never knew.