Archbishop Lefebvre

[joanofarc3]

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Archbishop Lefebvre never taught anything against the Holy Faith. His allegience was to God first. Priests of his society put the commandments in the correct order: God first, neighbor next. Some “lefebvrists” as they’re unjustly called, go overboard, but many catholics today go overboard regarding the Pope, and some go very anti-Catholic while remaining “Catholic.” He taught nothing wrong regarding faith and morals. Why he was excommunicated and not actual heretical bishops I’ll never know. Was his excommunication unjust? Yes. Will it be lifted? In time, yes. Will he ever be canonized? Yes. Soon? Who knows? St. Joan of Arc was unjustly excommunicated, and even after it was lifted, she wasn’t canonized for 500 years. Hopefully it won’t take that long with the dear Archbishop, but that doesn’t mean St. Peter didn’t let him through. As St. Peter himself said “we ought to obey God rather than men.” When there’s a contradiction between the two, I’ll take my chances with the Eternal.

 

[TMC]

This is why I think it highly unlikely that Archbishop Lefebvre will ever be canonized.

I agree, especially in the short term. The Church cannot swing so quickly from excommunication to canonization. And some of his statements would be an impediment, I think.

Now if a hundred years from now the Church has gone back to the Latin thing and ecumenism and collegiality are dead, then maybe this would be taken up. But my personal opinion is that a hundred years from now TLM will be a valid, beautiful, and rarely celebrated form of liturgy. Most Catholics will celebrate some reformed/update/improved version of NO. Ecumenism will be kicking, including welcoming back some decent sized chunks of liturgical Protestants, and continuing to try to work with the rest, etc.

 

[bear06]

Whatever you get or do not get, the Vatican recognizes the validity of the illicit consecration of the SSPX bishops.

He’s trying to understand. No need to pounce. He never said the Vatican didn’t recognize the illicit consecrations. He just said he didn’t get it.

 

[bear06]

That is the bottom line.

And the Vatican acknowledges their validity, that means Sunday obligation fulfilled.

 

[Sure]

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Archbishop Lefebvre never taught anything against the Holy Faith. His allegience was to God first. Priests of his society put the commandments in the correct order: God first, neighbor next. Some “lefebvrists” as they’re unjustly called, go overboard, but many catholics today go overboard regarding the Pope, and some go very anti-Catholic while remaining “Catholic.” He taught nothing wrong regarding faith and morals. Why he was excommunicated and not actual heretical bishops I’ll never know. Was his excommunication unjust? Yes. Will it be lifted? In time, yes. Will he ever be canonized? Yes. Soon? Who knows? St. Joan of Arc was unjustly excommunicated, and even after it was lifted, she wasn’t canonized for 500 years. Hopefully it won’t take that long with the dear Archbishop, but that doesn’t mean St. Peter didn’t let him through. As St. Peter himself said “we ought to obey God rather than men.” When there’s a contradiction between the two, I’ll take my chances with the Eternal.

Just to be clear, he was not excommunicated for anything he taught. He was excommunicated for episcopal consecrations without a papal mandate. His argument was that his necessity trumped the requirement for papal mandate. The Supreme Legislator decided “that No, there wasn’t necessity.” His decision cannot be appealed and can only be reversed by a later Supreme Legislator.

When there is a conflict between one individual’s interpretation of God’s will (Lefebvre) and the Catholic Church’s interpretation of God’s will (Ecclesia Dei), I’ll take my chances with the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit doesn’t call people to violate Canon Law.

All in all, it is not likely to occur because if a precedent is set that allows bishops to create bishops according to their own subjective analysis of “necessity” we will have big problems. Ask yourself, would you support a liberal bishop who decided he had “necessity” to ordain bishops?

 

[bear06]

Yes he did act in good conscience.He also believe that canon law was on his side.Was he right? Maybe it will be Pope Benedict that has the final say.

1983 Code of Canon Law vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept: a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
Can. 1324 §1 The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed: by a person who was coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or **due to necessity **or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

The Archbishop and the four consecrated Bishops all believed that what they were doing was out of grave fear for the Church. Does this law pertain to Lefebvre? I don’t know. Pope Benedict will one day address this issue.

Who is the lawful judge in the matter? To throw the Holy Father’s judgment out the window is a dangerous game. It’s not popolatry to say that he is the Supreme Judge of Ecclesiastical matters and to promote the SSPX (which, like it or not, is what happens when people start promoting Lefebvre as a an excommunicated saint) one better hope that they are right or they’ve just lead a few more people down the wrong path.

As far as canon law goes…Pete Vere did a very good piece on that linked above. People can wine and cry about him having some sort of axe to grind but the fact really is that he was a huge supporter of Lefebvre and was a member of the SSPX after the excommunications. He didn’t want to find out that he was wrong.

 

[joanofarc3]

All in all, it is not likely to occur because if a precedent is set that allows bishops to create bishops according to their own subjective analysis of “necessity” we will have big problems. Ask yourself, would you support a liberal bishop who decided he had “necessity” to ordain bishops?

Liberalism has no place in the Church. There is never a necessity to ordain someone to destroy the Church from within. The case of the Archbishop’s disobedience to the pope in the consecration matter is an exception and should never become the rule. He, however, was keeping with the teachings of the Church in every regard and, like you pointed out, wasn’t condemned for a false teaching, but an act of disobedience. Necessary disobedience? I believe so, and I also believe that the next pope will make that known and lift the excommunication.

One other thing, I love the way you state things! When you disagree you maintain charity and don’t resort to personal attacks. I really, truly admire you for that; keep it up.

 

[Lazerlike42]

We most certainly must obey God rather than men - but what does that mean?

I know this argument, because I have read the SSPX literature on obedience - and it is very sad. I mean that with all the sincerity of my heart; I was nearly moved to tears reading it. It is so depressing to see men who wish to give their lives to God falling into such roundabout, deceptive arguments.

As Jesus said, to listen to the Church is to listen to God. When our personal judgment conflicts with that of the Church, we must submit to the Church, because the Church serves as God to us, insofar as obedience is concerned. When dealing with matters of discpline, of course, the Church may be wrong, but even then we are called to submit. The only time we can ever disobey a lawful superior is when we are commanded to sin. Barring sin, we must obey all commands given by a lawful superior, even if those commands are wrong, or are not what is best, and even if they should fail to do something that would be of greater benefit to souls.

All of the saints tell us this, in their words and in their lives. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us this. Postulants and novices in religious orders are taught this prior to taking their vows of obedience.

Our superiors will is God’s Will for us. This is the very nature and definition of Holy Obedience.

If Archbishop Lefebvre believed that it was a sin to celebrate the Pauline order of Mass, then and only then would he have any grounds for declining to obey his superiors.

 

[grandfather]

**
Come on now. You know that the next thing someone will say is that they recognize the Sacraments of the Orthodox too.
QUOTE]

Is this a sarcastic comment?

The Vatican most certainly recognizes the sacraments and orders of the Orthodox. In fact when trying to understand the status of SSPX it is helpful to make a comparison to the Orthodox.

Another comparison that might be useful is Lefebvre to Savanrola. He was excommunicated and tortured for his actions and there is a movement today canonize him. Both are controversial figures in Church history. Savanrola advocated rebellion against the pope. The particular pope was Alexander VI, if I recall correctly, the most notorious pope in history, who gave more scandal through his licentious lifestyle than anyone might imagine possible for a pope. He fathered bastard children while pope, to whom he gave church offices, a pack of vipers. I am not saying the apb will be canonized, or that Savanrola will or should be canonized. He has been rehabilitated and there are some who advocate for him.

Lefebvre the father of the FSSP. He ordained the priests who formed it out of the SSPX. If one wants to discount his influence in preserving the traditional rite and its restoration one must discount the Fraternity’s influence as well. If anyone truly believes that Agatha Christie is responsible for the preservation and restoration of the old Mass they are off their meds.**

 

[joanofarc3]

Jesus said “obey the scribes and pharisees” and St. Peter disobeyed them. My only point is there’s a time and place. The Church needs to leave the “traditionalists” alone and focus on the real threats: liberals and modernists. These are what corrupt the Church and lead Christians out. Disobedience is a grave sin in many cases, but sometimes necessary and therefore, not sinful at all. Reading the writings of the Archbishop one comes to understand that this was a painful thing to do and it was not done “in disobedience” so to speak. Much prayer was put into it, and I for one believe he made the right decision. Was every word out of his mouth infallible? Absolutely not. There are things he said that I do not agree with, but in the matter of the consecrations I trust he did what he felt was necessary and I applaud him for it. It was difficult for him, and he would never have done it if he didn’t believe there was no other way.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Now if a hundred years from now the Church has gone back to the Latin thing

That “Latin thing” would just so happen to be the official language of the Church, and the language that the largest portion of the Church worshiped in for over 1500 years. The language that Vatican II never revoked is the language of the Church in both practice and worship, despite what some “spirit of Vatican II’ers” may say. There are still many Catholics who hold the Latin language to be sacred and it is quite disrespectful not only to them, but to the Church at large to call it some “thing,” as if it were some fad.

 

[joanofarc3]

If Archbishop Lefebvre believed that it was a sin to celebrate the Pauline order of Mass, then and only then would he have any grounds for declining to obey his superiors.

Why do you think he never celebrated it? He admitted it was valid, but that the Rite was a slap on Calvary. He didn’t believe it was morally right to subject Catholics to such a form, especially Catholics weak in the Faith.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The greatest threat to the Church is neither liberals nor traditionalists, but anybody who would disobey Holy Mother Church, for to disobey in one direction is just as bad as to disobey in any direction, given of course that the obedience is not to sin.

I understand that this is not the easiest concept to give oneself to intellectually. It certainly seems at first that those disobediently advocating traditional practices would be far better than those advocating modern ones, but the fact is that each is just as dangerous to the faithful and to the Church.

To understand a bit better, consider the very nature of what we are. We are nothing before God. He spreads the heavens like a cloth. The earth is His footstool. How small we are! How worthless and meaningless we are before Him, other than that He chooses to Love us. For me to surrender all my belongings and feed all the poor in my city, or for me to pick maggots out of the flesh of the dying and bathe them to show a little of the love of Christ to them as Mother Theresa’s sisters do, or for me to pick up a piece of trash off of the ground are all worth about the same before God: nothing. Our actions have value only because He chooses to look upon them that way.

What really matters is that I do the Will of God, at each moment. If I do the Will of God, that is all I can give Him in any way. The greatest and most selfless act of Charity possible strictly speaking means nothing before God, so small are we before Him. So whether I pick up trash or I pick up a dying man, if I am doing the Will of God, that is a credit to me. If I am not doing the Will of God, of what value is it?

To do something to save the Tridentine Mass or to dress as a clown and say the Pauline rite are no different at all, if it is that the acts have in common that they are not the Will of God. All that matters in any way is that we do the Will of God with each breath and moment we have. We are either with God, or against Him.

The point I am making is this: the particular good actions we do really doesn’t matter so much as that they posses the quality of being God’s Will. A loving action that is not God’s Will is not all that different from a meaningless actions that is not God’s Will. God has a plan. What matters is that we follow it. If I am not following it, I am getting in the way of it. This won’t stop God from accomplishing His plan, but of course this is one of the great mysteries of our faith.

Now God’s Will is that we obey in *all *things except sin. Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t do this. His intentions may have been good, but they were opposed to the Will of God simply because they were opposed to that lawful obedience which he owed Mother Church.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Why do you think he never celebrated it? He admitted it was valid, but that the Rite was a slap on Calvary. He didn’t believe it was morally right to subject Catholics to such a form, especially Catholics weak in the Faith.

This may be true, I don’t know what his thoughts were. Nevertheless, this statement is very problematic from several standpoints. The most important of them is related to something that itsjustdave1988 brings up most often here. That is the concept of the infallibility of the Church’s discipline. This infallibility is not what we would call a positive infallibility, as is papal infallibility. Positive infallibility means that when the Church declares something to be true definitively, it cannot err. Rather, ecclesiastical disciplinary infallibility is negative, meaning it pertains not to what the Church can do - such as declare a dogma without error - but to what the Church cannot do - and that would be bind the faithful to sin.

Quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia :

“[Disciplinary infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i.e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.”

In fact Pope Pius VI condemned the notion that the Church could prescribe disciplines that are harmful to the faithful (Auctorem fidei, 1794).

Thus, according to this principle, it is not possible that the celebration of the Pauline order of Mass could be harmful to the faithful or sinful in any way whatsoever, because the Church bound the faithful to the celebration of this Mass, at the very least in practice.

 

[grandfather]

Why do you think he never celebrated it? He admitted it was valid, but that the Rite was a slap on Calvary. He didn’t believe it was morally right to subject Catholics to such a form, especially Catholics weak in the Faith.

St. Padre Pio could not bring himself to say the new Mass. Was he weak in the faith?

As far as understanding the practice of bishops consecrating bishops without Rome’s approval it is helpful to look at history. In the past when there were schisms or antipopes and unity was restored it was the norm that both sides would recognize and accept the offices of the other. Today we see Rome doing everything possible to reunite with the Orthodox. Does anyone think that if this were to happen Rome would tell the Orthodox all of their episcopal consecrations have to be reviewed and approved by Rome? The way bishops were chosen has changed greatly over time. Even the way popes are elected changes. John Paul II changed the way papal elections work and Benedict has already done the same. Cardinals did not exist until the middle ages, much less cardinal electors. Royaly, certain rolay houses had the righ until recently to oppose the election of a pope. The church ceded these rights and recognized them.

In the middle of a controversy it is difficult to see the outcome. Hindsight truly is much clearer. There is precedent in seeing historical figures viewed differently from the vantage point of history than by those who lived through their times. Saint Joan was tried and convicted as a witch and burned by churchmen validly and licitly ordained and whose offices held indisputed authority. Where are they today in the history books and where is she? We do not know what those who come after us will have to say. We do not know what worship will look like in another hundred years. I do believe that the Mass of the ages will still be present, but doubt that the Mass of Paul VI will remain. If it does it will be radically different from what was initial served up. Its changes suit no one. There are those who say it was only a beginning and needs more innovation, and there are those who say it created a mess. Those who do not like it now have another option. For those who do it remains in flux with the dancers and liturgical committees all getting into the act.

 

[joanofarc3]

Now God’s Will is that we obey in *all *things except sin. Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t do this. His intentions may have been good, but they were opposed to the Will of God simply because they were opposed to that lawful obedience which he owed Mother Church.

He disobeyed in a non-infallible matter. He believed to do otherwise would be a sin on his part. He believed that this was the will of God. The pope isn’t perfect, and can make mistakes as we all agree; just because he says no doesn’t make it the will of God. I’m not saying we disobey just because we disagree, but we’re not to obey at the drop of a hat when their are serious contradictions. The Nazis used the excuse: we only did what we were ordered to do. They refused to do the right thing because they weren’t allowed to, didn’t want to, or were to afraid to do otherwise. I think this last one is major in the Church today. We will never know for sure until we’re in Heaven if God willed the Archbishop to suffer public excommunication for his obedience to Him. The same thing happened with St. Joan of Arc, and from what I last read, also with St. Athanasius.
If commanded to do something, or not do something, leads to scandal (or sin) it is not to be obeyed. Again, this situation was all predicted way back when. “if possible, even the elect would be deceived.” These are the words of God.
Obedience is at the service of the Faith, not the other way around. We obey to please God, we don’t always please God by obeying.

 

[joanofarc3]

St. Padre Pio could not bring himself to say the new Mass. Was he weak in the faith?

As far as understanding the practice of bishops consecrating bishops without Rome’s approval it is helpful to look at history. In the past when there were schisms or antipopes and unity was restored it was the norm that both sides would recognize and accept the offices of the other. Today we see Rome doing everything possible to reunite with the Orthodox. Does anyone think that if this were to happen Rome would tell the Orthodox all of their episcopal consecrations have to be reviewed and approved by Rome? The way bishops were chosen has changed greatly over time. Even the way popes are elected changes. John Paul II changed the way papal elections work and Benedict has already done the same. Cardinals did not exist until the middle ages, much less cardinal electors. Royaly, certain rolay houses had the righ until recently to oppose the election of a pope. The church ceded these rights and recognized them.

In the middle of a controversy it is difficult to see the outcome. Hindsight truly is much clearer. There is precedent in seeing historical figures viewed differently from the vantage point of history than by those who lived through their times. Saint Joan was tried and convicted as a witch and burned by churchmen validly and licitly ordained and whose offices held indisputed authority. Where are they today in the history books and where is she? We do not know what those who come after us will have to say. We do not know what worship will look like in another hundred years. I do believe that the Mass of the ages will still be present, but doubt that the Mass of Paul VI will remain. If it does it will be radically different from what was initial served up. Its changes suit no one. There are those who say it was only a beginning and needs more innovation, and there are those who say it created a mess. Those who do not like it now have another option. For those who do it remains in flux with the dancers and liturgical committees all getting into the act.

Amen:thumbsup: Very well put. Couldn’t agree more.

 

[Lazerlike42]

He disobeyed in a non-infallible matter. He believed to do otherwise would be a sin on his part. He believed that this was the will of God. The pope isn’t perfect, and can make mistakes as we all agree; just because he says no doesn’t make it the will of God. I’m not saying we disobey just because we disagree, but we’re not to obey at the drop of a hat when their are serious contradictions. The Nazis used the excuse: we only did what we were ordered to do. They refused to do the right thing because they weren’t allowed to, didn’t want to, or were to afraid to do otherwise. I think this last one is major in the Church today. We will never know for sure until we’re in Heaven if God willed the Archbishop to suffer public excommunication for his obedience to Him. The same thing happened with St. Joan of Arc, and from what I last read, also with St. Athanasius.
If commanded to do something, or not do something, leads to scandal (or sin) it is not to be obeyed. Again, this situation was all predicted way back when. “if possible, even the elect would be deceived.” These are the words of God.
Obedience is at the service of the Faith, not the other way around. We obey to please God, we don’t always please God by obeying.

Infallible or not infallible is irrelevant. We are required to give submission to the Church in anything and everything that is not sin, and to our superiors in anything and everything that is not sin. To disobey one’s lawful superior for any reason other than to avoid sin is to disobey God. In fact, such an act was traditionally regarded as a very grave mortal sin.

St. Catherine of Sienna said,

“For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the documents of Vatican II, and countless catechisms and encyclicals from ages past all make it clear that it is a sin against the 3rd commandment to disobey a lawful superior for any reason save to avoid sin.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.