Archbishop Lefebvre

[TantumErgo90]

Actually they aren’t. Pope JPII excommunicated Lefebvre and his crew. That’s not open to debate.

Excommunications are not infallible and they can be wrongly imposed.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Excommunications are not infallible and they can be wrongly imposed.

Also, the Church could easily declare in the future that Archbishop Lefebvre was never really excommunicated.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

unavoce.org/cardinal_ratzinger_chile.htm
“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”-Cardinal Ratzinger

"“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that** it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions **backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” ( Ppe Paul General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

If you are implying that only dogmas are binding upon Catholics, then this is incorrect. Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed that Vatican II was “valid”, “infallible”, and “binding”, a “pastoral” meaning “a fusion of truth and love”, “one part of the unbroken, unique Tradition of the Church and her Faith.” Those who content they can licitly dissent with Vatican II are sorely mistaken.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Excommunications are not infallible and they can be wrongly imposed.

If you are implying Lefebvre was wrongly excommunicated then I disagree. The excommunication was both valid and just. I pray he had true contrition and was reconciled before his death.

Pope John Paul II affirmed Lefebvre and the bishops he ordained excommunicated after giving them warning after warning. In essence, Lefebvre’s disobedience demanded the just censure voluntarily decreed by the lawful Vicar of Christ, Pope John Paul II.

This is from Pope John Paul II sent to Msgr Lefebvre just weeks prior to his unlawful consecration of Bishops:

n the letter you sent me you appear to reject all that was agreed on in the previous conversations, since you clearly manifest your intention to “provide the means yourself to continue your work,” particularly by proceeding shortly and without apostolic mandate to one or several episcopal ordinations, and this in flagrant contradiction not only with the norms of Canon Law, but also with the Protocol signed on May 5th and the directions relevant to this problem contained in the letter which Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to you on my instructions on May 30th.(Letter to Lefebvre by Pope John Paul II, June 9, 1988)

Lefebvre was clearly forewarned by the Pope that he lacked the necessary pontifical mandate to proceed with his episcopal consecrations. Despite this forewarning by the Pope, on June 15, 1988, Lefebvre held a press conference announcing his intentions to consecrate four bishops on 30 Jun 1988.

Having been forewarned by both Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope that the mandate necessary to proceed with the episcopal consecrations was lacking, and in light of this press conference announcing the four candidates, on behalf of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Gantin issued the following monition on June 17, 1988:

Since on June 15th, 1988 you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with canon 1382.

Despite the above clear warnings, Lefebvre proceeded with the ordinations. By doing so, it is clear that he was in fact ASKING to be excommunicated by ignoring the AUTHORITY of the Pope.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught (cf. Summa Theologica, IIb, 104, 5) there is only two reasons why one can licitly disobey his superior: 1) His superior is demanding something of the subordinate that is contrary to higher authority, and 2) His superior is demanding something outside the scope of his authority. Neither of these conditions are met in the case of Lefebvre. Thus, Lefebvre’s disobedience was illicit and by no means traditional in the Catholic sense.

 

[VARC]

You know what I find interesting about the whole consecration/excommunication debate. Bishop Castro de Mayer was the co-consecrator with Lefebvre and his name is not mentioned with the others. When the Campos group made a deal with Rome, there was never a mention to exonerate him because Rome never declared him to be excommunicated. You can see the politics involved in this one.

 

[Aramis]

Here it is: One can support and believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was a great archbishop and did wonders for traditionalism, but he was totally wrong to ordain the four bishops without papal mandate.

John Paul II basically says the same in Ecclesia Dei.

Benedict XVI seems to share the opinion.

It doesn’t change that he was Excommunicated, as were the four priests consecrated by him as bishops. (JP II refered to them as priests in ED when referencing their formal excommunication for accepting illicit ordination, which since they knew* it was illicit, is also invalid.)

I still think that the Traditionalists should get aseparate church sui iuris… as apparantly was ABp. Lefebvre.

*It was fairly public that he had permission to consecrate one and only one bishop. Made the local newspaper here, so I suspect that ignorance is no defense here, not that any of the 4 appealed properly, either.

 

[Aramis]

That’s ridiculous. The Roman Rite entails a great deal more than the Tridentine Mass.

Does anyone happen to know – has anyone in history ever been canonized by the Church after they passed-away in a state of excommunication?

St Joan of Arc.

 

[jj2011]

It doesn’t change that he was Excommunicated, as were the four priests consecrated by him as bishops. (JP II refered to them as priests in ED when referencing their formal excommunication for accepting illicit ordination, which since they knew* it was illicit, is also invalid.)

The consecrations weren’t invalid; in fact, there have been cases where, at the request of SSPX, the Vatican has taken action to laicize at least one priest, a situation which presupposes that they are validly ordained.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

While his actions certainly helped the return of the traditional mass, we must never get caught in the false logic in which end is used to justify the means. Some of the outcomes of his disobedience had a positive impact on the Church, but the very act of disobedience should be condemned. Only God can decide how gravely sinful it was to disobey higher authority especially since the “necessity” he described is to an extend subjective.

Also, one does not need to believe in what Vatican II said because it was Pastoral in nature. There were some good things said at Vatican II, but certainty some bad.

It is true that the council was pastoral and that it didn’t define anything new. Even the Pope affirmed this. However we can’t simply reject it (or parts of it) as if the council was in error because the council is still authoritative, binding and protected by the Holy Spirit by the very virtue of being a valid ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. The problem with the documents is that not only the documents were written in a very confusing language that is easy to misinterpret, it was often influenced by some liberal tendencies, which reflected on the general way the documents were worded. On one hand you have modernist and liberals who interpret the council in ways that produce heterodox even heretical teachings and on the other hand you have some traditionalists who interpret them as if they contradict the previous teachings of the Church. Without the presence of the Church and under “sola scriptura” environment, these interpretation are possible however in reality none of them are correct. We must interpret the teachings in line with the Church and her Tradition. The final word in the interpretation belongs to the Church and not to the liberal theologians or various SSPX members.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You know what I find interesting about the whole consecration/excommunication debate. Bishop Castro de Mayer was the co-consecrator with Lefebvre and his name is not mentioned with the others. When the Campos group made a deal with Rome, there was never a mention to exonerate him …

Errrrrrrrr…no.

DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

    Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the         above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard         Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have         incurred <ipso facto> excommunication <latae sententiae>         reserved to the Apostolic See.

     Moreover, I declare that ***Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop         emeritus of Campos***, since he took part directly in the liturgical         celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical         act, has incurred excommunication <latae sententiae> as envisaged         by canon 1364, paragraph 1.

     The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of         Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur <ipso facto> the         very grave penalty of excommunication.

     From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Bernardinus Card. Gantin

Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
source]

Perhaps there was never mention to exonerate him when the community at Campos returned to full communion with the Roman Pontiff. But one thing is sure, he was indeed excommunicated.

 

[bear06]

You know what I find interesting about the whole consecration/excommunication debate. Bishop Castro de Mayer was the co-consecrator with Lefebvre and his name is not mentioned with the others. When the Campos group made a deal with Rome, there was never a mention to exonerate him because Rome never declared him to be excommunicated. You can see the politics involved in this one.

He was not mentioned in Ecclesia Dei. He was named in the Excommunication Decree. sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication latae sententiae as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.

 

[bear06]

unavoce.org/cardinal_ratzinger_chile.htm
“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”-Cardinal Ratzinger

"“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that** it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions **backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” ( Ppe Paul General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

And? Nobody has said anything different. That said, you cannot ignore the rest of what Cardinal Ratzinger has said on VII which Dave so kindly quoted. You want to take statement x and interpret in a way that contradicts his other statement. Cardinal Ratzinger is saying that you can’t arrive at your belief from the quote that you gave.

 

[VARC]

He was not mentioned in Ecclesia Dei. He was named in the Excommunication Decree. sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

I stand corrected. Does anybody no whether the campos group got the decree against their founder lifted as part of the deal?

 

[bear06]

I haven’t seen anything on the lifting of the excommunication of Castro Mayer but Rangel’s excommunication was lifted. Here are the documents regarding the Campos group.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2CAMPO.HTM

 

[bear06]

BTW, there was a very interesting conversation on Fr. Z’s site regarding the excommunication topic including St. Joan’s.
wdtprs.com/blog/2007/12/what-ive-been-doing-for-the-past-week/

 

[SFD]

“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”-Cardinal Ratzinger

"“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” ( Ppe Paul General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

And? Nobody has said anything different. That said, you cannot ignore the rest of what Cardinal Ratzinger has said on VII which Dave so kindly quoted. You want to take statement x and interpret in a way that contradicts his other statement. Cardinal Ratzinger is saying that you can’t arrive at your belief from the quote that you gave.

She’s quoting what Pope Paul VI said in 1966. Was Paul VI unaware of the teaching of the Church about the infallibility Ordinary Magisterium when he wrote what he wrote? Of course not…then why did he write what he wrote? It’s a little confusing isn’t it?

So why did he say it? It’s a legitimate question to ask.

SFD

 

[VARC]

In any event, it speaks volumes about the catholic church that Lefebvre can be a completely orthodox bishop before the council and the worst enemy of the RCC afterward(1st to be declared excommunicated) without changing a thing that he practiced or believed. There is obviously something wrong with this picture and it has troubled my conscience to a great degree.

 

[catharina]

In any event, it speaks volumes about the catholic church that Lefebvre can be a completely orthodox bishop before the council and the worst enemy of the RCC afterward(1st to be declared excommunicated) without changing a thing that he practiced or believed. There is obviously something wrong with this picture and it has troubled my conscience to a great degree.

He CHANGED his decision to continue giving due obedience to Rome when he chose to conduct an imposition of episcopacy without approval from the Holy Father. What breaks my heart is that John Paul II and (then) Cardinal Ratzinger were forced by good conscience to take a stand against someone who had been their friend and colleague for decades.

This strikes me as SO SAD for them! They surely had to rise above their “natural” affections to choose such a definitive action for the good of the Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In any event, it speaks volumes about the catholic church that Lefebvre can be a completely orthodox bishop before the council and the worst enemy of the RCC afterward(1st to be declared excommunicated) without changing a thing that he practiced or believed. There is obviously something wrong with this picture and it has troubled my conscience to a great degree.

Your presumption that his beliefs were “orthodox” don’t make it so. For instance, Tertullian was orthodox, and then he wasn’t. It happens.

In the case of Msgr Lefebvre, held held a proposition that was condemned centuries earlier by Pius V.

From the SSPX web page, citing MSgr Marcel Levebvre:“The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules…bears within it a poison harmful to the faith” (Marcel Levebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 29)
This proposition is the Jansenist claim all over again, which was already condemend by Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 78 (1794). Auctorem Fidei, 78 stated:

The prescription of the synod [of Pistoia] … it adds, “in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstituion and materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

Subsequent Roman Pontiffs, such as Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832), affirmed this teaching:“the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect"Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora, 4-5 (1833), admonishing those like Lefebvre, who state:"… there are many things in the discipline of the Church… [which] are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion… these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794)… do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind?

And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?"According to Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 66 (1943):“Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends.”continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

According to traditional Catholic theology, it is theologically certain that the universal disciplinary norms approved by the Church are “infallible” in the negative and indirect sense. Observe, from 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia, written under the papacy of Pope St. Pius X, from an article entitled “Ecclesiastical Discipline”, under the heading “DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY”. newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm"[Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church. 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."
From a 1908 source of Catholic doctrine, P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”
While Lefebvre may have been considered orthodox by some, he clearly clung to a proposition already condemnd by the Catholic Church.