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

[Dempsey1919]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LRThunder]

He may not have been the only Archbishop to disagree, but as far as we know, he was the only one to disobey Pope John Paul II by ordaining the four bishops without his approval.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

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

Oh, he wasn’t the only one. There was an entire group. Basically the conservatives at the time all had a problem with Vatican II. The group determined to stand together against the novelties.

f there were others within the Church who received the same priestly formation as him, why didn’t they take a stand with him?

They did. One of them was Cardinal Ottaviani, who was the head of the Holy Office under three Popes. The Holy Office was the office responsible for defending the faith.

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

I have no doubt at all that when this crisis is over, Lefebvre will be proven right and canonized. Archbishop Lefebvre simply preserve the faith “whole and inviolate” just as it had been taught prior to Vatican II. He refused to depart from what the Church has always taught, and refused to accept errors that had been repeatedly condemned by the Popes during the previous 200 years. His stand for the faith - against all odds - was truly heroic.

He refused to accept as true, in the 20th century, what had been condemned as an error in the 19th. Most of the others had not problem with that. For example: The Syllabus of errors were a summation and condemnation of the Liberal errors that had emerged. What the Syllabus condemned, was taught as true at Vatican II. At least that is how everyone “interprets” Vatican II

Cardinal Ratzinger: "**If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes], one could say that it (along with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus **…

This happened because, first in central Europe, conditioned by the situation,** the unilateral dependence on the positions taken by the Church through the initiatives of Pius IX and Pius X against the new period of History opened by the French Revolution was to a large extent corrected via facti**. But a fundamental new document regarding relations with the world as it had been since 1789 was still lacking.

Let us content ourselves here with stating that the text [of Gaudium et spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789. (Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique - Esquisse et Materiaux, Paris: Tequi, 1982, pp. 426-427).

The situation of Archbishop Lefebvrre was not much different than St. Athanasius who lived during the Arian Crisis. There was a saying in those days about St. Athanasius. It was “Athanasius Contra Mundum” - Athanasius against the world!

Everyone was against Athanasius because he refused to depart from what the Church had always taught. He realized that error did not become true simply because the calendar read a later date. He was banned from his dioces 5 times, spent 17 years in exile, was excommunicated by the Pope and condemned by a council of 300 Bishops (about the same number of Bishops who attended the Council of Nicea), yet in the end he was proven right.

Who reading this would have followed St. Athanasius if we lived in those days? How would we have known that he was right and that all the others were wrong? How would we have known that the council of Bishops were all wrong and that the excommunication was “absolutely null and utterly void”?

Answer: It would not have been easy. In fact, in my opinion (due to the poor means of communication in those days), I think it would have been much more difficult to know that St. Athanasius was right, than it is to know that Archbishop Lefebvre was right.

A negative proof that he was right is that he, and the SSPX, are the only ones who are HATED. Rome has no problem with the Orthodox, who are real Schismatics, or the Protestants who are heretics, or even the Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.

The only group that is HATED today is the SSPX, **and that is because they stand firm to what the Church has always taught **and refuse to budge.

I do not agree with everything about the SSPX, but they are preserving the faith without compromise.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

He may not have been the only Archbishop to disagree, but as far as we know, he was the only one to disobey Pope John Paul II by ordaining the four bishops without his approval.

That is also not correct. Bishop de Castro Mayer, a member of the group of Bishops who agreed to resist the novelties of Vatican II, was present and took part in the Consecrations.

 

[Dempsey1919]

While I think the SSPX should accept the olive branch that the current Holy Father has handed them, I think that the SSPX was greatly mistreated in the 1970’s by the Magisterium headed by Paul VI.

It is quite clear that the jealous French hierarchy did not want the seminary to operate because it proved to be an embarrasment for them. The SSPX operated a vibrantly growing traditionalist seminary, and most of the new French seminaries were dying. They had to do something to stem the growth of the seminary which was proving far more successful than anyone could have imagined. I truly believe that the beginning of the prohibition against the SSPX was motivated entirely by envy.

I don’t know why Archbishop Lefebvre was denied an audience with the Pope and I find it strange that they refused to submit his writings to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He was denied a fair trial. The Archbishop wanted to have his writings investigated but this was denied. He was not granted a fair trial.

I don’t support the SSPX but I can see why the Archbishop was troubled by the way the entire investigation and suppression was carried out. He was denied the right to a fair appeal. He was denied an audience with the Pope. He was denied the right to stand before the Congregration for the Doctrine of the Faith. All requests to see the documents concerning his case were refused. This can all be verified by reading Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre. The entire three volumes of this work are free on the Internet for anyone who is interested. I’m in the process of reading this book myself. The arguments put forth by Davies are very convincing.

What I find strange is the fact that an Archbishop can go from being very hightly thought of by two Popes, to being condemned by the Vatican in a matter of a few years. It makes no sense.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

This can all be verified by reading Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre. The entire three volumes of this work are free on the Internet for anyone who is interested. I’m in the process of reading this book myself. The arguments put forth by Davies are very convincing.

If you don’t mind, keep us posted on your throughts as you read the book. And can you provide the link?

 

[PrayforMallory]

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

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

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

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

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

If he was wrong, then he was a notorious villain.

If he was right, he is the greatest saint since the Counter-Reformation.

 

[Dempsey1919]

If you don’t mind, keep us posted on your throughts as you read the book. And can you provide the link?

Search “apologia pro lefebvre” in Google and you will find it at the top of the search page. It is on an SSPX Asia website. I won’t post the link in case it’s against the rules of this forum.

The book (or three books) basically tells the whole story of Marcel Lefebvre and the formation and subsequent suppression of the SSPX. The great thing about the book is that all claims made can be verified and all evidence is provided in the appendices.

There is too much to go into here but I can say that the way in which the case was handled was irregular to say the least.

Lefebvre’s main opposition came from his fellow frenchmen. They used their power in the Vatican to suppress an order they deemed to be in direct opposition to Vatican II, despite the fact that the Archbishop Lefebvre carefully composed his syllabis to conform to the Credo as outlined by Paul VI. He went to great lengths to ensure that he formed his priests in the correct and lawful manner as outlined by the Vatican. This is the ironic thing about the whole matter.

 

[PrayforMallory]

What I find strange is the fact that an Archbishop can go from being very hightly thought of by two Popes, to being condemned by the Vatican in a matter of a few years. It makes no sense.

I’ve also read that as a child he received communion from Pope St. Piux X, and that he wrote the Pope a letter thanking him. Don’t know if that’s true or not.

People overlook what an awesome missionary he was. He at least deserves some credit for partially laying the foundation for the renewal we see in Africa today.

I don’t know why he wasn’t granted an audience. When you hear him talk about it, it seems like they were set on pushing him into schism from the beginning.

He also deserves credit for the preservation of the Mass, because in 1980, I don’t know who else was preserving it. Every traditional Catholic in communion with Rome owes him for the fact that that Mass was preserved due to his efforts.He was unquestionably right about the traditional Mass never having been abrogated.

I’ve heard the arguments from folks, but it’s so hard to accept them, even if at times they might make a good case, because the fact is that it’s downright weird to me, that he was punished somehow, for arguing against religious liberty and the Pauline liturgy, when millions of people were enduring outright heresy and nothing was done about it. It’s weird that some of these outright unorthodox bishops allow pro-choice groups to operate in their dioceses, and that the SSPX were persecuted because of the Mass and their refusal to accept Vat II’s religious liberty, which wouldn’t have any kind of practical effect anyway, since a Catholic state in the West is pretty much a pipe dream, from a realistic standpoint.

I’m guessing there’s never been an SSPX priest that’s given a pro-choice or pro-gay homily, yet multitudes of diocesan priests that are basically fruitcakes never had a finger lifted against them.

It’s really, really weird.

 

[Dempsey1919]

It’s weird that some of these outright unorthodox bishops allow pro-choice groups to operate in their dioceses, and that the SSPX were persecuted because of the Mass

How many priests supported Humane Vitae in the 70’s? How many support it today?

Archbishop Lefebvre supported Humane Vitae fully and taught the doctrine to all of his seminarians. To this day, the SSPX explicitly supports this doctrine.

Of those in the mainstream Church, I have never met a priest who supports this document or this doctrine. In fact, I personally know one highly ranked member of the clergy who disagrees with the prohibition against artificial birth control. This man also supports the call for married priests.

I’m sure we’ve all came across priests and other Catholics who are openly opposed to certain doctrines of the faith. However, how many of these individuals have been punished for this? I venture to say very few.

Yet, the SSPX was roundly condemned for continuing to use the Tridentine Mass and for continuing Priestly formation according to traditional Catholic practice.

 

[Sepharad]

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

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

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

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

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

He was not the only, by any means. He is just the most famous one, due to his consecrations of bishops.

After V2 there were actually other Traditionalist groups working to provide Masses to traditional Catholics. I researched it for an aunt of mine who refused to attend the NO, so I learned quite a bit about the groups around in the 1970s.

BTW I read a lot of Archbishop Lefebvre’s writings in the process of researching this movement for my aunt…I developed a respect and regard for him, for being so dedicated to defending the Traditions of his faith. (I wish more in my own faith were as dedicated!)

Anyway, there was one group, called the “Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement” (ORCM), founded by a Father Francis E Fenton. There was also the SSPX which at that time was in Oyster Bay Cove, NY (I think the SSPV later broke off from them to be sedevacantists.)

I seem to remember another one, in France, but the name escapes me right now.

The ORCM dissolved (I don’t know why), and Fr Fenton started the Traditional Catholics of America and moved to Colorado. Many of the Catholics who had been with them went either to the Byzantine Rite (since their words of consecration remained the same as that of the TLM), or to the SSPX which by then, had a Mass in this area (my aunt ended up going to the SSPX).

There were also other Traditionalist groups in our area, run by independent priests. One near me, in Bensalem, PA was the Venerable Anna Catherine Emmerick Shrine which had Mass weekly.

As for why Abp Lefebvre was mistreated in the 1970s, etc…you need to remember something (and this is true in ALL religions, not just yours)…you are focusing on the spirituality of the church but remember that there is a lot of politics going on too. Religions are run by fallible humans, who often resort to politicking to get what they want.

 

[piojunbabia]

Oh, he wasn’t the only one. There was an entire group. Basically the conservatives at the time all had a problem with Vatican II. The group determined to stand together against the novelties.

Cardinal Castro Meyer
Cardinal Ottaviani and several bishops who were afaid to help and “excommunicated” ->lacks ground (bishops who obey the pope blindly…

A story:
The father told his sons to burn their house without good reason but to destroy the house. The boys blindy obey him except for one son who did not obey to burn their house. He did not obey because the command was to destroy what is good. Just like what Arch Lefebvre did.

I have no doubt at all that when this crisis is over, Lefebvre will be proven right and canonized. Archbishop Lefebvre simply preserve the faith “whole and inviolate” just as it had been taught prior to Vatican II. He refused to depart from what the Church has always taught, and refused to accept errors that had been repeatedly condemned by the Popes during the previous 200 years. His stand for the faith - against all odds - was truly heroic.

He refused to accept as true, in the 20th century, what had been condemned as an error in the 19th. Most of the others had not problem with that. For example: The Syllabus of errors were a summation and condemnation of the Liberal errors that had emerged. What the Syllabus condemned, was taught as true at Vatican II. At least that is how everyone “interprets” Vatican II

The situation of Archbishop Lefebvrre was not much different than St. Athanasius who lived during the Arian Crisis. There was a saying in those days about St. Athanasius. It was “Athanasius Contra Mundum” - Athanasius against the world!

Everyone was against Athanasius because he refused to depart from what the Church had always taught. He realized that error did not become true simply because the calendar read a later date. He was banned from his dioces 5 times, spent 17 years in exile, was excommunicated by the Pope and condemned by a council of 300 Bishops (about the same number of Bishops who attended the Council of Nicea), yet in the end he was proven right.

Who reading this would have followed St. Athanasius if we lived in those days? How would we have known that he was right and that all the others were wrong? How would we have known that the council of Bishops were all wrong and that the excommunication was “absolutely null and utterly void”?

Answer: It would not have been easy. In fact, in my opinion (due to the poor means of communication in those days), I think it would have been much more difficult to know that St. Athanasius was right, than it is to know that Archbishop Lefebvre was right.

Archbishop Lefebvre, modern saint, modern St Athanasius, modern Catholic hero!!

A negative proof that he was right is that he, and the SSPX, are the only ones who are HATED. Rome has no problem with the Orthodox, who are real Schismatics, or the Protestants who are heretics, or even the Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.

The only group that is HATED today is the SSPX, **and that is because they stand firm to what the Church has always taught **and refuse to budge.

Because everyone hate the Catholic faith!

I do not agree with everything about the SSPX, but they are preserving the faith without compromise.

I agree almost everything about SSPX, who else is teaching the only true faith? FSSP has compromised.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, make our soul holy and our body pure.

Ave Maria!

 

[Dempsey1919]

As for why Abp Lefebvre was mistreated in the 1970s, etc…you need to remember something (and this is true in ALL religions, not just yours)…you are focusing on the spirituality of the church **but remember that there is a lot of politics going on **too. Religions are run by fallible humans, who often resort to politicking to get what they want.

I completely agree with you.

From my studies, it appears that the SSPX was originally supressed for entirely political reasons. Had there been any suspicions of heresy, I am sure that the curia would have allowed the Archbishop to stand before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

 

[MrS]

I agree almost everything about SSPX, who else is teaching the only true faith? FSSP has compromised.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, make our soul holy and our body pure.

Ave Maria!

huh???

 

[piojunbabia]

huh???

What huh?
isnt it true that FSSP compromised? They tend to believe that the Tridentine Mass is equal to NOM, and they tend to agree that ALL religions are equal, etc… I wonder if these ALL include Satanist. But SSPX had firm belief in pure Catholic teaching pure Catholic faith. No compromse, wrong is wrong!

“Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it,and right is right even if nobody is doing it”
-St.Augustine Doctor of the Church

 

[CatholicCid]

Oh, he wasn’t the only one. There was an entire group. Basically the conservatives at the time all had a problem with Vatican II. The group determined to stand together against the novelties.

They did. One of them was Cardinal Ottaviani, who was the head of the Holy Office under three Popes. The Holy Office was the office responsible for defending the faith.

I have no doubt at all that when this crisis is over, Lefebvre will be proven right and canonized. Archbishop Lefebvre simply preserve the faith “whole and inviolate” just as it had been taught prior to Vatican II. He refused to depart from what the Church has always taught, and refused to accept errors that had been repeatedly condemned by the Popes during the previous 200 years. His stand for the faith - against all odds - was truly heroic.

He refused to accept as true, in the 20th century, what had been condemned as an error in the 19th. Most of the others had not problem with that. For example: The Syllabus of errors were a summation and condemnation of the Liberal errors that had emerged. What the Syllabus condemned, was taught as true at Vatican II. At least that is how everyone “interprets” Vatican II

The situation of Archbishop Lefebvrre was not much different than St. Athanasius who lived during the Arian Crisis. There was a saying in those days about St. Athanasius. It was “Athanasius Contra Mundum” - Athanasius against the world!

Everyone was against Athanasius because he refused to depart from what the Church had always taught. He realized that error did not become true simply because the calendar read a later date. He was banned from his dioces 5 times, spent 17 years in exile, was excommunicated by the Pope and condemned by a council of 300 Bishops (about the same number of Bishops who attended the Council of Nicea), yet in the end he was proven right.

Who reading this would have followed St. Athanasius if we lived in those days? How would we have known that he was right and that all the others were wrong? How would we have known that the council of Bishops were all wrong and that the excommunication was “absolutely null and utterly void”?

Answer: It would not have been easy. In fact, in my opinion (due to the poor means of communication in those days), I think it would have been much more difficult to know that St. Athanasius was right, than it is to know that Archbishop Lefebvre was right.

A negative proof that he was right is that he, and the SSPX, are the only ones who are HATED. Rome has no problem with the Orthodox, who are real Schismatics, or the Protestants who are heretics, or even the Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.

The only group that is HATED today is the SSPX, **and that is because they stand firm to what the Church has always taught **and refuse to budge.

I do not agree with everything about the SSPX, but they are preserving the faith without compromise.

As to St. Athanasius, could you provide some definitive proof that he was actually excommunicated? Though been a while since I studied his life, I cannot recall any definitive proof that he was excommunicated by the Pope, just the speculation that he was. Even that speculation itself teetered on both sides of the fence.

 

[MrS]

What huh?
isnt it true that FSSP compromised? They tend to believe that the Tridentine Mass is equal to NOM, and they tend to agree that ALL religions are equal, etc… I wonder if these ALL include Satanist. But SSPX had firm belief in pure Catholic teaching pure Catholic faith. No compromse, wrong is wrong!

“Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it,and right is right even if nobody is doing it”
-St.Augustine Doctor of the Church

Perhaps they agree with the Pope, that a properly celebrated NO is a licit Mass, as is the EF.

Give a listen to Fr Ripperger as he talks about “monuments”, and I accept your apology ahead of time.

it is the talk titles Catholic Tradition and the Liturgy.

uvcr.catholicam.org/fr_rmp3.html

where do they “tend to agree that ALL religions are equal” ???

that is goofy at the very least.
.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

As to St. Athanasius, could you provide some definitive proof that he was actually excommunicated? Though been a while since I studied his life, I cannot recall any definitive proof that he was excommunicated by the Pope, just the speculation that he was. Even that speculation itself teetered on both sides of the fence.

This isn’t proof, but it was written by Karl Keating who is no defender of the SSPX:

This Rock:

Q: Was St. Athanasius, the “Defender of Orthodoxy,” wrongly excommunicated by a pope? A Traditionalist friend of mine says he was and that this gives credence to claims of the Society of St. Pius X that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was wrongly excommunicated as well.

A: For centuries scholars have debated the authenticity of the fours letters of Pope Liberius condemning Athanasius during the Arian persecution of the fourth century. The predominant opinion today is that they are genuine.

 

[CatholicCid]

I’m not sure exactly what “four letters” are meant, but I assume he means the letters seen from St. Hilary.
Though, if memory serves, it is thought that if the letters were not forgeries, Pope Liberius signed them only after exile and threat of death after many years refusing to condemn St. Athanasius, which would mean that he could not willingly agree to anything.

I believe the debate can be summed up in two thoughts
-Pope Liberius was returned from exile, so he must have caved to Constantius
-If Constantius finally had the Pope’s condemnation of St. Athanasius, why didn’t he use it?

newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm contains a nice, long discussion on it.

 

[cam100]

As to St. Athanasius, could you provide some definitive proof that he was actually excommunicated? Though been a while since I studied his life, I cannot recall any definitive proof that he was excommunicated by the Pope, just the speculation that he was. Even that speculation itself teetered on both sides of the fence.

This isn’t proof, but it was written by Karl Keating who is no defender of the SSPX:

This Rock:

St. Athanasius was NOT actually excommunicated by Pope Liberius. The quote presented doesn’t tell the rest of the story (although the original *This Rock *article may have). While many historians believe that the excommunication letter was actually signed by Pope Liberius, this is not the point. St. Athanasius himself believed that the pope had actually signed it. However, he knew the pope was being held captive at the time, and that the pope did not really support that position, so St. Athansius concluded that the pope was forced to sign the letter. Without the pope’s free consent, the excommunication therefore never actually took place.

Some historians have believed that letters were completely forged, that is, the pope never even saw them. Either way, no excommunication took place. The analogy between St. Athansius and Archbishop Lefebvre that has been circulating is based on a misunderstanding of history.