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

[Pax_et_Caritas]

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

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

The Pope may indeed have signed the letters under duress, but how can we know it? If we question/doubt actual letters that we still have (which are objective), how can we be sure of the subjective disposition of the Pope at the time? What is more certain, what is contained in actual letters, or the subjective feelings of a person who lived 1500 years ago? And it doesn’t make the Pope look to good if he compromised the faith due to persecution. That’s not what the martyrs did.

Do we have any objecive evidence that he signed under duress. Did the Pope later write something saying this, or is this just speculation? If it is mere speculation, where did it originate?

 

[Dempsey1919]

They tend to believe that the Tridentine Mass is equal to NOM

What do you mean by this?

The FSSP recognize the validity of the OF as did Marcel Lefebvre. Lefebvre never stated that the Pauline Mass was invalid. Rather, he stated that the EF was superior because it more perfectly articulated true Catholic doctrine.

The OF certainly is valid and the FSSP recognise this truth. However, the FSSP obviously prefer the EF but do not look for the supression of another perfectly valid Mass.

 

[LJN21]

What huh?
isnt it true that FSSP compromised?

Not at all.

They tend to believe that the Tridentine Mass is equal to NOM,

They believe the NO is a valid Mass, it seems to me they tend to think the TLM is better or they would not dedicate their lives to promulgate it.

and they tend to agree that ALL religions are equal, etc…

That is just pure poppycock.

I wonder if these ALL include Satanist. But SSPX had firm belief in pure Catholic teaching pure Catholic faith. No compromse, wrong is wrong!

Right, Satanist… seriously is that what SSPX is teaching now days?

“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

Yes and lying and calling a group of people Satanist is wrong.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I thought I’d share this with you:

It is from Chapter 7 of Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre by Michael Davies. It is a summary of the early case against the SSPX:

1. The Society of Saint Pius X was established according to all the requirements of Canon Law, with the approval of the Vatican and the active encouragement of the Congregation of the Clergy and its Prefect, Cardinal Wright.

1. The Society soon established the most flourishing and orthodox Seminary in Europe at enormous financial cost, borne by thousands of faithful Catholics all over the world.

1. An Apostolic Visitation of the Seminary brought to light no reason for complaint.

1. Mgr. Lefebvre was summoned to appear before three Cardinals for a discussion which turned out to be a trial.

1. The entire case against him was based on a statement provoked by unorthodox opinions expressed by the Apostolic Visitors to Ecône.

1. The entire Society was suppressed as the result of a single statement made by only one of its members.

7. The Archbishop rightly insisted that if the statement was alleged to be unorthodox the only tribunal competent to assess it was the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He asked to have his Declaration considered by this Congregation. His request was refused.

1. Up to this point, no public statement had been issued quoting a specific passage in this Declaration which was alleged to be unorthodox.

1. Not one iota of evidence has ever been produced to prove that the Commission of Cardinals had been constituted by the Pope according to the required canonical norms or that the Pope had approved its decisions in forma specifica.

1. However, even had this Commission of Cardinals formed a legally constituted tribunal with the authority to try and condemn Mgr. Lefebvre (without considering it necessary to mention this fact to him), it has been shown on p. 61 that the decisions taken against Mgr. Lefebvre were not those of the tribunal, still less of the Pope, but of some anonymous authority.

**11. At the moment when it would have been necessary to produce the relevant documents in response to the Archbishop’s appeal, it was stated that his appeal could not be heard as the Pope had approved the decisions of the Commission of Cardinals in forma specifica - the very point which the Archbishop disputed and for which his lawyer would required proof.
**
12. On this basis the Archbishop was expected to close his Seminary in mid-term and send professors and seminarians home.

Mgr. Lefebvre claims that this constituted an abuse of power. The reader must decide whether he is justified in making this claim. The question at issue is this: Is it outrageous that the Archbishop should have refused to submit to the Pope, or is it outrageous that the Pope should have demanded that the Archbishop should submit to such a travesty of justice?

I have placed in bold the points I believe to be the most important.

The entire suppression of the SSPX was in response to a Declaration made by Lefebvre on 21 November 1974.

In response to this supression, the Archbishop Lefebvre asked for his Declaration to be examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He wanted to see what was deemed heretical in this Declaration. In his mind, the Declaration was in line with constant Catholic teaching, and he was perplexed that this document should be the cause of his condemnation. However, this request was refused by the Commission of Cardinals. They denied Lefebvre the right to fight his case against the Congregation charged with the defence of orthodoxy within the Church. Surely the accused should have the right to defend himself? If there was anything suspect in the Declaration, I am sure that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would have given Lefebvre an explanation.

Point 11 in the above quotation shows that Lefebvre was also denied all paperwork dealing with the supression of his Order. Lefebvre was left in the dark and denied the right to a proper appeal with the help of a Canon lawyer. More importantly, he was denied the right to know the charges that were held against him.

The most important thing to take from the above is that the whole process was shrouded in mystery. The Archbishop was unable to know exactly why he was being supressed and he was denied the right to appeal, or even speak to the Pope in person having been denied this on two separate occasions.

 

[CatholicCid]

The Pope may indeed have signed the letters under duress, but how can we know it? If we question/doubt actual letters that we still have (which are objective), how can we be sure of the subjective disposition of the Pope at the time? What is more certain, what is contained in actual letters, or the subjective feelings of a person who lived 1500 years ago? And it doesn’t make the Pope look to good if he compromised the faith due to persecution. That’s not what the martyrs did.

Do we have any objecive evidence that he signed under duress. Did the Pope later write something saying this, or is this just speculation? If it is mere speculation, where did it originate?

I think cam100’s responsed better then I ever could, though I will still make the attempt.

I would think the known history of the time, including the repeated and failed attempts to sway Pope Liberius, including his exile, would point to a time that would cause anyone duress.

I admit, I fall into one of thinkers who do question the authenticity of the actual documents and in my (unlearnt) studies, have not seen anything definitive to remove the doubt.

If the Pope had fallen into duress and actually signed said letters, then that shows, without a doubt, one thing we all do know already: Even our Clergy are human.

My last thought would be then, if St. Athanasius truly was excommunicated, what Council or document removed the excommunication? Hopefully, the Church would have removed such things before recognizing him as a Saint.

On an interesting side note, I recently read that the Eastern Orthodox consider Pope Liberius a Saint, which I found somewhat interesting, to say the least.

Anyway, I’ll end with what cam100 said: 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.

My apologies for hijacking the thread toward this discussion of St. Athanasius

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

St. Athanasius was NOT actually excommunicated by Pope Liberius. … 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.

So, if you would have lived in that day, and found out that Athanasius - the rogue Bishop who had been condemnd by a council of 300 Bishops, banned from his diocees 5 times, and spent 17 years as an exile - said that he was not truly excommunicated because the Pope was forced to sign the excommunication, you would have believe him? Don’t kid yourself.

This is your argument: Athanasius’ excummunication was void because the Pope was forced to sign it, and Athanasius knew it. The fact that Athanasius wrote at the time that he knew the excommunication was not just, proves that it was not just. Therefore, there is no comparrison between him and Archbishop Lefebvre.

Here’s my reply: Firstly, Archbishop Lefebvre was not excommunicated. All that John Paul II did was to declare that he incurred ipso facto excommunication. There is a big difference between the Pope excommunicating someone, and simply declaring that they incurred excommunication ipso facto.

An ipso facto excommunication has many “outs” in canon law. I won’t get into all the “outs” here, but suffice it to say that there is absolutely no way in the world that the ipso fact excommunication stuck. No way.

Now, Archbishop Lefebvre knew full well that he did not incur an ipso facto excommunication, and he has written about it, just liek St. Athanasius did.

Therefore, since Archbishop Lefebvre stated that he knew his “excommunication” was null and void, does that make it null and void? According to your argument, the fact that Athanasius throught his was, means that it was. Using that same logic, you would have to conclude that Archbishop Lefebvre’s excommunication was also null and void, since he through it was.

But the real argument against the ipso fact excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre comes from canon law, where one finds all of the “outs” that prevent the excommunication from actually taking effect.

To put it simply, the objective act itself (which incurrs the ipso facto excommunication), must be accompanied by a subjective mortal sin. Therefore, canon law gives many outs that would excuse, such as a person who acted out of what he subjetively perceived to be necessity. Canon law even states that if the person wrongly believed there was a necessity, it wouldn’t matter. As long as the person truly believed that he was acting out of necessity, the excommunication does not stick.

Since we were in the great apostasy when Archbishop Lefebvre took the extraordinary measures he did to protect the faith and the priesthood, what he did was justified. This was a time when the worst heretics were being promoted to the highest postions in the Church; when the Seminaries were cesspools of heresy and moral perversion, and when the Pope tool absolutely no effective action to fix either, that Archbishop Lefebvre The Great did what needed to be done.

Thanks to him, the Old Mass was preserved and is now making a comeback. We now have a Pope who takes his job seriously and is doing what he can to restore the Church. Unlike John Paul II the Great, our new Pope has not invited witch doctors, or African Animists (devil worshippers) to Assisi even one time to commit an objective mortal sin agains the first commandment, in the hope that God would be so please with the violation of His first commandment that he would grant “world peace”. John Paul II had no porblem with witch doctors or African Aniomists, it was only those who did what was necessary to preserve the faith.

This unjustice will be reconciled. Mark my words.

 

[cam100]

So, if you would have lived in that day, and found out that Athanasius - the rogue Bishop who had been condemnd by a council of 300 Bishops, banned from his diocees 5 times, and spent 17 years as an exile - said that he was not truly excommunicated because the Pope was forced to sign the excommunication, you would have believe him? Don’t kid yourself.

Whether or not I would have been knowledgeable of the facts if I had lived at the time is of no consequence. The fact is, certain events happened such that St. Athanasius was never excommunicated, and at least some people were aware of this at the time.

This is your argument: Athanasius’ excummunication was void because the Pope was forced to sign it, and Athanasius knew it. The fact that Athanasius wrote at the time that he knew the excommunication was not just, proves that it was not just. Therefore, there is no comparrison between him and Archbishop Lefebvre.

You’re missing the point here. In Athanasius’ case, it had nothing do with being unjust. Rather, it had to do with the fact that the pope never willfully ordered the excommunication, so it never took place. In Archbishop Lefebvre’s case, the archbishop could not deny that the pope, the final authority on the application of canon law, upheld the ipso facto excommunication. Instead, the archbishop tried to circumvent it by claiming injustice. However, this was injustice according to subjective opinion, an opinion not shared by the pope.

Here’s my reply: Firstly, Archbishop Lefebvre was not excommunicated. All that John Paul II did was to declare that he incurred ipso facto excommunication. There is a big difference between the Pope excommunicating someone, and simply declaring that they incurred excommunication ipso facto.

An ipso facto excommunication has many “outs” in canon law. I won’t get into all the “outs” here, but suffice it to say that there is absolutely no way in the world that the ipso fact excommunication stuck. No way.

I know about the “outs”, as do the experts on canon law in the Vatican, including the pope, who maintain that Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated.

Now, Archbishop Lefebvre knew full well that he did not incur an ipso facto excommunication, and he has written about it, just liek St. Athanasius did.

Therefore, since Archbishop Lefebvre stated that he knew his “excommunication” was null and void, does that make it null and void? According to your argument, the fact that Athanasius throught his was, means that it was. Using that same logic, you would have to conclude that Archbishop Lefebvre’s excommunication was also null and void, since he through it was.

It seems you’re not following my argument. I am NOT saying that St. Athanasius wasn’t excommunicated just because he himself thought he wasn’t and wrote about it! What I’m saying is that Athanasius wasn’t excommunicated because the pope never signed, or never willfully signed a letter of excommunication. Fortunately for St. Athanasius, he was aware of this fact. It was not Athanasius’ opinion that made the excommunication non-existent. It was the circumstances under which the apparent letter was generated.

But the real argument against the ipso fact excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre comes from canon law, where one finds all of the “outs” that prevent the excommunication from actually taking effect.

To put it simply, the objective act itself (which incurrs the ipso facto excommunication), must be accompanied by a subjective mortal sin. Therefore, canon law gives many outs that would excuse, such as a person who acted out of what he subjetively perceived to be necessity. Canon law even states that if the person wrongly believed there was a necessity, it wouldn’t matter. As long as the person truly believed that he was acting out of necessity, the excommunication does not stick.

Again, the pope is the final judge of the application of canon law, and he judged that the Lefebvre situation did not meet the criteria that would render the excommunication null.

Since we were in the great apostasy when Archbishop Lefebvre took the extraordinary measures he did to protect the faith and the priesthood, what he did was justified. This was a time when the worst heretics were being promoted to the highest postions in the Church; when the Seminaries were cesspools of heresy and moral perversion, and when the Pope tool absolutely no effective action to fix either, that Archbishop Lefebvre The Great did what needed to be done.

Thanks to him, the Old Mass was preserved and is now making a comeback. We now have a Pope who takes his job seriously and is doing what he can to restore the Church. Unlike John Paul II the Great, our new Pope has not invited witch doctors, or African Animists (devil worshippers) to Assisi even one time to commit an objective mortal sin agains the first commandment, in the hope that God would be so please with the violation of His first commandment that he would grant “world peace”. John Paul II had no porblem with witch doctors or African Aniomists, it was only those who did what was necessary to preserve the faith.

This unjustice will be reconciled. Mark my words.

Catholic moral theology teaches that ends do not justify the means, so you can’t argue that the Archbishop was right because his actions produced good effects. From a completely practical standpoint, the case can actually be made that the Archbishop’s actions hurt the traditional movement because his disobedience left a bad taste in the Vatican’s mouth and biased the officials against the movement for quite some time.

 

[Dempsey1919]

From a completely practical standpoint, the case can actually be made that the Archbishop’s actions hurt the traditional movement because his disobedience left a bad taste in the Vatican’s mouth and biased the officials against the movement for quite some time.

How did Lefebvre hurt the traditional movement? Without Lefebvre there would be no traditional movement. He saved the Tridentine Mass.

In fact, the reason we have Summorum Pontificum is because the current Holy Father knew that this would help bring the SSPX back into the mainstream.

The SSPX is the only Order that trained Priests to say the Tridentine Mass in the 1970’s and 80’s. The FSSP and others were created in order to lure those from the SSPX back into the Church.

Without the SSPX, we would not be experiencing the current liturgical renaissance of Benedict XVI.

 

[LJN21]

How did Lefebvre hurt the traditional movement?

He excommunicated himself.

Without Lefebvre there would be no traditional movement. He saved the Tridentine Mass.

Thats personal opinion and conjecture.

My personal opinion and conjecture is, had he not excommunicated himself the traditional movement would have been much faster. More energy would have been spent fixing whats wrong instead of worrying about exactly where the SSPX stand with Rome and if they have valid marriages and confession.

In fact, the reason we have Summorum Pontificum is because the current Holy Father knew that this would help bring the SSPX back into the mainstream.

That seems to be working so well.

The SSPX is the only Order that trained Priests to say the Tridentine Mass in the 1970’s and 80’s. The FSSP and others were created in order to lure those from the SSPX back into the Church.

Or maybe the FSSP was founded to fill the void in training priests licitly when he excommunicated himself?

Although I’m having a hard time finding fault in the idea of luring the SSPX back to the Church.

Without the SSPX, we would not be experiencing the current liturgical renaissance of Benedict XVI.

More conjecture.

Personally, I think its far more likely it was people like our current Pope working form inside the Church, through licit means, to effect change.

 

[cam100]

How did Lefebvre hurt the traditional movement? Without Lefebvre there would be no traditional movement. He saved the Tridentine Mass.

In fact, the reason we have Summorum Pontificum is because the current Holy Father knew that this would help bring the SSPX back into the mainstream.

The SSPX is the only Order that trained Priests to say the Tridentine Mass in the 1970’s and 80’s. The FSSP and others were created in order to lure those from the SSPX back into the Church.

Without the SSPX, we would not be experiencing the current liturgical renaissance of Benedict XVI.

Actually, the Tridentine mass was being celebrated and promoted in a number of places before the SSPX arrived. I see you’re in the UK, and I don’t know much about what was going on there with regard to the TLM. However, there were organizations and individual priests in other countries that continued to celebrate the TLM. In the US, the ORCM is an example of such an organization.

Ironically, followers of that group complained because the SSPX started opening missions in the same areas are ORCM priests were located, and the ORCM followers believed the SSPX was trying to “lure” people away.

Interestingly, you claim the same about the FSSP. In reality, however, the FSSP did not originate to “lure” people away, rather it was started by priests who left the SSPX after the archbishop’s excommunication because they didn’t want to follow an excommunicated leader.

Another problem with your position is that Lefebvre wasn’t excommunicated for starting the SSPX or for celebrating the traditional mass. Actually, the pope had agreed to provide the archbishop with men to be consecrated bishops! The problem was that after some delays, Lefebvre decided to take matters into his own hands and consecrate bishops in a manner contrary to canon law. That is what started the mess and really set the Vatican at odds with the Archbishop and the traditional movement.

If Archbishop Lefebvre had not done this, the pope would probably have continued on the path of cooperation, and we might have had the likes of Summorum Pontificum much sooner!

 

[Dempsey1919]

Personally, I think its far more likely it was people like our current Pope working form inside the Church, through licit means, to effect change.

But something must have caused the need for change. Without Lefebvre there would have been no need for change. He was the only one who kept the Tridentine Mass alive in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The SSPX was a factor in the creation of all subsequent traditional orders. The FSSP was created for SSPX Priests who left their Order after the disobedient consecration of Bishops in 1988.

The Church had the Mass of Paul VI, and most people were happy with it. There would have been no need to release restrictions on the Tridentine Mass if there were not groups such as the SSPX who remained attached to it. It is precisely because the SSPX continued to celebrate the Tridentine Mass that the Holy Father recognised the need to do more in order to appease those who were attached to it.

For a lot of years, the SSPX were the only ones who kept the memory of the Tridentine Mass alive within the Church.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You’re missing the point here. In Athanasius’ case, it had nothing do with being unjust. Rather, it had to do with the fact that the pope never willfully ordered the excommunication, so it never took place.

This is what you are saying: You are saying the, although Pope Liberius did objectively sign the excommunication, it was not valid due to subjective reasons. In other words, he was forced to sign it, which means he signed under duress. Therefore, the subjective disposition of the Pope nullified the objective act of signing the excommunication.

Well, with respect to Archbishop Lefebvre, it was similar (but the role was reversed). In the case of St. Athanasius, it was the Pope himself who determined if the excommunicaiton was valid. Therefore, the subjective state of the Pope would determine the validity. In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre (which was an ipso facto excommunication), it was the Archbishop who made the excommunication valid or invalid.

Since we are dealing with an ipso facto excommunication, which requries a subjective mortal sin, the objective act of consecrating Bishops against the will of the Pope brought about the statement of John Paul II saying that Archbishop Lefebvre incurred excommunication. But, just as the disposition of Pope Liberius nullified the excommunication of St. Athanaius, so too the subjective discposition of Archbishop Lefebvre nullified the ipso facto excommunication, since it was done out of necessity.

If John Paul II had come out and excommunication the Archbishop I could not argue with it, but he did not. The most anyone would be able to claim is that he did so under durres. All John Paul II did was declare that the Archbishop commited the act and thus incurred the ipsp facto excommunication.

I know about the “outs”, as do the experts on canon law in the Vatican, including the pope, who maintain that Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated.

You mean the same Pope who believed that the heretical and schismatic Orthodox are part of the one true Church (See the Bellamand Agreement), and should not be converted, and who believed that the “Old Covenant was never revoked by God”. The same Pope who believed that a Mass containing NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION, was valid? Are you referring to that Pope?

Again, the pope is the final judge of the application of canon law, and he judged that the Lefebvre situation did not meet the criteria that would render the excommunication null.

It’s more likely that John Paul II just went along with whatever the Liberals around him told him to do. They said he should sign the decree, so that is what he did.

Catholic moral theology teaches that ends do not justify the means,

That’s not is not the principle that applies in this case. The principle you should be considering is the one that says “in the time of necessity there is no law”.

I agree that it is never permitted to sin in the hope of brining about a good. However, we are not dealing with the natural law, or Divine positive law. We are dealing with positive ecclesiastical law, which is similar to human law. Let me give you an example.

Is it wrong to run a red light? Yes it is. However, if your wife is having a baby, it is OK to violate that law in order to get her to the hospital. Yes it is. That is not doing evil to bring about a good.

Human laws and Ecclesiastical laws are for the good of the society or the Church. When necessity requires, those laws can be violated without the person committing a sin. That is where the principle of *“in the time of necessity there is no law” *comes from.

so you can’t argue that the Archbishop was right because his actions produced good effects.

I didn’t argue that. I am not saying he was right because the fruits are good. If anything I would say the fruits are good because he was right. The results (fruits) do not determine the goodness or malice of the act. That is determined at the time of the act and is independent of the fruits.

From a completely practical standpoint, the case can actually be made that the Archbishop’s actions hurt the traditional movement because his disobedience left a bad taste in the Vatican’s mouth and biased the officials against the movement for quite some time.

You can judge the fruits that way if you want. But if Archbishop Lefebvre would have simply retired and not persisted in his defense of the faith, the old Mass would be gone and the Church just might have been destroyed. Fortunately, God was faithful to his promise and raised up Archbishop Lefebvre the Great to save his Church, just like he did with St. Athanasius in the 4th century.

Consider this: How often did you argue with the Traditioanalists in claiming that the Old Mass had been abrogated and the pro multis meant “for all”. I argued that for years, and was called all kinds of names, since Rome was saying and implying the exact contrary. Then what happened? A new Pope was elected and Rome did a complete 180 and reversed everything it had said on the subject for the previous 37 years (whcih was, of course, exactly opposite of what the Church said for the previous 1965 years.)

With the track record of John Paul II’s Papacy, would anyone really be surprised if the “excommunication” of Archbishop Lefebvre was declared null and void?

 

[cam100]

Since we are dealing with an ipso facto excommunication, which requries a subjective mortal sin, the objective act of consecrating Bishops against the will of the Pope brought about the statement of John Paul II saying that Archbishop Lefebvre incurred excommunication. But, just as the disposition of Pope Liberius nullified the excommunication of St. Athanaius, so too the subjective discposition of Archbishop Lefebvre nullified the ipso facto excommunication, since it was done out of necessity.

I understand that necessity can override canon law. However, as the pope pointed out, it is never a necessity in any particular case to consecrate bishops. As a matter of fact, the pope didn’t forbid Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate bishops, he just told him to wait.

You mean the same Pope who believed that the heretical and schismatic Orthodox are part of the one true Church (See the Bellamand Agreement), and should not be converted, and who believed that the “Old Covenant was never revoked by God”. The same Pope who believed that a Mass containing NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION, was valid? Are you referring to that Pope?

I’m referring to the ONLY pope occupying the Chair of Peter at that that time. Regardless of what you think he said (and your interpretations are debateable), unless you are a sedevacantist (and think you are not), you must acknowledge that the pope continues to hold authority and is the final judge in matters of canon law.

That’s not is not the principle that applies in this case. The principle you should be considering is the one that says “in the time of necessity there is no law”.

This liberal interpretation of “necessesity” would let just about everyone off the hook. Refer to my comment above that it is never a necessity in any particular case to consecrate bishops.

You can judge the fruits that way if you want. But if Archbishop Lefebvre would have simply retired and not persisted in his defense of the faith, the old Mass would be gone and the Church just might have been destroyed.

He wasn’t excommunicated for not retiring. He was excommunicated for rushing to consecrate bishops without papal permission.

Consider this: How often did you argue with the Traditioanalists in claiming that the Old Mass had been abrogated and the pro multis meant “for all”. I argued that for years, and was called all kinds of names, since Rome was saying and implying the exact contrary. Then what happened? A new Pope was elected and Rome did a complete 180 and reversed everything it had said on the subject for the previous 37 years (whcih was, of course, exactly opposite of what the Church said for the previous 1965 years.)

Except that Pope John Paul II never said that the TLM was abogated, or that pro multis translated to “for all”. And Pope Benedicty never said that the TLM wasn’t previously restricted, or that pro multis had no relation to “for all”. There is no contradiction.

With the track record of John Paul II’s Papacy, would anyone really be surprised if the “excommunication” of Archbishop Lefebvre was declared null and void?

Yes.

 

[PrayforMallory]

I think this discussion is ignoring the reality of the 1970’s and 80’s.

Our discussions about Archbishop Lefebvre usually take a JPII vs. Archbishop Lefebvre tone.

In reality, liberal theologians and prelates had a hand in suppressing the SSPX during the pontificate of Paul VI. These same liberals also attacked the Papacy of JPII.

I’m not convinced that JPII had the level of freedom that people normally attribute to his pontificate. JPII was such a brave man, and such a stoic man, and he was such a paragon of confidence in the Church, that I think we now forget how limited his power was at the beginning of his pontificate.

With all the cries of “Saint him,” that we heard just a couple of years ago, we forget that Pope John Paul II was hated by virtually the entire left, who wanted to suppress and violate ancient Church teaching regarding faith and morals. How many times, at a Catholic University, have lectures been given on how Jesus is one God among many, or that the Church can be democratized, etc. Given this reality, it becomes clear that John Paul II had to deal with an extremely volatile situation, and fortunately for the Chuch, he had a heroic character to aid him.

This crisis is due to the pontificate of Paul VI, and Paul VI’s inability to be decisive.

It was in the pontificate of Paul VI that the traditional Mass was suppressed. It was in the pontificate of Paul VI that heterodox theologians were granted free reign, and it was during the pontificate of Paul VI that even heterodox prelates like Suenens were allowed to tromp all over the Church, creating the problems of heterodoxy we have today, such as the popularity of Hans Kung and others.

These same heterodox people were behind the suppression of the SSPX before the 1988 consecrations. They were hellbent on pushing the SSPX into schism, not to defend the Mass of Paul VI, not to defend religious liberty, but to attack the timeless teachings of the Magisterium on faith and morals, in particular abortion, birth control, homosexuality, the economic system, etc.

That was why, in my opinion, Pope John Paul II had to focus so much on life issues. It was during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II that human life was defended from the throne. I think traditionalists (and non-traditionalists) should really step back and realize how much danger there was in the Church in 1988. Fortunately, God sent Pope John Paul II Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, to enforce the Church’s teaching and to take the brunt of heterodox assaults, so that he could effectively pastor faithful people during an unprecedented crisis of faith. I think a passage from the book “American Catholic,” written by liberal Church historian Charles Morris best illustrates the scope of the crisis, and the steps to renew the Church’s discipline and orthodoxy in the wake of it:

“By 1970 “new theology” meant a very different thing from what it meant at Vatican II. For Ratzinger, in particular, who was considered a progressive at the Council, the “road back to traditionalism could appear the only way to escape a theological disintegration.” Whatever the motivation, the Vatican’s reactions have steadily escalated from expressions of concern to increasingly heavy-handed interventions, and most recently (1997), to what could reasonably be construed as a declaration of all out war.”

“A gradual hardening Vatican line on theological heterodoxy was evident by the mid-1970’s. Policy toughened further when John Paul II assumed the Papacy in 1978, and even more so after Cardinal Ratzinger took over the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s ideological bureau, in 1982. Pope Paul had decentralized Curial operations after the Council, but in the new regime, there was a steady recentralization, and by 1989 Ratzinger had regained more or less all the power that Ottaviani had enjoyed. Edward Schillebeeckx’s Christology was subjected to detailed, hostile examinations in the late 1970’s, and Hans Kung was forbidden to represent himself as a Catholic theologian, mostly because of his challenge to the doctrine of papal infallibility…
… There was also a crackdown on the ultraright French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who eventually led a traditionalist schismatic movement.”

What would the supporters of Kung and Schillebeeckx say if Lefebvre wasn’t punished? What would the heterodox theologians have said when they were punished for dissent, while Lefebvre was given a free hand? John Paul II was a very intellectual man. He knew Lefebvre would need more than one bishop, it’s common sense, and he knew Lefebvre was sure of his faith and his position, and would consecrate more than one anyway, and remain unphased by the excommunication.

This is just my opinion, but I think given the situation, Marcel Lefebvre “took one for the team.” Kung and Schillebeeckx don’t have any credibility anymore, and Lefebvre’s excommunication can be lifted without difficulty, if the SSPX agrees to play ball. The traditionalists who were regularized apparently only had to accept Lumen Gentium, if someone was correct on this forum.

 

[Dempsey1919]

This is just my opinion, but I think given the situation, Marcel Lefebvre “took one for the team.” Kung and Schillebeeckx don’t have any credibility anymore, and Lefebvre’s excommunication can be lifted without difficulty, if the SSPX agrees to play ball. The traditionalists who were regularized apparently only had to accept Lumen Gentium, if someone was correct on this forum.

This is a very interesting way of looking at things. I think there is a lot of sense in what you have written.

The problems with the SSPX could evaporate in a matter of weeks. All Bishop Fellay has to do is be willing to compromise with the Holy Father. Pope Benedict XVI is doing all he can to bring them back, all they need to do now is accept his invitation.

 

[ChristopherM]

wow
what an interesting thread… thanks for the great reading.

I can’t believe how awful the 70’s must have been for the church. I was born in '84 and by the grace of God raised in a Catholic home with traditions and in a small town Catholic school that taught the faith as it should be- it wasn’t a full on Latin, and traditional school. Yet we did have daily mass!

I digress…

I pray that the SSPX comes back soon! I for one am of the mind that they can do much better work with full communion from Rome than in their imperfect communion state

 

[piojunbabia]

What do you mean by this?

The FSSP recognize the validity of the OF as did Marcel Lefebvre. Lefebvre never stated that the Pauline Mass was invalid. Rather, he stated that the EF was superior because it more perfectly articulated true Catholic doctrine.

The OF certainly is valid and the FSSP recognise this truth. However, the FSSP obviously prefer the EF but do not look for the supression of another perfectly valid Mass.

I ask apology for my statement.

What i was trying to say is that they have the tendency to believe that OF and EF is of the same value (tendency because they compromised and “required” to accept the teachings of V2) wihch is i think they really are not the same in value. I dont really know about the stand of FSSP regarding this matter and i am just speculating due to the fact that FSSP had compromised. Please correct me if im wrong and i have no bad intentions about my comments. I admit to the fact that I know nothing about the true stand of FSSP regarding their acceptance of V2 but correct me if im wrong. Did Archbishop Lefebvre rejection of V2 has some weird or evil intentions? He just did it for Catholic’s truth sake. Please know also the true stand of SSPX why they cannot accept V2…Fair? For objective truth’s sake.

We are all under one roof, Catholicism, under the Pope as our head, but arguments is inevitable due to V2 departure of the Catholic doctrines.Its true.

by the way, do FSSP celebrate the OF?

-not an official SSPX statement

Ave Maria!

 

[piojunbabia]

Not at all.

They believe the NO is a valid Mass, it seems to me they tend to think the TLM is better or they would not dedicate their lives to promulgate it.

That is just pure poppycock.

Right, Satanist… seriously is that what SSPX is teaching now days?

Yes and lying and calling a group of people Satanist is wrong.

and they tend to agree that all religions are equal.

what i was trying to say: since they accepted V2, then they also accept the V2 teachings that all relgions are equal. Documents can be found in Ecumenism (note: Not only Christian religions are included in this “all” but also other non-Christian religions eg. Bud. Isalm, Jewish, even pagan religions, etc.) Since they accept v2, then they also acept this ecumenism. ( Again, I am not sure about their true stand regarding their acceptance of V2 so correct me if im wrong. I am just speculating due to the fact that they accept v2. Including other errors of V2. I think its comprehensible.

Poppycock? ur so mean…please comprehend my statement.
"piojunbabia:

I wonder if these ALL include Satanist, But SSPX had firm belief in oure Catholic teaching pure Catholic faith. No compromise, wrong is wrong!

Right, SAtansit… seriously is that what SSPX is teaching now days…

Yes and lying and calling a group of people Satanist is wrong.

Did i say that some groups are Satanist?, please re-read again and again my statement twice repeatedly all over again. I said that " I wonder if this “ALL”, includes Satanist - I never mentioned that somebody or any group here belongs to Satanist. I think there wasnt any offensive by that statement of mine.I’d like to explain it to you in my dialect so that i could explain beter but u sure couldnt understand.

The SSPX had nothing to do about my statement. It is my personal opinion. I ( me not the SSPX) was just wondering if Satanist is included in the “ALL” (since V2 said “ALL religions are equal” something like that.but they[SSPX] never teach us that way.

-not an official SSPX statement!

Ave Maria!

 

[LJN21]

I ask apology for my statement.

What i was trying to say is that they have the tendency to believe that OF and EF is of the same value (tendency because they compromised and “required” to accept the teachings of V2)
wihch is i think they really are not the same in value.

Out of curiosity, where are you getting this stuff?

No FSSP priest I know things the OF and the EF are of the same “value”, why wouldn’t they just becomes OF priest then? They believe the OF is valid, but don’t tend to think its of the same “value”.

I’m also confused about being required to accept the teaching of V2. V2 didn’t really teach anything, one of the documents is on ecumenical nonsenses (problem going to get flamed for that comment) but none of it is infallible or binding.

I dont really know about the stand of FSSP regarding this matter and i am just speculating due to the fact that FSSP had compromised.

Compromised, Again what makes you say that? So far all of your statements supporting that idea are blatantly false.

Please correct me if im wrong and i have no bad intentions about my comments. I admit to the fact that I know nothing about the true stand of FSSP regarding their acceptance of V2 but correct me if im wrong. Did Archbishop Lefebvre rejection of V2 has some weird or evil intentions?

It wasn’t rejecting V2 that got Lefebvre in trouble, it was consecrating bishops when the pope told him not to. It was an act of disobedience to the proper authority.

He just did it for Catholic’s truth sake. Please know also the true stand of SSPX why they cannot accept V2…Fair? For objective truth’s sake.

What? How does V2 even apply to anyone celebrating the Old Mass? How is there anything in V2 that effects the teachings of the Church?

We are all under one roof, Catholicism, under the Pope as our head, but arguments is inevitable due to V2 departure of the Catholic doctrines.Its true.

Yes, the “Spirit of Vatican 2” made a lot of people think it change its doctrines but the fact of the matter is they can’t change, V2 was not infallible, nor were the documents, nor did any of it actually change Church teaching.

by the way, do FSSP celebrate the OF?

No

 

[LJN21]

and they tend to agree that all religions are equal.

what i was trying to say: since they accepted V2, then they also accept the V2 teachings that all relgions are equal. Documents can be found in Ecumenism (note: Not only Christian religions are included in this “all” but also other non-Christian religions eg. Bud. Isalm, Jewish, even pagan religions, etc.) Since they accept v2, then they also acept this ecumenism. ( Again, I am not sure about their true stand regarding their acceptance of V2 so correct me if im wrong. I am just speculating due to the fact that they accept v2. Including other errors of V2. I think its comprehensible.

Poppycock? ur so mean…please comprehend my statement.

The part in bold is pure poppycock.

All religions ** are not** equal. The Church has never taught that and the FSSP certainly do not remotely believe that.