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

[Hesychios]

I have no doubt at all that when this crisis is over, Lefebvre will be proven right and canonized.

Oh, he may be a saint but I don’t know if he will ever be canonized.

Anyway, everyone who loves and appreciates the Traditional Latin Mass, now called the Extraordinary Form, owes him a debt of gratitude and some prayers.

He saved it.

 

[Aramis]

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.

I assure you, not all archbishops agree with V II… but the rest acceded to the Holy Mother Church’s decision… mostly. A few others quietly resigned, from what I’ve read.

Only Archbishop Lefebvre created material schism over it.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I assure you, not all archbishops agree with V II… but the rest acceded to the Holy Mother Church’s decision… mostly. A few others quietly resigned, from what I’ve read.

Only Archbishop Lefebvre created material schism over it.

Who else disagreed? And what did they disagree with?

I don’t understand the lack of support Lefebvre received. If he was correct, why didn’t more people stand up for the truth? Surely the truth is the most important thing, far more important than offending the other clergy?

We can all see that Lefebvre was unfairly treated in the early 1970’s. However, his later actions were wrong. The more he resisted, the more disobedient he became.

While I thank Archbishop Lefebvre for saving the Tridentine Mass, I think he confused changeable liturgical traditions with the unchangeable TRADITION which forms part of Divine Revelation.

 

[Sepharad]

This is a little off-topic, just wanted to mention this without starting a new thread just about it.

I was watching a VHS documentary earlier today which I recently got,about the Waldensians (medieval Italian Protestants persecuted by Pope Innocent III, I think it was.)

Anyway, during the documentary they showed some footage from a Catholic High Mass in modern times, and I did a doubletake because after re-winding it a couple of times, I can now say for sure it was Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the footage!

I guess they chose SSPX footage because they wanted the clip to seem “really” Catholic (with all the ceremonies,etc)?

 

[Timothysis]

Can someone explain to me why an excommunicated bishop would ever be sainted by the Church? Most tend to ignore the fact that the Archbishop’s excommunication had to do with DISOBEDIENCE, not saying the TLM. As stated above, he excommunicated himself; why should this ever be lifted?

Can you also explain to me how he “saved” the TLM? My parish has been having the indult TLM since 1983, 5 years before the Archbishop was excommunicated. I’ll bet that you would be lucky to find 1 out of 100 church-going Catholics who know anything of the sspx, much less have even ever heard of it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Oh, he may be a saint but I don’t know if he will ever be canonized.

There’s nothing to prevent those who feel led to do so from praying to him - that’s how causes get off the ground.​

Anyway, everyone who loves and appreciates the Traditional Latin Mass, now called the Extraordinary Form, owes him a debt of gratitude and some prayers.

He saved it.

 

[LJN21]

Can someone explain to me why an excommunicated bishop would ever be sainted by the Church? Most tend to ignore the fact that the Archbishop’s excommunication had to do with DISOBEDIENCE, not saying the TLM. As stated above, he excommunicated himself; why should this ever be lifted?

Can you also explain to me how he “saved” the TLM? My parish has been having the indult TLM since 1983, 5 years before the Archbishop was excommunicated. I’ll bet that you would be lucky to find 1 out of 100 church-going Catholics who know anything of the sspx, much less have even ever heard of it.

Because its an easy excuse, as far as I can tell the only issue Rome ever had with him was his disobedience. Their followers make up excuses like, the “requirement” to accept the V2 docs, “freedom of religion”, or that they are the only “pure” Catholic teaching as a reason to doubt the current papacy. As an attendee of the FSSP for the last 15 years, parts of some of the documents are questionable, at best, and freedom of religion in the US has nothing to do with doctrine, and what I’ve been taught is the consistent teaching of the Church for the last 2000 years, not your current modernist take (and all its whims) on teaching.

I’m not sure SSPX, at this point, will ever come under Romes guidance. While I pray it will, the yoke of obedience is sometimes to much for those who have “tasted freedom” as I think can be seen in Fellays writings.

 

[Aramis]

Who else disagreed? And what did they disagree with?

I don’t understand the lack of support Lefebvre received. If he was correct, why didn’t more people stand up for the truth? Surely the truth is the most important thing, far more important than offending the other clergy?

We can all see that Lefebvre was unfairly treated in the early 1970’s. However, his later actions were wrong. The more he resisted, the more disobedient he became.

While I thank Archbishop Lefebvre for saving the Tridentine Mass, I think he confused changeable liturgical traditions with the unchangeable TRADITION which forms part of Divine Revelation.

While I don’t recall the names, I’ve read several excerpts from bishops and archbishops who disagreed with parts of Vatican II.

I also know that Archbishop Hurley had no problem with the Latin mass… he allowed the Dominicans to use the Dominican Latin Mass at the Cathedral for private masses. He would occasionally use the latin during the canon.

The problem with Lefebvre was disobedience, not a love of the Trent Approved Liturgy (as modified over the centuries…)

In disobeying, he left the church behind. He never made the effort to rejoin the Church and repent his very public sin of disobedience.

 

[Timothysis]

Because its an easy excuse, as far as I can tell the only issue Rome ever had with him was his disobedience.

So you are saying that a bishop can violate Canon Law, disobey the Pope and proceed as a renegade and its an “easy excuse?” That’s a really “consistent teaching of the Church for the last 2000 years”, isn’t it?

…not your current modernist take (and all its whims) on teaching.

Ah yes, modernism raises it’s head again. If violating Canon law and disobeying the Pope isn’t a “whim,” then what do you call it, “Traditionalist?”

Give me a break.

 

[LJN21]

So you are saying that a bishop can violate Canon Law, disobey the Pope and proceed as a renegade and its an “easy excuse?” That’s a really “consistent teaching of the Church for the last 2000 years”, isn’t it?

No I’m not saying that. In fact I said nothing about Canon law at all.

Ah yes, modernism raises it’s head again. If violating Canon law and disobeying the Pope isn’t a “whim,” then what do you call it, “Traditionalist?”

Give me a break.

Again, where did I say anything about disobeying the pope or cannon law.

If your attempting to elude to the position of, the documents of Vatican II are binding and they completely change a teaching on some issues, well, your going to have to prove it.

Even Kasper’s is really vague in how idea that the documents in question are binding and it revolves around things taught in them being tradition.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20031110_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Regarding this the Second Vatican Council made its contribution in Lumen Gentium, distinguishing between infallible declarations and the authentic Magisterium and explaining that the degree to which they are binding is to be recognized “by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency in which a certain document is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated” (Lumen Gentium, n. 25).

These distinctions must be taken into account when dealing with the theologically binding character of Unitatis Redintegratio. The question, therefore, is not merely: “Is this Council text binding or not?”. Rather, within the documents, a distinction must be made between the different forms and degrees of obligation, and this must be brought concretely to the fore as appropriate.

If this is done, it will be hard to dispute that the first chapter of Unitatis Redintegratio (in which the “Catholic principles on ecumenism” are expounded) contains binding affirmations that either sum up or develop further the corresponding assertions in Lumen Gentium. Explicit citations of the dogmatic affirmations of earlier Councils (the Fourth Lateran Council, the Second Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence, the First Vatican Council) confirm that it is a matter of theologically binding affirmations, although these may not always constitute ultimately binding infallible definitions.

On the contrary, especially in the third chapter (on “Churches and Ecclesial Communities which were separated from the Apostolic See of Rome”), historical affirmations can be found which by their nature cannot be theologically binding, even if here too there are statements that leave no doubt as to their implicitly binding meaning.

 

[laudamus_te]

While I thank Archbishop Lefebvre for saving the Tridentine Mass, I think he confused changeable liturgical traditions with the unchangeable TRADITION which forms part of Divine Revelation.

I think you ought to consider reading an excellent book called The Mass of All Time, which is a collection of the Archbishop’s writings, speeches and thoughts on all of the different elements of the Mass. You will realize, then, that the Mass (the Traditional Latin Mass) is indeed the nearly perfect prayer of the Church, and the main element, the Canon, was virtually unchanged from the 7th century. The Mass is not a “changeable liturgical tradition.” That is where VII got it wrong, by trying to change something so imbued with the Truths of the Church. The Archbishop understood the Mass in a way most clerics and laypeople do not.

For instance, the New Mass does away with the idea of a propitiatory sacrifice, and even the word “sacrifice” is downplayed. The propitiatory aspect of the Mass is absolutely vital - it is what makes it distinctly Catholic.

 

[laudamus_te]

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.

The ORCM cannot be compared to the SSPX. The SSPX was a society founded with canonical approval. The ORCM was basically a group of lay people who were supportive of independent traditional priests, and I believe they tended to sedevacantism. Certainly there were individual traditionalist priests after VII, but they would have been unable to ordain priests and carry on Tradition in that way.

 

[laudamus_te]

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.

Pope John Paul II granted an “indult” for the TLM. The very nature of an “indult” is that it overrides a law. So, while technically “indult” was a misnomer, still Pope JPII used it and hence indicated that the TLM had indeed been abrogated by the NOM. Bugnini did wish to formally abrogate the TLM, but was not allowed to do so by the Secretary of State.

The Holy See did officially approve of the translation of “pro multis” to “for all” in 1970.

Pope Benedict did indeed say that the TLM was never abrogated, in his letter which accompanied Summorum Pontificum.

Pope Benedict did indeed instruct that “pro multis” must be translated to “for many.”

 

[cam100]

The ORCM cannot be compared to the SSPX. The SSPX was a society founded with canonical approval. The ORCM was basically a group of lay people who were supportive of independent traditional priests, and I believe they tended to sedevacantism. Certainly there were individual traditionalist priests after VII, but they would have been unable to ordain priests and carry on Tradition in that way.

I was responding to the statement “Without Lefebvre there would be no traditional movement. He saved the Tridentine Mass.” My point was there WAS a traditional movement apart from Lefebvre. Interestingly, members of the ORCM tried to get Lefebvre to ordain some priests for them, but he refused. As I mentioned earlier, it was rumored by some people at the time that the SSPX was trying to “take over” the traditional movement because they kept moving into the same areas that ORCM priests were servicing. So, the demise of the ORCM may have been partly the fault of the SSPX and Lefebvre who refused to cooperate with them, but instead seemed to work against them.

On a side note, the ORCM was primarily an organization of priests, not laypeople. Also, while some members tended toward sedevacantism, I don’t believe this was an official viewpoint of the organization, and I don’t think all its priests subscribed to the same idea.

 

[cam100]

I think my use of negatives above was a little confusing because I was actually saying the same thing you said here:

Pope Benedict did indeed say that the TLM was never abrogated, in his letter which accompanied Summorum Pontificum.

Pope Benedict did indeed instruct that “pro multis” must be translated to “for many.”

Withy regard to your other points:

Pope John Paul II granted an “indult” for the TLM. The very nature of an “indult” is that it overrides a law. So, while technically “indult” was a misnomer, still Pope JPII used it and hence indicated that the TLM had indeed been abrogated by the NOM. Bugnini did wish to formally abrogate the TLM, but was not allowed to do so by the Secretary of State.

The Holy See did officially approve of the translation of “pro multis” to “for all” in 1970.

… my point was that when Pope Benedict said that the traditional mass was never abrogated, he wasn’t contradicting anything said by his predecessors. He was just emphasizing something that perhaps many Catholics didn’t realize. The TLM was never abrogated, as Pope Paul VI had provisions for its use, and Pope John Paul II lifted the restrictions even further with his indult. The “law” that Pope John Paul II was overriding was the restriction on the use of the TLM. He wasn’t resurrecting something that didn’t exist.

Likewise, Pope Benedict never said that “for all” was invalid or contrary to the original meaning. He simply said that he wanted to the literal translation to be used instead of the looser translation that had been permitted.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Objectively, he was also disobedient to Paul VI; it’s debatable whether Pope Paul or Pope John Paul held him more as a threat to the New Order.

 

[ProVobis]

He never made the effort to rejoin the Church and repent his very public sin of disobedience.

NEVER? How do you of you know what he said or didn’t say on his deathbed? I can’t believe you people who presume his guilt before His Creator. Would you like people to judge you the same way? Yes, objectively his actions to consecrate were most sinful, but what are the conditions again for sin to be mortal? Even the Pope can’t override these conditions.

 

[MariaTheresa]

Wow, I find this very interesting ! Let me tell you something personal about my first experience with this issue. I am 37. So, born in 1971. Both parents from die hard Catholic families. My father-german, refused to say the Mass in English after the change. He would recite all the responses in Latin (loudly). This continued, until my mother -to whom he was engaged-refused to sit with him. My mother’s southern Italian family was not happy with V2 either because of the loss of devotionals. I grew up hearing about how when it happened , they were told things like, “No one says the rosary anymore”. However, they would never, ever have considered leaving the Church or disobeying the Pope. Thye simply kept on saying the rosary and putting up the pictures of the Sacred Heart of Jesus as always.

In a historical context:
As a kid ,I heard about Archbishop Levebre , on TV I think. Although I didn’t quite understand it.
I remember when the Pope was shot and coming home from school to my mother standing in front of the television crying.

Then I met a friend who told me that she was “more Roman Catholic than I was”. I could not figure this out. I went home and told my father what she said. He said the it didn’t make sense.
Turns out she was SSPX and her family left the Church to follow this Archbishop. Although they didn’t really follow, Mass was once in awhile, their favorite apparition was , you guessed it , Garabandal. Her mother did pray the rosary occasionally and when she did I joined them but felt “embarrassed” for saying Spirit when the said Ghost. By then , I knew that the attitude was that their practice of the faith was superior to mine.

I attended Church with them one Sunday. I think my parents got permission or just thought about it and thought it was OK. Then I was supposed to invite her to attend Mass with me. Her mother’s immediate response was “No, she has to attend her own church”.
I was shocked. I thought they called themselves Catholic? I called myself Catholic. Even if they were strange Catholics to me I never expected that.
It seemed, and from what I’ve read that there still is this attitude of superiority from those who have broken with the Church.

Disobedience is disobedience no matter who does it. The great saints have changed the Church from within. Jesus does not require that we rend His garment.

That friend has told me stories about being screamed at for not wanting to kneel and kiss a bishop’s ring in the basement of their Church. (I will not name the Church) It had a large following of SSPX.

That friend was struggled with the strange Catholicism she inheirited which was really exile Catholicism IMO.
She is now an avowed witch although she believes it’s not evil. After years of struggling with her decisions we no longer speak.

This is just my experience.

Thanks,
MariaTheresa

 

[Dempsey1919]

Disobedience is disobedience no matter who does it. The great saints have changed the Church from within. Jesus does not require that we rend His garment.

Thanks for sharing your story. It’s a shame that your friend left the Church, although it’s not suprising.

The SSPX does have a tendency to attract those I would call “Catholic Fundamentalists.”

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Doesn’t meen all the priests agree with that.
I know of one FSSP priest who refuses and never has said a NO mass. He told me that if he said the NO mass then he would have became a priest 20 years ago.

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