New Movie on Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

[Onegin]

…I do believe that he may not have had the fullness of mind to realize just exactly what he was doing.

… that’s the excuse I gave for Pope Paul VI.

 

[Timothysis]

… that’s the excuse I gave for Pope Paul VI.

Only because he didn’t do things your way.

 

[Onegin]

Only because he didn’t do things your way.

If by “my way” you mean “the way the Church had been doing things for the past 2000 years” then, yes.

 

[Timothysis]

If by “my way” you mean “the way the Church had been doing things for the past 2000 years” then, yes.

If you think that the Church in 1960 was exactly the same as “the past 2000 years,” then that is your right, no matter how wrong it is.

 

[CWBetts]

Ok, you’re crazy. You’re also ignorant. I guess you never heard this quote:

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

Quite simply, you have no idea what you’re talking about. In cases like this Christians, in charity, generally assume the best. Instead you have rushed into making stupid assumptions and assumed the worst where Christian charity ought to have prevailed. God bless.

You have been reported for hurling personal insults.

 

[CWBetts]

My personal interaction with Abp. Lefebvre, was of a humble and holy man who really did not like being put into the position that he was put into. He would be embarrased by anyone who put him on a par with St. Athanasius. Most of his final years were spent with very little outside of ordinations in activly directing the SSPX. He spent much time making retreats at the Monastic Community that had aligned themselves with the SSPX, did not join the community for meals, but ate in the kitchen with those who were assigned to duties waiting tables, and washing up after, speaking with them of the simplicity of the Faith. The last couple of years, I was not longer associated with the SSPX, and Econe, but I hear from friends (some) who remain in the SSPX, that he was physically and mentally tired, and easily manipulated by those who had risen to power in the Socitey. While I was not in Econe at the time of the Illicit Consecrations, I am told that that was another point at which he was pressured by the new leadership that he had to mistrust and stand firm against Rome. These same men, still within the SSPX today relate their lament that he was paraded around in public, sometimes unaware of where he was and what he was doing near the end of his life. They tell me that they cannot make public statements for fear of retaliations from the hard-line leadership.

Lefebvre’s actions are the antithesis of humility.

 

[Filioque]

Lefebvre’s actions are the antithesis of humility.

Action yes, I agree. What is primary motivation was, I can’t. I do really think as the years passed, he was manipulated by those who later came to power within the SSPX.

I’m only reproting what I saw of him through my personal contact. I can’t speak for some of his public stance, or what really motivated it. He was formerly the Superior of the Spiritans, it is possible that someone who was able to gain the political clout that he had at one time that he was a very shrewd and calculating man, who was able to fool me. What I have read of him is a bit of a different slant from what I observed myself. All I can offer is what I saw.

I would however be remiss to not point out that he was not the solid “Traditionalist” that he is painted as being by the SSPX. While he was still overseeing the day to day activities in Econe, he allowed the Missals of Pope Paul VI, the 1965 and the 1962 to be celebrated. After he was relieved of day to day oversight, there were those who esposed the Sede position, in Econe, and in the USA at Ridgefield who used the pre 1955 rites when he was away, and only caved into the 1962 rubrics when he was around. A couple of seminarians at Ridgefield even complained in private that the (later expelled) Rector and Faculty spoke against the Abp for being too liberal, and accepting the “changes” of Pope John XXIII. There were those who openly questioned the Papacies of all Popes since Pope John XXIII, and only remained on Faculty because they were careful to present it as a theory, and private opinion. These same men became very supportive of Pope John when the Archbishop was around.

You can read stories about some of the above, Fr. Cekada who was two years senior to my class had written that every time the Archbishop coughed in the Chapel prayers went up for his healt, “at least until he has ordained me.” Not a vote of absolute support for him. A sad position to be in, I pray for the poor man’s soul each day. Having returned to the Church from Schism several years ago, I do not in retrospect support many of the positions he took, nor the misrepresentations that the SSPX has proposed by their canonization of him by acclomation. I think there is something in the middle that is closer to the truth. A man who was confused by what was happening to the Church he knew. Who was ready to retire and offer the New Mass. He started by following the rules when he founded Econe, but I think, (at least I hope) he was manipulated by those farther to the right as he was, and frightened by the information that was fed to him.

Not having the charisms of St. Padre Pio, I can’t say that all of what I see of him is 100% accurate, but I do think that there is much more than either side of what we are told by either side.

 

[CWBetts]

I would like to see a citation on that one. It is not listed in the Catholic encyclopedia, I’m sure it would have been and I have never seen it anywhere else.Where exactly did you find out this monumental news?

This I was told by my priest. I will get the citation.

 

[palmas85]

This I was told by my priest. I will get the citation.

I certainly hope so. I would be most interested to know how I managed to miss that particular tidbit of information. It seems that I would have stumbled across it at some point.

 

[Filioque]

While Martin Luther’s reception of the Last Rites and return to the Church would be notable news, (sadly it won’t effect millions who have accepted his doctrines) it would not be the first famous person who’s return to the Church is not public knowledge.

Emmet Mc Glogjhlin, a Franciscan priest who left the Church married and penned several Anti-Catholic books was reconciled to the Church on his deathbed, and The famed historian and Anti-Catholic Will Durant returned to the Church shortly before he died. I have met the two different priests who received them back. I still see Emmet’s books sold on e-bay and elsewhere by Anti-Catholics who either don’t know or don’t inform people of his return to the Church, and repudiation of his rhetoric.

 

[CWBetts]

I also tend to believe it because Luther himself never really intended to form a new church, but enact reforms in the Catholic Church

 

[Filioque]

I also tend to believe it because Luther himself never really intended to form a new church, but enact reforms in the Catholic Church

Well there we have a bit of a problem, as Dr. Luther did say that in the beginning of his attempts at reform, however as time went on his attitude to the Pope and the Church as well as the Jews changed and became quite vitriolic. Without proof to the contrary the Church has considered him an apostate and heretic. But never procalimed that he is in Hell.

Abp. Lefebvre, only the Church can decide on too, and he did say that he did not intend to establish a paralell Church. The SSPX has done several things that he himself would not allow while alive, Marriage Tribunals, and he stated many times that only a priest and never a bishop should be Superior General of the SSPX, (he made this statement after he stepped down as Superior) There was after his term as Superior a more open discussion of the various factions in the Society. while he was still Superior many just kept quiet about how liberal they thought he was. There is even a group within the SSPX, as well as outside who have questioned his own orders because the Cardinal who both ordained him a priest and consecrated him a bishop has been accused by some as having been a Mason. Well in a paranoid world like the SSPX, some priests have allegedly snuck of to be “conditionally ordained”. Unfortunatly the paranoia and conspirasy theories in groups like the SSPX can run wild among some who are attached to it.

All in all, we need to pray for the repose of the souls of those in most need. Which may or may not include Martin Luther and Abp. Lefebvre, as well as various Popes who will be held to a judgement much more severe than you or I.

 

[Onegin]

I also tend to believe it because Luther himself never really intended to form a new church, but enact reforms in the Catholic Church

Over the years, people have kind of twisted Luther into being this peaceful, reforming man who wanted nothing more than for everyone to get along.

However, if you consider the things that Luther himself said said, comparing the Pope as the antichrist, loathing the Catholic Mass as a sacrifice (he hated the sacrificial concept) and the Church and faithful in general, I highly doubt that he was only out to reform a couple things. And even if he was, his “reforms” were heretical anyhow.

He also wrote some truly horrific stuff about the Jews, but that’s another topic altogether.

Anyhow, what gets me is that you guys are all about Martin Luther - a man who wanted to destroy the very nature of the Mass - as a peaceful “reformer” and yet when it comes to Marcel Lefebvre, you insist he was an arrogant man who was out to hurt the Church…

Something is wrong here.

 

[Abenadar]

I also tend to believe it because Luther himself never really intended to form a new church, but enact reforms in the Catholic Church

I don’t think this is true. An attemt to reform wouldn’t include ejecting books from the Bible that had been a part of scripture since before Christ was even born (not to mention his desire to jettison James as well). An attempt to reform would necessarily include fixing the things that were wrong with the Church at that time (which didn’t include theology), yet he had a bunch of new theological ideas.

Filioque, have you ever heard that some people believe George Washington became a Catholic on his deathbed?

 

[Abenadar]

One can hardly compare the actions of St. Athanasius in the early centuries of the Church, when doctrine had not yet been orderly and logically discerned

But Tim, this doesn’t make sense because at that point there were already centuries of example by the Church and writings of the church fathers which stood against the idea of arianism.

with the actions of a late 20th century bishop who had been raised and educated in the constant and consistent traditions of the faith

But there was already a constant tradition against arianism at that point (even though “arianism” by name, was a new phenomenon) by the very fact that arianism was a novelty not introduced by the apostles or the numerous popes up until that point.

As said before, a good religious should follow the orders of his superior as the rule, not the actions of one person centuries ago as the exception.

This conversation never seems to go in the direction of canon law and necessity at CAF. Oh well.

 

[Abenadar]

You have been reported for hurling personal insults.

Ok, so we can rashly hurl personal insults about dead people we don’t know and know little about, but somebody else can’t call you out on it without being saccharin sweet about it. I get it now.

But just so you know, you can relax now. I didn’t actually mean that you’re crazy, dude…Your words were “call me crazy”, and I jokingly complied (sue me…or try to get me banned, whatever). I don’t actually think you’re insane, particularly since I don’t know you (duh).

As to saying “you’re also ignorant”…What I meant to say was “you’re ignorant on this subject so please refrain from making such unqualified, uncharitable, sweeping comments about an extraordinarily courageous person who you know very little about”.

Have a blessed day, friend.

 

[CWBetts]

Ok, so we can rashly hurl personal insults about dead people we don’t know and know little about, but somebody else can’t call you out on it without being saccharin sweet about it. I get it now.

But just so you know, you can relax now. I didn’t actually mean that you’re crazy, dude…Your words were “call me crazy”, and I jokingly complied (sue me…or try to get me banned, whatever). I don’t actually think you’re insane, particularly since I don’t know you (duh).

As to saying “you’re also ignorant”…What I meant to say was “you’re ignorant on this subject so please refrain from making such unqualified, uncharitable, sweeping comments about an extraordinarily courageous person who you know very little about”.

Have a blessed day, friend.

You really need to read the forum rules

 

[Timothysis]

But Tim, this doesn’t make sense because at that point there were already centuries of example by the Church and writings of the church fathers which stood against the idea of arianism.

Athanasius lived in the era when the even the canon of the New Testament was fresh, c. 293 – 2 May 373. The great dissemination and codification of Catholic doctrine was still many centuries away. In my opinion, the comparison to his actions and the Archbishop’s action is not valid, any more than a modern general who cites Julius Caesar’s atrocities as an excuse for his own.

But there was already a constant tradition against arianism at that point (even though “arianism” by name, was a new phenomenon) by the very fact that arianism was a novelty not introduced by the apostles or the numerous popes up until that point.

Certainly you are not suggesting that the source of the issues opposed by the Archbishop are "a novelty not introduced by the apostles or the numerous popes up until that point?"

This conversation never seems to go in the direction of canon law and necessity at CAF. Oh well.

I do not belong to the school of thought that sanctions disobedience because of an interpretation of Canon law. I also think that the reliance on Canon law sometimes becomes a can’t see the forest for the trees situation. As an example, someone here recently stated that Black Masses are valid, though illicit, if an apostate priest presides, because once a priest, always a priest. My opinion is that the Holy Spirit is not held to a legalistic mumbo jumbo that requires Him to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ for the sake of sacrilege. While the technicalities of Canon law may, to the letter, support the former position, I defer to the latter. In the same manner, just because Canon law allows a religious to oppose a seemingly unjust action from his superior doesn’t mean that all religious should strive to combat their superiors on every issue that they don’t agree with. Remember, Christ Himself told St. Faustina that when observing the Holy Hour of 3:00pm, if her superior had her doing something else that would not allow the observation, then she should do what her superior orders, for Christ loves obedience.

 

[searn77]

What really opened my eyes to why the Archbishop did what he did was his book Letter to Confused Catholics (I’m pretty sure that’s the name of it). Reading about what was happening within Catholicism in France at his time, you can understand why he fought so hard to keep certain traditions intact as before V2.

 

[Filioque]

Filioque, have you ever heard that some people believe George Washington became a Catholic on his deathbed?

I have, I don’t pass along that tidbit because I don’t have credible evidence of it. I did mention Emmet and Will because I know the two priests who received them back into the Church.

Mc Gloghlin was received back into the Church in Pheonix AZ by one of his brother Franciscans who had visited him over the final months of his life, and did not push him to return as much as showed Christ’s love to him. I should rather say that I knew Fr. Marius, as he has not only passed onto his eternal reward, but was my mother’s brother. The priest who received Durant back into the Church is still a priest here in the Archdiocese.