New Movie on Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

[marlo]

hey, is this true? can anyone provide a link?

Betts, what planet are you from? Luther died a heretic and his bowels burst asunder as a punishment from God.

 

[RyanML]

I really need to get in touch with my priest. He is my source. And I will take anything he says, without documentation, before I trust the word of anybody from the SSPX. If you like the tradistinal form of the Mass, I suggest you go to a FSSP parish. They are actually in full communion with Rome

The FSSP may be in full communion with Rome, but that does not mean they don’t have the same issues with Vatican II and the Ordinary form of the Mass as the SSPX. In fact, a very prominent FSSP priest was giving a conference on the traditional Mass and made the comment that the Ordinary form does not adequately express the sacrificial nature of the Mass and so would not suggest attending it. I know another FSSP priest who, while not agreeing with them, sympathizes with many sedevacantist positions and still considers them to be Catholic. I know many more of their priests who cringe at the idea of ever having to say a Novus Ordo Mass. It’s not just “crazy” SSPXers who have these concerns.

A question regarding the Lefebvre movie: Is it suppose to be a movie or more of a documentary?

Pax,
Ryan

 

[giuseppeTO]

I really need to get in touch with my priest. He is my source. And I will take anything he says, without documentation, before I trust the word of anybody from the SSPX. If you like the tradistinal form of the Mass, I suggest you go to a FSSP parish. They are actually in full communion with Rome

I suggest you check with the Pope. Your priest is wrong. Since you don’t know a heretic when you see one, you certainly wouldn’t know a schismatic. There is no FSSP for miles and I assist at an SSPX chapel because what is conveyed in the Mass, the pulpit, and school all match. You might want to sign up for some catechism classes - I suggest FSSP since they’re in communion.

 

[NeelyAnn]

hey, is this true? can anyone provide a link?

NO, it is not true and CWBetts cannot provide a link. CWBetts ‘source’ is word of mouth from her/his priest. No paper documentation though. It is plain fiction.

 

[NeelyAnn]

I really need to get in touch with my priest. He is my source. And I will take anything he says, without documentation, before I trust the word of anybody from the SSPX. If you like the tradistinal form of the Mass, I suggest you go to a FSSP parish. They are actually in full communion with Rome

Your priest, if he did indeed say that, is dead wrong! Since you were the one who threw out this false information as if it were a fact, it is up to you to provide documentation to back it up.

Secondly, Mass attendance at the SSPX does fulfill the Sunday obligation. See below.

Thirdly, rules for this forum point out that this forum is for Traditional Catholicism (meaning that which existed prior to Vatican II and the NO Mass). Those who do not agree with Traditional Catholicsim and have a hard time posting in a charitable manner have been warned by the moderator many times recently to stay away from this forum. This forum was not set up for you to disparage Traditional Catholics.

From Fr. Z:
QUAERITUR: Mass obligation and SSPX chapels

From a reader:

Does a Mass heard in a SSPX chapel fulfill the Sunday Mass obligation?

Perhaps you have answered this question before. If so, I missed it.

**The 1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 1248 says: **

**1. “The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.”

The Holy See has said repeatedly that attending Masses of the SSPX fulfills the obligation according to can 1248.**

However, I will add that – while this strictly fulfills your obligation, I do not recommend that this be your normal way of fulfilling your obligation. The SSPX is not yet in manifest unity with the Roman Pontiff. The SSPX priests are suspended and have no permission from the Church to administer the sacraments. It can happen that people who frequent their chapels can undermine their union with the local bishop and the Vicar of Christ.

I am fully aware that in many cases what is going on at your local normal parish may seem like the childish or pagan rites of a strange cult, and that what goes on at the SSPX chapel seems entirely reasonable Catholic, our sense of ecclesial unity remains important. With very few exceptions the SSPX priests I have met have been fine men and zealous, while many liberal/heterodox priests in good standing I have known have been ignorant, arrogant, and petty.

This should spur us to earnest and frequent prayer for the success of the theological talks going on between the Holy See and SSPX and be ready to extend a welcoming hand…. especially in this Week of Christian Unity.

 

[CWBetts]

NO, it is not true and CWBetts cannot provide a link. CWBetts ‘source’ is word of mouth from her/his priest. No paper documentation though. It is plain fiction.

There is paper documentation, but as how I don’t see him very often (in that I infrequently make it to my home parish) some time will be required to satisfy you uncharitable SSPX types.

 

[Onegin]

There is paper documentation, but as how I don’t see him very often (in that I infrequently make it to my home parish) some time will be required to satisfy you uncharitable SSPX types.

I still want an answer from you generalizing Novus Ordo types ahem as to why you are more than willing to assume the best about Luther and the worst about Archbishop Lefebvre, neither of whom you have met and both of whom you have only heard about via 3rd parties.

 

[CWBetts]

I still want an answer from you generalizing Novus Ordo types ahem as to why you are more than willing to assume the best about Luther and the worst about Archbishop Lefebvre, neither of whom you have met and both of whom you have only heard about via 3rd parties.

All I am assuming about Luther is the possibility that he did indeed receive last rights. All I am assuming about the other schismatic is that no matter what you say about his “humility” his actions prove otherwise. Were he truly humble, he would have accepted ecclesial authority, and done things in a proper fashion.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Methinks the Church before 1960 (as was the Church before 1570 as was the Church before 100 AD) was the Church as Christ founded it. Do you believe post-1960 Church is not the same as Christ founded it?

 

[ProVobis]

All I am assuming about Luther is the possibility that he did indeed receive last rights.

Luther was a Reformist. One wonders if he even believed in the last rights after he started his own Church. Or his own priesthood or confession, for that matter.

 

[MIKE46]

All I am assuming about Luther is the possibility that he did indeed receive last rights. All I am assuming about the other schismatic is that no matter what you say about his “humility” his actions prove otherwise. Were he truly humble, he would have accepted ecclesial authority, and done things in a proper fashion.

Actually you never said that Luther poossibly received the Last Rites, You said that he did receive them… Just a slight difference in the two wouldn’t you agree? Also not every one on this forum is an SSPX supporter, including many of those who have responded to you.

As to your comparison between Luther and the late Archbishop I will offer this since it seems that you are not very well informed on the issues.

Luther

1. Wanted the Papacy destroyed, gone, out of the picture completely. Felt that the Pope was the whore of Babylon
   2, Wanted the Vatican gone, destroyed, out of the picture completely
2. Wanted the sacraments except for baptism and communion gone out of the way, forgotten. He did allow for a form of confession and absolution but it was not really considered a sacrament
3. Wanted a married priesthod and felt any other way was unnatural
4. Denied the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and believed that it was a memorial meal and nothing more.
5. Denied transubstantiation
   7 Denied apostolic succession
   8 Advocated salvation by faith alone. No need for works of any kind whatsoever. In facts works were worthless. Salvation once obtained could never be lost as it was a free gift from God.

These acts apparently pale in comparison to the horrible transgressions of the Archbishop

Archbishop Lefbrve

1. Consecrated four bishops without papal permission.:bigyikes::bigyikes:

Thats it as far as the Archbishop is concerned

Despite what the ecumenism at all cost types will tell you, Luther wanted nothing less than a redical restructuring of the Roman Church and Catholic faith so that it more accurately reflected his own agenda and beliefs.

The Archbishop held fast to the Catholic faith as it had been taught to him and has he had lived it his entire life. He felt that the Church was in crisis and needed something done His sin was I believe pride in believing that he alone could affect this change. But he never denied any of the central articles of the Catholic faith, he never denied the authority of the Holy Father and never abandoned his vows as did Luther. In fact the only thing that the Archbishop ever did was consecrate the Bishops, who amazing as it may be to you had their excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict. It may surprise you to know that those horrible schismatics, the SSPX:bigyikes: have a photograph of the Holy Father prominently displayed in all of their Chapels, and always have had by the way. They do not deny Papal authority and recognize him as being theVicar of Christ on earth.

I don’t in any way excuse the consecration of the Bishops and the disobedience to the Holy Father, however, to mention the two men in the same breath and to compare them as you have done shows a complete lack of knowledge on the issues involved in both cases and quite frankly is inexcusable.

As far as you being unable to get in touch with your priest as you rarely make it back to your home parish might I suggest two modern methods of doing so. Tephone and/or E-Mail. Perhaps you have heard of them? Both work relatively well in spite of the novelty of both and are in most cases readily available.

I might also suggest that you actually read more than a short biography of Martin Luther before you make these incredible claims about him being reconciled to the Church.

I guarantee you, Luther wanted nothing to do with the institutional Church and the last thing that he would have wanted done would have been to have the last rites administered, because to him they meant exactly one thing.

A BIG FAT ZERO.

 

[RyanML]

In charity, I think we should assume that the archbishop had the best of intentions, even if we disagree with them. One can be wrong and still act in humility and good faith.

I have known many SSPX priests and they have all impressed me as being devout and humble men who love the Lord and the Catholic faith deeply. A few I would even hold up to be awesome examples of prayer and holiness. That does not mean I agree with all of their theological positions. If they were teaching something heretical, that would be one thing. But I’m not going to judge the workings of the Holy Spirit because of different interpretations of canon law. The earthly ministry of Jesus and the history of the Church shows that sometimes God works outside of the law and normal means for the good of souls.

Pax,
Ryan

 

[Onegin]

All I am assuming about Luther is the possibility that he did indeed receive last rights. All I am assuming about the other schismatic is that no matter what you say about his “humility” his actions prove otherwise. Were he truly humble, he would have accepted ecclesial authority, and done things in a proper fashion.

I don’t have anything to add to Mike’s response as he stated everything that I would have said (only much more eloquently). However, as I understand you are a theology student (?) and may or may not have already read some of Luther’s writings, I would highly recommend reading “Open Letter to Confused Catholics.” It is a short book and once you are done I think you will be in a much better place to convey a much more informed opinion on Mgr. Lefebvre’s humility or lack thereof.

I’m fully expecting you to respond that you have no interest in reading the work of a crazed schismatic or some such thing. But, if you really wish to seriously engage people on this issue, it would be a good idea. You may even be surprised that the tone of the book is far from being condescending, authoritative or even angry.

I’ve read a book by Scott Hahn and though I absolutely disagree with him in many areas, it put me in a lot better position to talk about his ideas once I had read it.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Actually you never said that Luther poossibly received the Last Rites, You said that he did receive them… Just a slight difference in the two wouldn’t you agree? Also not every one on this forum is an SSPX supporter, including many of those who have responded to you.

As to your comparison between Luther and the late Archbishop I will offer this since it seems that you are not very well informed on the issues.

Luther

1. Wanted the Papacy destroyed, gone, out of the picture completely. Felt that the Pope was the whore of Babylon
   2, Wanted the Vatican gone, destroyed, out of the picture completely
2. Wanted the sacraments except for baptism and communion gone out of the way, forgotten. He did allow for a form of confession and absolution but it was not really considered a sacrament
3. Wanted a married priesthod and felt any other way was unnatural
4. Denied the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and believed that it was a memorial meal and nothing more.
5. Denied transubstantiation
   7 Denied apostolic succession
   8 Advocated salvation by faith alone. No need for works of any kind whatsoever. In facts works were worthless. Salvation once obtained could never be lost as it was a free gift from God.

These acts apparently pale in comparison to the horrible transgressions of the Archbishop

Archbishop Lefbrve

1. Consecrated four bishops without papal permission.:bigyikes::bigyikes:

Thats it as far as the Archbishop is concerned

Despite what the ecumenism at all cost types will tell you, Luther wanted nothing less than a redical restructuring of the Roman Church and Catholic faith so that it more accurately reflected his own agenda and beliefs.

The Archbishop held fast to the Catholic faith as it had been taught to him and has he had lived it his entire life. He felt that the Church was in crisis and needed something done His sin was I believe pride in believing that he alone could affect this change. But he never denied any of the central articles of the Catholic faith, he never denied the authority of the Holy Father and never abandoned his vows as did Luther. In fact the only thing that the Archbishop ever did was consecrate the Bishops, who amazing as it may be to you had their excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict. It may surprise you to know that those horrible schismatics, the SSPX:bigyikes: have a photograph of the Holy Father prominently displayed in all of their Chapels, and always have had by the way. They do not deny Papal authority and recognize him as being theVicar of Christ on earth.

I don’t in any way excuse the consecration of the Bishops and the disobedience to the Holy Father, however, to mention the two men in the same breath and to compare them as you have done shows a complete lack of knowledge on the issues involved in both cases and quite frankly is inexcusable.

As far as you being unable to get in touch with your priest as you rarely make it back to your home parish might I suggest two modern methods of doing so. Tephone and/or E-Mail. Perhaps you have heard of them? Both work relatively well in spite of the novelty of both and are in most cases readily available.

I might also suggest that you actually read more than a short biography of Martin Luther before you make these incredible claims about him being reconciled to the Church.

I guarantee you, Luther wanted nothing to do with the institutional Church and the last thing that he would have wanted done would have been to have the last rites administered, because to him they meant exactly one thing.

A BIG FAT ZERO.

I have read this entire thread now and some of it (well actually most of it) I find very confusing as I am new to this part of my Faith. However, I would like it very much if you (and any others who have not provided documentation) provided documentation in the form of a link or other reference. You have said a lot in your post but I don’t see any references.

So I don’t know what to believe and I don’t know where to look to back up much of what has been stated in this thread.

It doesn’t seem fair to me that only one poster should be singled out for not providing a reference when this thread is rife with other posters doing the exact same thing.

So for us lurkers, could you all please provide references when you state “facts”??

And, everyone, please don’t jump all over me when I ask for this because I am honestly confused about this entire thread and wish only to know more about my Faith. I’m only posting this as a reply to the above post because it has so many “facts” and no references (unless I have missed them in which case I deeply apologize). I’m not attacking anyone or anyone’s ideas, beliefs, or opinions. But I see so much anger from posters who share my Faith that I am a bit shocked and I actually am a little afraid to post what I have written here because I feel that I am running the risk of being attacked myself.

 

[srp643]

As to your comparison between Luther and the late Archbishop I will offer this since it seems that you are not very well informed on the issues.

Luther

1. Wanted the Papacy destroyed, gone, out of the picture completely. Felt that the Pope was the whore of Babylon
   2, Wanted the Vatican gone, destroyed, out of the picture completely
2. Wanted the sacraments except for baptism and communion gone out of the way, forgotten. He did allow for a form of confession and absolution but it was not really considered a sacrament
3. Wanted a married priesthod and felt any other way was unnatural
4. Denied the sacrificial aspect of the Mass and believed that it was a memorial meal and nothing more.
5. Denied transubstantiation
   7 Denied apostolic succession
   8 Advocated salvation by faith alone. No need for works of any kind whatsoever. In facts works were worthless. Salvation once obtained could never be lost as it was a free gift from God.

These acts apparently pale in comparison to the horrible transgressions of the Archbishop

Archbishop Lefbrve

1. Consecrated four bishops without papal permission.:bigyikes::bigyikes:

Thats it as far as the Archbishop is concerned

Despite what the ecumenism at all cost types will tell you, Luther wanted nothing less than a redical restructuring of the Roman Church and Catholic faith so that it more accurately reflected his own agenda and beliefs.

The Archbishop held fast to the Catholic faith as it had been taught to him and has he had lived it his entire life. He felt that the Church was in crisis and needed something done His sin was I believe pride in believing that he alone could affect this change. But he never denied any of the central articles of the Catholic faith, he never denied the authority of the Holy Father and never abandoned his vows as did Luther. In fact the only thing that the Archbishop ever did was consecrate the Bishops, who amazing as it may be to you had their excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict. It may surprise you to know that those horrible schismatics, the SSPX:bigyikes: have a photograph of the Holy Father prominently displayed in all of their Chapels, and always have had by the way. They do not deny Papal authority and recognize him as being theVicar of Christ on earth.

I don’t in any way excuse the consecration of the Bishops and the disobedience to the Holy Father, however, to mention the two men in the same breath and to compare them as you have done shows a complete lack of knowledge on the issues involved in both cases and quite frankly is inexcusable.

I guarantee you, Luther wanted nothing to do with the institutional Church and the last thing that he would have wanted done would have been to have the last rites administered, because to him they meant exactly one thing.

A BIG FAT ZERO.

Mike - thanks, makes sense. Your post raises a question I have had for some time. Maybe you can help me.

Firstly, Lefebvre was excommunicated for ordaining bishops without papal permission. I’m not in the SSPX but, based on what I have read, it increasingly appears to me that he acted out of necessity sincerely in his own mind after exhausting all other avenues and being grossly mistreated for years. Nevertheless, he engaged in an act of disobedience. However, there are numerous bishops (one in my own diocese) who refuse to allow the TLM even though, in my case, literally hundreds of people signed a petition requesting it. That type of behavior is a clear, unequivocal disobedient act of a papal mandate in light of the Pope’s SP. Yet, no one appears to be corrected or reprimanded.

Secondly, there are bishops and cardinals out there who are publicly and zealously promoting heretical views. I read about one some time ago who said life doesn’t begin at conception, but “sometime after”. (This obviously does irreparable damage to the Pro Life Movement, affecting million upon millions of unborn children among others). Another emphatically said Jesus didn’t die for our sins but for some other reason (I don’t know where to begin on that one but maybe he should pick up a Bible). Another advocates the Church changing its teaching on homosexuality (he doesn’t seem to yet realize that the Church has no authority to change the deposit of faith). These are clear, unequivocal heretical views and there is no way to reconcile them with the Church’s teachings. Yet, no one appears to be corrected or reprimanded. If anything, it is just the opposite; they appear to be promoted.

So, many bishops have acted disobediently and promoted heresy yet nothing happens. Lefebvre acts disobediently (albeit out of necessity) only because he wants to continue what was handed down to us, and he, as an archbishop of the Church, gets excommunicated. It appears Lefebvre was singled out for some reason. Why the double standard? A double standard by definition is illogical so the decisions on these matters appear based on something else.

I understand Milingo was apparently excommunicated but it was after how many years of disobedience and heresy? It would be interesting to compare the timing of how long after an act of disobedience or heresy it took to excommunicate Lefebvre vs. others.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Mike - thanks, makes sense. Your post raises a question I have had for some time. Maybe you can help me.

Firstly, Lefebvre was excommunicated for ordaining bishops without papal permission. I’m not in the SSPX but, based on what I have read, it increasingly appears to me that he acted out of necessity sincerely in his own mind after exhausting all other avenues and being grossly mistreated for years. Nevertheless, he engaged in an act of disobedience. However, there are numerous bishops (one in my own diocese) who refuse to allow the TLM even though, in my case, literally hundreds of people signed a petition requesting it. That type of behavior is a clear, unequivocal disobedient act of a papal mandate in light of the Pope’s SP. Yet, no one appears to be corrected or reprimanded.

Secondly, there are bishops and cardinals out there who are publicly and zealously promoting heretical views. I read about one some time ago who said life doesn’t begin at conception, but “sometime after”. (This obviously does irreparable damage to the Pro Life Movement, affecting million upon millions of unborn children among others). Another emphatically said Jesus didn’t die for our sins but for some other reason (I don’t know where to begin on that one but maybe he should pick up a Bible). Another advocates the Church changing its teaching on homosexuality (he doesn’t seem to yet realize that the Church has no authority to change the deposit of faith). These are clear, unequivocal heretical views and there is no way to reconcile them with the Church’s teachings. Yet, no one appears to be corrected or reprimanded. If anything, it is just the opposite; they appear to be promoted.

So, many bishops have acted disobediently and promoted heresy yet nothing happens. Lefebvre acts disobediently (albeit out of necessity) only because he wants to continue what was handed down to us, and he, as an archbishop of the Church, gets excommunicated. It appears Lefebvre was singled out for some reason. Why the double standard? A double standard by definition is illogical so the decisions on these matters appear based on something else.

I understand Milingo was apparently excommunicated but it was after how many years of disobedience and heresy? It would be interesting to compare the timing of how long after an act of disobedience or heresy it took to excommunicate Lefebvre vs. others.

As unfair as it is, it is actually a bit more complicated. The Pope did not actually excommunicate them. A bishop or Pope may excommunicate if a person breaks a canon law whose punishment is excommunication. A bishop cannot say, for instance, you molested a child so I excommunicate you. The Pope declared that they had incurred the penalty of automatic excommunication based on the particular canon violated.

So, theoretically, any bishop, priest, or layman who breaks a canon of this stature does theoretically incur excommunication, whether he or she is called out on it or not. A good contemporary example would be the situation in China where the Patriotic Catholic Church regularly consecrates bishops without papal mandate. Here, the Vatican chooses to remain silent for political reason. I don’t necessarily disagree that what the vatican is doing in this case is unwise - but you can see how canon law can be used as a political tool as needs be.

 

[Timothysis]

Tim please, less than a year before his death Luther puy forth a truly vitrolic attack on the papacy titled “Against the Papacy established by the Devil”. . You should read it. And if after you have read it you still believe this statement that Luther supposedly said, then I guess nothing will convince you otherwise…

Sir, all I said was that I remember reading years ago something that may have had a relation to what CW said, not that I agree or disagree; I was trying to further the discussion. If you would refrain from dipping your keyboard in venom then perhaps we could have a discussion that doesn’t dissolve into a “us vs. them” situation.

Seriously, it is because of this kind of **** that is making me come here less and less.

 

[NeelyAnn]

I have read this entire thread now and some of it (well actually most of it) I find very confusing as I am new to this part of my Faith. However, I would like it very much if you (and any others who have not provided documentation) provided documentation in the form of a link or other reference. You have said a lot in your post but I don’t see any references.

So I don’t know what to believe and I don’t know where to look to back up much of what has been stated in this thread.

It doesn’t seem fair to me that only one poster should be singled out for not providing a reference when this thread is rife with other posters doing the exact same thing.

So for us lurkers, could you all please provide references when you state “facts”??

And, everyone, please don’t jump all over me when I ask for this because I am honestly confused about this entire thread and wish only to know more about my Faith. I’m only posting this as a reply to the above post because it has so many “facts” and no references (unless I have missed them in which case I deeply apologize). I’m not attacking anyone or anyone’s ideas, beliefs, or opinions. But I see so much anger from posters who share my Faith that I am a bit shocked and I actually am a little afraid to post what I have written here because I feel that I am running the risk of being attacked myself.

If you are interested in the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre and the history behind the SSPX, reading the following items below will give you a good idea of what he was thinking. Reading his own words is truly the best way to form an opinion for or against him. Below are books/articles/sermons from the Archbishop himself.

You can read part of the book *An open letter to confused Catholics * by Marcel Lefèbvre online here:

books.google.com/books?id=jgsl1kHs-kUC&dq=archbishop+lefebvre+books+online&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=jyxeS5yuEdCf8Aavwej5BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CCkQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

You can read ‘THE 1974 DECLARATION OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE’
made at Econe, Switzerland on November 21, 1974, here:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_I._declaration.htm

You can read the ‘JUBILEE SERMON’ of Archbishop Lefebvre on the occasion of his sacerdotal jubilee, September 23, 1979, here:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_iv_sermon.htm

You can read ‘THE ROLE OF THE PRIESTLY SSPX IN THE HEART OF THE CHURCH’, given in 1981, here:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/role_of_sspx_in_heart-church.htm

You can read Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s ‘JUNE 1988 PUBLIC STATEMENT Against False Ecumenism’ (written in 1983, made public in 1988), here:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/public_statement_ab_lefebvre_june_1988.htm

You can read ‘CAN OBEDIENCE OBLIGE US TO DISOBEY?’, a statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, here:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/can_obedience_oblige_us_to_disobey.htm

You can read the ‘1988 CONSECRATION SERMON’, by Archbishop Lefebvre, here:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_v_1988_consecration_sermon.htm

You can read ‘ONE YEAR AFTER THE CONSECRATIONS’, an interview with Archbishop Lefebvre,’ here:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/one_year_after_the_consecrations.htm

You can read ‘TWO YEARS AFTER
THE CONSECRATIONS: WE MUST NOT WAVER, WE MAY NOT COMPROMISE’, Archbishop Lefebvre’s address to his priests given in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990, here:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm

A lot of resources here. These resources are in chronological order (as much as they can be). They are all from the words of the Archbishop and are representative of the events as they unfolded. They are not a historical recount from a third party. This is his side. No better way to find out his side of the story than by getting it from him. One last book I would recommend is They Have Uncrowned Him, written by the Archbishop. Hope this helps.

 

[NeelyAnn]

A few more resources on Archbishop Lefebvre. As I said earlier, if you want to know what he thought and his frame of mind and the kind of person he was - get it from him and then make your own decisions of what you think. I currently attend Mass at a Diocesan Church TLM. I have the option of attending an SSPX Chapel that is the same driving distance but I opt for my current parish instead. That being said, I have attended Mass at SSPX Chapel’s in the past ( and have no problems doing so again). I do not consider myself an ‘SSPX-er’, but I do try to be fair and balanced. That requires being informed.

From Youtube:

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Speaks -1 of 4 (An Address Given by His Grace - Nov.1975 )
youtube.com/watch?v=5nmjBM5QzEw&feature=related

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Speaks -2 of 4
youtube.com/watch?v=gukgvRa7azk&feature=related

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Speaks -3 of 4
youtube.com/watch?v=bWe0KXVbJqo&feature=related

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Speaks-Part 4 of 4
youtube.com/watch?v=ugjOJqNIWS8&feature=related

Traditional Catholic bishops consecrated at Ecône in 1988
youtube.com/watch?v=gAr0psfJGeg

Archbishop Marcel-François Lefebvre (Press conference 1989)
youtube.com/watch?v=yVt0dnwZMCo

 

[NeelyAnn]

hmmm…this could be good, or it could be very devisive, ruining the very small gains made since the schism. I pray this is a movie looking at both sides and how we may come closer not farther apart.

Since this is a documentary about Archbishop Lefebvre’s life, I think this is more related to this:

Canonisation of Archbishop Lefebvre
youtube.com/watch?v=eCPbbIlftRA&feature=related

The discussions between the SSPX and Rome may also be playing apart in this new documentary.