Will History Look Favorably on Archbishop Lefebvre?

[cam100]

I thought that it was only the Catholic Church that could excommunicate anyone. I don’t see how someone could excommunicate himself from the Catholic Church without the directive for such coming from the Catholic Church? The excommunication is done by the Church or Church officials, and not by an individual lay Catholic.

“Excommunicating oneself” means that one commits an act that has, as its consequence, automatic excommunication. In other words, if one commits such an act that person is automatically excommunicated without any action needed by a Church authority. One of the things that brings automatic excommunication with it is for a bishop to consecrate another man a bishop without papal approval. This is exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre did.

 

[HashemEchad]

Thank you for the reasonable response.

Our structures (Judaism and Catholicism) lead us to different conclusions. One who acts in profound (deliberate) disobedience to the See of Rome has actually separated from the traditions of our faith; we are not given that option as faithful Catholics. As an archbishop, M. Lefebvre could not have been any more aware of this fact. He abandoned his faith.

But doesn’t your church teach the importance of having an informed conscience? In his conscience, he felt strongly that the path the church was taking was wrong.

The church has taken wrong paths in the past, no one denies this.

 

[catharina]

But doesn’t your church teach the importance of having an informed conscience? In his conscience, he felt strongly that the path the church was taking was wrong.

The church has taken wrong paths in the past, no one denies this.

The Church teaches the necessity of having an informed conscience and the fact that all are subject to obedience. If the Church ever concludes that the archbishop should not have been declared excommunicated, then the Church will declare it so. At that time, all Catholics will be expected to be obedient to the action of the Church, as we are expected to be now in reference to the excommunicated M. Lefebvre.

On his own, M. Lefebvre created a brand-new schism within the Church. This cannot be considered to be commendable behavior. Unlike the Jewish people whose opinions might range freely, we Catholics are bound to obedience in matters such as this. There is no room for deviation despite what you might read in a forum such as this. All Catholics are called to lives of fully internalized poverty, chastity and obedience. Chosen obedience to M. Lefebvre does not exist as an exception to the rule in any code or catechism I’ve seen. To the best of our knowledge, Lefebvre died as an excommunicated schismatic. We can pray for the repose of his soul. We cannot follow or embrace his behaviors.

As for this: “In his conscience, he felt strongly that the path the church was taking was wrong…,” we are not free to make that assumption. He was judged according to law by his superiors in the Church.

 

[HashemEchad]

The Church teaches the necessity of having an informed conscience and the fact that all are subject to obedience. If the Church ever concludes that the archbishop should not have been declared excommunicated, then the Church will declare it so. At that time, all Catholics will be expected to be obedient to the action of the Church, as we are expected to be now in reference to the excommunicated M. Lefebvre.

On his own, M. Lefebvre created a brand-new schism within the Church. This cannot be considered to be commendable behavior. Unlike the Jewish people whose opinions might range freely, we Catholics are bound to obedience in matters such as this. There is no room for deviation despite what you might read in a forum such as this. All Catholics are called to lives of fully internalized poverty, chastity and obedience. Chosen obedience to M. Lefebvre does not exist as an exception to the rule in any code or catechism I’ve seen. To the best of our knowledge, Lefebvre died as an excommunicated schismatic. We can pray for the repose of his soul. We cannot follow or embrace his behaviors.

I understand your position; incidentally, the wide diversity of beliefs among Jews is usually found among non-religious Jews (just as you have a wide diversity of non-Catholic beliefs among nonreligious Catholics, such as the belief that one can be pro-abortion and be Catholic). In Judaism we have the same problem. Judaism teaches certain things DEFINITIVELY; in fact if a Jew denies the resurrection of the dead, he is regarded as a heretic and lost forever (few people know this.) Among RELIGIOUS Jews, there is great conformity of belief.

Here is one question I have, and I’ve actually had it ever since my childhood days of being a fan of Joan of Arc.

Please don’t take this as meaning disrespect, I just don’t know any other way of asking…but what happens to someone who was excommunicated, and then its found that they never should have been excommunciated?

Where were they during the time period when they were thought to be excommunicated? I have a similar question about Limbo…in the day when Catholics did believe in Limbo (I realize it was never a defined dogma), unbaptized babies were thought to be in a state of natural happiness, but denied the beatific vision.

Currently, the church says Limbo never existed. So where were those babies? I ask this because I am the mother of 4 stillborn babies, and in my preg loss support group we had some Catholic women who were really upset because they didn’t know what their church taught for certain about it.

 

[catharina]

I understand your position; incidentally, the wide diversity of beliefs among Jews is usually found among non-religious Jews (just as you have a wide diversity of non-Catholic beliefs among nonreligious Catholics, such as the belief that one can be pro-abortion and be Catholic). In Judaism we have the same problem. Judaism teaches certain things DEFINITIVELY; in fact if a Jew denies the resurrection of the dead, he is regarded as a heretic and lost forever (few people know this.) Among RELIGIOUS Jews, there is great conformity of belief.

Here is one question I have, and I’ve actually had it ever since my childhood days of being a fan of Joan of Arc.

Please don’t take this as meaning disrespect, I just don’t know any other way of asking…but what happens to someone who was excommunicated, and then its found that they never should have been excommunciated?

Where were they during the time period when they were thought to be excommunicated? I have a similar question about Limbo…in the day when Catholics did believe in Limbo (I realize it was never a defined dogma), unbaptized babies were thought to be in a state of natural happiness, but denied the beatific vision.

Currently, the church says Limbo never existed. So where were those babies? I ask this because I am the mother of 4 stillborn babies, and in my preg loss support group we had some Catholic women who were really upset because they didn’t know what their church taught for certain about it.

Believe it or not … I’ve answered your inquiry/case about Joan of Arc’s “excommunication” THREE TIMES within this very thread. Joan of Arc was never excommunicated by the Church of Rome. A local epsicopacy, in allegiance with a local monarchy, declared her to be a heretic. Rome, upon hearing of it, declared that opinion to be faulty and the excommunication was never in force. (That’s my FOURTH response re Joan of Arc!) As to limbo, the babies were/are where the babies were/are. One of my aunts bore 14 children. One was dead at birth. My aunt was in her late 70s when more definition was given regarded the fate of unbaptized babies and she was pleased. (Yes, it’s very difficult to bear a sorrow/worry for 40 years.)

My deepest sympathy on the premature deaths of your children.

 

[Francis_Pio]

Canon Law itself defines the Supreme Pontiff as the Supreme Legislator. Canon law means what the Supreme Pontiff says it means. In Eccelsia Dei, the old Holy Father clearly stated that no state of necessity existed. Objectively, that’s what the faithful have to go by.

The Pope does not, however, have the ability to simply make someone a schismatic or an excommunicate whenever he feels like it. The person must have committed an excommunicable offense, something which, again going by Canon Law 1323, Archbishop Lefebvre did not appear to do.

The Pope can change certain things in Canon Law, being the Supreme Legislator. However, he cannot say after the fact that the Canons used by the Archbishop to exonerate himself were not in effect at the time, and then make his decision binding retroactively. The Canons used to defend Archbishop Lefebvre were in effect, to my knowledge, on the day of the consecrations. If I’m not mistaken, Canon Law does not allow retroactive punishment, based on its claim that laws come into being when they are promulgated (Canon 7).

 

[catharina]

The Pope does not, however, have the ability to simply make someone a schismatic or an excommunicate whenever he feels like it. The person must have committed an excommunicable offense, something which, again going by Canon Law 1323, Archbishop Lefebvre did not appear to do.

The Pope can change certain things in Canon Law, being the Supreme Legislator. However, he cannot say after the fact that the Canons used by the Archbishop to exonerate himself were not in effect at the time, and then make his decision binding retroactively. The Canons used to defend Archbishop Lefebvre were in effect, to my knowledge, on the day of the consecrations. If I’m not mistaken, Canon Law does not allow retroactive punishment, based on its claim that laws come into being when they are promulgated (Canon 7).

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;
2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;
3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;
4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
5° acted, within the limits of due moderation,* in lawful self-defense or defense of another against an unjust aggressor;
6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;
7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.

Please explain how you imagine M. Lefebvre to have been exempt the Canon 1323.

 

[catharina]

from Ecclesia Dei (1988):

" …

1. This affliction was particularly felt by the successor of Peter, to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church [Cf. Vatican Council I, “Pastor Aeternus,” Ch. 3; Denzinger-Schonmetzer 3060], even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few, since every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the cross for the salvation of all.

The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective, in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his Church.

1. In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience–which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy–constitutes a schismatic act. [Code of Canon Law, 751.] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1382.]

… ."

 

[SemperFidelis]

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;
2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;
3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;
4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
5° acted, within the limits of due moderation,* in lawful self-defense or defense of another against an unjust aggressor;
6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;
7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.

Please explain how you imagine M. Lefebvre to have been exempt the Canon 1323.

Uh, #4…

 

[bobzills]

One of the things that brings automatic excommunication with it is for a bishop to consecrate another man a bishop without papal approval. This is exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre did.

I thought that the Pope had given him permission to consecrate at least one bishop?

 

[laudamus_te]

One who acts in profound (deliberate) disobedience to the See of Rome has actually separated from the traditions of our faith; we are not given that option as faithful Catholics. As an archbishop, M. Lefebvre could not have been any more aware of this fact. He abandoned his faith.

You are completely correct that faithful Catholics do not have the option of separating from the traditions of our Faith. It is our duty to practice the Faith as it was handed down from Jesus and the Apostles. Archbishop Lefebvre did not separate from the traditions of the Faith; Rome did with VII. He would not go along with Rome’s embracing of the previously condemned errors of modernism and ecumenism. It is the utmost gall to state that the Archbishop abandoned his faith.

JReducation:

Pope Benedict XVI in the letter that accompanied the Motu Proprio said that the issue between the Archbishop and the Church went deeper than the Tridentine mass, but he refused to say wha the deeper issue is.

Apparently there is information that is not public knowledge.

Let’s not be too quick to judge John Paul II or Benedict XVI. Let’s wait and see. Besides, it makes no difference now. The issue is how to unite the Church.

Anyone who takes the modicum of time to read the history of the Archbishop and the SSPX and inform themselves knows full well what this “deeper issue” is. It is no mystery. Also, it would be well if the admonition not to be too quick to judge JPII or BXVI would also extend to the Archbishop.

 

[Margarite]

I know that I will never look favorably on him, though I love the TLM. It is because of him and his group that my family is so segmented and it is almost impossible to have anything to do with them because they are so narrow minded and consider this dead man their only hope, and the only hope of the Church. Maybe mainstream Catholics think that the followers of this man are becoming part of the mainstream Catholic Church, but take it from someone who knows the group, they are not.

How can Catholics (who know of Lefebvre) look kindly on him when it is because of him that the Church is so segregated. Yes, God can bring good out of evil, but, Lefebvre never regularized himself with Rome, he did not officially say that he was sorry for his action. So, Rome could never remove his excommunication (in my opinion).

I love the TLM as much as anyone out there, but I really dislike Lefebvre and his group, and I wish they would just regularized themselves.

 

[laudamus_te]

I thought that the Pope had given him permission to consecrate at least one bishop?

The permission to consecrate one bishop was put forward by Rome, but with so many strings attached that it was not acceptable. I suggest reading about the Archbishop’s reasoning in his own words:
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_v_1988_consecration_sermon.htm

 

[Margarite]

I wouldn’t read Luther’s opinion of his excommunication (and I am sure you wouldn’t either), so why should I read Lefebvre’s?

 

[laudamus_te]

I wouldn’t read Luther’s opinion of his excommunication (and I am sure you wouldn’t either), so why should I read Lefebvre’s?

Are you comparing Lefebvre to Luther?

 

[Margarite]

They were both excommunicated and both caused trouble for the Church. Lefebvre did not preach heresy, and so he is not nearly as bad as Luther, but the fact still remains that I wouldn’t read either’s version of how he was excommunicated. Lefebvre’s followers have sometimes preached heresy, and while that is not his sin, it does effect my view of him.

 

[laudamus_te]

They were both excommunicated and both caused trouble for the Church. Lefebvre did not preach heresy, and so he is not nearly as bad as Luther, but the fact still remains that I wouldn’t read either’s version of how he was excommunicated. Lefebvre’s followers have sometimes preached heresy, and while that is not his sin, it does effect my view of him.

What heresy have you heard preached by the SSPX priests?

Many saints “caused trouble” for the Church. Does that mean you will refuse to read, in their own words, their reasons? You are taking a dangerously close-minded approach. I am relieved that you do not think Lefebvre to be “nearly as bad” as Luther! But what harm can it do to read his accounts of what happened? Are you afraid that you might begin to understand and even agree with him?

 

[Margarite]

What heresy have you heard preached by the SSPX priests?

We aren’t supposed to talk about the SSPX until the end of May, so I will PM you.

Many saints “caused trouble” for the Church. Does that mean you will refuse to read, in their own words, their reasons? You are taking a dangerously close-minded approach. I am relieved that you do not think Lefebvre to be “nearly as bad” as Luther! But what harm can it do to read his accounts of what happened? Are you afraid that you might begin to understand and even agree with him?

The saints weren’t excommunicated. I just don’t care to read the opinion of a man who has caused so much trouble for my family and I don’t care to read the opinion of an excommunicated man. The Church said he was wrong, I am part of the Church, so all I have to do is listen to the Church, and why should I listen or read his explanation of why he was right and the Church was wrong? He was wrong. It is simple to me.

 

[HashemEchad]

We aren’t supposed to talk about the SSPX until the end of May, so I will PM you.

The saints weren’t excommunicated. I just don’t care to read the opinion of a man who has caused so much trouble for my family and I don’t care to read the opinion of an excommunicated man. The Church said he was wrong, I am part of the Church, so all I have to do is listen to the Church, and why should I listen or read his explanation of why he was right and the Church was wrong? He was wrong. It is simple to me.

So then, this is more of a personal thing within your family?

I am going to go out on a line and say something that I may regret later…but IF I were not a religious Jew, Archbishop Lefebvre may well have been the only Catholic who could have enticed me to join the Catholic church. because the more I read about him, the more respect I developed for him.

I realize his Traditionalist movement had a lot of antisemitic overtones, and there is a lot of antisemitism within Traditionalism, but that is beside the point for me.

I always respected him because, unlike the Catholics I grew up around when I was younger, he seemed to understand his religion, had great regard for the Traditions of his religion, and had a mind which he knew how to use!

I realize obedience is a big thing for Catholics, and a requirement, but when I was growing up, those of us who were non-Catholics tended to look down on Catholics for being “blind followers”. Lefebvre to me, was the first Catholic who did not fit that mold, and it actually made me look at his religion with new eyes for the first time.

 

[Margarite]

So then, this is more of a personal thing within your family?

The reason I even know of him is because my mom’s entire family is SSPX and will hardly talk to my mom because we go to the NO (novus ordo mass (sp?)) sometimes. My mom is the eldest of 9 and they have actually told her that she is leader her six kids to hell. This is a common opinion among the people of that religion in St. Marys, KS.

I am going to go out on a line and say something that I may regret later…but IF I were not a religious Jew, Archbishop Lefebvre may well have been the only Catholic who could have enticed me to join the Catholic church. because the more I read about him, the more respect I developed for him.

I realize his Traditionalist movement had a lot of antisemitic overtones, and there is a lot of antisemitism within Traditionalism, but that is beside the point for me.

I always respected him because, unlike the Catholics I grew up around when I was younger, he seemed to understand his religion, had great regard for the Traditions of his religion, and had a mind which he knew how to use!

I realize obedience is a big thing for Catholics, and a requirement, but when I was growing up, those of us who were non-Catholics tended to look down on Catholics for being “blind followers”. Lefebvre to me, was the first Catholic who did not fit that mold, and it actually made me look at his religion with new eyes for the first time.

It is true that allot of Catholics don’t know much about their faith, and that is part of the problem that Pope Benedict faces. But I think you must also agree if you have been on this forum long, that there are also many who know quite a bit.
There are many Catholics who love the TLM and all the traditions of the Church, but we are not willing to leave the Church, which we believe was started by God, to follow our own preferences. Instead we fight the good fight from inside the Church instead of attacking it from outside. We don’t want to separate ourselves from the Church, we want to help the Church in her hour of need. Right now the Church is in turmoil because for the past 40 years very few people have bothered to understand Vatican II, so some people took advantage of the laziness and introduced very liberal and somewhat non-Catholic “stuff” into the Church, well, we trads are trying to help the pope revive the Church. We want the traditions back and we want the liberalism out. Most of us face the fact that the NO will never go away, but it is a mass that can be beautiful when mixed with tradition (see EWTN mass). Though the NO is never as beautiful as the TLM, the Church has said that it is valid, and that is where the sepratists disagree.
Those who have left the Church because they prefer the TLM to the Church, think that the NO is invalid, when the Church has said that it is. (laudamus te here is your answer without a PM).

I know that you are not Catholic, but think of it this way.
If God (Jesus) started the Catholic Church and put Peter (the pope) in charge, don’t you think that it would be wrong to disobey the pope? Just think of this objectively and not as a Catholic or non-Catholic.