Will History Look Favorably on Archbishop Lefebvre?

[Duke_of_Mantua]

I am curious what people on this board think of him. I am new to his story and his contributions. From what I have read, he seems like someone who fought for what he believed in. He wasn’t a troublemaker before Vatican II so I am sure the entire ordeal hurt him deeply.

Do you think history will look favorably on him? The Latin Mass is back so he is exculpated in that respect. Do you think he might one day have his excommunication lifted? If it is, do you believe he will be a candidate deserving of consideration for canonization?

I don’t want this to turn into an SSPX discussion: I wanted to discuss the man.

 

[cam100]

I am curious what people on this board think of him. I am new to his story and his contributions. From what I have read, he seems like someone who fought for what he believed in. He wasn’t a troublemaker before Vatican II so I am sure the entire ordeal hurt him deeply.

Do you think history will look favorably on him? The Latin Mass is back so he is exculpated in that respect. Do you think he might one day have his excommunication lifted? If it is, do you believe he will be a candidate deserving of consideration for canonization?

I don’t want this to turn into an SSPX discussion: I wanted to discuss the man.

Being deceased, the archbishop is already part of history. Whether or not it looks favorably upon him depends upon whom you ask. Certainly as long as there is an SSPX or related organization, a certain segment of the population will look favorably upon him. I doubt the Catholic Church as a whole will ever consider him a hero, however. While I don’t think anyone will deny that he fought for ideas, but that alone doesn’t justify oneself. There are some good discussions of the archbishop in the forum if you do a search under “lefebvre”.

 

[JReducation]

The Catholic Church does not look disfavourably on him. The official position has been and still is that he disobeyed the Pope.

The stickler here is that bishops must act in union with the Pope.

As to his character, I have never heard a Catholic cleric, religious or theologian attack his person or his conscience. The issue was his actions.

I have seen lay people here on CAF take very judgemental sides on this man. Some want to canonize him and others want to damn him to hell. Both positions are wrong.

Only the Pope can canonize and no one can damn anyone to hell.

If you look outside of CAF you will find that most people don’t really know who he is or are that interested, because he does not directly affect their lives.

If you ask those who work inside the Church they tell you that he was a good man, but made a big mistake in disobeying the Pope.

The rest is left up to God. Many people who knew him loved him very much, even if they disagreed with him. They say that he was a very charismatic person. This doesn’t sound like a bad guy, even though he got into trouble.

Even the Church authorities have never condemned anything but the disobedience, not his theology or his person.

JR

 

[I_Believe]

I say yes, he will be looked upon with favor. Why ? Because of the way he was treated before he ordained the Bishops.

 

[mclin1951]

Probably the official view will be unfavorable. However, the Archbishop’s critique of the post Vatican II Church, especially his liturgical criticisms, were correct. Without Archbishop Lefebvre there would not be even the grudging toleration of the old Latin Mass.

 

[ethelzguy]

It would seem that post #3 sums it up best. Most Catholics don’t even know who he was, nor would they care.

 

[catharina]

Probably the official view will be unfavorable. However, the Archbishop’s critique of the post Vatican II Church, especially his liturgical criticisms, were correct. Without Archbishop Lefebvre there would not be even the grudging toleration of the old Latin Mass.

It’s this sort of leap that distorts history:
“Without Archbishop Lefebvre there would not be
even the grudging toleration of the old Latin Mass.”

It would be equally based in such reasoning to say that
without M. Lefebvre there would be total support and renewal
of the Latin Mass - and much earlier too.

His disobedience supported a huge divide that need not have existed.

 

[chrisb]

I would say “YES”, in my humble opinion.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I think history will view him sympathetically, and might even be able to get over the initial disobedience that led to the suspension, but I don’t think history will ever overlook the illicit consecration of bishops.

 

[ProVobis]

The Catholic Church does not look disfavourably on him. The official position has been and still is that he disobeyed the Pope.

The problem was that he wasn’t given enough time on earth for anything to vindicate him. It’s too bad disobedience is what he’ll be most remembered for. Yet this “disobedience” was not so much against the Pope but against his fellow bishops. Remember collegiality has been the rule since Vatican II. Theoretically, had he been able to gather enough support from his fellow bishops, we would not be talking disobedience.

 

[I_Believe]

It’s this sort of leap that distorts history:

His disobedience supported a huge divide that need not have existed.

That divide was there 20 years before the consecrations. And among the Hierarchy, much further back.

 

[catharina]

The problem was that he wasn’t given enough time on earth for anything to vindicate him. It’s too bad disobedience is what he’ll be most remembered for. Yet this “disobedience” was not so much against the Pope but against his fellow bishops. Remember collegiality has been the rule since Vatican II. Theoretically, had he been able to gather enough support from his fellow bishops, we would not be talking disobedience.

The problem you indicate would be a problem if we didn’t know that God ordains the beginning of life and the time of death. The archbishop had far more years than the average of three score and ten. Betond a doubt, his disobedience was undertaken against the Pope. The Church has said so. Until/unless the Church says something different, that is the only Catholic stance.

 

[catharina]

That divide was there 20 years before the consecrations. And among the Hierarchy, much further back.

That voices were raised about many concerns does not indicate that a “divide” needed to take place. When concern becomes demands, many who are to be obeyed (in faith) might become less interested listeners (all being human).

 

[ProVobis]

The problem you indicate would be a problem if we didn’t know that God ordains the beginning of life and the time of death. The archbishop had far more years than the average of three score and ten. Betond a doubt, his disobedience was undertaken against the Pope. The Church has said so. Until/unless the Church says something different, that is the only Catholic stance.

Then you disagree with Vatican II’s collegiality documents? Or has “the Church” gone against its own teachings here? Just asking, I don’t think that’s what you’re implying in your post.

But it does seem as if the bishops were the Archbishop’s biggest detractors before and after ED so it seems reasonable that the Archbishop’s sin was against them. Something to consider, at least?

 

[catharina]

Then you disagree with Vatican II’s collegiality documents? Just asking.

There is no doubt in my mind that collegiality exists.
Does it RULE, in the sense that the Chair of Peter RULES? No.

 

[ProVobis]

There is no doubt in my mind that collegiality exists.
Does it RULE, in the sense that the Chair of Peter RULES? No.

No offense but I think we need an expert on collegiality to straighten this argument out. I understood it to be “synods of bishops rule with” the Pope.

 

[catharina]

No offense but I think we need an expert on collegiality to straighten this argument out. I understood it to be “synods of bishops rule with” the Pope.

At times; but the Pope’s rulings are not dependent upon collegiality. Actually, this is a perfect example of the way in which M. Lefebvre’s actions became a problem. The Pope is free to step away from a bishop’s perceptions; a bishop is NOT free to do so in regard to the Pope’s stance.

 

[ProVobis]

At times; but the Pope’s rulings are not dependent upon collegiality. Actually, this is a perfect example of the way in which M. Lefebvre’s actions became a problem. The Pope is free to step away from a bishop’s perceptions; a bishop is NOT free to do so in regard to the Pope’s stance.

Yes, but is the Pope free to excommunicate a synod of bishops? I’m not quite sure.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

No offense but I think we need an expert on collegiality to straighten this argument out. I understood it to be “synods of bishops rule with” the Pope.

Synods only rule with the pope to the extent he allows. The divinely instituted authorities in the Church are the bishop in his diocese and the pope over the whole Church. Any intermediate structures only exert authority to the extent Peter grants them or in the sense that a unanimous decree is “binding” because every individual bishop decides to make it a law for his territory. The “Synod of Bishops” in its modern form is, in any event, a purely consultative body.

Yes, but is the Pope free to excommunicate a synod of bishops? I’m not quite sure.

Yes, in the sense that he’s free to excommunicate all the individuals of the synod (and even interdict their whole territories). I think, though, that it’s technically impossible to “excommunicate” a synod because a synod is not a person.

The pope enjoys supreme, universal, and ordinary jurisdiction over every single Catholic in the world.

 

[Spiller]

I am curious what people on this board think of him. I am new to his story and his contributions. From what I have read, he seems like someone who fought for what he believed in. He wasn’t a troublemaker before Vatican II so I am sure the entire ordeal hurt him deeply.

Do you think history will look favorably on him? The Latin Mass is back so he is exculpated in that respect. Do you think he might one day have his excommunication lifted? If it is, do you believe he will be a candidate deserving of consideration for canonization?

I don’t want this to turn into an SSPX discussion: I wanted to discuss the man.

It’s not our job to judge anyone – be it Lefebvre. That said he defied the Catholic Church and he passed-away while under excommunication…