Will History Look Favorably on Archbishop Lefebvre?

[Duke_of_Mantua]

What makes men and women saints is their ability to love the Church and obey her, even when they feel that they are being treated wrongly or that others are being treated wrongly.

What matters is that we act in conformity with the Church.

As St. John Chrysostom said, “the life of monks, friars, nuns and religious brothers is moe austere than that of the layman and the diocesan priest. Therefore it is of greater dignity, But this does not mean that they are the only ones called to be saints. On the contrary, they are to be models that the layperson and the diocesan priest should immitate to whatever degree is possible in their particular circumstances.”

It’s ironic you chose to quote St. John Chrysostom and preach the importance of obedience in the same post when it was St. John Chrysostom who once declared, “The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops”

 

[JReducation]

It’s ironic you chose to quote St. John Chrysostom and preach the importance of obedience in the same post when it was St. John Chrysostom who once declared, “The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops”

St. John Chrysostom’s spiritual journey is a very interesting journey. He went from being a very fundamentalist Christian who did not trust the Church hierarchy and believed that the only solution was to head for the desert to a very well developed secular spirituality.

That’s why he never became a religious and why he accepted to be a secular bishop. He found that religioius were guides for secular priests and lay people and that sanctity was for everyone. We secular men and women take from these guides everything that we can use within our particular circumstances.

He also taught that religious life has more dignity in the Catholic Church than any other form of life. This teaching has become part of Church Tradition, with a capital T. He encouraged all diocesan priests and lay people to look at monks, friars and nuns and learn from them how to obey, how to detach from material things, how to practice chastity in their particualr circumstances.

If you ask how history will remember the Archbishop, I believe that St. John Chrysostom would consider it an irrelevant question, because it has nothing to do with sainthood.

As to his quote regarding the heads of bishops and the floor of hell, he was responding to a particular situation. This was his point in emphasizing the dignity of relgious life over all other forms of life in the Catholic Church. He was furious that bishops approved the creation of religious orders and then depended on the religious to sanctify them by praying for them, while they (the bishops) went about their worldly concerns, instead of taking the good example of the religious orders.

There were two things that John Chyrsostom took from the religious orders:

1. The focus of the Christian life is to become a saint. Everything else is irrelevant compared to that.
2. The way to sanctity is through the evangelical cousels: chastity, poverty and obedience.

Even if one attended mass every day, prayed around the clock, if you did not follow the evangelical counsels you were wasting the grace that God gives you through the sacraments and through prayer. Because you would never be a saint.

He was a very wise Father. He is good for this thread. Because he helps us put things into perspective. The Gospel is larger than the Archbishop and John Paul II. It’s about becoming a saint. Does it matter how people remember you, if you have failed to become a saint?

JR

 

[ProVobis]

To keep harping on “disobedience” is adding no value to the discussion. We all have disobeyed at one time or another. As have many saints. Guess what, we do it because we’re human. And we go to confession later. Is one’s disobedience worse than another’s? Only God knows that. The Pope (and his bishops) can excommunicate anyone they want to, according to a couple of posters here. Ok, fair enough, but are they being fair about it? Who’s the bigger sinner? Or who’s setting the worse example? Again, only God knows that.

I didn’t know Lefebvre; heck I can’t even spell his name right half the time, and I certainly don’t know how to pronounce his name. (How many of you can, by the way?) All’s I heard about him was through books and these forums. I don’t know what he was thinking. But I’d like to know I’d given him a fair trial had I ever been asked to serve on a jury. As I would have done with Bugnini or anyone else who had come out of the Vatican II era.

But do remember that God has a purpose for everyone, even if that person would serve as a bad example. Today’s TLM was surprisingly full where I attended. It may not be next Sunday but at least today I know that Lefebvre was at least partially responsible for keeping the oven warm for us, so to speak. (Did I really say that?)

 

[ProVobis]

It’s as logical to say that without Lefebvre, the Latin Mass would have been revived more quickly and easily.

And which bishop would have done that? Do you not realize that even the initial FSSP priests had been ordained by him? And how many bishops were ordaining TLM priests even after the committee of nine Cardinals met to discuss its status in 1986. Heck, even that bit of information was being successfully suppressed. So, no, it doesn’t follow that the Latin Mass would have been revived more quickly. Why? Because Lefebvre (and Mayer) were the only bishops ordaining such priests to say it. Maybe their “necessity reason” had some legitimate basis, after all. Who would have ordained priests for the TLM had both of them died, for example?

And why the 1962 Missal, as opposed to 1920 Missal, for example? Who managed to define the 1962 Missal as the official TLM? Just some things to keep in mind while you’re throwing stones at the man.

 

[catharina]

And which bishop would have done that? Do you not realize that even the initial FSSP priests had been ordained by him? And how many bishops were ordaining TLM priests even after the committee of nine Cardinals met to discuss its status in 1986. Heck, even that bit of information was being successfully suppressed. So, no, it doesn’t follow that the Latin Mass would have been revived more quickly. Why? Because Lefebvre (and Mayer) were the only bishops ordaining such priests to say it. Maybe their “necessity reason” had some legitimate basis, after all. Who would have ordained priests for the TLM had both of them died, for example?

And why the 1962 Missal, as opposed to 1920 Missal, for example? Who managed to define the 1962 Missal as the official TLM? Just some things to keep in mind while you’re throwing stones at the man.

What a shame that I have to repeat my entire post (# 39) verbatim.

"Yes, you feel as you feel, but that has nothing to do with obedience or clear thinking in regard to the faith. As for the bishops of China, pardon me?

Do you fully understand that there are two groups of bishops in China, a group that is faithful to the Chair of Peter, headed by the bishop of Rome (Pope); and the “other” group, bishops in name but faithful to the government of China that established that “church.” If Rome chooses to discuss reunion (a place within the Catholic Church under the Pope’s leadership) for those bishops who exist outside of the Church in China, then hurray for Rome and for the real (true) Church in China - and the many many many who grew up there without any freedom of religion.

Clearly it was Lefebvre’s definitive action that ended any such “discussions of mutual benefit” that might have been continued if he had not acted in disobedience.

It’s as logical to say that without Lefebvre, the Latin Mass would have been revived more quickly and easily; his obstinacy can be seen as a deterent or as a positive force. The final point is that what happened is what happpened. Please don’t allow anyone to tell you that any comparison can be made with the real and desperate needs of HMC in China."

Without acts of war demanding the Latin Mass, who can say if Rome might have quietly made its revival an action assigne to cxertain bishops/priests. I can’t say because history gives us the actions of Lefebvre: hindrance or of assitance? We only know how it ended. NO STONES THROWN. Now, please respond to what I actually said in my response to you: do you even begin to grasp the real needs of the Church in China? Why would you make such baseless accusations/comparisons - and then NOT retract them?

Your anger is quite obvious.
Your logic is not apparent.

 

[HashemEchad]

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.

Apart from the views many of them hold about Jews, I believe history will look favorably on not only Abp. Lefebvre, but the entire Traditional Catholic movement.

I know that I, personally, respect any person or movement that works to save the traditions of their religious faith.

 

[Francis_Pio]

This is an issue I’ve struggled with a lot lately. I don’t know what to think of the man, or of the SSPX anymore. Initially, I viewed both him and his society as clearly disobedient schismatics; now, I’d say my views are more fuzzy.

If His Grace was validly excommunicated, I would say no, history will not, and should not look favorably on the man. But looking at canon law, 1323, a person is not subject to a penalty if they “acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls”. The act of consecrating bishops is not intrinsically evil, and it was indeed provoked by grave fear in this case, seeing as the late Archbishop’s health was failing, and he needed assurance that there would be future bishops to carry out his work of preserving Tradition.

Past popes have issued invalid excommunications, such as in the case of St. Athanasius during the time of the Arian heresy. It seems borderline idolatrous to me that one would simply accept the act “because he’s the Pope”, when the above example from Canon Law seems to indisputably vindicate Archbishop Lefebvre. While the Pope is the supreme head of the Church, he is also human, and is not incapable of erring.

I’m new to Traditionalism, and so there’s obviously much I don’t know, but going by what I’ve heard thus far, it seems quite difficult to argue that this excommunication was legit. If there are things I’m missing, please alert me to them, as I don’t want to judge this situation rashly or incorrectly.

 

[saint_rafael]

Part of the problem is the modernist 1983 Code of Cannon Law.
A person is automatically excommunicated for consecrating a bishop. This seems extremely harsh and unjust because it does not allow for exceptions or cases of emergency.

Under the old 1917 Code of Cannon Law, a Catholic bishop was only suspended for consecrating a bishop without permission. This was far more sensible and the tradition of the Church.

Archbishop Lefebvre was also denied a canonical trial which he requested. He was treated unjustly and it is a matter of time before Pope Benedict lifts the ex-communications.

 

[ProVobis]

What a shame that I have to repeat my entire post (# 39) verbatim.

Why did you need to do this? Your point on the bishops in China well-taken already and my apologies if you’re defending the invalid consecrations that went on in China. But the original question was what did Vatican II change concerning the definition of collegiality. I don’t think you or anyone else has answered that but no need to be angry if you don’t know.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

This bishop was excommunicated for directly disobeying the pope in ordaining new bishops not approved by Rome. For me, that is all that needs to be said.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ProVobis]

If His Grace was validly excommunicated, I would say no, history will not, and should not look favorably on the man. But looking at canon law, 1323, a person is not subject to a penalty if they “acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls”. The act of consecrating bishops is not intrinsically evil, and it was indeed provoked by grave fear in this case, seeing as the late Archbishop’s health was failing, and he needed assurance that there would be future bishops to carry out his work of preserving Tradition.

Past popes have issued invalid excommunications, such as in the case of St. Athanasius during the time of the Arian heresy. It seems borderline idolatrous to me that one would simply accept the act “because he’s the Pope”, when the above example from Canon Law seems to indisputably vindicate Archbishop Lefebvre. While the Pope is the supreme head of the Church, he is also human, and is not incapable of erring.

The Archbishop did use this canon law in his defense. And, yes, it does appear on the surface it is legit. But the argument can also be made that he was made aware of this canon law only after the excommunications. I would give him the benefit of the doubt here and think that he was aware of this canon law before he performed the consecrations, in which case the dots connect.

 

[catharina]

Why did you need to do this? Your point on the bishops in China well-taken already and my apologies if you’re defending the invalid consecrations that went on in China. But the original question was what did Vatican II change concerning the definition of collegiality. I don’t think you or anyone else has answered that but no need to be angry if you don’t know.

Perhaps you will decide to be more specific.

I’m referencing the fact that there are indeed “bishops” in China who exist OUTSIDE the Church of Rome. They belong to another “church” and that’s the governmentally instituted Catholic “church” of China. To what are you referring? In what way might this relate to M. Lefebvre who belonged to the Church of Rome until he chose to defy the Pope, enacting his own excommunication? The Catholic Church in China has suffered from untold and still-endless perscution in China for more than 60 years.

How is this to be compared to the situation with M. Lefevbre?

In other words, do you understand that there exists an entire INVALID CHURCH in China? It takes its orders from the Communist government. I can’t say this any more clearly.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Since he is now dead, I don’t think it matters what history thinks of him. We should all pray about what God thinks of him. History is not the judge. I don’t know about you, but I would not want to face God at my judgment having openly defied The Vicar of Christ on Earth. This is why we should all pray for him
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[holdencaulfield]

Yes I think that it will.

 

[I_Believe]

Part of the problem is the modernist 1983 Code of Cannon Law.
A person is automatically excommunicated for consecrating a bishop. This seems extremely harsh and unjust because it does not allow for exceptions or cases of emergency.

Under the old 1917 Code of Cannon Law, a Catholic bishop was only suspended for consecrating a bishop without permission. This was far more sensible and the tradition of the Church.

Archbishop Lefebvre was also denied a canonical trial which he requested. He was treated unjustly and it is a matter of time before Pope Benedict lifts the ex-communications.

Good point, and one no one can deny.

 

[HashemEchad]

I just did a quick online search and found this:

angelusonline.org/print.php?sid=503

I found the account of the Archbishop’s last moments, and his funeral, quite moving, even though I am not Catholic.

I remember following the story of his trials with the post-Vatican II church officials, and I did read a few statements by the late Archbishop. The feeling that always came across to me from his writings was that of humility.

I also did not know until my websearch that his father had died in a Nazi concentration camp.

I respect underdogs, and esp. those who fight to their dying breath to preserve the traditions of their religion or their ethnic group. This is something that is very important to me.

And yes, I know some will say that he was ‘disobedient to the church’.

Well, I seem to remember a teenage French girl who claimed she had visions of Sts Michael, Catherine and Margaret, and the church of her day told her she was wrong. She chose to follow her conscience, and today, she is a canonized saint of that same church.

 

[pnewton]

Good point, and one no one can deny.

Except Pope Benedict, who so far has not lifted a darn thing.

 

[catharina]

I just did a quick online search and found this:

angelusonline.org/print.php?sid=503

I found the account of the Archbishop’s last moments, and his funeral, quite moving, even though I am not Catholic.

I remember following the story of his trials with the post-Vatican II church officials, and I did read a few statements by the late Archbishop. The feeling that always came across to me from his writings was that of humility.

I also did not know until my websearch that his father had died in a Nazi concentration camp.

I respect underdogs, and esp. those who fight to their dying breath to preserve the traditions of their religion or their ethnic group. This is something that is very important to me.

And yes, I know some will say that he was ‘disobedient to the church’.

Well, I seem to remember a teenage French girl who claimed she had visions of Sts Michael, Catherine and Margaret, and the church of her day told her she was wrong. She chose to follow her conscience, and today, she is a canonized saint of that same church.

Apples and oranges.

Joan of Arc was declared a heretic by clerics and monarchy. This accusation stands APART from Rome, the Pope NEVER having declared her to be heretical. Refresh your memory.

 

[catharina]

As Deacon Ed and JR have said,
we can commend the soul of M. Lefebvre
to the abundant mercy of God.

 

[JReducation]

I believe this question is a moot question. The Archbishop is dead. How history remembers him is not going to change the state of his soul. Only God can determine that, not us.

For those who call the revisd code of Canon Law “modernist”, that’s just another good example of how divisive this topic is.

Why would anyone want to become a Catholic when Catholics have the audacity to charge their own Church with heresy, to claim that their popes are acting without conscience and without charity and question the authority of their popes when they have not asked us to do or believe anything sinful?

Let History say what it will. As Voltaire once said, “History says only what historians want it to say.”

As to Pope Benedict lifting the excommunication, I’m not so sure about that. In a letter that went out with the Motu Proprio this is what Pope Benedict had to say about Archbishop Lefebvre’s movement.

**We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break, which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the pope and the bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. **

Pope Benedict himself says that there are deeper issues than what meet the eyes of the laity and he is not about to share them with us.

Many people believe that Pope Benedict will be the redeemer of what they conceive to be a doomed Church.

Let’s not forget that Pope Benedict is a very holy man, a scholar, and a conservative. In his mind there is a special place for the authority of Peter and the bishops. He is very clerical in this thinking. This is not a fault, just a fact.

While he holds the clergy to a higher standard, he also holds that he does not hae to explain anything to the satisfaction of the laity.

Remember what happened when he gave communion to Brother Roger of Taize and Tony Blair who were not Catholics. The lay media asked him to explain and he refused. His only answer was “It was the charitable thing to do.”

When Tony Blair was finally received into the Church, Pope Benedict invited him to the Vatican to welcome him into the Church. Blair still upholds his belief in abortion and same-sex marriage. When the Vatican was asked about this, the Pope refused to respond. His secretary responded by saying that Blair had some developing to do in the faith.

This is not a Pope who is going to do things our way or who cares much what we think. He stated over and over again while int he USA that faith and reason belong together. He is an Augustinian at heart, even though he is a secular priest. Augustinian spirituality looks toward philosophy for clarification and understanding. In other words, it pays little attention to feelings and much attention to philosophical logic.

This question has to be answered from the perspective of faith and philosophy, if we’re going to remain in union with Peter. Because that’s the Pope we have today, not Pius or Innocent or John XXIII or even John Paul. This pope is another Augustine.

If you apply Augustinian spirituality and logic, it would say that the good Archbishop was excommunicated for ordaining bishops against the rule of law. It would also say that regardless of whether you believe the rule of law is modernist or not, it is what it is, the law of the Catholic Church. Augustinian reason would also say that if the Pope says there is more to the excommunication than the form of the mass, but will not say what the more is, then you must be quiet and accept it, because it’s the only logical thing to do.

JR