Will History Look Favorably on Archbishop Lefebvre?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duke_of_Mantua
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HashemEchad said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes St. Joan of Arc and Lefebvre are often compared to another. I wonder why his father was killed in concentration camps. I know that early on Hitler tried to destroy Catholicism, however it didn’t work.
 
For those who point to the fact that Benedict has yet to “lift” the excommunication, I agree that he saw deeper issues at work. He was, after all, the cardinal charged with overseeing the negotiations with Msgr. Lefebvre from 1981 to 1988. He had a wonderful vantage point, relaying the conditions both the pope and the archbishop viewed as acceptable terms of reconciliation. He thus got to see precisely what the “sticking points” were.
 
JReducation said:
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.
Click to expand...
One of the hypocrisies I have seen has been the charge that the current Mass blurs the distinction between the laity and the clergy. Then for the other 168 hours of the week, those that make this charge will hold their opinions, even though they are laity, over even the Holy Father. The accusation has been made for those who continue to honor the distinction between laity and clergy outside the Mass is that they engage in “papolatry” and are “sheeple.”
 
holdencaulfield said:
Yes St. Joan of Arc and Lefebvre are often compared to another.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Duke_of_Mantua said:
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.
Click to expand...
Only time will tell. The consecrations he did were enough to cause a schism within the SSPX which ended up in the creation of the FSSP.

In order for him to become a saint I am sure that the reasons for his illegal consecrations to be declared justified- which if they are justified would take many many years to come… If we are indeed on a verge of schism away from the truth that happened after Vatican II- and his consecrations will be deemed justified in years to come- Archbishop Lefebvre would be one of the greatest saints in the history of the Church.

As far as my own personal opinion…if it weren’t for him- the Traditional Latin Mass would no longer exist. As far as I am concerned he is a hero…but it is going to take a lot- and a long time- for him to be beatified.

With Sumorum Pontificum we have only come to the tip of the iceberg. When the SSPX is declared legitimate and excommunications lifted- as more and more Rome decrees and American and German Bishops refuse and reforms to the current liturgy are ignored…well hero and sainthood status possibilities increase.
 
pnewton said:
One of the hypocrisies I have seen has been the charge that the current Mass blurs the distinction between the laity and the clergy. Then for the other 168 hours of the week, those that make this charge will hold their opinions, even though they are laity, over even the Holy Father. The accusation has been made for those who continue to honor the distinction between laity and clergy outside the Mass is that they engage in “papolatry” and are “sheeple.”
Click to expand...
Good point Pnewton.

We can’t have it both ways. Now we have a Pope who holds his ground when it comes to keeping the laity out of his business and that of his clergy. We wanted a conservative Pope, we have him.

I keep referring to the same example, because it fits so beautifully in this setting.

When Blair converted to Catholicism, the Vatican welcomed the news and invited Blair for a visit. When asked if the Vatican would require him to retract his position on abortion and same-sex marriage, the Vatican’s response was MYOB. They were not so rude, but it was similar. “Mr. Blair has some developing to do in the faith.” That response is as bland and interesting as white rice in a white china bowl.

When some traditionalists thought it was an abonimation for the Pope to visit a synogogue but not visit a traditional parish, the Pope went into the synogogue and proclaimed that this reminded him of the many times that Jesus must have prayed in such a sacred space. He was not very concerned with popular opinion.

I would say that if one wants a Pope who is tough, we have him. He prays in synogogues, with Muslims, with non Catholics and he founded a committee that he heads on the Muslim-Catholic dialogue.

This is also a pope that says that the separation between us and Protestants is one of hermaneutics. He does not use the word heresy.

He also says that there is more to the separatation of Archbishop Lefebvre’s movement than just the mass. That they used the mass as the symbol.

He is also a Pope who believes that the UN has to clean up its act and that all nations of the world, including the USA must act in cooperation within the UN.

He’s not going to give us everything we want.

My mother always said, “Be careful what you ask for, you may get a double dose.”

JR 🙂
 
I_Believe said:
I say yes, he will be looked upon with favor. Why ? Because of the way he was treated before he ordained the Bishops.
Click to expand...
He crossed the Rubicon with that action, though. It was a dividing line, literally, because it created divisions. He meant well, I think, but at the same time he did not think through his actions. Or, if he did, he chose to accept the consequence…seperation.
 
JReducation said:
This is also a pope that says that the separation between us and Protestants is one of hermaneutics. He does not use the word heresy.
Click to expand...
I believe he doesn’t like to use the word schism either, but I may be wrong.
 
kleary said:
Only time will tell. The consecrations he did were enough to cause a schism within the SSPX which ended up in the creation of the FSSP.
Click to expand...
But that was enough to get the ball rolling. The FSSP priests had been ordained by the Archbishop. The seeds had been sown.
 
ProVobis said:
But that was enough to get the ball rolling. The FSSP priests had been ordained by the Archbishop. The seeds had been sown.
Click to expand...
That’s like saying Luther got the ball rolling on the Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation. It is true that if it wasn’t for Lefebrve’s actions we wouldn’t have the FSSP…rather, we would have the SSPX in full communion like it started out.

For those that say the TLM wouldn’t exist without him, that’s not true. It was being used in places other than Lefebrve’s group.

Saints prove themselves with patience under trial because they have heroic faith and divine charity–sadly, Lefebrve lost patience like so many false reformers before him.
 
pnewton said:
One of the hypocrisies I have seen has been the charge that the current Mass blurs the distinction between the laity and the clergy. Then for the other 168 hours of the week, those that make this charge will hold their opinions, even though they are laity, over even the Holy Father. The accusation has been made for those who continue to honor the distinction between laity and clergy outside the Mass is that they engage in “papolatry” and are “sheeple.”
Click to expand...
Speaking of hypocrisies, aren’t we being somewhat by accusing someone of “disobedience” while we ourselves are posting on a forbidden topic? Unless my calendar is wrong and it’s later than 5/2/08, I believe we are being disobedient and I don’t think we have any canon laws to fall back on. 😉
 
holdencaulfield said:
Yes St. Joan of Arc and Lefebvre are often compared to another. I wonder why his father was killed in concentration camps. I know that early on Hitler tried to destroy Catholicism, however it didn’t work.
Click to expand...
I was curious about that too…I think, based on some other articles I read, that his father had been involved in the French Resistance.
 
True, the TLM was being used in other places, but this was on a much smaller scale from what I understand, and it is doubtful as to whether or not they would have expanded much. Archbishop Lefebvre, agree with him or not, did far more to ensure that the Mass of All Time was more widely available and accessible, and needed to make sure this would continue after his death. The other, smaller TLM groups gave no guarantee of this.

Saints do indeed prove themselves under trial with patience and good faith. It is disputable, however, as to whether or not “patience” would have been the appropriate response to the many problems facing the Church at the time. The Church is eternal, yes, but the earthly lives of churchmen are not. With the “spirit of Vatican II” running rampant in the late 1980’s, and legitimate dangers facing the souls of the faithful, His Grace perceived a state of necessity knowing he would not be around much longer, and acted accordingly. Even if one argues there was no state of necessity, his perception of one seems enough to vindicate him going by Canon Law.
 
May God spare His Church any voices that would lead others away from poverty, chastity and obedience - including the voices that promote any thought that one is to be blessed for ignoring the prayerfully, manifested will and actions of the Holy Father.
 
Francis_Pio said:
Saints do indeed prove themselves under trial with patience and good faith. It is disputable, however, as to whether or not “patience” would have been the appropriate response to the many problems facing the Church at the time. The Church is eternal, yes, but the earthly lives of churchmen are not. With the “spirit of Vatican II” running rampant in the late 1980’s, and legitimate dangers facing the souls of the faithful, His Grace perceived a state of necessity knowing he would not be around much longer, and acted accordingly.
Click to expand...
It might be considered disputable if Rome had not settled the dispute. In this stand-off between His Grace and His Holiness, one who is Catholic must stand with His Holiness.
 
ProVobis said:
Speaking of hypocrisies, aren’t we being somewhat by accusing someone of “disobedience” while we ourselves are posting on a forbidden topic?
Click to expand...
You speak of “we”. I do not know what all you have posted, but I have honored the ban. You, too, have tip-toed around the subject as best as I can tell. It sure isn’t easy. I know some have violated it, but they may not be aware of it.
 
catharina said:
It might be considered disputable if Rome had not settled the dispute. In this stand-off between His Grace and His Holiness, one who is Catholic must stand with His Holiness.
Click to expand...
This is the main area where I’m struggling. Certainly, our Holy Father is the supreme head of the Church, and the Vicar of Christ. As such, his teachings are owed our respect and assent. However, this does not mean he is inerrant in every matter, and it seems that he may very well have been errant here. In the standoff between Athanasius and Pope Liberius, a true Catholic would have stood with Athanasius, recognizing Liberius to have been in error.

We must give our assent to the Pope’s teachings when they do not endanger the faith, or run contradictory to the Law of the Church. If John Paul II’s claim of excommunication is in contradiction with Canon Law, it seems like nothing short of papolatry to deem it valid or just.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top