Will History Look Favorably on Archbishop Lefebvre?

[CreosMary]

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.

Nyet, Nada, No
Obedience is essential to the Church, end of story!

 

[SemperFidelis]

Nyet, Nada, No
Obedience is essential to the Church, end of story!

Not end of story. You must differentiate between true and false obedience. St. Thomas Aquinas speaks on such a subject.

 

[CatholicNerd]

I’m not entirely sure how we can be expected to favorably regard *anyone * who died under the penalty of excommunication.

If Lefebvre died reconciled to God and His Church, then I suppose one could regard him favorably, as an example of the reality that Christ will always offer a soul one last chance to be united with Himself in heaven.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I may add that Popes are fallible people. Archbishop Lefebvre’s excommunication doesn’t mean it was correct.

 

[HashemEchad]

Not end of story. You must differentiate between true and false obedience. St. Thomas Aquinas speaks on such a subject.

I’d like to thank you for saying this; its one of the major things I always respected about the Traditional Catholics, as opposed to the novus ordo Catholics.

As a non-Catholic, one thing that always made me cringe about the Catholics I knew growing up was the way they seemed to blindly do whatever the church told them to.

In Judaism, we are encouraged to ask questions, to think things out, not to blindly follow anything or anyone. Questioning is a central part of Jewish thinking.

And so, years ago, when I first learned of the Traditional vs novus ordo Catholic situation, I immediately felt respect for the TCs, because they seemed to be THINKING FOR THEMSELVES!

And I do understand the principle of true and false obedience, and also the Catholic principle in following an informed conscience.

 

[HashemEchad]

I’m not entirely sure how we can be expected to favorably regard *anyone * who died under the penalty of excommunication.

If Lefebvre died reconciled to God and His Church, then I suppose one could regard him favorably, as an example of the reality that Christ will always offer a soul one last chance to be united with Himself in heaven.

Saint Joan of Arc died under the penalty of excommunication, having been found guilty of heresy

And in 1920, Pope Benedict XV made her a saint of the same church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Saint Joan of Arc died under the penalty of excommunication, having been found guilty of heresy

And in 1920, Pope Benedict XV made her a saint of the same church.

Joan of Arc’s excommunication was not issued by the Holy See, but by a bishop in cahoots with the English. The excommunication was nullified by the Holy See, a higher competent authority.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

HH the Servant of God Pope John Paul II did not excommunicate the Archbishop or the bishops. They excommunicated themselves automatically by undertaking the ordination (I believe the term is latae sentitia, which may be mispelled, as I don’t have my canon law book in front of me).

 

[holdencaulfield]

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.

Well that doesn’t mean that a future Pope couldn’t declare the Excommunication null and invalid. This has happened before so don’t be all sad in 20 years.

 

[JReducation]

I believe he doesn’t like to use the word schism either, but I may be wrong.

No he doesn’t. Many people don’t know thathe was the author of Ut Unum Sint, which John Paul II signed. In the encyclical John Paul II and Ratzinger made sure that they clarified that the Church is broader than our anscestors thought. They do not set outside of Church teachings. What they did was to explain the meaning of the word “church” in deeper terms. This document was the product of their joint theological and rational apporach to ecclesiology and the fruit of their mysticism. Both men are really mystics and scholars.

In this regard, they were well suited for each other and a great team. Probably one of the greatest teams that the Church has had in a long time.

In the encyclical the terms heretics, heressy, schismatic are deliberately avoided.

Ratzinger also oversaw the Directory on Ecumenism to make sure that it was not in conflict with Church doctrine. The Directory asks Catholics to avoid using any language that would be offensive to people of other faiths.

He does not want us, the laity, to us such language either. He really wants us to learn how to evangelize by announcing good news with word and action, not by attacking.

He wants us to learn from what other faiths have to teach us about revelation. While the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic Church, this does not mean that we understand it all, yet.

JR

 

[Francis_Pio]

HH the Servant of God Pope John Paul II did not excommunicate the Archbishop or the bishops. They excommunicated themselves automatically by undertaking the ordination (I believe the term is latae sentitia, which may be mispelled, as I don’t have my canon law book in front of me).

How could these men have excommunicated themselves latae sententiae when Canon Law explicitly states that one operating under the perception of a state of necessity is not bound by said excommunication?

 

[JReducation]

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.

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.

JR

Here is an exerp from the letter.

**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. **

 

[catharina]

I’d like to thank you for saying this; its one of the major things I always respected about the Traditional Catholics, as opposed to the novus ordo Catholics.

As a non-Catholic, one thing that always made me cringe about the Catholics I knew growing up was the way they seemed to blindly do whatever the church told them to.

In Judaism, we are encouraged to ask questions, to think things out, not to blindly follow anything or anyone. Questioning is a central part of Jewish thinking.

And so, years ago, when I first learned of the Traditional vs novus ordo Catholic situation, I immediately felt respect for the TCs, because they seemed to be THINKING FOR THEMSELVES!

And I do understand the principle of true and false obedience, and also the Catholic principle in following an informed conscience.

Hashem. I wonder why you, who have called yourself an Orthodox Jew in many other threads, are participating in this discussion. You’ve said several times that Joan of Arc was excommunicated as a heretic. I’ve corrected that thought several times, saying that a local church unjusitifiably declared her a heretic. Rome dismissed that unjustified action.

You and I (mere woman that I am) know full well there is no central sacrifice or CENTRAL AUTHORITY within Judaism. Again, as in the Joan of Arc/Lefebvre theme you’ve continue to push: apples and oranges. You are comparing two dissimilar things that cannot be fairly compared. We, who are Catholic, do have a singular and central point of authority, the Pope, who is charged with primacy in teaching our Faith and leading us in our worship of God. If you cannot be fair in making assessments, perhaps you’ll be more careful about making assessments. Our Faith recognizes that we are called to poverty, chastity and obedience. I wouldn’t presume to comment on Judiasm’s view of this.

 

[pnewton]

How could these men have excommunicated themselves latae sententiae when Canon Law explicitly states that one operating under the perception of a state of necessity is not bound by said excommunication?

Perhaps as JR mentioned in his last post, there are issues that are not public. Perhaps there is good cause for Pope John Paul II to know that there was no perception of necessity. We can speculate all day long, but we really do not know. We do know by the words of Pope Benedict XVI that there all issues that will not be made public.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

How could these men have excommunicated themselves latae sententiae when Canon Law explicitly states that one operating under the perception of a state of necessity is not bound by said excommunication?

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.

 

[HashemEchad]

Hashem. I wonder why you, who have called yourself an Orthodox Jew in many other threads, are participating in this discussion. You’ve said several times that Joan of Arc was excommunicated as a heretic. I’ve corrected that thought several times, saying that a local church unjusitifiably declared her a heretic. Rome dismissed that unjustified action.

You and I (mere woman that I am) know full well there is no central sacrifice or CENTRAL AUTHORITY within Judaism. Again, as in the Joan of Arc/Lefebvre theme you’ve continue to push: apples and oranges. You are comparing two dissimilar things that cannot be fairly compared. We, who are Catholic, do have a singular and central point of authority, the Pope, who is charged with primacy in teaching our Faith and leading us in our worship of God. If you cannot be fair in making assessments, perhaps you’ll be more careful about making assessments. Our Faith recognizes that we are called to poverty, chastity and obedience. I wouldn’t presume to comment on Judiasm’s view of this.

In European countries, there IS a central authority for Orthodox Jews. It is centered in the Chief Rabbi of that country. Ditto for Israel.

America is the only country that does not have a central religious authority for their Orthodox Jews.

As for why I am reading this thread, its because I’m very familiar with Traditional Catholicism and have had an interest in it for several decades.

But if I’m not welcome here, I’ll leave.

Have a nice day.

 

[catharina]

In European countries, there IS a central authority for Orthodox Jews. It is centered in the Chief Rabbi of that country. Ditto for Israel.

America is the only country that does not have a central religious authority for their Orthodox Jews.

As for why I am reading this thread, its because I’m very familiar with Traditional Catholicism and have had an interest in it for several decades.

But if I’m not welcome here, I’ll leave.

Have a nice day.

You skipped addressing my major point, i.e., Catholicism has (acknowledges) ONE central authority as its leadership for ALL Catholics. This is UNLIKE multiple central authorities within many nations. I know I shouldn’t have to spell that out for you.

Thank you for explaining why you’re following this thread.

Who has implied that you’re not welcome here? I’ve simply said that it’s less than prudent to pretend to present “even comparisons” where they are no “even comparisons.”

 

[bobzills]

How could these men have excommunicated themselves latae sententiae when Canon Law explicitly states that one operating under the perception of a state of necessity is not bound by said excommunication?

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.

 

[HashemEchad]

Catharina, Thanks for making your view clearer.

I suppose one reason I decided to follow this thread is because I always admired the late Archbishop Lefebvre. I still don’t know why apart from his determination to defend the Tradition of his church…I respect anyone who is willing to give up everything they have to defend what is holy in their Faith. I would do the same for my own.

 

[catharina]

Catharina, Thanks for making your view clearer.

I suppose one reason I decided to follow this thread is because I always admired the late Archbishop Lefebvre. I still don’t know why apart from his determination to defend the Tradition of his church…I respect anyone who is willing to give up everything they have to defend what is holy in their Faith. I would do the same for my own.

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.