Will History Look Favorably on Archbishop Lefebvre?

[cam100]

bobzills;3619736:

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

The problem with the Archbishop’s defense can seen by looking at his own words: “That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.”

He implied that if he had not disobeyed, Tradition, that is, the Catholic Church, would not survive. In other words, the Church was no longer going to kept alive under the Pope, but now had to be kept alive under Lefebvre. The Church had left Rome and moved to Econe. Lefebvre claimed that he acknowledged John Paul II as the pope, yet he indicated that the Church was no longer with Pope John Paul II. Do you see the problem with this?

 

[laudamus_te]

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.

Margarite, first of all you must choose your words more wisely. The SSPX is not a different religion.

Now, from what I can gather from your posts is that your opinion of Lefebvre/SSPX is based pretty much purely on emotion. It is based on a family disagreement which you have been raised in. I believe you are unwilling to look at this objectively because of emotional attachment. The fact that you won’t even consider reading Archbishop Lefebvre’s own words is a good indication of this. It may be a common opinion among SSPX people that those who are attached to the NO are susceptible to the doctrinal problems of VII, and therefore may very well be leading innocent souls in their charge to hell. Not many will put it so bluntly, but family members do tend to feel obliged to speak in such a way to each other. It is a very delicate situation in my own family, as well, but it is opposite in nature from yours. My entire family is NO, my 4 siblings and I grew up mostly in the NO, and none but myself and one sister are still practicing the faith (traditional, now). They feel that we have gone astray. We attend Mass regularly, we partake of the sacraments regularly, yet we are the ones who have strayed.

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.

If you were truly objective, you would not use such inflammatory language.

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).

You have not answered my question. I asked what heresy you have heard preached by SSPX priests. “Preached” was your word. What SSPX faithful have said is irrelevant.

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.

Jesus is the Head of the Church. The pope is his visible representative. His duty is to transmit the Faith. It is not wrong to disobey the pope.

 

[laudamus_te]

The problem with the Archbishop’s defense can seen by looking at his own words: “That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.”

He implied that if he had not disobeyed, Tradition, that is, the Catholic Church, would not survive. In other words, the Church was no longer going to kept alive under the Pope, but now had to be kept alive under Lefebvre. The Church had left Rome and moved to Econe. Lefebvre claimed that he acknowledged John Paul II as the pope, yet he indicated that the Church was no longer with Pope John Paul II. Do you see the problem with this?

No, I do not see a problem with that. But that is not the same thing as saying that I believe (or that Lefebvre believed) that the seat of Peter is empty, if that is what you are implying.

 

[bobzills]

The problem with the Archbishop’s defense can seen by looking at his own words: “That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.”

He implied that if he had not disobeyed, Tradition, that is, the Catholic Church, would not survive. In other words, the Church was no longer going to kept alive under the Pope, but now had to be kept alive under Lefebvre. The Church had left Rome and moved to Econe. Lefebvre claimed that he acknowledged John Paul II as the pope, yet he indicated that the Church was no longer with Pope John Paul II. Do you see the problem with this?

The problem I see is with Vatican II, and the narrowmindedness of those who refused to allow the TLM at that time.

 

[HashemEchad]

Half my family is Catholic, and on my mom’s side there are some serious Catholics who really fell apart emotionally with the change of V2, which is one reason I am so sympathetic to that generation and what they felt.

For many of them, it truly was a serious crisis of faith. I mean, here was the church they had grown up with, that was a comfort and solace to them in the hardest of times, suddenly going from the sheer reverence and majesty of the Tridentine Mass to Sister Judy with the strumming guitar.

Most of you are not old enough to remember it, but I have family who does. I had a great aunt…a nun, no less… who broke down in tears to me, describing how it affected her…and the liberals in your church did not even seem to give a damn that they ruined the spirit of so many of these people.

So do I sympathize with the likes of Abp. Lefebvre? YES. Because he was “of a certain age” and I’m sure the changes shattered him as well. So maybe for me, this is about family, too!

And for the post-V2 church to actually BAN the Tridentine Mass? Were they insane? I realize they “permit” it now, and have actually allowed it in the form of the indult mass, but in the 1970s they BANNED it.

IMAGINE what that and the other weird changes did to Catholics of that generation for whom the church meant everything.

It freaked ME out, and I’m not even Catholic! I remember seeing nuns that LOOKED like nuns, full habit, the works! I remember seeing priests in full cassock, walking down our street on visitation. Next thing I know, I’m seeing priests in bermuda shorts and nuns in street clothes.

If I were Catholic, I’d chuck it all and just stay home and watch The Bells of St Mary’s, Going My Way, Boys Town and the Sound of Music, if you know what I mean.

(Sorry for this vent…its been in me a long time, ever since my great aunt broke down in tears to me, desperate for anyone, even a Jewish great-niece, who might show some sympathy at a time when no one else cared.)

 

[pnewton]

Many saints “caused trouble” for the Church. Does that mean you will refuse to read, in their own words, their reasons

The last time I heard the argument of trouble making saints, I did follow the links and read in their own words. What I found was a tremendous love and respect for the one in authority and a disagreement crouched in humility. Also, obedience first, despite disagreement. As with all things, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about the disagreement. The mark of a saint is the humility of Christ will prevail.

 

[cam100]

cam100;3620709:

The problem with the Archbishop’s defense can seen by looking at his own words: “That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.”

He implied that if he had not disobeyed, Tradition, that is, the Catholic Church, would not survive. In other words, the Church was no longer going to kept alive under the Pope, but now had to be kept alive under Lefebvre. The Church had left Rome and moved to Econe. Lefebvre claimed that he acknowledged John Paul II as the pope, yet he indicated that the Church was no longer with Pope John Paul II. Do you see the problem with this?

The problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre verbally acknowledged John Paul II as the pope, yet acted as if there was no pope. According to Lefebvre, he alone was preserving the Church, and without his actions, the Church would not be preserved.

If Pope John Paul II was the leader of the Church, then it was not necessary for the Archbishop to lead the Church, because it already had a leader.

If the Archbishop’s actions *were necessary *for the preservation of the Church, the church being led by John Paul II must not have been the Catholic Church. John Paul II was definitely leading some kind of church, as he had thousands of bishops, priests, and laity in his following. But it must not have been the Catholic Church, or the Archbishop wouldn’t have had to lead people in another direction. If John Paul II was leading a *non-Catholic *Church, then he couldn’t be the leader of the Catholic Church.

Do you see the problem now? Archbishop Lefebvre claimed to be in union with the pope, but defended his actions with an argument that could only be compatible with sedevacantism. It was contradictory.

 

[cam100]

cam100;3620709:

The problem with the Archbishop’s defense can seen by looking at his own words: “That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.”

He implied that if he had not disobeyed, Tradition, that is, the Catholic Church, would not survive. In other words, the Church was no longer going to kept alive under the Pope, but now had to be kept alive under Lefebvre. The Church had left Rome and moved to Econe. Lefebvre claimed that he acknowledged John Paul II as the pope, yet he indicated that the Church was no longer with Pope John Paul II. Do you see the problem with this?

No, I do not see a problem with that. But that is not the same thing as saying that I believe (or that Lefebvre believed) that the seat of Peter is empty, if that is what you are implying.

The problem is that Archbishop Lefebvre verbally acknowledged John Paul II as the pope, yet acted as if there was no pope. According to Lefebvre, he alone was preserving the Church, and without his actions, the Church would not be preserved.

If Pope John Paul II was the leader of the Church, then it was not necessary for the Archbishop to lead the Church, because it already had a leader.

If the Archbishop’s actions *were necessary *for the preservation of the Church, the church being led by John Paul II must not have been the Catholic Church. John Paul II was definitely leading some kind of church, as he had thousands of bishops, priests, and laity in his following. But it must not have been the Catholic Church, or the Archbishop wouldn’t have had to lead people in another direction. If John Paul II was leading a *non-Catholic *Church, then he couldn’t be the leader of the Catholic Church.

Do you see the problem now? Archbishop Lefebvre claimed to be in union with the pope, but defended his actions with an argument that could only be compatible with sedevacantism. It was contradictory.