An Apostolic Letter and an analysis of a schism

[Servus Iesu]

Tdcharles,

It isn't even true to say that Lefebvre wanted to reject all of Vatican II. Most people forget that Marcel Lefebvre was a Council Father! He was one of the prelates involved in the drafting of the schemata (which were later abandoned) prior to the Council. Lefebvre himself signed 14 of the 16 documents of Vatican II.

I know for certain that one of the documents he didn't sign was DH. He couldn't see how the teaching of DH was reconcilable with prior statements on religious freedom in the Syllabus of Errors and Quanta Cura for example. I believe the other document he had problems with was Gaudium et Spes because of what he felt was an unCatholic ethos in the document.

Interestingly enough, Sacrosanctum Concilium met with absolutely no opposition from Lefebvre. He probably didn't have the Novus Ordo in mind when he signed SC and thought the Church would simply add some modifications to the old rite in the mold of what Pius X had done. This was actually what most of the Council Fathers thought.

 

[D'Ann]

Yes. Now it is the responsibility of the SSPX to do whatever it takes to reconcile with Pope Benedict. If Fellay needs to hike by foot from France to Rome and lay in sack cloth and ashes outside of St. Peter's for three days and three nights then that is exactly what he should do if it will bring the society back into full and regular canonical status with Rome.

I am quite sure that Benedict wouldn't even require any such thing and furthermore that he would allow the SSPX to celebrate the old Mass exclusively. The FSSP already has this right. Every other demand of the SSPX must be dropped as a condition of unity. Submit to the Pontiff once more then raise these issues anew.

Hi Ryan,

I want to say thank you for what you have written here. You done good!!!! Thank you.

God's Peace,

Debbie

 

[D'Ann]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Servus Iesu again.

​

I owe you some Rep's... along with Mark K too... and Paul and Rich... It is not fair that I can't rep more people, more often. Especially, since most of the time... I forget to rep people... I'm working on it.!!!!

 

[tdcharles]

Tdcharles,

It isn't even true to say that Lefebvre wanted to reject all of Vatican II. Most people forget that Marcel Lefebvre was a Council Father! He was one of the prelates involved in the drafting of the schemata (which were later abandoned) prior to the Council. Lefebvre himself signed 14 of the 16 documents of Vatican II.

I know for certain that one of the documents he didn't sign was DH. He couldn't see how the teaching of DH was reconcilable with prior statements on religious freedom in the Syllabus of Errors and Quanta Cura for example. I believe the other document he had problems with was Gaudium et Spes because of what he felt was an unCatholic ethos in the document.

Interestingly enough, Sacrosanctum Concilium met with absolutely no opposition from Lefebvre. He probably didn't have the Novus Ordo in mind when he signed SC and thought the Church would simply add some modifications to the old rite in the mold of what Pius X had done. This was actually what most of the Council Fathers thought.

I think this is something he later changed his mind on. The current SSPX certainly make a blanket condemnation of it.

 

[plainswolf]

Interestingly enough, Sacrosanctum Concilium met with absolutely no opposition from Lefebvre. He probably didn't have the Novus Ordo in mind when he signed SC and thought the Church would simply add some modifications to the old rite in the mold of what Pius X had done. This was actually what most of the Council Fathers thought.

I'm glad you brought that up, And that does seem to be the case from the later comments from some of the former council fathers, they had no idea the NO as it is today was what was proposed but something much more inline with the TLM..

"Who dreamed on that day that within a few years, far less than a decade, the Latin past of the Church would be all but expunged, that it would be reduced to a memory fading in the middle distance? The thought of it would have horrified us, but it seemed so far beyond the realm of the possible as to be ridiculous. So we laughed it off." [Pope John's Council by Michael Davies, page 224, quoting Archbishop R.J. Dwyer in the Twin Circle, 26 October, 1973.]

.



"When on 7 December 1962, the bishops voted overwhelmingly (1,922 against 11) in favor of the first chapter of the Constitution on the Liturgy they did not realize that they were initiating a process which after the Council would cause confusion and bitterness throughout the Church." [Cardinal Heenan:The Crown of Thorns (London, 1974), p. 367.]

.

 

[Servus Iesu]

I think this is something he later changed his mind on. The current SSPX certainly make a blanket condemnation of it.

You'll have to give me a link then...

 

[tdcharles]

You'll have to give me a link then...

But it is impossible to maintain it is only the later applications of the Council that are at fault. The rebellion of the clergy, the defiance of pontifical authority, all the excesses in the liturgy and the new theology, and the desertion of the churches, have they nothing to do with the Council, as some have recently asserted? Let us be honest: they are its fruits!
Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics

(He's saying the Council had inherently heretical teachings, it was not the fault of those who later misinterpreted somewhat vague, i.e. lacking in scholastic terminology, but orthodox teachings.)

 

[D'Ann]

I'm glad you brought that up, And that does seem to be the case from the later comments from some of the former council fathers, they had no idea the NO as it is today was what was proposed but something much more inline with the TLM..

"Who dreamed on that day that within a few years, far less than a decade, the Latin past of the Church would be all but expunged, that it would be reduced to a memory fading in the middle distance? The thought of it would have horrified us, but it seemed so far beyond the realm of the possible as to be ridiculous. So we laughed it off." [Pope John's Council by Michael Davies, page 224, quoting Archbishop R.J. Dwyer in the Twin Circle, 26 October, 1973.]

.



"When on 7 December 1962, the bishops voted overwhelmingly (1,922 against 11) in favor of the first chapter of the Constitution on the Liturgy they did not realize that they were initiating a process which after the Council would cause confusion and bitterness throughout the Church." [Cardinal Heenan:The Crown of Thorns (London, 1974), p. 367.]

.

Good post Mark. Thank you. I tried to rep you, but the system won't let me...

God's Peace,

Debbie

 

[plainswolf]

Good post Mark. Thank you. I tried to rep you, but the system won't let me...

God's Peace,

Debbie

It's just saying basically the same thing Ryan said, many fathers who voted didn't really think that it was all going to come to this, regarding the liturgy..

 

[PeterPaul]

Now you have authority over the pope?

When it comes to issues that do not pertain to faith and morals, are you saying the pope is infallible?

And if you are not, but claim we must assent, then should we ignore Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII? C'mon, one pope versus all of these and you are telling me on this particular issue (ecumenism) JPII is to be assented and the rest ignored?

And since I'm going to still be told I'm being disobedient on how 'ecumenism' is now (all the while some Catholics in here reject what ecuemenism was not in the past against error) against the pope, let me remind you the pope is B XVI, not JPII.

 

[PeterPaul]

This is the crux of the argument. The SSPX are not our Catholic brethren, they have been excommunicated. We are not to hold them up as examples of orthodox Catholicism, because they are not. They did not submit to the Catholic church, but created an order of their own, seperate from the Catholic church. The Archbishop was protestant in the clearest sense, because he defied the Pope and did not repent. Is excommunication to be taken that lightly?

Do you know what orthodoxy is BWAP? I'm really curious. Can you define it for me?

I have to ask you once again, if you know anything about ArchBishop Lefebvre or if you have just been reading the accounts of apologists who slam all traditionalism (and use the charity of Hulk Hogan)? I'm talking about people like Dave Armstrong or John Likoudis, who when someone mentions a mantilla they think its a tea.

BWAP, usually an order is started and then lobbied to be given the association of apostolate. The Order was not formed 'after' the excommunication.

St. Vincent Ferrer also 'defied' the legitimate pope, but was respected by him.

The Society should come back and Lord willing, they will. However, I wonder how 'we' will accept them...with open arms or encouraging them to put down their incense and start waving their hands?

And we talk about Catholic-Protestants in here in this thread....

On your last...did you or did you not, instruct us to take Protestantism lightly?

 

[Benedicta00]

The mistake of Archbishop Lefebvre was that he underestimated God's ability to save the Church from its present state.

Lefebvre looked around him and rightly diagnosed the errors of modernism. He was right in just about everything he said. The old liturgy was in a dire situation in the 70s and 80s and the number of traditionalist or traditional leaning prelates in the world could be counted on the fingers of one hand. The postconciliar situation is comparable in magnitude to nothing less than the Arian crises of old.

Where he was mistaken was in thinking that when he died that the Catholic faith would die with him. From a human perspective this was an understandable fear... but even if every Catholic bishop in the world with the Pope included were heterodox modernists, God could raise up saints and orthodox Catholics out of anywhere.

Lefebvre was right to protest, right to denounce modernism, right to call for a return to the traditions, right to oppose fellow prelates. He was wrong to disobey the Roman Pontiff. It is our duty as Catholics to obey lawful authorities no matter what the situation so long as obedience isn't intrinsically sinful.

If Lefebvre were to struggle on for tradition while maintaining obedience, God would have rewarded his efforts. Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops because he was afraid. Afraid that once he died there would be no bishops left on the side of tradition and none to shepherd his society. It was a mistake of human weakness and I believe it has set the traditionalist movement back.

I will say that I firmly believe that this one mistake was the difference between excommunication and canonization. Lefebvre was almost a modern St. Athanasius... almost

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Servus Iesu again

The resemblance is always striking… Like Luther he thought *he had to be the one to reform the Church as if God was unable to do it.

It’s sad, but pride is the sin that Satan temps all of us with the most. He like Luther in the beginning loved the Church as saw what was wrong but how could they be deceived into thinking defiance and breaking unity is the way to combat the problem.

 

[PeterPaul]

I'm still seeing the SSPX being compared with traditionalism in here.

 

[plainswolf]

I think the SSPX's fear is that if they come back into union with Rome unconditionally, and without certain demands met, this is exactly how some bearucrats in the vatican could effectively kill everything they stand for over time... replace their leaders with more and more liberal bishops over time and over time force more and more concessions from them... pretty soon they're just ordinary with barely a hint of who they were and what they stood for.. I think this is exactly what they fear... the danger in coming back to quick and without very key demands being met, such as perhaps being answerable to the pope alone and unhindered orthodoxy, bypassing hostile local bishops and many in the vatican... so that the vatican couldn't ruin them over time.... Just my speculations from what I've researched.. I could be very wrong though..

 

[PeterPaul]

I think the SSPX's fear is that if they come back into union with Rome unconditionally, and without certain demands met, this is exactly how some bearucrats in the vatican could effectively kill everything they stand for over time... replace their leaders with more and more liberal bishops over time and over time force more and more concessions from them... pretty soon they're just ordinary with barely a hint of who they were and what they stood for.. I think this is exactly what they fear... the danger in coming back to quick and without very key demands being met, such as perhaps being answerable to the pope alone and unhindered orthodoxy, bypassing hostile local bishops and many in the vatican... so that the vatican couldn't ruin them over time.... Just my speculations from what I've researched.. I could be very wrong though..

I think you are correct. On some issues, they do want a bit too much, but plainly, they fear the Bishops. And who can blame them when the indult isn't even allowed in some towns and cities, or when they are, like in my case, they are not even in the Mass list of the Diocese? Or how about that we can't get our own parish though we have numbers?

If I were them, I would ask for the same rights as the FSSP, though I would not want to be answerable to Cardinal Hoyos, but the pope himself.

 

[Servus Iesu]

The resemblance is always striking… Like Luther he thought *he had to be the one to reform the Church as if God was unable to do it.

It’s sad, but pride is the sin that Satan temps all of us with the most. He like Luther in the beginning loved the Church as saw what was wrong but how could they be deceived into thinking defiance and breaking unity is the way to combat the problem.

True to a point... but I would never compare Luther to Archbishop Lefebvre. Luther sought to destroy the Church and her venerable traditions, Lefebvre wanted the opposite. I don't think it is fair to take the comparison beyond a very limited point.

 

[Servus Iesu]

I think you are correct. On some issues, they do want a bit too much, but plainly, they fear the Bishops. And who can blame them when the indult isn't even allowed in some towns and cities, or when they are, like in my case, they are not even in the Mass list of the Diocese? Or how about that we can't get our own parish though we have numbers?

If I were them, I would ask for the same rights as the FSSP, though I would not want to be answerable to Cardinal Hoyos, but the pope himself.

I agree. The SSPX should humbly ask for two conditions to exist upon their full return: The right to celebrate the old liturgy exclusively and freedom from the jurisdiction of local bishops (making them answerable directly to the Holy Father).

I don't see why the Holy Father would reject either of the above. Perhaps he would feel pressured to reject the latter because of 'collegiality' but many orders are not under local bishops and the SSPX has never been under the bishops so what is the problem?

The SSPX needs to leave behind demands for a universal indult as a condition of return. I believe a universal indult directly from the Pope would be a great thing for the Church, but it is asking too much right now.

Reconcile with the Pope now. They cannot do it fast enough. Once you are back in the fold then start presenting the case for other traditional concessions to Rome. The SSPX can do far more for us from within. Not to mention the fact that Catholics starved for the old liturgy would then feel free to attend SSPX chapels and churches.

The SSPX must come to understand that they hurt the cause of tradition by maintaining the schism. Reconciliation would be a fantastic victory for tradition.

 

[Benedicta00]

True to a point... but I would never compare Luther to Archbishop Lefebvre. Luther sought to destroy the Church and her venerable traditions, Lefebvre wanted the opposite. I don't think it is fair to take the comparison beyond a very limited point.

Exactly…and that my friend is why SSPX are not Protestants. It was the total repudiation of Christ’s Church by the reformers that earned them their anathemas which placed them in a different type of schism. Comparing Prostates to SSPX is comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I agree. The SSPX should humbly ask for two conditions to exist upon their full return: The right to celebrate the old liturgy exclusively and freedom from the jurisdiction of local bishops (making them answerable directly to the Holy Father).

I don't see why the Holy Father would reject either of the above. Perhaps he would feel pressured to reject the latter because of 'collegiality' but many orders are not under local bishops and the SSPX has never been under the bishops so what is the problem?

The SSPX needs to leave behind demands for a universal indult as a condition of return. I believe a universal indult directly from the Pope would be a great thing for the Church, but it is asking too much right now.

Reconcile with the Pope now. They cannot do it fast enough. Once you are back in the fold then start presenting the case for other traditional concessions to Rome. The SSPX can do far more for us from within. Not to mention the fact that Catholics starved for the old liturgy would then feel free to attend SSPX chapels and churches.

The SSPX must come to understand that they hurt the cause of tradition by maintaining the schism. Reconciliation would be a fantastic victory for tradition.

I realize that most traditionalist have little or no respect for those wbo aren't and are, therefore, unable to empathize with with them or predict their actions accurately. I also understand that most traditionalists are damn sure their right and, therefore, get to win in any situation.

Now, I've been following this thread for like, 320 posts, and I'm not sure I understand half of it (I don't even know what some of the acrynihms are)
but I know this:

This is a recipe for open civil war in the Chruch. If you create a seperate church (which is what you are proposing looks like to us non-trad types) that bypasses the diocese and the Vatican bureaucracy and gets to deal directly with the pope and that church is made up of people who think they are better then us non-trad types are (and it will look like that even if it not true) the fault lines will break and open warfare will commence.

Now, traditionalist don't seem to have a problem with that (a smaller more faithful church, etc, etc). And, me, personally, I have choas in my heart and anarchy in my soul so I'll take what comes, but the suits who run this store (B16 and the cards) I think they know better then to let it happen.

 

[PeterPaul]

I realize that most traditionalist have little or no respect for those wbo aren't and are, therefore, unable to empathize with with them or predict their actions accurately. I also understand that most traditionalists are damn sure their right and, therefore, get to win in any situation.

Now, I've been following this thread for like, 320 posts, and I'm not sure I understand half of it (I don't even know what some of the acrynihms are)
but I know this:

This is a recipe for open civil war in the Chruch. If you create a seperate church (which is what you are proposing looks like to us non-trad types) that bypasses the diocese and the Vatican bureaucracy and gets to deal directly with the pope and that church is made up of people who think they are better then us non-trad types are (and it will look like that even if it not true) the fault lines will break and open warfare will commence.

Now, traditionalist don't seem to have a problem with that (a smaller more faithful church, etc, etc). And, me, personally, I have choas in my heart and anarchy in my soul so I'll take what comes, but the suits who run this store (B16 and the cards) I think they know better then to let it happen.

I think you think you are right....so...