Skip to main content

The Line of Archbishop Lefebvre - Reboot

Image
By
+
JMJ

I haven't written about the 'Resistance' for sometime as ... well frankly ... I'm 'retired' and sometimes you just need to have a face-to-face discussion in order to make any headway in evaluating the various positions that the 'Resistors' take.

But I have some time ... so ...



One item that is a fall back position for 'Resistors' is the statement that Archbishop Lefevbre said "No canonical regularization without a doctrinal agreement".

I challenge any 'Resistor' to provide a reference where the Archbishop said these exact words.

News flash - he didn't.

For those 'Resistors' who aren't mindlessly repeating something they heard elsewhere, this is usually taken as a reference to an interview given to Fideliter in 1988.
I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.”Thus, the positions will be clear. (Fideliter interview Nov / Dec 1988)
Before we go through the quote, I think it is valid to recognize that the "no canonical ..." is actually a principle established by the 2000 or 2006 general chapter of the SSPX in their dealings with Rome.  It is also important to note that this interview appeared in the Nov / Dec 1988 issue of the Fideliter and that the whole context of the Archbishop's thoughts need to include the statements made by the Archbishop before and after this interview (for example see this article and these two interviews).

Now back to the principle and the actual words of Archbishop Lefebvre.


  1. We can factually establish that Archbishop Lefebvre did not make the statement the "Resistors" love so much.
  2. The Archbishop was speaking if he was alive and Rome called for a renewed 'dialogue', he was clear that he couldn't "speak much of the future".  The Archbishop went to his reward 25 years ago in 1991.
  3. We have the summary statement "If you do not accept the doctrine of your ... as long as you do not accept the correction of the Council ...".

Now this is interesting, as the SSPX discussions were all about expressing and discusssing the core issues with the Council.  The endpoint was that the Roman theologians accused the SSPX of being protestants and the SSPX rebuted that they were Modernists.

What 'Resistors' seem to miss is that if the SSPX were regularized while maintaining their position on the Council (read Four Points), this in itself is a doctrinal agreement that the Council can be corrected as Rome will have accepted that one can be Catholic and not accept the Second Vatican Council in the manner of the SSPX.

But, the likes of the Resistors have a fundamental assumption that the ONLY way for this crisis to be resolved is for the immediate abrogation of the Novus Ordo Missae and condemnation of the Second Vatican Council.

That would be a first. It took almost 200 years for Arianism to be purged from the Church.

Seems to be a lack patience and perhaps even more a lack of gratitude.

Be careful, if you find yourself becoming bitter and self-righteous, you may be on the wrong path.  Can one really be called "Traditional Catholic" if they disregard Church Teaching???

The fall of Bishop Williamson et al is something to keep before our eyes in order to remain humble and grateful for the gifts that God has granted us with no merit of our own.

P^3


Further Reading
Tradicat: Satis Cognitum and the SSPX - part 1
Tradicat: Satis Cognitum and the SSPX - part 2
Tradicat: One and two years after the consecrations
Tradicat: A theologians questions
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

By
+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

By
Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...
8 comments
Read more

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

By
+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...
16 comments
Read more

Spiritual Journey Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - Extracts

By
+ JMJ I have posted these two chapters to provide context for the quote of: It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith. P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.ca Chapter II The Perfections of God We ought to remember during this entire contemplation of God that we must apply all that is said of God to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God. We cannot separate Jesus Christ from God. We cannot separate the Christian religion from Jesus Christ, Who is God, and we must affirm and believe that only the Catholic religion is the Christian religion. These affirmations have, as a result, inescapable conclusions that no ecclesiastic authority can contest: outside of Jesus Christ and the Catholic religion, that is, outsi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (de fide) - Expanded Listing: Answer for Reader

By
 + JMJ  A reader asked the following question in the 2015 version of the article on the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (link) : 117: "In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order." Where can you find this in the documents of the Church? ( Link to comment )  Here's the reference from Ott: The citation that Ott provided was Denzinger 1786 and the source document is Dogmatic Consitution Concerning the Faith from the First Vatican Council (Papal Encyclicals - link) : Chapter 2 On Revelation, Article 3: It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation , that those matters concerning God, which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone, without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error. Here's ...
Post a Comment
Read more