Skip to main content

What would Archbishop Lefebvre Do?

Image
By
+
JMJ

There is, amongst many faithful Traditional Catholics, a desire to arrive at an understanding of what Archibishop Lefebvre (+1991) would do today in response to the overtures and tricks of Rome as well as the antics of those in positions of authority within the Catholic Church.

In order to do so, they sift through the actions, writings, speeches, and sermons of the Archbishop.  In their eagerness for guidance and consolation, they latch on to items that seem to confirm their own opinions and decisions.

For example, I have repeatedly encountered the statement that the Archbishop stated that there can be no canonical regularization without a doctrinal agreement. 

This is a dream.

The Archbishop never issued these words.  This principle was formulated by a General Chapter of the SSPX and was used early on to guide the discussions with Rome.  When it became obvious that it would force the SSPX to contradict the Catholic Doctrine of obedience, it was abandoned.

So the reality is that the Archbishop never issued a statement that stated "no canonical regularization without a doctrinal agreement".  This is an inference from a narrow selection of the statements made by the Archbishop. 

How to know the mind of the Archbishop is, without examining and memorizing ALL of the statements he made from 1960 until his death is an insurmountable task.

The easier way is to seek to understand the principles that he applied in understanding and acting as a Catholic prelate in this crisis.

From my perspective, perhaps the key principle is obedience.

We have a perfect example of this in how the Archbishop reacted at one of the first 'resistance' movements that manifested itself within the SSPX when they disagreed with the path of the Superior General: The Sedevacantists.  Here is an excerpt of the Archbishop's explanation:
The basic principle of the Society’s thinking and action in the painful crisis the Church is going through is the principle taught by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (II, II, q. 33, a.4). That one may not oppose the authority of the Church except in the case of imminent danger to the Faith. Now, there is no danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII, whereas there is great danger for the Faith in the liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which is unacceptable. (Tradicat)
This principle is discussed in detail by St. Thomas in the Summa II, II, Q104, which I have examined in detail in the series Breaking down St. Thomas' teaching on obedience as well as other articles.

We live in an atmosphere the reeks of disobedience from the highest level of the Church to the lowest level of society.  In practically all places, those who should be obedient to God's Law and His Church are disobeying, even the Pope.

So what do I believe Archbishop Lefebvre would do when witnessing:

  • Some of his sons abandoning Catholic Dogma, Doctrine, Principles and Discipline.
  • Orders that he fostered and sheltered turning and attacking the order he founded.
  • The Pope's continuing their dereliction of duty and even worse fomenting confusion and the loss of souls.
I believe he would cry.

What he would do after crying will be the subject of another post.



P^3

References


Tradicat: DOCTRINAL PREAMBLE APRIL 15, 2012 VS PROTOCOL 1988

Tradicat: One and Two Years after the Consecrations

Tradicat: The SSPX and the Conversion of Rome - Fr. Robinson

Tradicat: A Look Back: The Nov/Dec Fideliter Interview

Tradicat: SSPX Declaration of 2006

Tradicat: Why the SSPX uses the 1962 missal

Tradicat: Articles on Obedience

Tradicat: Articles on Catholic Principles

Tradicat: The Principle of Obedience and the SSPX
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

By
I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5b - How Did We Get Here??? ... A Continued Anlaysis using ChatGPT.

By
 + JMJ Part 5b How Did We Get Here??? So in the previous ChatGPT analysis the LLM ‘concluded’ that there was continuity in doctrine. So now we’re going to explore this element. There is some repetition but I don't have time right now to do a lot of editing.  I think instead we'll have a Part 5c where I try to pull it all together with some old fashioned human sense making. At the end point, I think the LLM collects an interesting if somewhat skewed perspective: The SSPX mapping hinges on this claim: That Vatican II affirms (at least implicitly) propositions that the Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemned. The broader Church response is: The same propositions are still rejected—but Vatican II is addressing different categories (political, pastoral, anthropological) rather than reversing doctrine. While the summary of the SSPX position seems close, that of the broader Church seems to be either an outright AI hallucination or a consensus point from the literature that it used...
Post a Comment
Read more

News Roundup: April 30, 2026

By
 + JMJ I just realised that I haven't posted the latest Roundup ... and there is a lot in the roundup as the media storm around the SSPX continues! I also just noticed this article: European Conservative: Why the SSPX Bishop Decision Matters Far Beyond Church Politics (link) .  P^3 === Popes Past Present and Future Papal News and Views Cardinal Fernandez maintains that Francis is not dead- metaphorically Pope Leo XIV Reopens Amoris Laetitia File | FSSPX News Pope Leo: “We Do Not Agree with the Formalized Blessing of …Homosexual Couples” - OnePeterFive RORATE CÆLI: How Pope Leo is Reshuffling the Curia: Musical Chairs and Power Games RORATE CÆLI: A Giant Leap: The meaning of Cardinal Eijk’s Pontifical High Mass and the Rebirth of Dutch Catholicism RORATE CÆLI: A Sign of Continuity with the Pre-Francis Papacy: Pope to Wash Feet of Twelve Priests RORATE CÆLI: Vatican Blocks Continuity of Procedure of Beatification and Canonization of Argentine Bishop -- no new Satanellis Pope Leo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5 - How Did We Get Here???

By
 + JMJ This is the fifth in this series and I think it may require a part b to show the controversial documents and teachings of the Pope post V2. P^3 Part 5 How Did We Get Here??? Introduction My family became ‘Traditional’ in early 1980’s and I didn’t realise until years later how early we entered the Fray. So the SSPX was slightly over a decade old when we started going to Mass. That is a young organization, as someone said at the consecrations “Aren’t you a little young to be a bishop?”, the response was, “That is something that time will change.” 1970: SSPX founded with diocesan approval (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre) 1974–1976: Vatican II disputes escalate; Lefebvre suspended a divinis 1988: Illicit episcopal consecrations → excommunications declared 2000: SSPX Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (signals openness to talks) 2009: Excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI 2011–2012: Doctrinal talks with CDF collapse 2015–2017: SSPX granted faculties for confessi...
Post a Comment
Read more