jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (07/20/90)
I promised this a while ago. It is rather brief and imperfect, but may
serve as an intro to the subject for any Catholics unaware of what's
going on in the Church.
Here is a statement by the Archbishop himself on his own position:
If you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this:
At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me: "What have you done
with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and
priestly grace?" I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible
words: "You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of
them."
Marcel Lefebvre was born in Tourcoing in northern France, in 1905. He
comes from very gifted roots. That I know of, he counts one uncle a
Trappist monk, a cousin who's a cardinal, another relative who's a
famous Benedictine liturgist, and, of course, three sisters who are
nuns, and one brother a priest.
His father was a member of the French Resistance during WWI. The
Germans incarcerated him at Sonnenburg during WWII for this reason,
where he died.
His mother, Gabrielle, was also a woman of firm convictions. She
organized resistance against the Germans during WWI, and was imprisoned
for it. Falling gravely ill, the German commandant offered to release
her if she would right a note begging him to pardon her. She refused.
(But was released anyway :-)
Marcel entered the French Seminary in Rome, and was ordained in 1929.
He earned doctorates in philosophy and theology. He was appointed to a
working class parish in France, where he was quite happy. His brother,
however, was a missionary in Africa, and kept urging Marcel to join him.
Eventually he was convinced, and joined the Holy Ghost Fathers, the
largest Catholic missionary order, in 1932. He was sent to Gabon, in
North Africa, where he remained throughout the war.
In 1946 he was recalled to France to become superior of a seminary at
Mortain, but returned to North Africa when he was appointed Vicar
Apostolic of Dakar in 1947. Pius XII made him Apostolic Delegate for
all of French speaking Afica in 1948. He was made the first Archbishop
of Dakar in 1955. There was extraordinary growth of the Catholic Church
in North Africa while he was there.
In 1960, Pope John XXIII appointed Archbishop Lefebvre to the Central
Preparatory Commission of Vatican Council II. This commission directed
the preparation of the documents that were to be the basis for
discussion at the council. (aside: The work of this commission was
later discarded in the first session of the council.)
In 1962, he resigned his archbishopric in favor of a native African, who
had been ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, later Cardinal Thiandoum.
At the same time, Archbishop Lefebvre was appointed Bishop of Tulle in
France, upon the personal insistence of John XXIII, despite opposition
from the already liberal French hierarchy.
Later that year, he was elected Superior General of the Holy Ghost
Fathers.
During Vatican Council II, Mgr. Lefebvre was one of the leaders of the
International Group of Fathers, who sought to uphold the traditional
Catholic faith.
By 1968, the General Chapter of the Holy Ghost Fathers had become
dominated by a liberal majority. The Archbishop resigned rather than
collaborate in what he saw coming, although his term of office still had
6 years to go.
He retired to a small apartment in Rome, which seemed to be the end of
a career of great service to the Church.
---------------------------
But, some seminarians were becoming dissatisfied with the training they
were receiving in the Catholic seminaries. They were sent to Archbishop
Lefebvre by older priests whose advice they had asked. The bishop of
Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg, an old friend, suggested to the
Archbishop that his students study at the University of Fribourg.
The Fraternite Sacerdotale de Saint Pie X (in English speaking countries
called the Society of St. Pius X) was established by the Bishop of
Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg, on November 1, 1970.
It became apparent that Fribourg was having troubles also, so it was
determined to find another place. Some Swiss put a recently purchased
house of the Canons of the Great Saint Bernard (yes, the ones who train
the dogs) at his disposal. Thus was born the seminary at Econe,
Switzerland, in 1970, the main seminary of the Society of St. Pius X.
(There are currently seminaries in at least 6 countries, including this
one.)
Shortly thereafter started a series of blatant abuses of power on the
part of the Vatican, in attempts to terminate the Society of St. Pius X
and its work.
(The source for all this information on the Archbishop and his work is
Michael Davies' Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, a multi-volume documentary
of all the events of the last 20 years in the Archbishop's struggle with
the Vatican.)
I suppose the start of all the problems was a canonical visitation of the
seminary by two Visitors appointed by Rome. The visitation itself went
without a hitch, from 11-13 November, 1974. The report of the Visitors
was never brought up against the Society...
However, the Visitors themselves were the occasion of grave scandal:
they considered it normal and inevitable that there should be a married
clergy; they did not believe that there was an immutable Truth; they
also expressed doubts regarding the traditional concept of the
Resurrection.
Archbishop Lefebvre drew up a Declaration to tell his seminary
professors and seminarians what he thought of the matter. It said
things like the following:
No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us
to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and
professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.
A Commission of Cardinals met in January 1975 to discuss the Visitation.
The Archbishop was informed of the favorable impression that the
Visitors had received. Then, they proceeded to discuss the Declaration.
This led to the "suppression" of the Society of St. Pius X, by the
Commission of Cardinals.
Michael Davies covers what happened in gory detail. To summarize, the
Visitors gave a report of the seminary in which no fault could be found.
The Commission proceeded to "supress" the Society on the basis of the
contents of the Declaration. Which, of course, has nothing
objectionable in it.
There were a number of abuses of power involved that made the
"suppression" quite silly. First, the Commission attempted to suppress
the Society for a supposed fault of its founder. This is, well, silly.
Second, Archbishop Lefebvre appealed to the proper Church court,
requesting a trial before the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, since he was accused of doctrinal faults. The case has yet
to be heard, the appeal was rejected. :-) Read Michael Davies for all
the original documents involved here, including the text of the original
Declaration.
This has sort of been the tone of Archbishop Lefebvre's relations with
the Vatican ever since. They have refused to try him, either
doctrinally or under canon law. The various studies I have seen
basically convince me that what we have here is a classic case of an
abuse of power. The Vatican refuses to grant him due process, or even a
reason, so he considers the legal penalties enacted against him void, up
to and including the excommunication of summer 1988.
Here is a brief synopsis of the current situation in the eyes of the
Archbishop, and the Society of St. Pius X:
- Several doctrinal and disciplinary aberrations of Vatican II are
causing great havoc in the Latin rite. among them: Religious Liberty,
Ecumenism, Collegiality. These have their origin in principles espoused
by the French Revolution, which have found their way inside the Church.
- The traditional Mass has been effectively outlawed through an abuse of
power. Church law is that no priest can be penalized for using the old
Mass. The changes in the New Mass parallel those of the Reformation,
and are destroying the faith of the Catholic people.
- They are not schismatics, rather, they are resisting an abuse of
power. (There *are* real schismatics out there. I hear some of them
recently met in New York City to elect a Pope :-() They have taken care
to arrange things so that there's no question of starting a schism,
either. A number of priests have been ejected from the Society because
they held sede vacante (the seat is vacant, i.e., there is no Pope)
views. The recently consecrated bishops are not in positions of power
in the Society, and exist solely to administer the Sacraments. They
have no fixed territory in which they do this.
- They are preserving the priesthood until the day that Rome wakes up.
Historically, there is no precedent for current events except in the
major heresies. The current crisis is certainly the greatest since the
Reformation, and may be as great as the Arian heresy.
The current situation appears to have been predicted in several Marian
apparitions of modern times, notably La Salette, predicting an "eclipse"
of the Faith in Rome, and Fatima.
Everything is so clear that I'm puzzled why Catholics cannot see what's
going on: a major revolt against the traditions of the Catholic
religion. Catholics just don't know their religion well enough, I
suppose.
All in all, in my opinion, Archbishop Lefebvre is going to be St. Marcel
someday. He's probably the greatest saint in centuries. He's
definitely got the best priests I've ever met.
Joe Buehler
P.S. St. Pius X is the last canonized Pope, and was canonized in part
for his doctrinal firmness. Basically, he took stern measures against
rising Modernism at the beginning of the century. I presume that's why
Archbishop Lefebvre chose him as patron for his foundation; he is
fighting to a great extent against Modernism, the idea that
already-settled Church doctrine can change with time.cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Cathy Johnston) (07/25/90)
In <Jul.20.03.37.10.1990.17704@athos.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (Joe Buehler) writes: [a long explanation and apologia about Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X] While I would have to do some research to discuss most of the substantive issues which Joe has brought up, there is one point I would like to clarify. > [...] >This has sort of been the tone of Archbishop Lefebvre's relations with >the Vatican ever since. They have refused to try him, either >doctrinally or under canon law. The various studies I have seen >basically convince me that what we have here is a classic case of an >abuse of power. The Vatican refuses to grant him due process, or even a >reason, so he considers the legal penalties enacted against him void, up >to and including the excommunication of summer 1988. > [...] >... The recently consecrated bishops ... According to Canon Law, ordaining bishops outside the authority of the Pope is an offense which results in automatic excommunication. No hearing is necessary. The Catholic Church did not excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre; he excommunicated himself. There is no need for a trial. Because of the way the Church is structured, consecrating bishops without the consent of Rome is, pretty much by definition, starting your own church. Even if Lefebvre is 100% right, he's still a not a Roman Catholic. Besides -- isn't due process one of those evil Modernist heresies from 18th-Century Liberalism? >- The traditional Mass has been effectively outlawed through an abuse of >power. Church law is that no priest can be penalized for using the old >Mass. The changes in the New Mass parallel those of the Reformation, >and are destroying the faith of the Catholic people. In Chicago, the Archdiocese has organized Tridentine (Pre-Vatican II) Masses on the north, west and south sides of the diocese. (For those unfamiliar with the geography of Chicago, the "east" side of town is under water. :-) ) At least one of these has been discontinued for lack of interest. My impression of the significance of Lefebvre to the Church is that the Society of St. Pius X is just another fringe group that has departed into schism. We'd really prefer that they would stop calling themselves Roman Catholic, since it's confusing to outsiders, but it's not really worth making an issue out of what they call themselves. (After all, we've gone a few rounds of this debate right here in s.r.c as far as who has the "right" to call themselves Christians -- and all we've ever really settled is that it's a pointless discussion.) I'd be interested to see how many people are involved in this movement, especially as compared to the size of the Church. If I can find some material on the issue, perhaps I'll post more at some later date. cathy :-) Cathy Johnston cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.bitnet "The Church and the World are jammed to the rafters these days with people willing to get involved, get their hands dirty, take risks, make sacrifices, hurl themselves at spears, lead the advance, inspire, illuminate, encourage, organize and manage great affairs. I find most such folks insufferable, even if they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Where are the people willing to sit on the sidelines and find fault?" -- Michael O. Garvey
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (08/06/90)
Cathy wrote:
According to Canon Law, ordaining bishops outside the authority of the
Pope is an offense which results in automatic excommunication. No
hearing is necessary. The Catholic Church did not excommunicate
Archbishop Lefebvre; he excommunicated himself. There is no need for a
trial. Because of the way the Church is structured, consecrating
bishops without the consent of Rome is, pretty much by definition,
starting your own church. Even if Lefebvre is 100% right, he's still
a not a Roman Catholic.
Excommunication is a recent penalty for this offense. Prior to some
time in this century, it only merited suspension. If Lefebvre is right,
then the excommunication is null and void, because it has been forced on
him for his adherence and defence of the Catholic faith.
As any canon lawyer can tell you, an excommunication need not be valid.
Besides natural law considerations, there are also stipulations right in
the code of canon law stating situations under which penalties do not
apply.
Whether Lefebvre is right or not really depends on the facts of the
case. Because he is opposing the Pope, anyone who professes to agree
with him had better have *very* good reasons for doing so.
One can cease to be a Roman Catholic in two ways:
- heresy
- schism
Well, maybe three. I think canon law distinguishes apostasy from
heresy.
Both heresy and schism have technical definitions.
Heresy is out of the question in Mgr. Lefebvre's case. He's
doctrinally Roman Catholic. That was one of my principal points about
the lack of trials in his case. He has asked to be tried by the Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the competent tribunal in
doctrinal matters. Rome has refused to do so.
The real question is schism. That's where the technical details come
in; perusal of the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on schism is in
order. There's a difference between disobedience and schism. Schism
involves more than just mere disobedience to legitimate authority.
Mgr. Lefebvre is indeed disobeying canon law, but there's nothing
intrinsically evil about that. It all depends on the reasons for his
disobedience. The first law of canon law is that the salvation of souls
is the supreme law. Laws that conflict with that are null and void.
Mgr. Lefebvre's position is that, in order to perform his episcopal duty
of preserving people's Catholic faith, he has to oppose some of what
currently passes for Catholicism. (By the way, there is a Brazilian
bishop helping him, Mgr. de Castro Mayer.)
Lefebvre is doing just what's always been done. He says Mass the same
way, administers the Sacraments the same way, teaches the same
doctrines. His seminarians study St. Thomas Aquinas, papal
encyclicals, the classical Catholic moral theology, etc. This is more
than can be said of most Catholic seminaries today.
The Catholic doctrinal teaching that he holds and teaches makes it quite
impossible for him to go into a real schism. He believes that the Pope
is the Vicar of Christ, is infallible in defining matters of Faith and
morals for the whole Church, possesses jurisdiction over the whole
Church, etc.
There are only two ways for him to fall, as I see it.
One is to fall into doctrinal error on the nature of the Papacy or the
Church. I doubt that this will happen, though time will tell. At
present, neither he, nor any of those who sympathize with him, have this
particular problem.
The other way is to deny that John Paul II is Pope. There are groups
that have fallen for this. I have in mind particularly the Palmar de
Troya sect in Spain. They have their own Pope, Cardinals, etc.
Lefebvre shows no sign of tolerating this view, either.
He *is* disobeying the Pope, but everything really hinges on whether his
disobedience is justified or not. For those who think that all is well
in the Church, well, there's not much I can say. For those who know
that there are major problems, well, inform yourselves about this man.
Besides -- isn't due process one of those evil Modernist heresies from
18th-Century Liberalism?
I assume this is meant as humor. Neither the Pope nor the bishops are
tyrants; they are bound by the natural law, divine positive law, and, in
the case of everyone but the Pope, the provisions of canon law.
There are two standards being applied. Mgr. Lefebvre finds an ipso
facto excommunication applied to himself, while American bishops who,
judging by their actions, are out and out heretics, remain in positions
of authority, there to destroy the Catholic faith of their flocks.
There is a more positive side to all this. Perhaps now that Mgr.
Lefebvre is considered excommunicated, the Catholic bishops can lend him
their cathedrals for priestly ordinations, in the spirit of ecumenism.
:-)
Joe BuehlerBINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu (Michael Bindner) (08/12/90)
Lets expand the question of schism among bishops toward the liberal side. What is your opinion, and the opinion of the panel, of the consecration of the excommunicate Rev. George Stallings of the Imani Temple. Michael Bindner American University Washington, D.C.