Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Posted on 01/13/2009 1:03:00 PM PST by NYer
.- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who died in 1991 and was excommunicated for ordaining four bishops in 1988 without the Pope’s permission, did indeed sign every document of Vatican II—the same documents he would later harshly criticize, according to a recent article in the Italian magazine Panorama.
The article entitled, “In the Secret Heart of the Vatican,” written by Ignazio Ingrao, states that among the documents kept at the Vatican Secret Archives “are those of the Second Vatican Council, which unmasked an historic falsehood spread by the traditionalists,” led today by schismatic Bishop Bernard Fellay, who several months ago rejected a proposal by the Holy See to return to full communion with the Catholic Church.
“Marcel Lefebvre, the archbishop who contested the conciliar reforms and was excommunicated for having ordained four bishops without the Pope’s permission, in reality signed the documents of Vatican II with his own hand, beginning with the constitution Gaudium et Spes, which he later would harshly criticize,” Ingrao wrote in his article.
“The signature of Lefebvre appears at the bottom of the Council documents,” said historian Piero Doria of the Vatican Secret Archives, who helped Ingrao in the research.
In exclusive statements to CNA, Ingrao explained that this was “the first time a photographer and journalist were allowed to photograph and describe” the vast area “where letters relative to the two thousand year history of the Church are conserved.”
Ingrao also told CNA, “In reality, historians and experts already knew that Lefebvre had signed the Council documents. But many people were not aware of this, and traditionalist propaganda spread the belief that Lefebvre had always opposed the documents. The original copies of the Vatican II documents show the contrary and for many this has come as a surprise.”
Sounds like the John Kerry of Bishops.
He supported Vatican II before he opposed it.
The documents were lengthy but pretty vague and insubstantial, and really didn’t present any threat in themselves. None of the post Vatican II liturgical abuses, ranging from getting rid of the communion rail to communion in the hand to the complete replacement of the old Mass, were contained in any documents. They were mostly actions by a contingent of radical clergy at the Vatican, on the one hand, or wild practical abuses, many of them starting in the US, that spread among the laity and clergy and were tacitly accepted because of the breakdown in authority after Vatican II.
Did the documents contain bad stuff? I attended many study sessions on them in the 1960s, like most Catholics my age, and they really didn’t contain much of anything at all. However, their very vagueness and lack of precision left the door open, and a lot of people had obviously been plotting for a long time on how to take advantage of this.
hypocrite?
or was he deceived in some way?
They are claiming Vatican II is tainted and invalid because Archbishop Lefebvre signed it?
I don’t think anyone who is at all familiar with the SSPX and/or Abp. Lefebvre didn’t already know that he signed all the Vatican II documents.
The issue is what those documents actually mean, versus what they were later asserted to mean.
The SSPX is in imperfect communion with the Holy See, which is definitely a problem, and must be addressed as soon as possible. It should also be remembered that there are many parts of the “regular” Church in the cultural West (U.S., Europe, Australia, etc.) are at in at least as irregular a situation, when one considers what actually goes on at the average parish.
Part of the problem is that those who want something done about his/her parish becoming “Happy Catholic”...
1. Have no clue what is needed
2. Are instantly shut down by those in power
3. Do not know the difference between an abuse and an innovation.
Example, the “Hands Extended” (orans) position used by the laity is an abuse. In the GIRM it is directed to the Priest and Deacon ONLY. Never even to an Altar Server. For the laity to use this, is an abuse.
However, holding hands is an innovation. This prayer position is never addressed in the GIRM and therefore people use it. In the Cleveland Diocese, they encouraged a “modified orans” (looks like a ‘stickup up’ gesture, I kid you not) so as to discourage handholding. It’s still wrong.
Reasonably, any one would think that if it is not mentioned in the GIRM it is not allowed (laying prostrate is not mentioned either nor BBQing in the choir loft), because the GIRM doesn’t mention what one cannot do (a huge catagory) but rather what one should do.
Therefore innovation took off.
Bingo! It was, as a result of their vagueness, that certain bihops and priests were able to introduce 'novelties' into the liturgy. This was not unique to the US but, as we have already seen, worldwide.
To cite an example, when I wrote the local diocese about my (then) pastor attempting to introduce liturgical dance into the liturgy, the Director for Divine Worship responded in favor of the pastor and quoted from a VCII document on 'multicularism'. After choking with laughter, I wrote her back citing Sacrosanctum Concilium and Canon law which states that catholics have a right to a valid liturgy. I won; they lost.
The victims of these shenanigans were pew catholics who never bothered to actually read the documents. They simply went along on the assumption the bishop would not delude them. For many years, I was one of them. Then I discovered this forum :-)
"Imperfect communion"?! Do you deny that the SSPX is in schism?
It should also be remembered that there are many parts of the “regular” Church in the cultural West (U.S., Europe, Australia, etc.) are at in at least as irregular a situation, when one considers what actually goes on at the average parish.
"At in at least as irregular". Although I agree there are terrible abuses in some parishes which need to be addressed, surely you aren't attempting to draw some false equivocation between liturgical abuses and the schism of consecrating four bishops in defiance of the Pope? Are you part of the SSPX?
No. As the article states: "traditionalist propaganda spread the belief that Lefebvre had always opposed the documents. The original copies of the Vatican II documents show the contrary and for many this has come as a surprise."
(Personally, I don't understand this: I had always heard from all sides that he had signed off on it.)
Of course not. He simply agreed with its contents NOT with its 'interpretation' by certain prelates.
Good post. I wonder how the Church will look back on the leferbristswhateverists in 500 years.
Freegards
Excellent Post!
I wish more people took the time to read some of Vatican II instead of finding fault with it.
Some of it rings true today almost as a sort of prophecy.
Like this...
From GAUDIUM ET SPES
Excerpt: 65. Economic development must remain under man's determination and must not be left to the judgment of a few men or groups possessing too much economic power or of the political community alone or of certain more powerful nations. It is necessary, on the contrary, that at every level the largest possible number of people and, when it is a question of international relations, all nations have an active share in directing that development. There is need as well of the coordination and fitting and harmonious combination of the spontaneous efforts of individuals and of free groups with the undertakings oœ public authorities.
Growth is not to be left solely to a kind of mechanical course of the economic activity of individuals, nor to the authority of government. For this reason, doctrines which obstruct the necessary reforms under the guise of a false liberty, and those which subordinate the basic rights of individual persons and groups to the collective organization of production must be shown to be erroneous.(4)
That's very true. I often wondered how many bishops themselves had read the documents, though, or if they were simply relying on somebody else's creative interpretation of them. And then inevitably the interpretation took on a life of its own and nobody even thought of questioning it...
"traditionalist propaganda spread the belief that Lefebvre had always opposed the documents. The original copies of the Vatican II documents show the contrary and for many this has come as a surprise."That appears to be a made up thesis, evryone I know in the SSPX communities know that the Abp. signed all (save two) of the documents. The issue was the use by the heretical Modernists of the so called "Spirit of Vatican II" to suppress the Latin Mass and the Traditional elements of the faith in pursuit of a changed NewChurch.
Yes I had heard he signed all-—it has been the implementation of what almost all admit are vague and ambiguous critical areas of the documents that the Archbishop opposed
the current situation is a pity; if we had SP and all the recent changes 20+ years ago and no Assisi-I, we would not be in it, I don’t think
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.