New Website: Archbishop Lefebvre – Problem Or Prophet?

New Website: Archbishop Lefebvre – Problem Or Prophet?

 

archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-i-have-never-changedAs the turmoil in the Church intensifies with every new report from the Vatican (think sacrilegious “climate change Light Show” at St Peter’s) it might help to pause for an edifying few moments, to take a trip around the new website on the life of Archbishop Lefebvre.  Click here to view, and then share your thoughts.   Was the Archbishop just one more problem member of the hierarchy, causing confusion courtesy of the Second Vatican Council, or did God send him to provide a “lifeboat” to see us through this dark period of the Church’s history?  animatedteacher

Comments (117)

  • Leo

    Prognosticum

    I really have to take issue, with respect and amicably, with some of the statements of your posts of December 17, 8.30pm and December 18, 3.57am and 4.15am.

    My impression is that you are putting forward the unsustainable proposal that influence of the media (the “media gloss”) and the breakdown of Western Civilisation have rendered the crisis of apostasy and liturgical abomination (“dumbing down”) in the post Vatican II era virtually inevitable. While no rational person with knowledge of the subject is likely to honestly deny that the media have wielded immense influence on behalf of the enemies of Christ, or that Western Society’s rejection of divine law and conscious repudiation of its Christian roots have led, humanly speaking, to irreversible moral and social collapse, that is a very misleading explanation of the unprecedented post conciliar crisis and its causes. As for the suggestion that results “would have been very much worse” if the Council had been held in the seventies, the mind really does boggle.

    You are certainly in exalted company when talking about the influence of the media in determining the fruits of Vatican II. In his last public address as Pope, speaking to the clergy of Rome, Pope Benedict specifically named and blamed “the media”. To this day I find such an explanation both incredible and, with due respect to the papal office, delusional. As for the influence of the Society at large, the prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Mueller, and others, has blamed a “tsunami of secularism” for the crisis. Well both excuses smack of nothing so much as desperate denial and escape from reality: the undeniable reality of a revolutionary triumph of neo-modernism at a self-limited, “pastoral” council, which defined no dogma and produced documents which contain statements that are manifestly in contradiction of constant Church teaching and demonstrably lack infallibility.

    Please, let’s not blame the media or materialist hedonism directly for the New Mass, the New Sacraments, the New translations, the New rite of Exorcism, the New Catechism, the New canon law, the New Evangelisation, the emasculation of the Holy Office, the abolishing of the Index of Forbidden Books, the withdrawal of the Oath Against Modernism. We can safely eliminate the press barons, Elvis Presley, John Lennon, and Carnaby Street from enquiries when examining the destruction of priestly and religious life, with the resulting exodus to the lay state, the plunge in vocations, the demonically inspired formation that prevailed in many seminaries, the rejection of Thomism and metaphysics for an absurd, egological, irrational cocktail of philosophy based on the destructive thoughts of Kant, Hegel, and Heidegger, the deliberate rejection of prayers, sacramentals and devotions which sustained and sanctified centuries of Catholics and their replacement with sentiment driven religious entertainment, the destruction of tabernacles, sanctuaries and Churches to be replaced by sinister concrete barns and warehouses, the destruction of Catholic education at all levels, obscene sex education, and failure to teach and uphold the basic tenets of the Faith, understood perfectly by those who received the most rudimentary Catholic education up to the years of the Council.

    The fruits of the Council can be summarised as human respect “dogmatized”. The role of media and society can be put forward in that context, but they cannot be credibly used as an explanation or excuse for the undeniable neo-modernism driven dereliction of duty of the successors of the Apostles, mandated by Our Lord to teach all nations, and charged with leading, teaching and sanctifying the souls entrusted to their care.

    Heaven help us if “a very sound traditionalist priest who is learned in liturgical history” is of the opinion that the conciliar liturgical devastation was “very much the fruit of the prevailing cultural direction”. Bugnini and the other liturgical pyromaniacs were at work long before the swinging sixties. The line by line attack on the Mass was not the work of any form of happy clappy Catholic “focus groups”. Such an idea is pure fantasy. Read about the bodger rescue job done on the scandalous section 7 of Pope Paul’s General Instruction on the Roman Missal. The words of the liturgical vandals and fabricators, including members of the responsible committee, have been quoted often enough here to eliminate speculation and debate concerning intention, objectives and responsibility.

    Anyone proposing to place the blame for the post conciliar liturgical scandals on the state of society in general, is confronted with a very obvious question. Where is the historical precedent? The Mass is substantially unchanged from the time of Pope Gregory the Great, at the latest. So, can anyone point to examples of major, fundamental changes between then and Vatican II, brought about by changes in society? Of course not.

    The same point applies when discussing Church doctrine in general. The Church is, by its nature and mission, counter cultural, as Our Lord told his disciples it would be. The early Church didn’t take roots and grow because it engaged in “dialogue” and adopt the moral values and beliefs of the cultures in came in contact with. If it had, there wouldn’t be any martyrs to name in the Roman Canon. The same applies to the genuinely missionary endeavors of the Church ever since. Central and South America is a striking example. To be fair, Prognosticum, you did say that the Church is destined “to suffer attempts on her very life in each generation”.

    Without wishing to labour the point, the destruction of Western Civilisation has been ongoing for five centuries. It’s a matter of historical record that until Vatican II, and the “razing of the bastions”, the Church militantly opposed its enemies and treated with all due gravity its divine mandate to save souls.

    And just to maintain relevance with the subject of this thread, discussion of the conciliar nuclear devastation brings to mind one particular “information gathering” exercise conducted by Rome, namely the remarkably perceptive and prescient letter of 20 December 1966 from Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office. The point to be made is that within a year of the Council ending, the fire was evidently raging “within the walls”. The erosion and poisoning caused by antagonistic media and cultural forces work at a much slower pace. Here are a few lines from the Archbishop’s letter:

    “The seat of the evil lies chiefly in a literature which sows confusion in the mind by descriptions which are ambiguous and equivocal, but under the cloak of which one discovers a new religion.”

    “… I venture to say that the present evil appears to be much more serious than the denial or calling in question of some truth of our faith. In these times it shows itself in an extreme confusion of ideas, in the breaking up of the Church’s institutions, religious foundations, seminaries, Catholic schools – in short, of what has been the permanent support of the Church. It is nothing less than the logical continuation of the heresies and errors which have been undermining the Church in recent centuries, especially since the Liberalism of the last century which has striven at all costs to reconcile the Church with the ideas that led to the French Revolution.”

    “Now this preparation” (by the preliminary commissions) “was odiously rejected in order to make way for the gravest tragedy the Church has ever suffered. We have lived to see the marriage of the Catholic Church with Liberal ideas. It would be to deny the evidence, to be wilfully blind, not to state courageously that the Council has allowed those who profess the errors and tendencies condemned by the Popes named above” (Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII), “ legitimately to believe that their doctrines were approved and sanctioned.”

    “…we can and we must unfortunately state that:
    In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.”
    “Doubts on the necessity of the Catholic Church as the only true religion, the sole source of salvation, emanating from the declarations on ecumenism and religious liberty, are destroying the authority of the Church’s Magisterium. In fact, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis.”

    “Thus, driven to this by the facts, we are forced to conclude that the Council has encouraged, in an inconceivable manner, the spreading of Liberal errors. Faith, morals and ecclesiastical discipline are shaken to their foundations, fulfilling the predictions of all the Popes.”

    “The destruction of the Church is advancing at a rapid pace. By giving an exaggerated authority to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself powerless. What painful lessons in one single year! Yet the Successor of Peter and he alone can save the Church.”

    Here’s a link to the entire letter:
    http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/arch_lefebvre_response_card_ottaviani_post_council.htm

    Finally, readers should consider the fact that in the late sixties Archbishop Lefebvre was at retirement age. He was due to take up a post as chaplain to a convent in Rome. If the crisis was not very much within the Church, as opposed to just being a matter of outside forces and culture, the Archbishop would have lived out his days in peaceful, secluded, oblivion.

    December 21, 2015 at 9:47 pm
    • editor

      Leo,

      You took the words out of my mouth. I was just about to correct Prognosticum on each and every point you have raised. I’ll need to be quicker off the mark in future, but, phew! what a lot of worked you’ve save me!

      Well said, every word, as usual.

      December 21, 2015 at 11:57 pm
      • Christina

        Leo, that is a brilliantly comprehensive and penetrative post! Thank you for every word of it.

        December 22, 2015 at 1:16 am
  • Leo

    Thank you, Editor and Christina, for your kind words, as usual.

    I was thinking I’d laid it on a bit thick, but you know me. And I have to say that Waterside’s talent for poetry, on display on the general discussion thread, is much more deserving of compliments.

    It was good, though to take the opportunity to post Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter to Cardinal Ottaviani once more. I wanted to put something together to show that the Council and its poisoned fruits were very much the long-planned work of neo-modernist human hands, but that will have to wait.

    Anyway, I’ll have to start my Christmas shopping one of these days. You know the Irish version of that famous poster:

    “Keep calm, sure it’ll be grand”

    December 22, 2015 at 2:01 pm

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: