Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: HeidtXtreme on April 25, 2025, 05:21:57 PM
-
I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around how Lefebvre’s negotiations with Rome and asking for permission to consecrate Bishops in the 80s is any different from today’s SSPX, and how Lefebvre was justified while the new SSPX it not. Could someone explain to me more clearly than I’ve seen why these situations are different, and what made Lefebvre’s actions justified and the modern SSPX’s actions wrong?
-
It's well known that in the early 1980s, until about 1984/5, +Lefebvre did have the neo-SSPX attitude toward Rome and the crisis.
So what?
That was then; this is now. He changed his mind. By 1985/6 he was saying that he might have to go sedevacantist, but then settled in on something that's most akin to the current Resistance position.
What's important is where he ended up, not where he was in the early 1980s.
I think that +Lefebvre was wrong ... and shouldn't have thrown The Nine out, sacrificing them on the altar of relations with Rome. But then he didn't have at the time the benefit of 50+ years of hindsight either. In the early 1980s the NOM had only been out for a dozen years, and now we're closing in on 60.
-
There are many ways to answer, many differences, but to clarify one thing: Archbishop Lefebvre didn't ask for permission to consecrate bishops in the 1980s. In the summer of 1987, he announced that he intended to consecrate bishops. It was then, for the first time since problems between +Lefebvre & NewRome started, that NewRome said, "Wait! Let's negotiate!" because they wanted to stall him until hopefully he would die without doing it, or agree to some liberal candidate. Archbishop L. wasn't really keen on having those negotiations, but at the encouragement of some of his close associates, he agreed to try. All of this is docuмented in the book, Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, his biography, & elsewhere.
-
I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around how Lefebvre’s negotiations with Rome and asking for permission to consecrate Bishops in the 80s is any different from today’s SSPX, and how Lefebvre was justified while the new SSPX it not. Could someone explain to me more clearly than I’ve seen why these situations are different, and what made Lefebvre’s actions justified and the modern SSPX’s actions wrong?
Read Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican preferably the second addition with Fr Laisney notes. It gives you the context and docuмents and what the difference was of the 1988 Deal and 2012. Thank our Lady for May 5th Protocol reversal
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/index.htm
-
Very simply, the good archbishop already gave up trying to convert Rome, he went there repeatedly to negotiate to get a bishop for his SSPX, not dialogue with the conciliar crooks to try to get back in the conciliar church - which is what today's SSPX is doing. There's the difference.
Here is a sermon given by Fr. Wathen in 1988, only a day or two after +ABL consecrated the 4 bishops.
https://youtu.be/Y7ScfngHfBA