Author Topic: Lefebvre Silence after 1965 (Read 1008 times)

VinnyF · « **on:** September 09, 2012, 04:19:04 PM »

Any thoughts on why Archbishop Lefebvre and the 200+ Bishops that formed the conservative block of the Council did not, upon the immediate closure and publication of the docuмents, begin to agitate for the repudiation of the Council?

Supposedly they all signed the docuмents and there does not seem to be a vocal call to arms against the Council and its docs until well after the institution of Econe and the promulgation of the Mass of Paul VI and more specifically the suppression of Econe.

The perception is that they did not perceive that they had just foisted the most significant evil upon the church since the Reformation.

Any takers on why the Archbishop, or de Castro Meyer, or the other Bishops did not immediately accuse the council in 1965, as opposed to 1981?

John McFarland · « **Reply #1 on:** September 09, 2012, 04:48:06 PM »

Sure.

It was a revolution in cope and tiara. Its patron was the Vicar of Christ on earth. It was like ju jitsu: all the requirements and habits of obedience were used against tradition. Besides, it was pretty hard to see what could be done.

For a diocesan bishop the answer was: not permit Vatican II's writ to run in his diocese. A grand total of one bishop did that.

The Abp fought it out as head of the Spiritans, lost, and quit. What could he do then? Set up his own church? So he retired. But then a few young men came to him for help in obtaining a traditional priestly formation. Eventually the only way he could think to do it was to do it himself. Divine providence and his cooperation with grace took it from there.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #2 on:** September 09, 2012, 04:53:59 PM »

Quote from: VinnyF

Any thoughts on why Archbishop Lefebvre and the 200+ Bishops that formed the conservative block of the Council did not, upon the immediate closure and publication of the docuмents, begin to agitate for the repudiation of the Council?

Supposedly they all signed the docuмents and there does not seem to be a vocal call to arms against the Council and its docs until well after the institution of Econe and the promulgation of the Mass of Paul VI and more specifically the suppression of Econe.

The perception is that they did not perceive that they had just foisted the most significant evil upon the church since the Reformation.

Any takers on why the Archbishop, or de Castro Meyer, or the other Bishops did not immediately accuse the council in 1965, as opposed to 1981?

There were those who were attacking the Council directly at the time.

I think the Time archives are no longer free - I read an article discussing a high cleric who was saying such things. Even about deposing a Pope.

That being said it probably wasn't immediately obvious the effects the conciliar revolution was going to have. It took about 5 years for it to become blatantly obvious that there was no denying the practical implications of the Council.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** September 09, 2012, 04:58:57 PM »

Certainly the world press, for those who had ears to hear it, were announcing that Vatican II was the liberalization and modernization of the Church.

Quote

Holy Office Consuitor Antonio Piolanti, Rector Magnificus of the Lateran University, warned that "there are rationalist theologians going about Rome seducing innocent foreign bishops," and ominously told one of his classes: "Remember, the Pope can be deposed if he falls into heresy." In the preparatory stage, Cardinal Ottaviani had rejected any help from the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Said an Ottaviani aide: "We don't need you. We judge you." Rome's right-wing press joined in with frequent attacks on the direction of the council.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,829723,00.html#ixzz260pCVByk

VinnyF · « **Reply #4 on:** September 09, 2012, 05:02:12 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: VinnyF
Any thoughts on why Archbishop Lefebvre and the 200+ Bishops that formed the conservative block of the Council did not, upon the immediate closure and publication of the docuмents, begin to agitate for the repudiation of the Council?

Supposedly they all signed the docuмents and there does not seem to be a vocal call to arms against the Council and its docs until well after the institution of Econe and the promulgation of the Mass of Paul VI and more specifically the suppression of Econe.

The perception is that they did not perceive that they had just foisted the most significant evil upon the church since the Reformation.

Any takers on why the Archbishop, or de Castro Meyer, or the other Bishops did not immediately accuse the council in 1965, as opposed to 1981?

There were those who were attacking the Council directly at the time.

I think the Time archives are no longer free - I read an article discussing a high cleric who was saying such things. Even about deposing a Pope.

That being said it probably wasn't immediately obvious the effects the conciliar revolution was going to have. It took about 5 years for it to become blatantly obvious that there was no denying the practical implications of the Council.

Since the Archbishop obviously knew the exact contents and text of G&S and the other docuмents (ambiguity et all), is there an argument to be made that he may have thought they could be integrated in a traditional way? If not, why would he choose to be silent at the imminent initiation of a new religion?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** September 09, 2012, 05:10:44 PM »

Quote from: VinnyF

Since the Archbishop obviously knew the exact contents and text of G&S and the other docuмents (ambiguity et all), is there an argument to be made that he may have thought they could be integrated in a traditional way? If not, why would he choose to be silent at the imminent initiation of a new religion?

Do you know what he was saying and to whom at the time?

Magna opera Domini · « **Reply #6 on:** September 09, 2012, 05:34:41 PM »

The question is from the perspective of hindsight. It would have been impossible to proclaim the future fruits of the council without having discredited oneself as a madman.

VinnyF · « **Reply #7 on:** September 09, 2012, 05:47:01 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: VinnyF
Since the Archbishop obviously knew the exact contents and text of G&S and the other docuмents (ambiguity et all), is there an argument to be made that he may have thought they could be integrated in a traditional way? If not, why would he choose to be silent at the imminent initiation of a new religion?

Do you know what he was saying and to whom at the time?

I don't. I am going to go back to Bp Tissier's bio and see if he discusses it.

I am wondering if the Traditional conservative council fathers thought that they had promulgated docuмents that were not significantly problematic, hence, docuмents that could be interpreted in the "light of tradition".

Maria Elizabeth · « **Reply #8 on:** September 09, 2012, 09:30:45 PM »

Quote from: John McFarland

Sure.

It was a revolution in cope and tiara. Its patron was the Vicar of Christ on earth. It was like ju jitsu: all the requirements and habits of obedience were used against tradition. Besides, it was pretty hard to see what could be done.

For a diocesan bishop the answer was: not permit Vatican II's writ to run in his diocese. A grand total of one bishop did that.

The Abp fought it out as head of the Spiritans, lost, and quit. What could he do then? Set up his own church? So he retired. But then a few young men came to him for help in obtaining a traditional priestly formation. Eventually the only way he could think to do it was to do it himself. Divine providence and his cooperation with grace took it from there.

I am completely shocked that you, Mr. McFarland, can actually make a decent post!

Good for you! Please keep it up.

God bless you.