Translate

Thursday, March 25, 2021

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE MAY ONE DAY BE CANONIZED A SAINT?



Today, 30 years ago, March 25, the Solemnity or First Class Feast of the Annunciation, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre died. He was an excommunicated Archbishop because he defied Pope St. John Paul II and ordained bishops for his Saint Pius X Society (SSPX). 

He objected to the extreme make-over of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the aberrations of its celebrations. He objected to the Vatican Council’s document of religious liberty, ecumenism and interfaith dialogue and dialogue with the world, the flesh and the devil.

Yet, apart from rejecting non-infallible pastoral initiatives of an ecumenical council and defying the pope in ordaining bishops without papal approval, he was thoroughly Catholic in the classical sense. He wasn’t the flop that New Coke was. 

Fast forward to the 2020’s and bishops and theologians today in various parts of the world advocating for same sex or binary sex marital unions in the Catholic Church, for male, female or any combination of self-declared gender or non gender married or not married priests, for sexual license and the negation of 2000 years of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial teachings from popes to ecumenical councils.

Who are the true schismatics? Who are the true Apostates? Who are the heretics?  Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his SSPX or those advocating for a pagan church? 

It is time to rehabilitate Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and canonize him. 

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

Where othodoxy is optional, it will eventually be proscribed. -- Fr Richard John Neuhaus

Jacob said...

My answer is yes

John Nolan said...

Marcel Lefebvre was treated shabbily by Paul VI who appears to have been only too ready to believe what he was told by the archbishop's detractors. The same pontiff's treatment of Mindszenty was even more scandalous.

Yet Paul was canonized by Francis, presumably as a reward for failure. The worst pope of modern times honouring the second worst, or vice versa?

Should the Church survive in a recognizable form over the next few centuries then there may be a case for raising Marcel to the altars. But not using the current procedures - thanks to JP II the idea of canonization by papal fiat has become as devalued as the British honours system, and that's saying a lot.

Pierre said...

John Nolan,

You summed it up very nicely.

Richard M. Sawicki said...

Eventually...yes.

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

Anonymous said...

I figure Marcel sainthood odds about even with Bergoglio elevated as Saint Politix, who is even now heroically distancing himself from the CDF, thumb bravely aloft, and chosing who to throw under the bus after sampling press reactions.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 12:07 PM,

LOL - you have him nailed

Anonymous said...

As for that "should the Church survive in recognizable form over the next few centuries, then..."

If it does not, then it was all a lie, and who cares what it does?

It will survive in a totally recognizable form, even if it consists of only one faithful priest saying Masses for the few or none after the great defection. Which defection we know about thanks to divinely inspired prophecy.

We KNOW there will be no heaven on earth church triumphant leading us all into a glorious age of Aquarius Golden Age which will last forever.

Quite the contrary, we know it will go quite badly. But the Church will survive. BELIEVERS will still triumph in the end. And there is no should/if/then about it.

Tom Marcus said...

If "should" was the question...yes, he ought to be.

His entire life is a conviction against the Ape of the Church that has arisen.

Mark Thomas said...

Based upon Archbishop Lefebvre's claims in regard to NewChurch/NewRome, NewChurch does not have the authority to declare Archbishop Lefebvre a Saint.

Archbishop Lefebvre insisted that NewRome, beginning with "Modernist" Pope Saint Paul VI, had apostatized.

The Popes had lost the Faith. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger had lost the Faith. Each Cardinal and bishop in communion with NewRome had lost the Faith.

Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, NewRome, NewChurch...consist of a new religion, according to claims issued by Archbishop Lefebvre.

=========================================================================================

Archbishop Lefebvre:

"Indeed, it is clear that since the Second Vatican Council, the Pope and the Bishops are making more and more of a clear departure from their predecessors.

"Adopting the liberal religion of Protestantism and of the Revolution...the Roman authorities turn their backs on their predecessors and break with the Catholic Church, and they put themselves at the service of the destroyers of Christianity and of the universal Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

"The present acts of John Paul II and the national episcopates illustrates, year by year, this radical change in the conception of the Faith, the Church, the priesthood, the world, and salvation by grace.

"The high point of this rupture with the previous Magisterium of the Church took place at Assisi, after the visit to the synagogue. The public sin against the one, true God, against the Incarnate Word, and His Church, makes us shudder with horror.

"John Paul II encourages the false religions to pray to their false gods — an immeasurable, unprecedented scandal."

"...Rome is always distancing itself more and more from us, who profess the Catholic Faith of the eleven Popes who condemned this false religion.

"The rupture does not come from us, but from Paul VI and John Paul II who break with their predecessors."

====================================================================================

There you go!

"Saint" Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Tom Marcus said...

Very good Marky! Now tell us just WHICH one of Lefebvre's statements can be proven false?

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas illustrates why the 3rd Secret of Fatima remains a secret: It very likely includes the revelation of the false teachings that would arise in the Church after 1960, when a Church that always taught she cannot contradict Herself found Herself doing just that--contradicting that which came before.

And Mr. Thomas and all the priests and bishops who drink (and distribute) the same "Kool-Aid" of contradiction are perfect parallels to the self-righteous, smug persecutors of Athanasius, who held to the truth when the Catholic world had immbibed the Kool Aid of Arianism.

It took a while, but Athanasius was vindicated and his persecutors are a mere footnote in history.

You can expect the same for Lefebvre and his modernist detractors. As long as it remains fashionable in the Church to denounce Lefebvre, the detractions will persist. I wouldn't want to be one of those detractors on Judgment Day.

Anonymous said...

Hey Mark! Here's a nice video for you, where Bishop Sheen warns us about a future with Catholics like you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhaCjUGamjk

Anonymous said...

Romulus Augustus here and without a doubt His Grace will be a SAINT one day!

Anonymous said...

Lefebvre will be canonized after Pol Pot, Margaret Sanger, and Jack the Ripper.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas is a coward and still has not answered my question about what Pope Francis has done to discipline the gay clergy in the Vatican who participated in a cocaine fueled gay sex orgy. Ignore him. He’s a Know Nothing and an embarrassment to the Church

Anonymous said...

I am man enough to admit I might be wrong as to Marcel ending up being rehabilitated and sainted as a defender of orthodoxy in the distant future, but see him not so much an Athanasius, but more a Peter Damian against a wealthy and perverse generation of ecclsiastics.

I also admit the possibility of being wrong in Bergoglio being memorialized as St. Politix....it might rather be St. Platitude or St Waffle.

Anonymous said...

Anon 532, that reply makes as much sense as me declaring you a good Nazi or Chinese Communist lapdog, except my analogy would be closer to the truth. A revolutionary party man, through and through.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 6:40,

His response conjures up Anonymous K. The people he mentions certainly fit in with his and his political party’s current world view

Anonymous said...

Canonized a saint for what? And is visiting a synagogue some sort of sin? If so, I gladly plead guilty....

Anonymous said...

John,

Perhaps it could be asked to what extent the Church has survived in a recognisable form in the period, say, of the last 2 decades, compared to how much the Church survived in a recognisable form c. mid 18th century to mid 20th century, despite massive political, social and cultural change and upheavals that occurred during that 200 period - from “The Enlightenment”, the French Revolution and its aftermath, the industrial revolution, the rise of big cities, urbanisation, the c. 1890 to 1910 “Modernist crisis”, the First World War and its aftermath, the Roaring 20s etc, the rise and fall of Fascism, the 1930s Depression, first wave feminism and Marxist/Communist revolutions and more c. 1750 to 1950s.....the Church survived all that to be what it was during the reign of Pius XII 1939 to 1958.
When one considers the historical, centuries long, big picture, terms or context.....as someone recently put it : I wonder why approximately 1965 to 1985 the Catholic Church felt the need to a great extent hit the self destruct button?

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."Mark Thomas illustrates why the 3rd Secret of Fatima remains a secret.

"And Mr. Thomas and all the priests and bishops who drink (and distribute) the same "Kool-Aid" of contradiction are perfect parallels to the self-righteous, smug persecutors of Athanasius, who held to the truth when the Catholic world had immbibed the Kool Aid of Arianism.

"As long as it remains fashionable in the Church to denounce Lefebvre, the detractions will persist. I wouldn't want to be one of those detractors on Judgment Day."

================================================================================== ​

The only denunciations in my post are those that Archbishop Lefebvre had issued.

The only detractor connected to my post is Archbishop Lefebvre. He disparaged the holy Popes, Cardinals, and bishops in question.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas,

You may not leave this post until you tell us what your Golden Calf, Pope Francis, did to discipline the gay clerics in the Vatican who engaged in a cocaine fueled gay sex orgy. Man up and report!!!!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 10:25 PM,

Well here's at least one explanation:


"Marshall also cites the testimony of Bella Dodd, a former communist agent, who told a House Committee that “in the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.”

Current Church policy would seem to indicate there may be some truth in this assertion

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas...

Athanasius (and Nicholas) denounced the heresies and falsehoods in fashion during their lifetimes as well.


The great thing about Lefebvre's criticisms is that they are all true and well-deserved. Alas we don't have more Lefebvres among us today.

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."The great thing about Lefebvre's criticisms is that they are all true and well-deserved."

Oh, okay. Then it is true that...

-- The Church of Rome is an apostate Church.

-- The Novus Ordo Mass is evil...and must be shunned.

-- Vatican II is evil.

-- Pope Saint Paul VI was an apostate.

-- Pope Saint John Paul II was an apostate.

-- Cardinal Ratzinger was an apostate.

-- Each Cardinal, bishop, and priest in communion with Rome is an apostate who promotes a false religion.

Okay.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas,

We still need an update on what Pope Francis did to those gay clerics in the Vatican

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas,

You need to substantiate all of your statements and then tell us what the Pope did to discipline those gay clerics. No running away this time

Septimus Obvius said...

Mark: the answer to all of the above is YES!

Every person mentioned has committed some form of apostasy, most of them minimal, but damaging. I do not judge their souls, but we cannot ignore their actions.

Paul VI: Protestantizing the Mass (in violation of Quo Primum) when it was completely unnecessary and permitting Communion in the hand were acts of apostasy. I think he grew to regret them, but it doesn't change what they were.

Vatican II? While most of us are hesitant to call it evil, we are still waiting for it to "bear positive fruit". So far its fruits have been a loss of faith, loss of vocations and an overall drop in Mass attendance and mass closing of Catholic schools. If you want to call that good, I suppose I could call the bombing of Hiroshima a "minor error" of World War II.

The Novus Ordo Mass? Sadly, most of us don't have the opportunity and availability of the timeless Mass to shun it. But again, read the previous paragraph and tell me about all the "positive fruits" of the Novus Ordo. Crickets.

Pope John Paul & Pope Benedict Apostates? Can any Catholic with a knowledge of the catechism and a rational mind deny that inviting pagan religions into a Catholic Church TO PRACTICE THEIR EMPTY DEMONIC RITUALS doesn't promote syncretism and indifferentism? Can anyone deny that such acts are forbidden? This detente with the pagans has been about as fruitful as Nixon selling us up the river to the Chinese Communists.

Every bishop and cardinal in communion with Rome?

#1. Are you SURE he actually said/wrote that?

#2. To the degree that they tolerate the apostasy (and most of them have no choice) the answer is yes. I would also add that many of them would like to change the apostasy, but they also have enough integrity to recognize that leaving the One, True Church founded by Christ is never an option. As regards Lefebvre's excommunication--he didn't leave the Church. The Church left him. In some ways, the current Church of Rome IS apostate, but it has been so before and corrected itself and those of us who recognize that aren't about to go elsewhere.

Read his biography. The pages scream out the virtues, sacrifices and love of a saintly man.

No doubt, you will win favor with your modernist leaders of the Ape of the Church, in this cowardly age of intolerance of tradition, but there will come a time when the Church stops its "managed decline" mode and recovers its sense. When it does, The Church will have no choice but to stop ignoring and lying about the saintly life of the holy Archbishop (and this time "holy" is warranted) Marcel Lefebvre. Until then, Kumbaya Mark.

Now go polish your Pachamama idol.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas,

When you promote a Council and Mass that confuse or contradict previous Catholic teachings, you are trying to promote a NEW RELIGION.

Uncomfortable to admit, no doubt. But it is what it is.

Pierre said...

Mark Thomas was likely not alive prior to the Council (he certainly sounds like he could not have been alive then) so he has no idea what a great, Universal Church looks and acts like. The present Catholic Church is a rump of Her former self. Vatican II was an unnecessary and unmitigated disaster. Millions were lost to the Faith following its implementation.

Anonymous said...

Septimus says permitting communion in the hand was an act of apostacy.

Golly, and I thought Trump was crazy?!?

"It is clear from numerous historic sources, that the earliest way that Christians received Holy Communion...was the reception of the Blood of our Lord by directly drinking from the chalice, and receiving the Body of our Lord in the hand...

As we see, the Church has used various methods for administering Holy Communion over the centuries, in both the East and in the West. In every case, it seems to have been moved by practical considerations to adopt these methods."

From pages 84-86 of The Orthodox Church, 455 Questions and Answers. (1987)

In a time where we face the moral crises over abortion and same-sex marriage, I guess he would rather debate how we receive communion and perhaps how many candles should be on the altar--or whether they should be on the altar at all. Think I will turn out of those relatively trivial matters...


Mark Thomas said...

Septimus Obvius said...Every bishop and cardinal in communion with Rome?

#1. Are you SURE he actually said/wrote that?"

You doubt that? I guess that you are not familiar with the nonsense that Archbishop Lefebvre espoused.

http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/1986_declaration_against_assisi_archbishop_lefebvre-bishop_de_castro_mayer.htm

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

Septimus Obvius,

“Protestantizing the Mass” after 1969 - ? - what can you mean by this?

Surely you are not saying here that any “Mass of Paul VI” after 1970 bore any close resemblance to an Anglican Communion service, are you?

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas,

When are you going to acknowledge that your Golden Calf, Pope Francis, has done nothing to discipline the gay clerics at the Vatican who engaged in a cocaine fueled gay sex orgy? Do you lack the intellectual honesty or capacity to deal with this subject? Or is there nothing to cut and paste that helps your Golden Calf? If you are can’t deal with this, you have no credibility so why bother to post here?

Anonymous said...

Dear Septimus,

Surely you can see that from the Ottaviani Intervention in 1969 till the present day, any claims that the so-called Mass of Paul VI or the “Novus Ordo Mass” has any aspects that are problematic, ANY aspects that can be described as “Protentantizing” etc, are claims that are, in the words of a great 20th/21st century Swiss theologian, “superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional and false” !!

Septimus, I can really recommend the great and timelessly true “On Being a Christian” by Father Hans Kung as another guide for your faith journey.

Regards,

Bill Bollard.

Septimus Obvius said...

IF Communion in the hand took place in the early Church, it did not last very long and there was a very good reason WHY it was eliminated. The return to this practice was based in rebellion, dishonesty and deceit. The fruits of it are obvious: Loss of faith in the Real Presence and particle of the Body of Christ all over the floors you walk in every Novus Ordo Sanctuary.

Mark Thomas, I followed your link. I didn't see any nonsense, save a solid archbishop with the balls to denounce the trendy nonsense being pushed on the Church.

If you want to celebrate that--be my guest. I'll just watch, thank you.

Pierre said...

Bill Kavanaugh Bollard,

Citing Kung is not a selling feature. LOL

John Nolan said...

In the mid-1970s Archbishop Lefebvre visited London. No church would accommodate him, so he celebrated Mass in a function room in the Great Western Hotel, Paddington. In his eloquent sermon he referred to 'the altar and the hearth'. I did a quick double-take since in French it is 'l'autel et le foyer'.

The Archbishop died almost exactly 30 years ago, the Monday after Palm Sunday 1991, which in that year was 25 March. His lying in state was attended by the local Ordinary and the Apostolic Nuncio. Perhaps the best epitaph was from Cardinal Silvio Oddi who visited Econe in September of that year and prayed at his tomb. Rising from his knees he said in a clear voice 'Merci, Monseigneur'.

Interesting fact: Lefebvre's father worked for British Intelligence in both World Wars and died in a Nazi concentration camp.

Anonymous said...

John,

Thanks very much for contributing that.
Very interesting!

Did you read what Fr Hunwicke recently wrote on his blog (Mutual Enrichment) on the 30th anniversary of the death of Archbishop Lefebvre?

Anonymous said...

Well, Septimus, I guess you were not too wild about my quoting a passage from Eastern Orthodoxy concerning communion in the hand. I very much admire Eastern Orthodoxy (though their fasting requirements are probably too much for many people) and I would be Orthodox if not Catholic. But maybe you take a dim view of the Eastern Orthodox. So hey, lets take a look at some Catholic information on that practice. Maybe like Question 192 of the St. Joseph Annotated Catechism---"What are the benefits of the restored option to receive Communion in the hand?" Well it lists 5 reasons and notes a Bishops' Committee booklet stated that "Around the time of Vatican Council 2, however, the various liturgical restorations...created the desire in scattered sections of the Church for a return to the practice of the early Christian centuries in which the Eucharistic Bread was placed in the hands of the faithful..."


Notice it said "of the early Christian centuries". Not a year or two, or a few years.

Incidentally, I have no objection if folks want to receive communion on the tongue. We offer both options at my parish in 30327.

The means of distributing communion is "small T" tradition. Not big, as you want it to be.



Setpimus Obvius said...

Anonymous 6:15 pm,

I would caution you about jumping to conclusions, including conclusions about what people do not say, as I have said nothing about the orthodox churches. Nor do I plan to at this point.

In his encyclical Mediator Dei, Pius XII warned against the burgeoning trend of what he called an "exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism" in the Mass. Most notably, he wrote:

"The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof."

No doubt we can all find some "approved" source that will laud how "wonderful" it is to receive Holy Communion in the hand. Sorry, but I won't be jumping on your bandwagon. Vince Lombardi once said that when you throw the football, "three things can happen and two of them are bad." Well, when you receive Communion in the hand, several things can happen and about the only good thing is the reception of the Species, which could just as easily have happened by receiving in the tried and true traditional manner--established after the early Church's years--regardless of how long or short they were. The other possibilities? Theft of the Host for desecration or Satanic ritual. Discarding of the Host (sacrilege). Dropping the Host. Dropping particles of the Host--in fact, that is not a possibility, it is a CERTAINTY. Test after test has proven that particles drop into the hand, and hence, on to the floor when people receive Hosts into their hands. That means that every time you receive Communion in a Church that follows the current fashion, you are walking on particles of the Body of Christ. I find nothing beneficial or laudatory about that. NOTHING.

And it isn't too hard to quickly discover that this "restored" practice of antiquity was foisted upon us in deceit and disobedience. The U.S. Bishops under the leadership of Cardinal Bernardin (of highly questionable memory) LIED to the Holy See and told Paul VI that this was an established tradition in the United States when it was not. After the pope RELUCTANTLY granted the INDULT (and it is still an indult. It is NOT the norm and it has NEVER been the norm in the United States. It is NOT the norm worldwide either.) After the pope reluctantly granted this indult, we, who supposedly had this as a local "tradition" had to be TRAINED how to "receive" in the hand. Oh the insipid memory of some grating DRE "instructing" us backward bumpkins in the new ways, "Make a little throne with your hands..."

I'm glad that 70's Church under the illusion of "primitive Christianity" works for you. I won't condemn you for it. I'll just say, "none for me, thanks."

God bless.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 6:15,

Communion in the paw has not promoted belief in Transubstantiation. Do you instruct your parishioners on Transubstantiation?

Anonymous said...

Kneeling and on the tongue is not only our tradition and not only safeguards the Host, but it safeguards the recipient against impiety. The next time you are at Sunday Mass, watch the various people who receive Communion and note the variety of gestures and postures you see. Some will try very hard to meticulously receive with reverence, many more will casually receive the Host, some will pop it in their mouth as if it were a Ritz cracker and, sometimes, someone will try to walk away with it. Restoring us to our knees and requiring that we let the priest use only HIS hands, eliminates much of the all-too-comfy ways we approach the Body of Christ and discourages those who are too proud to show humility and reverence from committing sacrilege.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 6:15:

That's really great that you are so tolerant that you don't object to people receiving on the tongue and that your parish is so generous to permit the practice.

If you parish refused to permit Communion on the tongue, it would be in violation of canon law. And before you start in with all that COVID silliness, those rules were violations of canon law and, up until that point, no parish or diocese would have DARED to prohibit Communion on the Tongue. It's the official norm for all Latin Rite Catholics (and for those of you from Rio Linda, "Latin Rite" includes the Novus Ordo).

It's amazing how "generous" and "tolerant" we are when established law mandates it.

Anonymous said...

So just what gave some of our more left-leaning bishops the audacity to violate canon law and the assurance they would get away with it?

Two words: Pope Francis.

The "Revolution in Tiara and Cope" marches forward.