FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: This month's "Catholic Answers Magazine" Comments about Lefebrve
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4

In case anyone was interested in reading, this month's "Catholic Answers Magazine" had an editorial by their owner, Karl Keating, and his thoughts about Archbishop Lefebvre and the Tridentine Mass. Lot's of personal opinion interspersed with a slanted take on historical events. Below is the text from the article. Pretty strange assesment in my opinion....


Lefebvre Nearly
Scuttled the Old Mass

By Karl Keating

Five years ago, shortly after Pope
Benedict XVI issued Summorum
Pontificum, the motu proprio that gave
encouragement to the celebration of
what now is called the Extraordinary
Form of the Mass (what often is called
the Tridentine Latin Mass), I worked up a
little story for the e-letter that I then was
publishing every few weeks.

In the story I fell into deep slumber
and dreamt about a bishop setting out
his diocese's new rules for the celebration
of the two forms of the Mass. He
mandated a generous availability of the
Extraordinary Form, after having spent
some time prepping himself to celebrate
the Mass in Latin. He wanted his priests
to follow his example, and he hoped the
laity of his diocese would find in the old
Mass a satisfaction they might not have
been finding in the new.

At the conclusion of the story, I had
the bishop say, "It is my intuition that
over time a fair proportion of our lay
people will come to prefer the old form."

So much for my prophetic skills.

The initial excitement over the wider
availability of the old Mass has dissipated.
That form has become a bit
more widely celebrated, but attendance
remains minuscule—my guess: less than
one percent of all American Catholics.
The bishop in my story expected a substantial
segment of his flock to end up
preferring the old form of the Mass to the
new, but in real life that hasn't happened.

No doubt there are reasons. At the
parish level, simple inertia may predominate,
followed by the laity's innate conservatism
that disinclines people to try
something new, even if it is historically
old and even if, once tried, they might
prefer it. Not to be discounted is last
Advent's introduction of a new English
translation of the Ordinary Form of
the Mass. It probably satisfied many
who otherwise might have shifted to the
Extraordinary Form out of frustration
with the previous English translation.

But I think there is another, almost
universally overlooked reason for the old
Mass not making progress: the legacy of
some of its defenders, including a particularly
prominent one.

In the May 20 edition of The Remnant,
a biweekly paper written for traditionalist
Catholics, the editor, Michael J.
Matt, wrote about the late Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre, whom he credits with
keeping the old Mass alive through the
Society of St. Pius X that he founded:
"Were it not for the Archbishop and the
SSPX, the traditional Catholic movement
would likely still be in the basement
chapels and hotel conference rooms I
remember as a child."

I disagree. The way I see it, it was
not Lefebvre who "saved" the old Mass,
as many traditionalists claim. It was
Lefebvre who very nearly scuttled it.

On May 5, 1988, Lefebvre—who had
been at odds with the Vatican for longer
than a decade and who had been suspended
a divinis from his priestly faculties,
meaning he no longer could administer
sacraments licitly—signed an agreement
with then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,
who headed the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith. The agreement
intended to regularize the SSPX and to
provide for the consecration of a bishop
who would succeed Lefebvre, who then
was 82, at his death or retirement.

Lefebvre quickly backed out of the
agreement, and on June 30, 1988, he,
along with Bishop Antonio de Castro
Mayer, ordained four men to the episcopacy
without papal approval. Under
canon law, all six men automatically
incurred excommunication. The two
consecrating bishops eventually died
still excommunicated. The four men they
consecrated had their excommunications
lifted in 2009 by Pope Benedict XVI.

The SSPX has been in discussions with
Vatican officials for several years now.
As of this writing, it is unclear whether
a rapprochement will be reached. Even
if one is, it is further unclear whether
all four of the SSPX bishops would subscribe
to one; it has been speculated that
some of them might go off on their own,
forming a rump group.

I hope the rupture between the
Church and the SSPX is healed. It has
persisted for nearly a quarter century.
For a brief moment in 1988 it looked as
though previous difficulties had been
overcome—but then Lefebvre, for whatever
motives, threw it all away.

He went ahead with the consecrations,
claiming "necessity," but that excuse
(used by nearly every schismatic historically)
never found favor outside a small
group of SSPX sympathizers. In the eyes
of almost all Catholics, Lefebvre made
himself and his new bishops, not to mention
the SSPX's priests and the group's
lay members, into renegades, and the
perception that they were outside the pale
tainted the wider movement that was
seeking to bring back the old Mass.

That movement nearly ground to a
halt. It had been making real if slow
progress in the years before Lefebvre's
break. After the illicit consecrations,
arguments in favor of the old Mass
were characterized by many opponents
as arguments in favor of schism. This
was an unfair, ad hominem tactic, but
it worked.

The promotion of the old Mass by
Benedict XVI is a sign of his generosity;
it is not the consequence of initiatives
undertaken by the SSPX. If the
Extraordinary Form eventually receives
broad acceptance, as in my fictional scenario,
it will be due to the pope's efforts
and will be in spite of, not because of,
what Lefebvre did.
What an odd little planet Mr Keating lives in.
Keating is not really trustworthy to give a fair analysis of anything.  He pushes his biases into everything.

I would be most Novus Ordo Catholics do not know anything about Summorum Pontificum or the fact that the Novus Ordo they attend is not the same liturgy that was said in Latin in the early 1960s.

When Card. Rigali ran Philadelphia, he forbade priests from mentioning at all during the Novus Ordo, claiming "it has to come naturally from the people."  Added to that the poo-poohing of the TLM by modernist priests and appeals to more fervent Novus Ordos, the idea that LeFebvre is to blame because the swine in the Novus Ordo don't want pearls is ridiculous.  

And Keatings recollection of the events, assertions and conclusions are simply unintelligent.  

He forgets the apology, LeFebvre was asked to sign.  The refusal to grant him a bishop or even tell him he was being refused a bishop when he thought it had been agreed to.  

It's a ridiculous statement  to make that if someone claims there is an emergency in the Church, it must not be true because unnamed others who were schismatic said the same thing at other times.  This means Keating believes in a fairy tale Church where "an emergency" is impossible and the Pope is just a shell that God possesses and whoever our current Pope is, well...he's the bestest of the best.... Benedict the Great, JPII The Great, Paul VI the....someday history will call him "Great."   Tony the Tiger should announce the Pope at all public events.  

Keatings ruminations are pretty much worthless.  
When you think about who nearly scuttled the TLM, isn't it amazing that Keating says it was LeFebvre and Paul VI bears no responsibility?

That point alone shows you how twisted this guys perverse understanding of the Church and Papacy is.
Almost just lost my Sprite Zero all over the computer screen.

Keating is a delusional loser.

Quote:"I hope the rupture between the Church and the SSPX is healed. It has persisted for nearly a quarter century.  For a brief moment in 1988 it looked as though previous difficulties had been overcome—but then Lefebvre, for whatever motives, threw it all away."
Is this kinda like how JPII of blessed and holy and saintly memory shit all over +Lefebvre and his Society?  The same one who jerked +Lefebvre around, desperately trying to stave off the consecrations until +Lefebvre kicked the bucket?  Who played games and ran around in circles trying to avoid any concrete and firm solution like the craftiest of politicians?  Who played childish games and set up roadblocks here, there, and everywhere, hoping +Lefebvre was a fool who could be stopped?

Quote:" In the eyes of almost all Catholics, Lefebvre made himself and his new bishops, not to mention the SSPX's priests and the group's lay members, into renegades, and the perception that they were outside the pale tainted the wider movement that was seeking to bring back the old Mass."
Oh PLEASE, you useless Neo-Catholics.  Quit trying to convince the laity (and other trads?) that traditionalists and those attached to the TLM only became "schismatic" after the consecrations!  I was born in 1987, but even just reading about the times after the Council it is clear there was a visible and distinct animosity and HATRED of the traditional Faith and liturgy.  This wasn't something that sprung up at the end of June 1988, this persisted from the time +Lefebvre had success in Econe and the bishop tried to shut him down (with the assistance of really shitty Vatican clergymen). 

The traditional Faith has been hated since the mid-60s.  Were it not for +Lefebvre, there would be no FSSP (and likely no ICKSP).  Sure, Una Voce existed, as did the Latin Mass Society, but those two are essentially useless when compared to the achievements made by +Lefebvre and his Society. 

And Summorum Pontificum being a generous gift?  Bullshit.  It stated that the Mass was never abrogated.  If anything, that's a clear admission of our bishops failing at their duty and working to subvert papal power by suppressing the Mass. 

And yet +Lefebvre was the one who died under some bogus excommunication.

Ridiculous.
(07-16-2012, 03:56 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]When you think about who nearly scuttled the TLM, isn't it amazing that Keating says it was LeFebvre and Paul VI bears no responsibility?

That point alone shows you how twisted this guys perverse understanding of the Church and Papacy is.

How dare you criticize the Pope, Gerard.  You must hate the Church, you evil schismatic.
(07-16-2012, 03:53 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]Keating is not really trustworthy to give a fair analysis of anything.  He pushes his biases into everything.

I would be most Novus Ordo Catholics do not know anything about Summorum Pontificum or the fact that the Novus Ordo they attend is not the same liturgy that was said in Latin in the early 1960s.
My parents (ages in the mid-40s) thought the Masses were the same until I explained it to them.  Not a very interesting story, but an anecdote that the faithful typically have no clue.  They think the NO Missae stretches back into history, but... it doesn't.


Quote:He forgets the apology, LeFebvre was asked to sign.  The refusal to grant him a bishop or even tell him he was being refused a bishop when he thought it had been agreed to.  

I just finished "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican," and it's surprising how much Rome/JPII the Super Bestest/Ratzinger jerked ABL around for over a year.  Utterly appalling, if you ask me.  
Keating and the gang do a admirable job when comes to debating with Protestants, but seem evasive and defensive when it comes to dealing with some of the traditional, authentic & ancient teachings of the Church. They spread the false notion about the SSPX, for instance, by claiming they are schismatic, and DO NOT like talking about the embarrassing actions of John Paul II (Assisi, pagan ritual in Mexico City, kissing of the Koran, etc.), side step VII ambiguities and do not seem to engage in the real issues between the NO and the TLM. Curiously, much of their apostolate is driven by converts (ironic, I know, since I myself am a convert), that seem to bring an almost idoloatrous attitude of the pope to the table.
I GET IT! All we have to do is get a lobotomy, read a script and adore the Papal office above Christ and we too can become the next best apologists on CAF! Keating is such an inspiration!

Seriously Keating, stick with apologetics 101. . .
(07-16-2012, 04:08 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]My parents (ages in the mid-40s) thought the Masses were the same until I explained it to them.  Not a very interesting story, but an anecdote that the faithful typically have no clue.  

I've found this is widely true unless a person was at least a teenager in 1964. They think Vatican II translated simply the Tridentine Mass into the vernacular and let some lay people help father read.
Pages: 1 2 3 4