Did Archbishop Lefebvre REALLY Believe the Council Was “Schismatic?”

Did Archbishop Lefebvre REALLY Believe the Council Was “Schismatic?”

Samuel continues to do the Church a very great service over at Tradidi.com by translating some of the forgotten gems of Archbishop Lefebvre.   The latest article comes from the defunct French blog Credidimus Caritate, quoting the Archbishop from a 1980 priest retreat in which he clarifies what he means when he refers to the Second Vatican Council, the Pope, the bishops, etc. as “schismatic” (and which he also had published in the Cor Unum -the internal monthly bulletin of the SSPX- to ensure all his priests understood him properly).

In short, the Archbishop explains -plainly- that he is being hyperbolic (i.e., “Exaggerated claims or statements not meant to be taken literally.”).

Timely, in light of the apoplectic reactions of the Dupes to this blog’s previous article, showing the Archbishop in his own words candidly admitting (as late as mid-1980) that Catholics could fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending a valid Novus Ordo, and that well-disposed communicants receive the transmission of sanctifying grace at a valid Novus Ordo.

This latest article is a welcome dose of cold water to the overheated exaggerations of the Sect, and can be viewed Here.

“I am not saying that in words one cannot use one phrase and then oppose it with another one, pull it out of context and, thus, make me say things that are not in my mind. I have sometimes dared to use strong phrases, for example, that the Council was more or less schismatic. In a certain sense it is true because there is a certain break with Tradition. So in the sense that the Council is in breach with Tradition, it can be said, to some extent, that it is schismatic. But when I said that, it was not to say that the Council is really, profoundly schismatic, definitively. You have to understand everything I say. The Council is schismatic insofar as it breaks with the past, that is true. But that does not mean that it is schismatic in the precise, theological sense of the word.

So when you take terms like that, you can say, “You see ! If the Council is schismatic, the pope who signed the Council is schismatic, and all the bishops who signed the Council are schismatics, so that we no longer have the right to be with them.” This is false reasoning. It’s madness, it does not make sense!

That is why I published this article on faith in Cor Unum. I don’t know if you have read the commentary on the virtue of faith by Father Bernard, a commentary on the article of St. Thomas Aquinas. He has the spirit of St. Thomas Aquinas, in which he accurately shows the infidelity of the faithful, in which he shows that among these faithful there is a danger to the faith, that there are many believers of whom one can say : “ Oh ! He no longer has the faith, he is a pagan, he is an atheist. ” If you wish, to a certain extent, because they are people who no longer practice, people who do not educate their children in a Christian way, people who have pagan reasonings, the worldly, materialists, whatever you want. Then they say: “They have no faith!” Can we really say that they no longer have the virtue of faith? It is quite another thing to no longer have the spirit of faith, or to no longer practice one’s faith, than to no longer have faith. These are different formulas. It is dangerous to immediately apply these things [like that], because by baptism they retain the virtue of faith. They have the virtue of faith, but they do not exercise it, they do not practice it. That is something else.”

In short, the Dupes don’t (want to) understand hyperbole; they would prefer to be left with their distortions, exaggerations, and slogans (despite all their protestations of fidelity to the Archbishop they are actually leaving behind, in favor of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko).

You see, truth weakens their “faith.”

They ought to reflect deeply on that.

print