Posted on 11/23/2005 11:01:06 AM PST by NYer
NOT SCHISMATIC SSPX:
"SSPX Not in Schism"
Rome Has Spoken
Michael J. Matt
Editor, The Remnant
In its No. 9, 2005 issue, the highly respected 30 Days featured an interview with Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. The interview dealt with relations between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) as well as other related matters. It can be found online at: http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360
The interview is fast emerging as a major event since it contained several long-awaited admissions on the part of the Vatican with respect to the status of the late Archbishop Lefebvre’s priestly fraternity as well as the old Mass.
The Remnant has often been accused of riding a “dangerous trajectory towards schism” for remaining friendly with the SSPX and defending them against the charge of schism. Our contention since the early 1990s has been that, while the SSPX certainly has an irregular standing vis-à-vis the Vatican (resulting from an in-Church dispute over the disastrous Second Vatican Council and the New Mass), this does not rise to the level of formal schism. Happily, the President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission has made that contention official. The pertinent excerpt from 30Days speaks for itself:
Your Eminence, what was the nature of the audience granted by the Pope to the Superior General of the Saint Pius X Fraternity?
DARÍOCASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The audience is part of a process that began with a very important intervention by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, who signed a protocol of agreement with Monsignor Lefebvre before the latter decided to proceed to the episcopal consecrations of 1988.
Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off…
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism. (Emphasis added)
Just like that, a highly contentious issue that’s been dividing Catholics since 1988 was settled. And it’s impossible to believe that a man in the Cardinal’s elevated position, with his closely guarded reputation for discretion, could have acted in this regard without the Pope’s foreknowledge.
But, there’s more. We’ve all grown accustomed to the neo-Catholics charging all traditionalists with “closet sedevacantism”, especially the priests and bishops of the SSPX. Cardinal Hoyos put the lie to that as well:
After the audience [between SSPX head Bishop Bernard Fellay and Pope Benedict on August 29, 2005) an authoritative cardinal suggested that the Fraternity should recognize the legitimacy of the present Pontiff…
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately that is proof that within the Church, even at high levels, there is not always full knowledge of the Fraternity. The Fraternity has always recognized in John Paul II, and now in Benedict XVI, the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. That is not a problem. That then there are traditionalist groups that don’t recognize the last popes, the so-called “empty throne” people, is another question that doesn’t concern the Saint Pius X Fraternity.
Next, the coup de grace. His Eminence conceded a point that traditionalists have been contesting for 35 years—that the old Mass was abrogated and, as such, requires a special permission or “indult” for use:
It is known that the Saint Pius X Fraternity is asking the Holy See for a liberalization of the so-called Tridentine mass and a declaration affirming that this liturgy has never been abolished.
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: The mass of Saint Pius V has never been abolished…
That is, Pope Paul VI never actually abrogated the Tridentine Mass! It’s still there just as it always has been, and the “option” called the Novus Ordo Missae is just that—an option, which Catholics are free to reject.
End of story! Traditionalists win! We don’t pretend to know why Cardinal Castrillón elected to make these statements which are now part of the permanent record, but, clearly, the debate is over. It is up to us now to try to use them to mend fences with those neo-Catholics whose polemic against traditionalism has just been totally annihilated. Perhaps this startling development will also lead to a ceasefire between traditional Catholics, allowing us to direct our ideological weaponry away from each other and toward the myriad enemies of the old Faith that need so desperately to be driven out of our Church.
Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos is to be credited and heartily thanked for his refreshingly honest clarifications.
Bishop Fellay in St. Paul
On November 5, 2005, Immaculate Heart of Mary Chapel (SSPX) in St. Paul played host to the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Bernard Fellay, who delivered a report on the negotiations between the SSPX and the Vatican.
In the wake of the Aug. 29 meeting between Bishop Fellay, Fr. Schmidberger, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, and Pope Benedict XVI, which lasted 35 minutes and took place at Castle Gandolfo, rumors began to fly about an imminent split inside the SSPX over a Campos-style capitulation. Catholic World Report went so far as to claim that Bishop Richard Williamson was reduced to playing the part of spoiler out of protest:
But Bishop Richard Williamson, the most outspoken member of the SSPX hierarchy, is no diplomat. In a mid-summer Internet message to his followers, Bishop Williamson revealed the plans for Bishop Fellay’s meeting with the Pope—making it clear that he was not pleased by the prospect. As the news of Bishop Williamson’s revelation filtered out, Vatican officials—always speaking under the cloak of anonymity—confirmed that the meeting had been scheduled.
(The Catholic World Report, October 2005, p. 22)
As I listened to Fellay’s 3-hour presentation here in St. Paul, however, it became evident that the rumors were just that—rumors. He categorically denied that there is any split whatsoever inside the SSPX.
In addition, a source close to Bishop Williamson confirmed the same thing to us, suggesting that rumors of an alleged split between Bishops Fellay and Williamson may even have been the concoction of certain entities which resent the Society’s singular position as the non-compromising traditionalist heavyweight of the world.
For three hours, a forthright Bishop Fellay discussed the history of the SSPX negotiations with the Vatican, beginning with the early meetings between Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI, and culminating with details of Fellay’s own Aug. 29 meeting with the new Pope.
Throughout his presentation he spoke with almost childlike awe and admiration for Archbishop Lefebvre, dispelling even the faintest whiff of any inclination to change the course charted by the revered Archbishop.
He also touched upon the cautious optimism with which his Society had initially received news of the election of Cardinal Ratzinger. He referenced the many favorable-to-tradition statements uttered by the then-Cardinal Ratzinger over the years, which certainly verify that the new Pope was at least well aware of the crisis in the Church. In light of all that, said Fellay, Catholics were right to have that “glimmer of hope” where Pope Benedict was concerned, even if renewed disappointment remained a very real possibility.
He admitted that it was the SSPX who’d initially sought an audience with the Pope. Why? To show the Pope and the world that “we are Catholics attached to Rome, as we’ve always been.”
He also discussed the most serious impasse to a reconciliation: The Second Vatican Council! He made it clear that it is the SSPX’s resistance to the New Mass and Council that is at issue. And he explained exactly what Pope Benedict means by “interpreting the Council in light of tradition,” and warned his audience not to fall for the trap of a “changing tradition.”
Still, Fellay’s intention is to keep open the lines of communication with the Vatican. Before the Aug. 29 meeting, he had sent a letter to the Pope enumerating the serious doctrinal questions that must be resolved if there is to be any hope for successful negotiations one day. During the meeting itself, there was some evidence of the Pope having read the letter, as he made references to topics raised in it. For example, during the meeting His Holiness conceded that there is indeed a “state of emergency” in the Church...a point that had only been discussed in Fellay’s preliminary letter.
In other words, Bishop Fellay’s tactics seem to be as sound as they are Catholic. The traditional Catholic world seems to have in the bishops of the SSPX able-bodied representatives who are personally taking the traditional Catholic case—not deeper into the vast wastelands of Cyberspace—but directly to the feet of Peter himself.
It is difficult to fathom why any serious traditionalist would regard this as anything less than a tremendous blessing, especially as there is no evidence of unjust compromise in the SSPX works.
After his talk, I asked Bishop Fellay if he could assure us that the SSPX will never under any circumstances field a contingent at World Youth Day. I was only half joking; the Bishop’s answer was serious: No, never! It was obvious that he knew very well what I was getting at.
Bishop Fellay’s talk prompted us to wonder if the SSPX might be inadvertently positioning itself to become one of the most significant influences on the beleaguered Vatican in the Church today. It’s already applying serious traditionalist pressure on an aging and perhaps somewhat disillusioned hierarchy. With the Grace of God, who knows where that might lead.
One is reminded of the story of the Nazi SS-Lieutenant Colonel Herbert Kappler who, after using every means at his disposal to try to crush the “Scarlet Pimpernel of the Vatican,” Msgr. Hugh O’Flaherty during World War II, nevertheless found himself begging O’Flaherty (whose story was dramatized in the 1983 film The Scarlet and the Black) to save his family after the Nazis retreated from Rome. O’Flaherty never gave up on Kappler, even after the latter had been imprisoned for war crimes. In 1956 the Nazi was baptized in his prison cell by the Irish priest, and died a Roman Catholic.
What’s the connection? Well, and as we’ve noted in these columns before, it’s just possible that the situation in the Church has spun so far out of control that even the Vatican is beginning to see the writing on the wall. Is it so unthinkable that some inside the Vatican would begin to envision a time in the not too distant future when the 400 priests of the SSPX could begin to resemble the Jesuits of old, capable of doing a great deal to restore some semblance of order to a chaotic Church that now faces the total disgrace of its priesthood, the disappearance of its Mass, and a veritable eruption of real schisms throughout the world?
Could this be what our somewhat conflicted Pope has in mind? Probably not, but stranger things have happened, and, if I were pope and I found myself in charge of this monumental nightmare—it’s what I’d have in mind.
The SSPX, then, seems to be in a very good position. It is most advantageous to the Traditionalist cause (and maybe even to the Vatican itself, down the road!) for the Society, which is not in schism, to remain where it is. As we see it, the SSPX should “stay the course”, which, from what I could gather on November 5th, is precisely what Bishop Fellay intends to do. Pray for him!
Jesus was a JEW ! So why wouldn't he call His own race to the Faith he started? THe CAtholic Faith.. believe Jesus is the SON OF GOD. With no hate,with malice only with a desire for them to love HIM.
Since when did the Remnant return to Catholicism from its knee-jerk support of much that is unsupportable?
You fail to answer the only relevant question. Since John Paul II was pope when he ruled SSPX a schism and excommunicated its leaders, has POPE John Paul II or POPE Benedict XVI changed those judgments by any authoritative statement. The answer is, of course, NO. No one below the rank of pope has the authority to readmit SSPX or its leaders to the Roman Catholic Church.
Nothing about this divides Catholics, as such. Catholics remain Catholics and SSPXers are not Catholics. Which part of EXCOMMUNICATED do you refuse to understand??????
I see you are still spouting the same old tired lies.
Here's a little bit of truth for you, your eminence.
You are not the person who decides how Rome will negotiate with the SSPX.
So stuff it.
Don't make me come back on here regularly to mop the floor up with you.
And drop this utterly stupid mode of thinking that "because a Pope says something it must be true." That's utter stupidity with nothing in Catholic teaching to back it up.
"confession of faith"?
Unless and until an SSPX member is utterly and totally humiliated and repents credibly and confesses error as publicly as he/she has scandalized the actually Faithful and done public penance of a profound source and begged readmission to the Church, then the SSPX member should "stay the course" and continue in stiff-necked schism and excommunication.
Your eminence, This is such utter hogwash I have to just laugh. Just who do you think is going to believe your tripe?
I for one, regularly go to priests in my local diocese for confession. I oftentimes tell them that I attend Mass at the SSPX chapel. They commend me for it on most occasions. None have attempted to dissuade me. In fact, one priest said to me, "As long as you are a Catholic, you can attend a Mass at the SSPX." Then he told me to get more involved with them as a parish community.
So his eminence really doesn't know what he's talking about.
Since when did the Remnant return to Catholicism from its knee-jerk support of much that is unsupportable?
Care to support that statement? I thought not.
You fail to answer the only relevant question.
There are actually many relevant questions. Is the Church in a severe crisis? Did JPII lie or was he ignorant when he stated that the archbishop had committed a schismatic act?
Since John Paul II was pope when he ruled SSPX a schism and excommunicated its leaders, has POPE John Paul II or POPE Benedict XVI changed those judgments by any authoritative statement. The answer is, of course, NO.
Obviously his eminence believes in papal infallibility and papal irresistibility in all matters. (Basically trying to support the unsupportable.) If the Pope says the sun is a cube. Then the sun is a cube until a later Pope says something else. Truth is very fluid among his eminence and his brother bishops. It's the Protestant version of papal infalibility. His eminence buys it hook line and sinker and likes it.
No one below the rank of pope has the authority to readmit SSPX or its leaders to the Roman Catholic Church.
Actually no Pope can readmit someone who has never left. The Pope can override natural or Divine law. All he can do is admit his mistake or have one of his successors straighten out the mess he made.
Nothing about this divides Catholics, as such. Catholics remain Catholics and SSPXers are not Catholics. Which part of EXCOMMUNICATED do you refuse to understand??????
The relevant question is what do you refuse to understand? The facts (even the legalistic argument) are simply unknown to you. Card. Hoyos said that many in the Church even in the episcopate were extremely ignorant. Here is proof of that statement. Your eminence, we've been through this before. You simply don't know what you are talking about. Catholicism being a major portion of what you don't understand.
Bell, book, candle. Rack, strappado, pit, pendulum, iron maiden, thumbscrews.
If and when, and may it NEVER be the case, a pope should modify leniently or remove the judgment of schism against SSPX and the excommunication of its adherents (this means YOU), get back to actual Catholics with the news but make sure it was printed in L'Osservatore Romano and not in such schismatic propaganda rags as The Angelus or the Remnant which have no more credibility than does the National antiCatholic Reporter.
You can tell the quality of a person by the enemies the person keeps. I am proud to have you and the other schizzies as enemies.
Which pope (that would be someone who has reached the level of Vicar of Christ on Earth/nothing to do with Econe/nothing to do with spitting on the papacy/not an excommunicated bishop or archbishop/not some Vatican bureaucratic subordinate but an actual pope) has reversed Pope John Paul II's judgment of schism and excommunication against you guys? That could ONLY have been JP II or B-XVI. Pope/date/document officially promulgated???? Oh, that's right, neither of them. May that continue to be the case until you all submit to being frog-marched through Vatican Square in sackcloth, ashes and utter humiliation as you deserve and weep oceans of tears begging and pleading for mercy from the papacy that you all revile.
It is TRUTH that SSPX adherents were adjudged EXCOMMUNICATED by JP II and that SSPX was declared and adjudged a SCHISM by him. You do not like your sentence as an "adherent" any more than Scott Peterson liked being sentenced to physical death for the murder of his wife and child, but it is TRUE whether you happen to like it or not. (Douses Gerard P. in Holy Water/Gerard P. does the Wicked Witch of the West routine from similar circumstances with plain water. He's mellllllting!!!!!).
Can the flying schizzie monkeys of dead Marcel be far behind?
Wow.
Roma Locuta Causa Finita.
For about the four millionth time, I have never suggested that anyone was excommunicated for merely ATTENDING an SSPX schizzie Mass which is, after all, a Mass. If it were NOT a Mass the crimes of Marcel et al. would be misdemeanors and no one, but no one, would bother paying attention to the slime who follow him in schism. Since the late and quite thoroughly excommunicated archbishop Marcel took it upon himself in lunacy (ohhhhh, it was an emergency!!!!! Marcel might not get his petulant way in resisting the Church and vindicating his rebellious tastes) or in ecclesiastical criminality to choose and consecrate bishops against the DIRECT ORDERS of John Paul II AND since Marcel, as a duly consecrated bishop, had the power but not the right to consecrate his co-conspirators as bishops to the infernal delight of their aiders, abettors and adherents, those consecrated co-conspirators are bishops, though illicitly so, and they have the power to ordain other rebellious nuisances as priests, though illicitly so. This coterie of the excommunicated then become the near occasion of schismatic sin for the dupes whose tastes have been offended or who have been wounded in some way by the liberal enthusiasms that are found in AmChurch, whereupon they all get together in their phonebooth chapels and have a mutual sniffles party over those nasty Catholics who just REFUSE TO SYMPATHIZE with the errors of St. Marcel the Excommunicated.
Does the Remnant offer aid and comfort to the schism????? Of course, it does. The Matt family is dissolving in incoherent SSPXism on the part of the Remnant publisher. Citing the Remnant as authority, is like saying: SSPX is not schismatic just because some pope said so. After all, Marcel the Malignant denied being a schismatic before death and what reason would he have to lie???? Ummmm, every reason!
There are diocesan priests who commit many sins, including comforting the schismatic. That does not make their sins virtues or your sins virtues either. This is quite likely the result of a sort of perverted cherry-picking to find the worst windtunnel diocesan priests who will accept you (I'm OK/You're OK/you know the type and you can find them.)
No pope has ruled the sun a cube whatever your schism leaders may be telling you. If one did, it would be no more significant or infallible than a papal prediction of tomorrow's weather. It is not a matter of faith and morals like, well, excommunicating schismatics and declaring their movement in schism. If you are going to spit upon the doctrine of infallibility, at least get a clue as to what it means. The mere fact that your cult lacks a pope does not justify your ignorance of doctrine.
It's gonna make a great movie!
I was just thinking that.
The Jews love God and respect Jesus as someone who brought Torah to the world. Jesus was preaching the faith of his own people, what it was meant to be before things became political. His followers declared him divine and started the faith. Jesus was a Jew and remained one until he died. As far as being God's children, we all are.
Maybe you would find this interesting. A Catholic friend lived in Israel and was very familiar with the Jewish service also because of her many Jewish friends there. When the Catholic service went from being in Latin to being in the vernacular languages of where its churches were located, once she heard the Catholic service in Hebrew, she realized it was pretty much the same as the Jewish service. The only difference was that when Jews went to the Torah service, Catholics went to the Eucharist. Otherwise, the services sounded very similar.
Some of the modern Christian music translates back to the original Hebrew prayers. I find it fascinating. I hear popular Christian songs like "There is No One Like Our God" and realize it is the same as our "Mi Chamocha." This song came from Judaism, a song that was sung after the crossing of the Red Sea.
All the best,
Inkie
The Catholic liturgy picks up where the Jewish one ends. I attend a Maronite Catholic Church which is older than the Latin Rite. It retains the Jewish heritage of the Church more than any of the other Catholic Traditions, with portions of the liturgy chanted in Aramaic and Syriac.
You may find this interesting.
You also subscribe to this theory, strangely enough.
In your case, however, it applies only to certain Pope's.
The popes of your choosing.
Or else archbishops and bishops of uncertain pedigree.
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.”
This is a sacred part of the Jewish liturgy and one Jesus undoubtedly recited himself, as a Jew. Except Christians have adopted it to interpret the word "Lord" to mean Jesus, while for Jews, it maintains its original meaning referring to God. This prayer is basic to Judaism, going back a thousand years before Jesus' time. When you see a mezuzzah on the doorway of a Jewish home, this prayer is on a piece of parchment inside. Jews touch their fingers to the mezuzzah, then touch their fingers to their lips, an action meant to help them literally do what the prayer asks and remember the commandments and be faithful to them.
"Thou shalt love ..." is only the first part of three parts that are considered part of the Shema ("Hear oh Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One"). If anyone is interestested, the other two parts can be found in a Conservative prayerbook. The Reform movement took out the middle part because it was too stern -- referred to what happens if you do not follow the commandments (i.e. your fields will be barren, etc.). Typical liberal response!!! Anyway, the third part refers to the wearing of the fringes, which is what you see hanging out of Orthodox men's shirtsleeves. Before Judaism, fringes were reserved only for the elite and the wealthy, forbidden to others. Jews wear the fringes in a similar way they touch the mezuzzah -- to remind them to carry out God's commandments.
"Rome Has Spoken ... Just like that, a highly contentious issue that’s been dividing Catholics since 1988 was settled."
Let's get this straight. John Paul II writing in a 1988 Apostolic Letter ("Ecclesia Dei") that the SSPX was in schism did not settle the issue. Cardinal Gantin, writing in a 1988 Declaration of the Congregation of Bishops that the SSPX was in schism did not settle the issue. Cardinal Ratzinger, saying publicly in 1988 that the SSPX had been separated from the Church by a "clean break" and was in schism did not settle the issue. Cardinal Lara, saying in 1988 that Msgr. Lefebvre was excommunicated for schism, did not settle the issue. "With respect to the formulas that you ask us to sign, they suppose a certain number of conditions that we cannot accept and that leave us very ill at ease. The propositions suppose that we are guilty and that this guilt has separated us from the Church." (Letter of Bishop Fellay to Cardinal Castrillion, 6 June 2004) This does not "settle" the issue. However, Cardinal Castrillion's word does settle the issue, and, moreover, qualifies as "Rome Has Spoken" (one wonders - does his statement, left unquoted by M. Matt, that the SSPX suffers from a schismatic attitude also settle THAT issue?).
I guess it's only "Rome" if it agrees with the SSPX position in the first place. LOL.
But as most people who bebate this issue-you only see the front view- you speak from what you see-not what you KNOW.
Live in Rome do ya? What else has Rome said on the Communion in the Hand.." NO"..and priests allow lay folks to handle Communion all around the world..SCHISM ! EXCOMMUNICATED !
No Married or women priests...."oh no one is looking,we'll do it anyway....SCHISM and EXCOMMUNICATION!
As for SSPX..they HOLD FAST AND IMMOVABLE to the Commandments,pray for the Pope,NOT KNOCK HIM..Obey the Faith of all the priests and martyrs before them with the Old Latin MAss..reverence, fear of God,and they do not preach HATE for anyone..only point out Christ founded one Church..he made the Pope and began the Catholic Church with the QUO PRIMUM..no one not even the next Pope had the right to protestantize the altar,Sacraments,prayers,ect.ect..and this is what the bebate is.
The Pope knows in his heart EXACTLY what they are standing for brother-Oh you better believe that! everywhere the NEW
ORDO hit -so did the loss of vocations,the loss of FAITH-and the fruits have shpowed up ovr the past 40yrs..declining priesthood,nuns,breakup of families-Catholic Churches closing left and right-schools where the youth were taught GOD and Catholism--POOF !
BUT as I say,..you see the front view..not behind the scenes of the past 40 yrs,since Vatican II.
I attend a Maronite Catholic Church which is older than the Latin Rite.
Please. Would you stop pleading this false case?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm
Quote: "The Roman Rite is the most, venerable, the most archaic, and immeasurably the most important of all, but our fellow Catholics in the East have the same right to their traditional liturgies as we have to ours. Nor can we doubt that other rites too have many beautiful prayers and ceremonies which add to the richness of Catholic liturgical inheritance. To lose these would be a misfortune second only to the loss of the Roman Rite."
Quote:
"In many other ways also the Armenian Rite shows evidence of Roman influence. It has unleavened bread, our confession and Judica psalm at the beginning of Mass, a Lavabo before the Canon, the last Gospel, etc. But so little is this the effect of union with Rome that the schismatical Armenians have all these points too. They date from the time of the Crusades, when the Armenians, vehemently opposed to the Orthodox, made many advances towards Catholics. So also the strong romanizing of the Maronite Liturgy was entirely the work of the Maronites themselves, when, surrounded by enemies in the East, they too turned towards the great Western Church, sought her communion, and eagerly copied her practices."
Found this too.
Novena to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre- From Nov. 21-Nov. 29 Reply with quote
"I will finish with my testament. I would like that it be an echo of the testament of Our Lord: a New and Eternal Testament...the heritage that Jesus Christ gave us, His Sacrifice, His Blood, His Cross. I will say the same for you: for the glory of the Holy Trinity, for love of the Church, for the salvation of the world: keep the Holy Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ! Keep the Mass forever!"
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 23rd September 1979
"I am only a bishop of the Catholic Church who continues to transmit its doctrine. I think that it will not be long now before you can write on my tomb these words of Saint Paul: TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI - I have passed on what I have received - tout simplement."
Sermon at the Episcopal Consecrations of 30th June 1988
"What is it that you want, that I pronounce words over my chalice different from those I have used these last fifty years? That is impossible !"
Archbishop Lefebvre: Sermon of the Mass celebrating Fifty Years of Priesthood.
Paris 23rd September 1979
Novena to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
November 29, 1905 - March 25, 1991
O Lord Jesus Christ, King of kings, we implore thee in thy Divine Kindness to finally bring to light the holiness and justice of thy humble servant Marcel Lefebvre. His earthly life was met with ignominy and scorn, in pattern to thee, and all for thee, O Christ, for whom he so valiantly fought, and whose Rights and Kingship he defended. We beg thee to manifest his holy intercession for us by granting us (say your intentions) which we ask in his name. O Mary, Immaculate, Queen and Mediatrix of all graces, please obtain for us from thy Divine Son that special grace by which thy servant Marcel may be honoured and glorified with the title of Saint.
Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be
"Monseigneur,
the Holy Mass is our best memory of you."
An entry in the book of condolence which was the disposition of the faithful following the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, 25th of March,1991.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.