Archbishop Lefebvre signed every one of Vatican II’s documents

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 18

Rome, Italy, Jan 13, 2009 / 01:54 pm (CNA).- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who died in 1991 and was excommunicated for ordaining four bishops in 1988 without the Pope’s permission, did indeed sign every document of Vatican II—the same documents he would later harshly criticize, according to a recent article in the Italian magazine Panorama.

The article entitled, “In the Secret Heart of the Vatican,” written by Ignazio Ingrao, states that among the documents kept at the Vatican Secret Archives “are those of the Second Vatican Council, which unmasked an historic falsehood spread by the traditionalists,” led today by schismatic Bishop Bernard Fellay, who several months ago rejected a proposal by the Holy See to return to full communion with the Catholic Church.

“Marcel Lefebvre, the archbishop who contested the conciliar reforms and was excommunicated for having ordained four bishops without the Pope’s permission, in reality signed the documents of Vatican II with his own hand, beginning with the constitution Gaudium et Spes, which he later would harshly criticize,” Ingrao wrote in his article.

“The signature of Lefebvre appears at the bottom of the Council documents,” said historian Piero Doria of the Vatican Secret Archives, who helped Ingrao in the research.

In exclusive statements to CNA, Ingrao explained that this was “the first time a photographer and journalist were allowed to photograph and describe” the vast area “where letters relative to the two thousand year history of the Church are conserved.”

Ingrao also told CNA, “In reality, historians and experts already knew that Lefebvre had signed the Council documents. But many people were not aware of this, and traditionalist propaganda spread the belief that Lefebvre had always opposed the documents. The original copies of the Vatican II documents show the contrary and for many this has come as a surprise.”

Comments: 18

Subscriber comments:

Published by: James
Santa Paula/CA/USA 01/14/2009 05:36 PM EST

This shakes any faith I have in CNS and its reporting. What in the world is this non-story doing on here? You're trying to smear traditionalists, and instead you owe US an apology. Everyone knows that Lefebvre signed these documents. We also know how he opposed some of them on the floor, voted against them because he knew how they were intended (by the liberals) to be implemented. And so they were, and the rest is history, and we are reaping the catastrophic results.

I'm angry with CNS over this article.

Published by: Stephen Hand
Massachusetts 01/14/2009 03:21 PM EST

It took a while for the bad fruits of the revolution to send many back to more carefully scrutinize the documents, stunningly ambiguous. Everyone has "their" texts," and ecclesial praxis embraces contradictory theologians. Those ambiguities unraveled us and still await urgent corrections, if the law of contradiction (vis a vis preconciliar teachings) holds.

Published by: Kim
New Brighton ,PA 01/14/2009 02:58 PM EST

This old news, if you did your research you would have found that Fr. Peter Scott, in June of 2006 wrote an article on the Question about Archbishop Lebevre's signatures on vatican 2 documents.

Published by: Mark
Clark,NJ/USA 01/14/2009 01:09 PM EST

Calling someone a liar when the person is not around to defend himself is not very honorable. You don't like it when Pius XII, Paul VI and John Paul II reputations are besmirched

Published by: sam peterson
mpls, mn 01/14/2009 11:38 AM EST

what is the church hiding in the Vatican secret archives? Does this mean not to trust the church and that som of the teachings are wrong and not to be trusted?

Published by: Mark
TN 01/14/2009 08:35 AM EST

I'm curious as to what prompted this "article" at this time. It's certainly not news.

Given the Holy Father's recent initiatives to reach out to the SSPX, one can only gather that certain elements within the Church rather desire to scuttle the effort by antagonizing them. It is one of the Pope's Christ-given roles to ensure & effect unity of the Church, & that is certainly what he is working towards with the SSPX. Recently posted at Fr. Longenecker's blog: one never builds up the Church by tearing down the Pope.

I see the timing & wording of this article as very suspicious & a bit under-handed.

Published by: Mick Rivers
Houston, TX 01/14/2009 08:15 AM EST

What is your underlying purpose for this article? This is a well known fact. Do you know signing doesn't mean agreeing. Also, the archbishop didn't sign all the documents, you fail to meantion that as well.

Published by: Allan Wafkowski
Ridgefield Park 01/14/2009 05:46 AM EST

At this point in time, it really does not matter if he did or did not sign the VatII domuments. Lefebvre's critizism of the post VatII church has been born out in fact by the "new" churches' actions and by declining numbers. It is time to heal the rift between the mainstream church and the traditionalists.

Published by: Daniel Bergeron
Anaheim Ca USA 01/13/2009 10:32 PM EST

It is truly sad that catholics today consider traditionalist to be, likened to protastant reformers, when in truth they have protected the holliness of the Preisthood and the purity of the church. They have retained the faith entirely and forsaken nothing. On the other hand the so called new order has taken up the ways of the reformers identity and call theirselves catholic, intresting...

Published by: Ted
NJ 01/13/2009 07:48 PM EST

So what's the point of the article? Does anyone deny that the good Archbishop later condemned VII after its effects (i.e., the auto-demolition of the Church) became apparent? Even Pope Paul VI admitted that the "smoke of Satan" had entered the Sanctuary. What do you VII defenders think he meant, hmmm?

Published by: Ken
Messina, Sicily, Italy 01/13/2009 06:16 PM EST

Will CNS retract the libelous charge that Bishop Fellay is schismatic? Cardinal Hoyos has made it quite clear the SSPX is not schismatic.

Will CNS ever call Fr. Robert Drinan or Ted Kennedy schismatic?

Published by: Ken
Messina, Sicily, Italy 01/13/2009 05:32 PM EST

"led today by schismatic Bishop Bernard Fellay, who several months ago rejected a proposal by the Holy See to return to full communion with the Catholic Church."

This is a lie. Bishop Fellay never rejected any proposal by the Holy See to "return to full communion"(whatever the heck that is). Get your facts straight CNS.

Published by: Fred
Miami, FL 01/13/2009 04:57 PM EST

Marcel Lefebvre lacked the strength to be loyal to the Holy Father, to whom he owed complete obedience, and this (what is to most of us a) revelation proves he was insincere too. Regardless of whether he labored against the drafting of the constitutions he opposed years later, instead of working for orthodoxy within the Roman church, he sabotaged it. He meant well, but his actions were ultimately misguided and detrimental to us all.

Published by: F. Dempsey
Chicago 01/13/2009 03:43 PM EST

It has always been known and acknowledged by all that Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents of Vatican II. This is a non-story; just media agitprop.

Published by: DamCar
france 01/13/2009 03:34 PM EST

not the first time this accusation has been brought forward. If Ingrao did his research properly he would have found that the list at the bottom of the documents is the list of those present and NOT necessarily those who supported the document! Doesn't say much for the quality of the acticle!

Published by: Robert Mosby
Lincroft NJ 01/13/2009 02:40 PM EST

Here is a story that would benefit from extensive verification, since it is a certainty that it will be denounced as fraud by some Lefebvrists.

Published by: Ken
Messina, Sicily, Italy 01/13/2009 02:23 PM EST

YAWN...

this is old news...and there has never been any propoganda effort by Traditionalists. Bishop Tisssier de Mallerais - one of the 4 bishops consecrated by Lefebvre - mentioned this in his autobiography. This is not news.

How does CNS retain any shred of credibility of being a reputable news service by trying to see some "scandal" or "propoganda effort" where there is none?

Published by: Jack
NY 01/13/2009 02:07 PM EST

I'm glad the truth is out so the the people with that false traditionalist mentality can see the truth.

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com