Talk:Marcel Lefebvre/Archive 1

Archbishop?
If Lefebvre is in fact excommunicate, should he still retain his title as Archbishop? Leave a message on my talk page to discuss.. --V. Joe 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Lefebvre's title, 'Archbishop' was, at the time of his excommunication, an honorary one, attached to his person, not to an office. It was received at the time he was appointed Bishop of Tulle. He was the 'Archbishop-bishop' of Tulle. He had of course, been Archbishop of Dakar in his own right, but never referred to himself as such after his tensure there was over.So technically, it is title of honour and not attached to a particular jurisdiction. Excommunication deprives a cleric of an office. Since he did not possess or lay claim to an office at the time of his censure he did not lose the title which was purely personal and honorific.One might argue however, that upon being excommunicated (or perhaps even when he was suspended a divinis) he lost the titular Archdiocese of Synnada-in-Phrygia. This is arguable since a titular title is, by definition, also purely honorific. Confused? Yes, only the Roman Church can invent such legal niceties! Ex-Lefebvrite priest, 3-6-06

Excommunication (or suspension) of a cleric does not automatically deprive him of his office. (Deprivation of office is dealt with separately, in canon 1336.) What if the bishop of a see were to fall under excommunication not reserved to the Holy See for reasons other than defecting from the faith or from communion with the Church: when the excommunication is lifted, would the Pope have to be asked to reappoint him to his see?

If at the time of the illicit ordinations Lefebvre held the office of bishop of an active see, he would, I suppose, have lost that office because of canon 194 ("one who has publicly defected from ... from communion with the Church ... (is) removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself." That removal from office and the automatic excommunication would, each of them individually, be effects of Lefebvre's schismatic act. Neither effect would be the cause of the other.

Of course, according to Catholic teaching about the sacramental character or seal, a bishop excommunicated and deprived of ecclesiastical office remains a bishop. The "arch-" part of "archbishop" does not designate an office, and so does not come under canon 194.

Lima 05:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In a similar vein, should the post-nominal letters not be 'SSPX' rather than those of the Holy Ghost Fathers? Carolynparrishfan 04:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The Society of Saint Pius X is not properly a religious order. The priests do not take vows. So they do not have the right to put SSPX after their names, as do proper religious like Dominicans and Franciscans.This was upheld by the Society's own Superior-General, Bernard Fellay, after some members adopted the practice. Lefebvre continued to live as a Holy Spirit Father until his death. I haven't been able to find out if the Order expelled him though. I'll get back to you on that.--Gazzster 06:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Did he cease to be a member of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost Fathers)? Lima 07:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Lima, in answer to your question, while normally religious who become bishops are dealt with in canons 705 - 707 of the CIC 1983, in this case canon 694.1 would seem to apply -- ipso facto dismissal for abandoning the faith.  The act creating the excommunication would itself cause dimissal from the community.DaveTroy 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I doubt that this is exact. Canons on penalties are to be interpreted strictly (canon 18).  So "faith" in canon 694 §1 must be interpreted strictly, and a schismatic act can be held to be not abandonment of the catholic faith, but only of fulness of communion.  Lima 05:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The specific canons in this case are, first: Canon 1013 "No bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone a bishop unless it is first evident that there is a pontifical mandate." In other words, you cannot consecrate a bishop unless the Pope gives his specific approval.  Second, Canon 1382: "A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."  This means that the act of consecrating a bishop without an OK from the Pope automatically excommunicates both the consecrating bishop and the person who was consecrated. Thus, the Pope did not excommunicate Lefebvre, Lefebvre excommunicated himself. Jhobson1 16:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Or rather, the law came into effect automatically, and John Paul II simply declared that the penalty had been incurred.The question is, however, I think, was he expelled from the Holy Spirit Fathers, either before his excommunication by the Holy Spirit Fathers themselves, or by the excommunication? I have no idea of the former, quite possibly the latter but we would have to consult some sort of authority.--Gazzster 06:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed text
I've removed the last two paragraphs as they fit on the SSPX entry, but not here:



The Society claims that Catholics may attend its chapels "without worrying that they may be in schism by doing so". The Holy See has, on several occasions, stated that such attendance is in normal circumstances "morally illicit" for Catholics, because the priests of the Society, being illicitly ordained, are by canon law automatically suspended from priestly functions, and because of the danger of imbibing schismatic ideas from them. ''
 *  The repeated declarations by the Holy See that the feelings of Catholics who find the traditional rites more fulfilling are to be respected demonstrate that it does not oppose attendance at the Tridentine Mass as such, but only celebrations by priests suspended by law and who, in some cases, teach that the Holy See has in practice abandoned the Catholic faith. Priests such as the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter who maintain full communion with the Pope and the local bishops are given official authorization to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. The Society of St Pius X, on its part, disapproves of attendance at Mass celebrated by such priests, who declare their acceptance of all the decrees of the Second Vatican Council – which SSPX members cannot do. 


 * I certainly concur. There is way too much in this article which is not specifically about Lefebvre but rather about the SSPX.  Obviously there is an overlap, but ....  Noel S McFerran 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that before his death anything to do with SSPX was to do with Lefebvre. It's only the stuff after his death where we need to employ a gimlet eye. JASpencer 22:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Consistory quote
The Consistory web page is in Latin, and there's no problem with that. However if using a foreign language source web page, there really should be a translation of the relevant areas. (See WP:RS). Could this be done as a quote?

If there's an English language source that would be prefered as WP:V states "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly."

JASpencer 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the Latin quote. Is it possible to have a translation of this in English?  WP:CITE says "If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." That's why I'm reinserting the request quote template.JASpencer 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not surprised that, while English translations of SSPX 1970s documents abound on the Internet, translations (though these will doubtless have appeared in print media of the time) of Holy See documents do not. The Church side is not the side that protests too much.
 * After having Googled up so many quotations that the requester could have Googled himself, and that in some cases I felt were quite unnecessary, I do not feel inclined to undertake translation work also. When things finally settle down, I may perhaps be better disposed.  Lima 15:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, I am giving myself an immediate rest from dealing even with these requests. Lima 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed text on Holy Ghost Fathers
I've removed the following text:


 *  Lefebvre first instituted a major reform of the seminaries run by the Holy Ghost Fathers. He transferred several professors whom he considered too liberal to non-educational posts. He ordered books by certain contemporary theologians, including Yves Congar and Marie-Dominique Chenu to be removed from the seminary library, finding them too Neo-Modernistic. 

It has the ring of truth about it but I can find nothing on the internet on this so I can't cite it.

JASpencer 20:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed
Congratulations on a well documented, clear, thorough, and neutral toned article! I've promoted the article to GA status. Next step would be a peer review. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing uncited material
I will be removing the following material in a couple of days if there are no citations:


 * 1 25 May 1929 he was ordained deacon by Cardinal Basilio Pompilj in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome
 * I believe I have confirmed this from the French biography (with a different date). However my knowledge of speciality catholic terms is much worse than my knowledge of French. I need some help to cofrmed "ordained deacon" is what is meant by french in bold. "Le samedi Sitientes, 20 mars 1926, il reçoit, en la basilique Saint-Jean de Latran, des mains du cardinal Vicaire Basilio Pompilj, les deux premiers ordres mineurs de portier et de lecteur. --Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The boldfaced words say "the first two minor orders of porter and lector". See Minor orders in regard to understanding these as Catholic terms. The French word you would be looking for to mean "deacon" would probably be "diacre". --Metropolitan90 21:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK it looks like the minor orders are recieved before becoming deacon. With the discrepancy in date I suppose he could have gotten the minor orders and also been ordained deacon by the same guy and at the same place.  I will look again for the correct citation.  Thanks for the help --Birgitte§β  ʈ  Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  15:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)color="#778899">Talk ]] 00:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 2 Even before this, Lefebvre had already asked to be released for missionary duties as a member of the Holy Ghost Fathers.
 * 3 But the cardinal insisted that he consider this for a year while he engaged in parish work in the diocese of Lille.
 * 4 El Blakiyeh
 * 5 In his new position Lefebvre was responsible for the Catholic Church in the part of Senegal north of Gambia.
 * I feel this statement, while true, glosses over a change made in his title during WWII. I need to work on translating the whole section before I can clarify the article here. --Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  01:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

6 lay brothers,
 * I could not easily find a citation for this. I did not read the entire book however I did spend as much time looking for this as it merits IMHO.--Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  15:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 7 the number of parishes
 * 8 With this new responsibiity, it was appropriate that he have the title of archbishop
 * 9 Pope Pius XII wanted to move quickly towards a proper hierarchy (dioceses with bishops, instead of vicariates and apostolic prefectures).
 * 10 including the first indigenous bishops in French Africa.
 * 11 Lefebvre was not among those made cardinal by John XXIII in December of that year. (The citation I want is about it's notability, not the fact itself).
 * The notability here is that he was expected to be amoung those nominated before the death of the previous pope. I will add something to this section shortly.


 * 12 and his ability to deal with the Roman Curia.
 * I don't know what the Roman Curia is, so I could not figure out which section of the book to look for this in.--Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  15:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 13 He would later say that it had become impossible for him to remain Superior of an Order which no longer wanted or listened to him.
 * 14 thereby officially dissolving the Society.
 * 15 In a sermon in June 1987 Lefebvre, now aged 81, announced his intention to consecrate a bishop to carry on his work after his death.
 * 16 Lefebvre came to the view that he was obliged to ordain a successor, if necesary without papal approval.
 * 17 Lefebvre declared that he had not withdrawn his submission to the Pope and that the crisis in the Church justified the consecrations
 * 18 although the Holy See rejects this argument as Lefebvre had been served with express canonical warnings
 * 19 from cancer

If these assertions don't have citations in two days I will start deleting them. If anyone wants me to hold off a particular assertion then please let me know.

I'll hold off if it's in an offline book, but only to give some time, not for ever.

JASpencer 09:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given up the heavy thankless task of finding citations for JASpencer and do not intend to begin again; but I will ask whether he would accept "thereby officially dissolving the Society as a body recognized in canon law", or some such phrase? He probably would not, since he has asked for citations to justify many other seemingly obvious conclusions of the accepted statements in the text. On the other hand, I am surprised he hasn't asked for citations for so many statements under "Second Vatican Council" and elsewhere that, so far, have escaped. Lima 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you think that getting to Good Article status is thankless. I don't, and I appreciate the work you've done. If you want to change the policy at WP:V go ahead and try, however this is not the place to do this.
 * JASpencer 13:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I most certainly do not want to change policy, and I do recognize that the way some implement policy may seem idiosyncratic to others. Lima 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the sentences you have identified. You have totally misunderstood the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. The policy does not require that each individual phrase be supported by a particular footnote. It does not say that phrases which are not individually footnoted should be removed - although it does say that unsourced material may be challenged and removed. JASpencer has already removed a number of important facts from the article all of which come from Tissier de Mallerais' biography. There is NOTHING in Verifiability which requires that these be individually footnoted. The footnotes which have been created are NOT the sources of this information; they are merely other webpages which say the same thing. In many cases the footnotes provided actually REDUCE the reliability of the information. The footnotes are often to anonymous undated non-scholarly webpages; in a few cases it's perfectly possible that they got their information from the Wikipedia article. This is NOT what verifiability is all about. I speak from experience as a librarian of almost twenty years experience who works at the largest and most prestigious university in Canada. Noel S McFerran 01:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Noel is absolutely right. Anyone interested may wish to skim through Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability in addition to carefully reviewing WP:V. A statement without a footnote is not necessarily unsourced. For example, if the material in an entire paragraph comes from one or two sources, then you only need a couple of footnotes for the paragraph - not one for each sentence. The same would apply to the entire article; if most of the information comes from just a few sources, then you may only need just a few footnotes. WP:V definitely does not say that every statement must be sourced. It does not even say that every fact must be sourced. dryguy 02:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am confused as to what is going on here. Where is this style of quote large amounts of the sources coming from? I have not yet come across this idea that not only should editors reference their sources but they should do the fact checking as well within the article. I know these sorts of ideas do not just appear out of the blue, so help me understand the roots of this movement by giving me some links please. I cannot comment much on this until I can claim to understand it. But it does strike me as ridiculous. Is this stuff actually disputed or contraversial? I just don't understand the overkill here. On the other hand it is being done in the proper way being brought up on the talk page and all. Also for the most part these things should appear in one of the sources. I just question if the resulting footnotes are really approriate. Do you realize the amount of fair use text you now have this page just from the Sermon on the occasion of the Episcopal Consecration? I worry if this trend continues we may enter copyright problems by reproducing such a large portion of the more concise sources. --Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  03:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that a lot of the references here are to the same article repeated many times. In cases like this, I think it is appropriate not to have footnotes for it on every occurrence (and certainly not to quote the text that supports the point) but to simply give it as a general reference for the entire article. It helps improve the readability of the text. JulesH 06:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, it looks like we need an RFC on this. JASpencer 10:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. In my opinion the above interpretations of WP:V are simply wrong. Unsourced facts can be challenged and removed.  Facts which do not have a citation are unsourced.  So it follows that uncited facts can be removed.  So WP:V does say that every fact should be sourced. This is the subject of the RFC.
 * 2. The citations that were inserted could be improved, I do not doubt that. However they were an improvement on what had gone before - which were no citations.
 * 3. No matter what books were in people's heads, they were not in this article. Saying that you read any book before you wrote the article is nice, but it does not mean that the article meets WP:V.  If you want to keep the fact insert the citation.
 * 4. Quotes are simply best practice, so that a reader can do part of the fact checking within the article. They are not necesary for a citation, but they are not forbidden.  In my opinion they make for a more reliable source.  This is especially so for books, rather than websites.  I don't think a big thing needs to be made about quotes.
 * JASpencer 11:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Unsourced fact may be challenged or removed. But the difference of opinion here is over which method to use.  Obviously the less mainstream or more speculative (Foo believed . . .)  the statement the closer we move toward removal.  The more mundane {Foo was ordained on such a date) the statement the closer we lean towards leaving it challenged.  Wikipedia is not a race it is a work in progesss, we can work on getting sources for things most likely to be correct.
 * 2 & 3 I think the core problem here is how "citation" is being defined.  Can everyone work here to provide links to the places were they gained thier ideas ideas about what a citation is?
 * 4. I think quotes can be useful in the references in some cases. I think putting quotes in as much as possible is a bad idea.  Use quotes when the information  is surprising or contraversial or differs between sources.  Please do not confuse referencing with fact checking.  They are totally different processes.  This is not actually allowing fact-checking because really someone just wrote the quote on a wiki so the quote itself requires fact-checking.  Quotes do not make the source any more reliable than having references without quotes.  And honestly I wonder if it makes people more likely to use an online source, which is a bad thing.  We should be prefering books over webpages.  This is not even broaching the copyright issue, which can come into play when a large percentage of a copyrighted text ends up being displayed in these quotes.  Basically quotes can be a good things.  However I think using quotes liberally provides very little to no benefit to the article and causes many problems.  The biggest problem in this article is how you are you using non-authoratative websites just so you may copy out the quote, when the same information could be referenced from a much more reliable book resource.  That trend is a huge problem in my eyes.
 * A WP requires articles to be referenced.
 * B WP does not require fact checking.
 * C Fact checking by one person (i.e. the person coping the quotes) is worse than useless, it is misleading.
 * D The trend in this article to take items found in book listed as a reference and "cite" them from webpages makes the article less reliable than it was before the citations were added. (If this is not what happened correct me)
 * E I question whether you are removing statements because they are actually unreferenced or because you are simply unable to fact check them. The former is per policy the latter is unacceptable.  I don't know the answer to which  description is more accurate.  I think everyone here could really help by  explaining what they believe the following terms mean.  "unsourced material"; "uncited material"; what does it take for a statement to be considered "footnoted"; what does it mean for an article to be considered "reference"; what is an acceptable and unacceptable "citation".  I think an RFC may be useful but not until after we have layed the ground and can understand what each other means when using the above terms. --<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β  ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  12:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add that by having large amount of quoted material it makes it really hard to work in the edit window. In many places of this article there is more quoted material than articvle text between the quotes.  This alone is a good reason to use quotes sparingly.--<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β  ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  13:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK I have fixed some of the stuff above. I believe I can get citations for some of the remaining items next week when I return to the library and can spend more time translating. --<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  01:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will be fixing all but two of the assertions left in the coming days. If anyone can get a hold of the english translation of Bernard Tissier de Mallerais's book I think there is much more of this article to be fleshed out. In the back is a Chronology of the main points (about 20) of Lefebvre's life, and some of these are not covered in the article.  I am not personally interested in taking on the effort involved in actually writing from the French source I have access to.  However if someone can find the english translation it is a very well sourced book with lots of information.  It is not at all focused on the schism as I expected it to be.  A whole article could be written from this book soley on the History of Catholiscim in Africa as well as the fleshing out of history portions of articles on many of the African dioceces.  I imagine it has much to add to topics closer to the Vactican as well, though I did not read those sections.  Anyways I will be done with what I can add to this article by Monday .--<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β  ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  15:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Will be done by Thursday. --<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  02:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Should unsourced items be removed at a granular level?

Position 1
The items in Talk:Marcel_Lefebvre should be removed unless citations can be found.

All items should be sourced. WP:V states that:


 * Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

It also says:


 * Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.

and:


 * The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references.

Thus any fact that is not sourced should be removed. This does not mean that a harmless fact or opinion should be removed immediately - but the process of tagging, announcing and then removing unsourced facts is more than adequate.

JASpencer 11:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is disputing the process you are using. The actual complaint which brought me here has little to do with the above.  It was that you are using unreliable sources and adding too many footnotes to the article.  The above position is only justification for your removals which is only part of what is going on here.  Also the above postion is heavy on quoted policy and light on how you are interpreting this policy.  I would very much like to read three paragraghs of your thoughts on each paragraph of policy.  Because I honestly am not sure what you mean when you say things like "any fact that is not sourced".  We cannont have a real dialog until we are sure what the each person means by such things. --<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β  ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there biographical articles on other deceased persons where this interpretation of WP:V has been implemented, i.e. the removal of all sentences or phrases which do not have an individual footnotes? Noel S McFerran 13:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Position 2
The items in Talk:Marcel Lefebvre should not be removed. All of the "uncited material" comes from the definitive biography on Lefebvre which is noted in the "Further reading" section. It is not necessary to add citations for each and every phrase or sentence in the article.

The discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability makes it clear that it is not the intention of WP:V that each and every phrase or sentence be individually footnoted.

In addition:

It is not appropriate to footnote general statments of fact (e.g. footnote 1 - that Lefebvre was a Roman Catholic bishop). This is like footnoting the fact that Washington, D.C. is the capital of the United States or that Elvis Presley was a singer - and using as the "source" any other webpage which happens to make this statement.

It is not appropriate to footnote a statement based upon a synthesis of a variety of written sources (e.g. footnote 2 - that Lefebvre took the lead in opposing the reforms within the Catholic Church associated with the Second Vatican Council). The current footnote to this sentence cites a single journal article which talks about those who "have followed the lead given by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre". That is not the source of the statement in the Wikipedia article; it is merely an article which includes similar words. The citation actually reduces the authority of the statement. Instead of being seen as the generally held opinion on the topic, the statement is now reduced to merely representing the view of one or two individual writers.

It is not the normal practice in scholarship to reproduce in a footnote the exact wording of the sentence in the source. This only needs to be done where the specific wording is significant.

Noel S McFerran 12:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm really not sure why if something is published in the biography it can't be cited as per normal. The book clearly meets the criterion in WP:RS If all the information is in the biography then there should be no problem.  Cite it.  If you can't lay your hands in the book then enter it in when you have the book.  If it's not there, then it shouldn't go in.
 * Similarly if you think that the book would be a better citation than an "unschorlarly" website then put this in, although if other things are equal I would count on the website as it is more easily verifiable - but that is a personal preference. Besides the issue is not whether a particular source is scholarly but if it is reliable.  Articles in the Angelus about the SSPX are clearly reliable.
 * As far as I can see not one of the unsourced statements is "common knowledge", apart from point 11 - although the citation I want is actually on whether this was notable. And I can't really see anything that changes the whole thrust of the article.
 * JASpencer 16:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We normally use references, whether by citation or otherwise, to back up the content of the article. "Further reading" is generally for related material worth reading for general interest.  If the definitive biography was a source, it should be in the references, and possibly also in the further reading.  GRBerry 00:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This position is dealing with too many things at once. Some of them,  although important to the differences of opinion on this article, having nothing to do with the RFC question.  I do not believe a book listed in Further Reading (or References for that matter) is good practice for souring edits.  However I believe that most of the edits in question can be easisly converted to citation style (minus page numbers) and that I believe should be enough to prevent their removal.  I don't believe citation style references neccessarily means putting a footnote on every assertion.   Footnotes reads:  Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers.  So if an entire paragraph is sourced from one book there would only be one footnote at the end of the paragraph.  However places such as the lead will need a very high density of footnotes.  Most of the article will probably fall somewhere in between.  This is also something we can sort out with everyone's cooperation. --<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β  ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  02:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Position 3
Should unsourced items be removed at a granular level? I dispute that most of the items in question (particularly Noel's detailed edits) are "unsourced." Noel has provided us with the source for these edits. Removing all of Noels edits at the granular level would result in several paragraphs of this article being lost. I believe that it is indisputable that article would lower in qualitly after such removals than it is now. I believe that the answer is to make citation-style footnotes for these edits minus the page numbers. So while I completely agree that unsourced edits shold be removed at all levels. I do not support all of the removals that are being proposed here as we know the source. Hopefully this can be resolved with Noel's assistance in a review of his eedits from six months ago. See Talk:Marcel Lefebvre--<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No one's proposing removing all Noel's edits, they are proposing removing the unsourced ones. All Noel's previous edits that have acceptable citations added later are being kept.  There are seven sentences and seven phrases that are being proposed for removal.  They can all be reinserted later when they have a citation. JASpencer 18:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They are sourced and work is being to add citations. If Noel did all his contributions working from the same book, how can some be sourced and others not?  Sourced means knowing where the information came from.  It is true that some of the edits have been verified through websites which may or may not qualify as reliable, but the the source of all of the edits is what Noel was using.--<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β  ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well looking at the edits that you've offered (and admittedly some of them do seem to be double entries) only points 6 to 11 are covered by the edits. As far as the others being sourced there are two statements "With this new responsibiity, it was appropriate that he have the title of archbishop" and "Lefebvre was not among those made cardinal by John XXIII in December of that year" (which I wanted notability - not the rather obvious fact).  Now these are both interpretations, not facts.  They could have been interpretations added in all good faith by the editor and not in the original book.  They definately need seperate citations to keep in the article.
 * So what you are saying is that we have three facts, of which one (the first indigineous bishop) is notable. I think the article can survive without it in the interim.
 * JASpencer 20:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What is your hurry? --<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  21:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How's showing an assertion (that all the disputed facts/opinions are from the 8 listed Noel McFerran edits) to be wrong doing anything in a hurry? I can't believe that people are so intent on keeping unreferenced facts in an article, especially when they can be re-entered. JASpencer 22:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You have lost me. Where has anyone brought up this info is disputed? If you dispute the information is correct remove it.  I have never understood that you are disputing any of this information before.  I thought they were just the parts of the article which don't currently have a citation and you were working on getting everything up to standards.  I personally never heard of Marcel Lefebvre and have no opinion as to what is contraversial or not within this article.  So I will completely defer to you in that regard.  I had not understood that the actual content of the edits where an issue. --<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β  ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  23:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Algorithm for what to do with unsourced statements
Here's what I personally do in these cases.
 * 1)  If you find an unsourced statement, do not remove it.  Just find a source.
 * 2)  If after researching it, you still can't find a source, still don't remove it-- put up the citation needed tag.
 * 3)  If no citation is forthcoming, but you don't doubt the factual accuracy of the statement, then leave it be.
 * 4)  If you have a statement that you suspect is actually untrue and which is unsourced-- THEN you can remove it.

Linked to this is the idea that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". A claim that Lefebvre was ordained on May 25 (as opposed to May 26th) might be non-controversial and allowed to remain even if it's uncited. A claim that Lefebvre was responsible for the Kennedy Assassination, on the other hand, probably could removed on-sight without any further discussion.

Ultimately, the burden is definitely on people who want to have statements included-- if they want them in, it needs to be verifiable. All the same, don't remove something just because it's uncited-- remove it because it's untrue. --Alecmconroy 13:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So, for example, there's a New York Times article excerpted here that has the sentence "The French-born prelate died of cancer on March 25 at the age of 85, almost three years after being excommunicated for defying papal orders." But you have to pay to see the whole article, so I can't read the fulltext, and I haven't had any luck finding other cancer sources.  But it does appeart to be true, so, I wouldn't remove that solely on the basis of it not being cited.  --Alecmconroy 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I would cite that just as I would cite any other newspaper. It doesn't have to be on the internet to be cited.  If it wasn't cited then remove it.  We are building an encyclopedia not a scribbling pad. JASpencer 16:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A specific example
Statement 5-10 in your list above are from this edit by Noel S McFerran  Noel stated on your talk page  that the source they were using is the biography list in "Further Reading". These statements are sourced. Now I hate to guess what you are thinking, but you haven't explained your thoughts as I have asked so I must speculate. I speculate that you will disagree that these statements are sourced. Please tell me if my speculation is correct and if it is please explain what you think something being "sourced" means. Because I believe it means that the statements came from a known reference that has been described in enough detail (in this case the ISBN) to let readers locate said reference and fact check the statements if they so wish.--<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  18:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I do think that if something comes out of a book then it is sourced. However wikipedia articles are different to a magazine article (no matter how scholarly) in that it can be changed at any time by any one with any agenda.  So if we are satisfied with a general declaration to "look at the book" at the end of the article we could have anyone adding anything afterwards with a general claim to look at the book.  That's why WP:V exists, and that's why we should keep to it.
 * I would also say that in a subject as controversial as Marcel Lefebvre that the article should stick more, not less, strictly to WP:V.
 * JASpencer 18:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I am still (more) confused. You believe these statements are sourced but are not satisified that they should stay in the article, correct?  If we put a footnote(s) of "Tissier de Mallerais, Bernard, Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography (Kansas City, Mo.: Angelus Press, 2004), 338. ISBN: 1892331241".  Would you be satisfied with that?--<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β  ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  18:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If it had a page number for the claim, yes. JASpencer 18:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have only seen policlies allowing the removal of unsourced material. Why do you believe sourced material without page numbers should be removed?  --<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β  ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  18:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it can't be checked easily, see Citing_sources. Not one of these uncited assertions is covering any general description. JASpencer 19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree is preferable to give page numbers. But the style guide you are linking does not avocate removing any material that does not conform to it's reccomendations.  Is there any other prior experience or precedents you are drawing on in advocating the removal of sourced material without page numbers?


 * It says Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article. (my emphasis). I don't think that a citation that doesn't include a page number is really a citation.  It's little more use than a general notice at the end of the page. JASpencer 19:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. I would not have thought of the possibility that a citation only counts is if has a page number in such a case before this conversation.  I have asked a question about this over at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources.  I am curious to find out if your interpretation is in line with consensus or if a significant number of people are interpreting this differently.  I am reserving judgement until I can better understand everyone's arguments for and against this idea.  Although I imagine it is obvious that I am currently thinking the idea is too restrictive.--<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β  ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with JASpencer. A citation without a page number may be sloppy and may not conform to WP:CITE, but it provides enough information to make the quote verifiable and is thus useful – just imprecise. Upon reading Policies and guidelines it seems to me that any "must"s appearing in a guideline are to be taken with a grain of salt. Strange as it may seem, we find a lot of "should"s in our policies and "must"s in our guidelines… —mjb 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Noel's edits
The following edits were made by Noel during the period of Feb. 25 2006 to March 8 2006.         Noel can you please look through these edits and confirm the source of this information. Any information you can give us about your method of contribuing during this time period might be helpful.--<font color="#f4a460 ">Birgitte§β ʈ  <font color="#778899">Talk  22:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Declaration by Congregation for Bishops
The Congregation's declaration was published on L'Osservatore Romano of 3 July 1988. It was a declaration of a fact, not a trial of a person, and so had nothing to do with the canon Pmadrid cites. Even if Pmadrid's idea were correct, it is still an objective fact that the Congregation did declare Lefebvre excommunicated.

I translate here the text, as reproduced in Latin and in Italian translation in the 1988-1989 volume of Enchiridion Vaticanum - Documenti ufficiali della Santa Sede (Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna 1991 ISBN 88-10-80211-X), together with the notes that accompany it in that volume. The message from Cardinal Ratzinger that is quoted was in French.

The Most Reverend Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle has performed - in spite of the formal warning of 17 June last and the repeated contacts to get him to desist from his plan* - an act of schismatic nature, has consecrated four priests as bishops without papal mandate, and has thus incurred the penalty envisaged in canon 1364 § 1 and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.**

I declare, with a view to all the juridical effects, that the aforementioned Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, have ipso facto incurred latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

I further declare that the Most Reverend Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop Emeritus of Campos, having participated directly as a co-consecrator in the liturgical celebration and having openly joined in the schismatic act, has incurred the latae sententiae excommunication envisaged in canon 1364 § 1.

Priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they would ipso facto incur the highly serious penalty of excommunication.

Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988


 * + BERNARDINUS card. GANTIN
 * Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops


 * On 29 June Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent him the following telegram (Le Croix, 1.7.1988):
 * "For the love of Christ and his Church, the Holy Father asks you paternally and firmly to depart today for Rome, without proceeding on 30 June with the episcopal ordinations that you have announced. He prays the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul to inspire you not to be false to the episcopacy that has been placed in your charge and the oaths you have taken to remain faithful to the Pope, the successor of Peter.  He begs God to keep you from leading astray and scattering those whom Christ Jesus came to gather in unity.  He entrusts you to the intercession of the Holy Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church."


 * At the same time (L'Osservatore Romano of 30.6-1.7.1988, p. 4), a communiqué removed all doubt about the seriousness of Lefebvre's gesture:


 * The following specific statement is made in relation to rumours circulating in Archbishop Lefebvre's circles concerning the latae sententiae excommunication envisaged in canon 1382:
 * In accordance with canon 1013, which states: "No bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone as bishop, unless it is first established that a papal mandate has been issued", the episcopal consecrations that have taken place on 30 June at the hands of Archbishop Lefebvre, in spite of the admonition of 17 June, were carried out expressly against the will of the Pope by an act that, according to canon 751, was formally schismatic, seeing that Archbishop Lefebvre has openly withdrawn submission to the Supreme Pontiff and from communion with the members of the Church subject to him
 * In consequence, both Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops whom he consecrated, Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have ipso facto incurred latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. Furthermore, canon 1323 cannot apply for them, since in this case none of the legal situations envisaged in that canon has been established, seeing that even the alleged "necessity" has been deliberately created by Archbishop Lefebvre for the purpose of maintaining an attitude of separation from the Catholic Church, in spite of the offers of communion and the concessions granted by the Holy Father John Paul II.

Lima 07:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that the congregation published such a statement. I think it's clear that they did.  My argument is that, in regards to the declaration of an excommunication latae sententiae, only when the Pope declares that a bishop has incurred the penalty does the full penalty envisioned by the law go into effect.  It is very clear in canon law that this is the case.  I cite the following:
 * Canon 1400. The object of a trial is: ... 2. The imposition or declaration of a penalty for delicts. (my emphasis)
 * Canon 1401. By proper and exclusive right the Church adjudicates: ... 2. The violation of ecclesiastical laws and all those matters in which there is a question of sin, in what pertains to the determination of culpability and the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties.
 * Canon 1405 §1. It is solely the right of the Roman Pontiff himself to judge in the cases mentioned in can. 1401: ... 3. legates of the Apostolic See and, in penal cases, bishops; (my emphasis)


 * Note: the language here is "The Roman Pontiff", not the "Holy See". In canon law, the Roman Pontiff only means the person of the Pope, whereas Holy See means either the Pope or the Roman Curia.


 * Canon 1406 &sect;2. In the cases mentioned in can. 1405, the incompetence of other judges is absolute. (my emphasis)
 * Canon 1331 &sect;1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:
 * to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;
 * to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;
 * to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.
 * &sect; 2. If the excommunication is imposed or declared, the offender:
 * who wishes to act against the prescript of &sect;1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;
 * invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of &sect;1, n. 3;
 * is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;
 * cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;
 * does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.


 * When the congregation gave that statement, it was a warning to Lefebvre that he incurred, in their opinion, the excommunication, and was thus, in their opinion, supposed to observe c. 1331 &sect;1. Otherwise, if they were trying to make a juridical declaration of a latae sententiae excommunication of a bishop, they would have been absolutely incompetent under canon 1406.  When the Pope declared Lefebvre excommunicated, by virtue of Canon 1405 &sect;1 Lefebvre became additionaly liable to c. 1331 &sect;2, since the excommunication was now juridically declared by the only competent forum.


 * In order to show that the congregation's declaration had the juridical effect of being a declaration of a latae sententiae censure, you must show that John Paul II explicitly delegated his authority over episcopal penal cases to the congregation or that there is a norm of the Holy See saying that the congregation has such authority. If you can, then I'll gladly yield, because that would make my argument moot in virtue of canon 1402. Otherwise, the only statement that had a juridical effect was Ecclesia Dei.  Pmadrid 12:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is also why I said that John Paul II formally declared the excommunication, because at best the congregation's declaration was informal. Pmadrid 12:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Is Pmadrid right in claiming that a declaration of a fact is covered by what canon law says about a trial? For my part, I do not think so.  Just two days ago, a Holy See press communiqué declared that Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo's had incurred automatic excommunication because of ordaining four men as bishops on 24 September 2006 without papal mandate.  There was no mention of a personal intervention by the Pope.  Back in 1976, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as it was then called, made a somewhat similar declaration about Archbishop Ngô Đình Thục's action in conferring ordination on members of what later took the name of the Palmarian Catholic Church (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1976, page 623).  Again, there was no question of a trial by the Pope.  So the practice of the Holy See seems not to accord with Pmadrid's idea.
 * In any case, even if Pmadrid were right, it would only mean that the Congregation's declaration was invalid - but there is no disputing the fact that it was issued.
 * The declaration was not a "warning". The Congregation had sent a warning on 17 June.  It would make no sense to issue a "warning" on 1 July against what had already been done on 30 June.  What the Congregation did on 1 July was to declare that, in view of the clear undisputed and indisputable fact that Lefebvre had ordained four bishops without papal mandate, he and the other five involved had automatically incurred excommunication, without any imposition of a penalty by a judge.
 * By the way, I have difficulty in imagining what is meant by an "informal" written declaration by a Congregation. The document in question seems to have been issued with all the usual formalities.  It was not an off-the-cuff remark by a member of the Congregation, but an official document of the Congregation itself.
 * Further by the way, canon 1405, which reserves to the Pope judgement of bishops in penal cases, limits this reservation to cases covered by canon 1401, which speaks of determining guilt and imposing ecclesiastical penalties. Canon 1405 makes no reference to canon 1400, which speaks not only of imposing, but also of declaring penalties in regard to offences.  Lima 16:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to cover the last objection first because I don't think that it is a proper reading. Canon 1405 does refer to 1400 and in two ways. Let's take a look: "It is solely the right of the Roman Pontiff to judge..." Judgement is a trial. Trial does not necessarily mean a formal process by which people are summoned and interrogated. This is the case most of the time because those officials who do the judging are bound by the law to do so; otherwise, their judgements are void. Without the law mandating that processes be followed, trial simply means determination/adjudication/figuring it out. The Roman Pontiff has clearly (c. 1406) reserved penal cases of bishops to his person. When he does take up such a case, he is not bound by any procedure. He's the Pope and is completely sovereign under canon law. He can observe any procedure that he sees fit. Thus, he does not need to call Lefebvre to defense. He can instead get his information from the congregation of bishops regarding this whole matter and his own personal appeal for him not to do this, and on that basis alone issue the only competent decree that will declare juridically the excommunication.

The second way that canon 1405 refers to canon 1400 is by specifically mentioning the "penal cases" of bishops being reserved to the Pope. Under canon law, anything referring to penal law and sanctions must be interpreted strictly (c. 18). The only method that canon law mentiones of imposing or declaring penal sanctions is through trial (c. 1400). It does mention two ways of trying penal cases: (1) by ecclesiastical courts and (2) in certain special instances, through administrative proceedings. Either way, interpreting strictly, since the only way mentioned of imposing penal law on a bishop is judgement by the Roman Pontiff, only the Pope has the right to invoke either procedure. Thus, any other person without the Pope's express permission cannot invoke penal law on a bishop through the power of the church.

The other objections are very good points, and I think I can explain the apparent dichotomy as well as offer a compromise on the language.

I certainly concede that using formal versus informal was a mistake on my part. The declaration of the congregation was certainly formal. I was trying to find proper language which explains the distinction in law that I am pointing out. The distinction can probably be best illustrated by these two questions:


 * 1) When was Abp. Lefebvre liable for c. 1331 §1?
 * 2) When was Abp. Lefebvre liable for c. 1331 §2?

Let's assume for the moment that Abp. Lefebvre did consecrate and did not have any defenses in regards to avoiding culpability. I don't want to argue that now, and it has no bearing on the point I am making. Assuming this, Question 1 is easy. He was liable immediately when he ordained. Thus the latae sententiae. Now, under c. 1331 §2, he is not liable for that section until the excommunication is imposed and declared. How is an excommunication imposed or declared? According to c. 1400, through a trial, with is either through administrative proceedings or through a court.

A few days later, the Congregation for Bishops, which is an administrative body, issued a signed declaration that the excommunication had been incurred. This could be when the excommunication was imposed or declared and when Abp. Lefebvre became liable under c. 1331 §2. It was an administrative proceeding, after all, one of the ways in which penal law can be applied. However, what stops this from happening is canon 1405 and canon 1406. 1405 reserves the penal cases of bishops to the person of the Roman Pontiff. If that wasn't clear enough, 1406 renders the competence of any other judge absolutely void. Thus, the congregation is absolutely incompetent to do so because only the Pope is able to do this.

So, why did the Congregation issue this decree when they knew that their statement would not invoke c. 1331 §2? There are a few reasons. When a congregation does not have the authority to issue a decree, the prefect will have an audience with the Pope and the Pope will approve their action. This is indicated in the text of the decree, generally before the signature. This probably was what was going to happen in this case as well, but because of the gravity of the matter the Holy Father probably decided to refrain from confirming and instead issued a personal statement. I know this is all speculation, but the fact of the matter is that there is no confirmation of the Pope in the decree, which means it does not have the juridical effect of declaring the excommunication.

I think this declaration did have a juridical effect though, just not the one contemplated under c. 1331 §2. This declaration made the excommunicable act notorious, and there are several canons which deal with such consequences. Thus, I was mistaken by saying the decree had no juridical effect; it just doesn't have the juridical effect of imposing or declaring a censure reserved to the person of the Pope.

In regards to the bishops that excommunicated themselves in the 70s, it is important to note that penal law was different in the 70s than it was after the 1982 code. All penal law was invalidated when the new code was issued (c. 6), so penal law in the 70s might have allowed the congregation to issue such declarations. I don't know about 70s penal law, so I couldn't say whether the 70s case is similar to this case or is instead similar to Milingo's.

This distinction is actually very important in regards to the Milingo case. The Holy See has issued a press release that Milingo has incurred excommunication latae sententiae. So, is Milingo liable under c. 1331 §2? No, because (1) it was not a decree and (2) even if it was a decree, the Pope neither issued it nor confirmed it. Does it make the excommunicable act notorious? Most certainly.

I think a good compromise would be to say that the congregation formally declared the excommunication but that it was John Paul II's letter that made it juridical fact and thus made Lefebvre liable under c. 1331 §2, or something similar to this. Pmadrid 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That "it was John Paul II's letter that made it a juridical fact" is in dispute. That the Congregation issued a declaration stating that Lefebvre had already been excommunicated by law on the previous day is, if I understand Pmadrid rightly, no longer in dispute.  Raising the question of canon 1331 § 2 (mentioned neither in the Congregation's declaration nor in the Pope's motu proprio) is unnecessarily complicated.  Instead of trying to going into all these matters that Pmadrid wishes to raise, would it not be better to return the text to how it was before his editing, so that it speaks in NPOV form only of the Holy See, a term that covers both Pope and Congregation?  Lima 04:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I am making this too complicated. Sure. Pmadrid 01:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that you forgot canons 1323 and 1324?74.90.110.7 (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Good article? Too many footnotes
I came to this article looking for information on Holy Ghost fathers and possibly an info box if such existed. The amount of footnotes in this article is ludicrous and distracting. To be honest, I skimmed and did not bother reading the article.--Buckboard 09:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Buckboard that a certain editor's multiple demands for sources in support of even the most obvious and non-controversial statements was ridiculous and not really conducive to attaining the proclaimed purpose of producing a "good article". Lima 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the presence of a footnote after every statement makes this article very difficult to read. I've not seen any other article treated like this, so I am planning to remove the citations soon. Unless a particular statement is controversial, there is no need to footnote it, and references can easily be included to document the content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.71.171 (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Yes, there a lot of footnotes. But I suggest there are no more footnotes than in any other biography of this controversial figure. Probably less. In a printed biography, the footnotes are generally in the back of the book, where they are out of way (and generally not read). But here they at the bottom of the article, looking serious and confronting. But look, nobody has to read them. If we scrap footnotes, we must scrap text as well. Let's face it, we're talking about the asthetic appearance of the article here. That's secondary to its content.--Gazzster 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not particularly common in a scholarly biography to footnote a fact such as where the individual was born. But it is decidedly peculiar as the footnote for this information to quote another webpage word-for-word.  Some months ago I wrote a major expansion of this article based on the major published biography (Tissier de Mallerais) and several other works.  Subsequently another editor scoured the internet to find webpages which stated these same things.  He then cited these webpages as the "source" of these facts.  This just isn't the way scholarship works.  The problem is not just the quantity of footnotes, but the quality and format of them. Noel S McFerran 12:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article, excellent sourcing. "Too many footnotes" sounds like a joke to me. Stammer 20:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It doesn't read NPOV....seemed rather biased in favour of Lefebvre. However, I'll leave it to wiser & better editors than myself to address it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.120.11 (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
My already stated view is that the introduction to a Wikipedia article may indicate what points of controversy will be discussed in the article, but that the actual discussion(s) should take place in the body of the article. In fact, much of what was in the introduction was only a duplication of what was discussed again later. Smith2006 wants the introduction to be changed back. I do not, at this point, think I need to explain my position further. Please express your opinions. I will abide by whatever fellow-editors decide. Lima 19:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur that the introductory paragraph should be brief and merely summarize things, leaving discussion for later in the article. I do think that it would be reasonable to mention the (disputed) excommunication in the introduction, perhaps "In 1988, the Holy See declared Lefebvre automatically excommunicated for consecrating four bishops in violation of canon law, a decision disputed by his supporters". Noel S McFerran 22:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted it. I will concede a short introduction, if the information provided in the present summarizing introduction is relocated into the body of the article. It cannot be deleted, as it contains important statements e.g. on Lefebvre supporting religious tolerance, and specific things he opposed (e.g. communion into the hand). And also, the excommunication is not merely disputed by "his supporters". That is a claim not corresponding to reality, given the fact that many others have done so too. I am opposed to such biased statements, as if only his supporters alleged this. Also deletion of work of others in the introduction is highly ungrateful and uncharitable, especially given the fact only Lima deleted it, not other contributors. Please stay reasonable. One could remove the introduction also to below, as a summary.Smith2006 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hoped Smith would give a more substantial reason for his reversal. If he thinks something important has been omitted that is not duplicated outside the introduction - personally, I don't think there is - why does he not put it in some suitable place or places outside the introduction, even in a completely new section? If he shows this is necessary or useful, he is certainly free to do so.  The rest of us are also quite open to considering his concrete observations, such as the one about the mention of "his (Lefebvre's) supporters" (a mention that, however, departs from truth by gratuitously adding "merely"). That the Holy See "declared him automatically excommunicated" is an objective, easily verifiable, fact.  I accepted McFerran's view that this fact should be mentioned.  But if Smith is satisfied with omitting this question from the introduction and leaving it until later in the article, I will give my support to Smith instead of to McFerran.  Lima 14:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the name
I've heard "Leh-FEHV", "Leh-FEIV", "Leh-FEE-ver". What is the official pronunciation. (As close as it gets to the French pronunciation) Bernadeta (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Leh-Fey-Vr" is the closest I can come up with. Candelabre (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In English we can safely say /lə'fɛ:vrə/ and not be far from the French pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ler-fevv-ra, the first syllable non-rhotic (British), the second stressed.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:E13B:9B83:1A3C:C6C9 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Pictures
I think that this article can be promoted to FA status. But with some more pictures and infobox in beggining of article.---Vojvodaeist 17:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad ref in Quotes
Two references, 100 & 101 at the time of writing, are shown as "^ 2004), p. 478.", with no name. Presumably they are to "Tissier de Mallerais, Bernard (2004). Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography. Arlington: Angelus Press. ISBN 1892331241. The definitive biography of Lefebvre, originally published in French (Clovis, 2002).", but I won't make any change as I don't have access to the book and can't confirm. Pol098 (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I have restored information deleted, certainly by oversight, with this edit. Perhaps you can format the references better.  Lima (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotes
What is the point of the quotes section? Why are these three quotes significant?Gazzster (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed them. They appear to be polemic in nature, justifying his attitude toward the Holy See.Gazzster (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Excommunication
Lefedvre died before any excommuniction was lifted from the 4 schismatic bishops he illicitly consecrated and he, himself never sought communion with Romw while he was alive. Why are his minions trying to cover this up? While he was alive he alledgedly wore his excommunication as a badge of honor. It's not like he's roasting in hell for doing what he did, I'm just wondering why the sychophants are backpeddaling on this now and trying to delete the information that he was excommunicated and died while still excommunicated. Sometimes the so-called Trad Catholics excel at lies and cover-ups moreso than the NO types.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Many 'traditional' Catholics take the lifting of the excommunication as an exoneration and justification of Lefebvre. But if they read the document lifting the excommunication and other statements they will observe that the original grounds for excommunication are upheld, and the bishops and priests of the SSPX are still forbidden to exercise acts of Holy Orders. The Society of Saint Pius X remains juridically surpressed. Benedict removed the penalty as a gesture of good-will. Personally, I can see how this may be misnterpreted and perhaps the pope has been rather naive about it. But the position of the Vatican has been made clear. Perhaps, if Lefebvre was still alive his excommunication would be lifted too. But that would not change the state of schism between Rome and the SSPX until both the Vatican and the SSPX jointly declare otherwise.Gazzster (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct, I believe if he had lived, they would have lifted it on him as well. However, it was not to be.  The Pope has been naive, hard to believe he did not know about a certain bishop's antisemitism before he lifted the excommunication.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Legally, no excommunications occurred because Lefebvre cited canons 1323 & 1324, saying that he had serious concern for the Church and souls. 74.90.110.7 (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That may have been the case immediately after the consecrations, or also after the Congregation-of-Bishops notification because the CoB is not a tribunal. However, a couple of days later, the excommunication was included approvingly in a motuproprio signed by the Pope himself, so starting from that date, the excommunication can at most be termed "unjust" but certainly not "invalid"; if it had not incurred automatically, it was imposed then by the Pope's supreme judicial power. (To me, it seems interesting in the light of this btw. that the Papal motuproprio only mentions "can. 1380 unlawful episcopal consecrations", while the CoB notification also had contained the far heavier point "can. 1364 schism".)--2001:A61:2048:4E01:F5FC:C761:542D:1F65 (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The only clauses of those canons that might have applied in the circumstances are 1323.5 and 1324.6, both of which refer to defending themselves against unjust aggression. However the 'injustice' was entirely in the mind of Lefebvre. And given that he had already signed an agreement which promised the Society a bishop, and that it appeared that Rome had every intention of carrying out its side of the deal, despite Lefebvre's complaint about delays, it would be extremely difficult to plead injustice. Certainly 1323.5 cites 'due moderation' as excusing from the penalty, but how could Lefebvre have pleaded 'due moderation' when he ignored the Pope's quite explicit warnings before consecrating? As for the connection between schism and consecration without a papal mandate, the setting up of a bishop, even without assigning him jurisdiction, is by that very fact a usurpation of the rights of the Holy See and therefore an act of schism. It is well to remember too, that in canon law schism does not necessarily establish a separate Church.Gazzster (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The category "Schisms in Christianity"
What do we mean by schism? I think we must distinguish between schism in the sense of a division resulting in two distinct religious bodies out of communion with each other, and the sin of schism. The Holy See has certainly declared that the sin of schism was committed by Lefebvre and the other five, something that the six and their followers deny; but has the Holy See declared that Lefebvre himself, or the six involved, or some larger group that encompassed them, was/is a distinct religious body out of communion with the Holy See? So, does this article belong to the category "Schisms in Christianity", which is surely about splits into distinct groups rather than about the sins of individuals? I incline to think it does not belong to that category. The views of Mike Searson and Seminarian Matt are perhaps predictable, so it would be indeed helpful if other editors would kindly express their views. Esoglou (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * think I understand what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that since the Society of St Pius X and its lay followers have not been identified as belonging to a religious institution distinct from the Catholic Church it cannot be identified as being in schism. This is the argument of Lefebvre's apologists. It is true that the Vatican has said that adherents are not necessarily in schism. But the Catholic Church defines schism as a practical rather than declared, state of separation with the See of Rome and its formal structures. This implies a habitual attitude rather than an isolated act of disobedience. The Society of St Pius X practically denies the authority of the pope and local bishops, and refuses to participate in public worship with other Catholics. These are acts of schism as understood by the Roman Catholic Church. So the category stands in my opinion.Gazzster (talk)
 * How do you square your perhaps original-research or synthesis-based view with the explicit statements of Cardinal Castrillón that "It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking – as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay – a fuller communion, because communion does exist"; and "The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. By the illicit episcopal consecration Archbishop Lefebvre performed a schismatic act. For this reason the bishops consecrated by him are suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society are not excommunicated.... The danger of a schism is great, for instance through systematic disobedience to the Holy Father or denial of his authority"? These are declarations not just that "adherents are not necessarily in schism"; they are declarations that, correctly speaking, they are not in schism.  I'm sure Castrillón would not disagree with your major premise, about schism being a practical state of separation from the see of Rome; but he appears to disagree with your minor premise about what you call the SSPX's denial of authority and refusal to participate in (a particular form of) public worship with other Catholics, and he seems to disagree with your conclusion.  Esoglou (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The apologists for the Society of St Pius X make a great deal of Castrillon's statements, and perhaps interpret them too broadly. But it really supports what I said. It is impossible to say that any particular individual supporter would be in schism. This is because schism is largely a state of soul, which noone but the individual concerned can know. But on a personal note, I might say that as a cleric leaving the SSPX, I received an absolution from any excommunication incurred by schism that I might have incurred. However, in genere the attitude of the SSPX as a corporate body is schismatic. Canon 751 of Roman Catholic Canon Law defines schism as 'the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him'. Now most members of the SSPX and their adherents do not observe the legislation of the last three popes; they refuse to accept the authority of the Second Vatican Council, regarded as an expression of the supreme teaching authority in the Catholic Church, and refuses to participate in public worship as promulgated by Church law. Even Catholics who worship according to the 1962 Missal, approved by the local bishop, are shunned as tainted Catholics. A John Loughnan wrote to Rome about this very question, and received a reply from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/schism.html states 'thus far the Church has not officially declared what constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre', but goes on to say ' it may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witness to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone else who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith. We reiterate what we stated above: "The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church." Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium #22-25).' The implication of the Pontifical Commission is that the Society's attitide is schismatic. The same can really be said of the Orthodox churches, a group of churches likewise labelled as 'schismatic'. They do not deny the special status of the Bishop of Rome, but deny in practice the exercise of that authority.Gazzster (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the reply from the Ecclesia Dei Commission (not from Cardinal Ratzinger's office) to John Loughnan's letter to Cardinal Ratzinger in no way contradicts Cardinal Castrillón's statements that the SSPX is, properly speaking, not in schism. It says that a schismatic mentality can over time be imbibed by participation in SSPX Masses and that "many in authority" in the Society fit the definition of schism, but it does not say that either the SSPX as such, or its whole membership, or even "most members" (your phrase), are actually in schism. It says that it is the Pope, not the SSPX, who decides whether the SSPX is in communion with the Pope, but it does not say that the Pope has declared that the SSPX is not in communion with him.  So we are still in search of a declaration by the Holy See that the SSPX as such is a schismatic body.
 * Perhaps it could likewise be said that many members (even if only a minority) of certain recognized religious institutes for men or for women display a schismatic or even heretical attitude, but that does not make those institutes schismatic or heretical. Esoglou (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Commission (I did not say it came from the Congegation for the Doctrine of the Faith) does not declare that the SSPX is not in schism either.It presents the canonical definition of schism and then states the general characteristics of the SSPX which match those criteria.We could hardly expect the Vatican to declare all its members and supporters to be in schism. It couldn't, for schism is a personal act, and Canon Law makes no judgements about a personal state of soul. It doesn't even of Lefebvre, de Meyer, Fellay, Tissier de Mallerais, de Galaretta and Williamson. Rather it judges their acts. Their acts were canonically schismatic. I refer to the Decree of Excommunication: 'Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law. 'It goes on to say, 'the priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.' So the schism, judged by a schismatic act, is real, but personal. The priests and lay followers of those bishops (not just the SSPX, note)incur the same penalty if they manifest assent to these schismatic acts. They incur the same penalty because they participate in the same canonical delict, ie, an act of schism. This does not contradict Castrillon. The cardinals says the Vatican has not declared all members of the SSPX to be in schism. It can't. Canon law judges acts, not intentions. But it can say, as it has, that if a Catholic manifests his or her consent to Lefebvre's schism over a period of time he or she may very well incur excommunication latae sententiae on account of schism as well. That is why the excommunication was conditionally lifted from me when returned to full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Perl from the Ecclesia Dei Commission: 'While it is true that the participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. Father Peter R. Scott, District Superior of the Society in the United States, has publicly stated that he deplores the "liberalism" of "those who refuse to condemn the New Mass as absolutely offensive to God, or the religious liberty and ecumenism of the postconcilliar church." With such an attitude the Society of St. Pius X is effectively tending to establish its own canons of orthodoxy and hence to separate itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. According to canon 751 such "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the communion of the members of the Church subject to him" constitute schism..'http://ecclesiadeiphils.multiply.com/journal/item/2/Documents_Pertaining_to_the_Lefebvre_Schism_and_Excommunication

So although the Vatican has not declared that there is a formal schism, it has not said there isn't either. It has said that the SSPX manifests the characteristics of a schism.This is what the Pontifical Commission explained in 1996 (ibid), coming close to declaring the SSPX to be in schism by calling it a 'schismatic movement': '.As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who "adhere formally" to the said schismatic movement. Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:

a.a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church), b.b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit). 6.in the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above (n.5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence. 7.in the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one's own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement. ''In pastoral practice the result can be that it is more difficult to judge their situation. One must take account above all of the person's intentions, and the putting into practice of this internal disposition. For this reason the various situations are going to be judged case by case, in the competent forums both internal and external.''

So to summarise: the schism is personal, manifested by acts of the five bishops. The clergy of the SSPX adhere formally to their schism. For lay Catholics it is not clear. So, in typical Roman fashion, the Vatican says the SSPX is in schism, but it can't say so!

For the purposes of Wikipedia, which should not really be bothered with the subtleties of Roman theology (confusing enough for Catholics) we can state that Lefebvre was personally in schism. And the SSPX is a schismatic group, adhering as it does in its leadership to Lefebvre.Gazzster (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong. I personally have had no doubt that, objectively speaking, the SSPX does represent a schism.  My doubt is whether, in Wikipedia terms, Wikipedia can state that the SSPX is in schism from the Catholic Church.
 * I must thank you for the documentation that you have provided, in particular for the opinion expressed by the Council for Interpreting Legislative Texts in 1996 in, if I remember right, a document that was internal to the Holy See (a communication from one department to another), but that was published two years later, though still only as an internal document.  I had forgotten it until you reminded me, 13 years later.  I now remember being impressed by how much clearer it was than the sort of documentation that has been posted here recently.  Of course, that was to be expected in view of its authorship.  (By the way, I did not mean to suggest that you had said the reply to John Loughnan was from Cardinal Ratzinger's office.  That description was not yours, but of the source you cited: "The response from Cardinal Ratzinger’s Office to the questions are in red. Mr. Loughnan’s questions are in black.")
 * I think it best not to overlengthen this discussion, which I intended to leave to others who would argue for and against the admissibility of having Wikipedia present that disputed opinion as fact, as Wikipedia is now doing by putting SSPX etc. in the category "schisms in Christianity".  I will only say that I still tend to think it is not wiki-legitimate.
 * However, I can't resist repeating that Wikipedia is concerned with the kind of schism that is not the "personal act" (your term) or the "sin" (my less appropriate term) of individuals, but is an objective religious group split, like that between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, which exists whether individual members of the Eastern Orthodox Church (or, Wikipedia must say, of the Roman Catholic Church) are in favour of it or are opposed to it, or whether they even know of it. Castrillón seemingly spoke of schism in this objective sense, saying that it does not exist between the SSPX and the Catholic Church (and Lefebvrists deny that it exists in any sense).  Others seem to concentrate instead on the attitude of the individuals.  Esoglou (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it occurred to me after I'd written my post that that's what you meant about Loughnan's correspondence. Apologies for misunderstanding. I think it is legitimate to treat of the SSPX and its adherents as constituting a separate religious body. Wiki isn't concerned about theological and canonical distinctions, better left, as you suggest, to religionists.I suppose we may draw a parrallel between the SSPX and the Old Believers who split from the Russian Church in the Seventeenth Century.They, like the SSPX, claimed to be faithful to tradition and rejected reforms. Yes, I suppose we ought to let things rest. Thank you for the discussion. I have enjoyed it.Gazzster (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should say no more, but, being pernickety, I will add that the theological and canonical distinction that I think should be left to "religionists" and that Wikipedia is not concerned with is the insufficiently wiki-sourced one that makes the SSPX more than a group engaged in an internal disagreement within the Catholic Church and instead presents it as undoubtedly and factually a distinct church or ecclesial community. Just in case you thought I accepted that the distinction that lies outside the scope of Wikipedia was something else.  Esoglou (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there we're faced with an apparently insurmountable difficulty. The Vatican has not, for reasons we've discussed, declared the SSPX and its lay supporters to be constituents of a separate ecclesial body. But it has declared it to be participating in a 'schismatic movement'. It has declared the four surviving bishops to be in schism. How does Wikipedia make the distinction between 'schism' and 'schismatic movement'? It doesn't. It goes by what is generally understood. We can safely take it that the theological term 'schismatic movement' may translate 'schism' commonly understood. If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. The SSPX has an independent hierarchy. It ignores, or rejects the authority of the Catholic Church and discourages the normal manifestations of communion with the Catholic Church. We might see a parrallel with the Patriotic Church in China, which operates as a separate institution though not denying the position of the Bishop of Rome.Gazzster (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The situation of the Church in China is indeed quite a good parallel. There is obviously a government-pushed schismatic movement, but whether that movement has solidified into a separate church is far from certain.  See this article of 2004.  Indeed, "nearly all the bishops who have joined the patriotic association have reconciled with the Vatican" (Catholic Church in China: 'Two faces' expressing one faith by Catholic News Service; cf. Asia News, 27 November 2006).  In the dioceses controlled by the few bishops who have not reconciled and who are therefore still in formal schism, can we say that the faithful who live there form part of a schismatic church?  Pope Benedict has written with regard to these few bishops, who, he says, "are to be considered illegitimate, but validly ordained" - Is this a good description also of the situation of the SSPX four? - "the faithful, taking this into account, where the eucharistic celebration and the other sacraments are concerned, must, within the limits of the possible, seek Bishops and priests who are in communion with the Pope: nevertheless, where this cannot be achieved without grave inconvenience, they may, for the sake of their spiritual good, turn also to those who are not in communion with the Pope."  I think it is uncertain that this animal quacks like a duck.  You are persuading me that the SSPX is not (yet) a separate ecclesial body, and making me more convinced than I was that Wikipedia should not state as a fact that it is a separate ecclesial body.  Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you.The Lefebvrist movement is not a full-blown church. But how would we characterise complete separation? The apostolic churches of the Eastern traditions are also, for the most part, not in 'full communion' with the See of Rome. But these would not characterise themselves as being separate churches. They share beliefs, practices and mutually recognised sacraments. And Catholics are permitted to receive sacraments from eastern clergy. It seems we must get into subtle distinctions that are better suited to a theological treatise rather than an encyclopedia.Gazzster (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand what are "the apostolic churches of the Eastern traditions" that are not churches separate from the (Roman) Catholic Church. The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Assyrian Church of the East, etc. are surely separate, like the Old Catholic Church.  The permission for Catholics to receive sacraments from their clergy under certain conditions does not mean that they are not separate from the Catholic Church.  Catholics may not receive sacraments from their clergy as a matter of course.  "Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid" (canon 844 §2).  The Catholic Church treats them as separated and they recognize themselves as separate from the Catholic Church.  The SSPX does not recognize itself as separate from the Catholic Church and we have found no declaration by the Catholic Church that the SSPX is now a separate ecclesial body.  (If it were a distinct church, then the sacrament of penance administered by its clergy would certainly be valid; the doubt about this holds only as long as its clergy are considered part of the Catholic Church and therefore in need of being given jurisdiction for administering the sacrament.)  Esoglou (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They may not be a separate church, but there is definitely a schism. When you have over 30 sources calling it a schism or a schismatic act; you cannot exactly sweep it uunder the rug and play ignorant.  Aside from that, when the Holy See tells people that SSPX Masses may be valid, but illicit, and that they have no jurisdiction regarding Confessions, Marriages, etc and that their clergy is suspended even thought the excommunications were lifted...and at the same time you have SSPX clergy telling its people not to attend the modern Mass, listen to any Post-V2 Priest, etc.  you definitely have schismatic behavior...maybe not formal, but it is there.  How is a person supposed to attend a Mass said by a priest who has been suspended from offering the sacraments and it not be a schismatic act in defiance of the Holy See?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Mike, you seem to be arguing strongly that, although its four bishops committed a schismatic act (one only?), the Catholic Church does not see the SSPX as a schism, but only as a group of people behaving schismatically within the Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodox priests do not need jurisdiction from a Catholic bishop in order to absolve their faithful.  Their bishops do not need the Pope's mandate to ordain them, and the Catholic Church does not impose suspension on the clergy whom those bishops ordain.  You have pointed out how different is the situation of the SSPX clergy, at least as yet.  Esoglou (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Lefebrve was not allowed to ordain priests or consecrate bishops and he did so, regardless. The 4 surviving bishops were told not to ordain, say Mass, etc.  They have no jurisdiction to hear confessions, yet they do these things.  They have prohibited their followers from attending any non-SSPX Mass and Rome has discouraged the Faithful from attending theirs.  There is a rift, that's schism. When secular and Church sources call it schism in reliable sources, that's what we put on wikipedia.  It does not matter what we personally believe, we are supposed to write these articles based on reliable sources. Reliable sources say there is a schism.  Therefore it qualifies for this category.  Comparing this schism to the Eastern Churches is Original Research, not a reliable source.  If Dick Williamson ever co-celebrates a "Novus Ordo" Mass or Pope Benedict celebrates at a SSPX Church, we can withdraw the category.  Until then, it is valid.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said at the beginning, Mike's attitude was already clear, insisting that a group associated, at least in origin, with the Catholic Church but who act disobediently must be a schism from the Catholic Church, even if the cardinal of the Catholic Church who was charged with dealing with the problem they created expressly says they are not a schism. Now that Mike has intervened, perhaps Seminarian Matt will do the same.  Not that I am encouraging him to do so.  The involvement of even one of the two means it is time for me to withdraw.  Esoglou (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever, dude. If you want to have discussions with only one or two people or just people who agree with you, take it to email or have a tea party in your garden.  You do not own the talk page of this article. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 one external links on Marcel Lefebvre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131121420/http://www.angelusonline.org:80/Article3235-thread-order1-threshold0.phtml to http://www.angelusonline.org/Article3235-thread-order1-threshold0.phtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150606164603/http://www.fsspx.info/news/news.php?show=3339 to http://www.fsspx.info/news/news.php?show=3339
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131121410/http://www.angelusonline.org:80/Article2898-thread-order1-threshold0.phtml to http://www.angelusonline.org/Article2898-thread-order1-threshold0.phtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131121410/http://www.angelusonline.org:80/Article2898-thread-order1-threshold0.phtml to http://www.angelusonline.org/Article2898-thread-order1-threshold0.phtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131121415/http://www.angelusonline.org:80/Article2803-thread-order1-threshold0.phtml to http://www.angelusonline.org/Article2803-thread-order1-threshold0.phtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131121415/http://www.angelusonline.org:80/Article2803-thread-order1-threshold0.phtml to http://www.angelusonline.org/Article2803-thread-order1-threshold0.phtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131121407/http://www.angelusonline.org:80/Article2283-thread-order1-threshold0.phtml to http://www.angelusonline.org/Article2283-thread-order1-threshold0.phtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131161042/http://www.catholiculture.com:80/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5225 to http://www.catholiculture.com/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5225
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131121407/http://www.angelusonline.org:80/Article2283-thread-order1-threshold0.phtml to http://www.angelusonline.org/Article2283-thread-order1-threshold0.phtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 01:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of these were paywalled and impossible to retrieve. The archived link only showed a few first lines of each article. Elizium23 (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)