Talk:Marcel Lefebvre

Marcel Lefebvre was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 4, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
November 7, 2021	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 25, 2017, and March 25, 2021.

Current status: Delisted good article

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

2006–2015

Conclave votes for Archb Lefebvre

I added the page # to the book, The Horn of the Unicorn, for the statement that there were "three" or "several" votes for Archbishop Lefebvre in the 1978 Papal conclave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.32.102.228 (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have deleted this as rumor and speculation. Elizium23 (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conclave votes are strictly confidential though...74.90.110.7 (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Marcel Lefebvre/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated this as a GA article because it has achieved GA criteria. High priority as (IMO) an important player in the Catholic Church in the twentieth century, whose movement, the Society of Saint Pius X is hitting the news quite frequently. JASpencer 11:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 11:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 23:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Marcel Lefebvre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070904074425/http://www.stjames-cathedral.org/Prayer/vatican2-4.htm to http://www.stjames-cathedral.org/Prayer/vatican2-4.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184713/http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/misc/rushdie.html to http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/misc/rushdie.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sspxseminary.org/publications/rectors-letters-separator/rectors-letter/157.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900355.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://ireland.sspx.net/miscellaneous/historical/shortbio.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925164157/http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/validity_of_holy_orders.htm to http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/validity_of_holy_orders.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Marcel Lefebvre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marcel Lefebvre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110808042655/https://www.americamagazine.org/content/issue-archives.cfm to http://www.americamagazine.org/content/issue-archives.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

"Lefebvre belonged to an identifiable strand of right-wing political and religious opinion in French society that originated among the defeated royalists after the 1789 French Revolution." unsourced and tendentious. Why not "identify" this "identifiable" strand? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is the very line I have called into question as well. "Right" and "left" are political categories and are not applicable when speaking of Archbishop Lefebvre. The terms "orthodox" and "heterodox" should be used instead and care should be given to present information objectively, rather than attempting to politicize the page.

75.170.42.147 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Give us reliable sources that "right" and "left" never pertain to religion and always pertain to politics. And your edits include more than changing those terms; you removed properly sourced and relevant information. In any event, two editors have reverted you. You are required to get consensus instead of edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of the excommunication

I am sorry for such a simple question. But is true or not that Mgr Lefebvre is still excommunicated from a juridical poitn of view? Has he never declared a Servant of God in any diocese, somewhere located into the Roman Catholic Church? It seems not to be true.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_it.html The previous link gives the decree of Ratzinger in which the excommunication was annulled in favour to the four bishops consacrated by hand of Mgr Lefebvre.

But their main consecrator isn't mentioned at all. Does someone know if Ratzinger or Bergoglio had subsequently decided to annull the excommunication of Mgr Lefebvre? Or if one of the bishops consecrated by Lefebvre has asked to restore his honour and surname? I apologize for the imperfect English, but the matter doesn't deserve non singular particular attention, even idiomatic, except for what concerns thr historical truth. Thanks in advance for any eventual help.Theologian81sp (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theologian81sp: From what I get, his and de Castro Mayer's excommunications were never lifted. One things I am sure, is that Lefebvre was never declared a servant of God; although, maybe some SSPX members hold him as such. Veverve (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem that the Code of Canon Law cited is the 1983 Code, when the excommunication occurred in 1975. Here is the old Code of Canon law in effect at the time:

Can. 2370. Episcopus aliquem consecrans in Episcopum, Episcopi vel, loco Episcoporum, presbyteri assistentes, et qui consecrationem recipit sine apostolico mandato contra praescriptum can. 953, ipso iure suspensi sunt, donec Sedes Apostolica eos dispensaverit.

Can. 2370. A Bishop consecrating anyone as a Bishop, the assisting Bishops or, in place of bishops, [the assisting] priests, and whoever receives the consecration, without an apostolic mandate, contrary to the prescription of can. 953, have been suspended by the law itself, until the Apostolic See will have dispensed them.

Can. 953. Consecratio episcopalis reservatur Romano Pontifici ita ut nulli Episcopo liceat quemquam consecrare in Episcopum, nisi prius constet de pontificio mandato.

Can. 953. Episcopal consecration is reserved to the Roman Pontiff, so that no Bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone to be a Bishop, unless the pontifical mandate is first established. PensiveHapax (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PensiveHapax: the excommunication occurred in 1975: no, it occured in 1985. The suspension a divinis occured in 1975. Veverve (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks. PensiveHapax (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Marcel Lefebvre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Well written

Y The article is well written.

Verifiable with no original research

N The main problem of the article are very clear: 70% of the sources are either primary (e.g. semons from Lefebvre), come from the SSPX (the organisation created by Lefebvre) and its media, or from people affiliated with the defense of Lefebvre or his work who have no academic credential (e.g. Davies' Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre). For an example of primary sources being used, when it comes to the life of Lefebvre, sometimes the source is himself, in some talks he made which were compiled in an article titled "Monsignor Lefebvre in his own words" and published by the SSPX. All those sources are taken at face value in the article.

Some parts of the article do not have a source to support them. For example, the part of the lede "In 1975, after a flare of tensions with the Holy See, Lefebvre was ordered to disband the society, but ignored the decision" does not seem to be in the article, nor in the primary sources given at the end of the lede

Broad in its coverage

Y The article is properly detailed, although as I said above the quality of the source sorely lacks sometimes.

Neutral

Y The article is neutral in its tone.

Stable

N The article has substantially changed from the time it was passed as a GA.

Illustrated

Y The article is properly illustrated.

Miscellanous

12 days ago, I warned the WikiProjects Catholicism and Christianity of my intention to reassess this article. A user on WProject Christianity cleaned up the article a fair bit, and thereafter stated he/she had finished his/her improvements, and that the article was still a long way from being up to the current GA's standards and did not object the reassessment. Therefore, despite the fact I warned a WProject related to the article and waited quite some time, the improvements made to the article did not improve the article enough to turn it into what could be accepted as a GA by today's standards on WP.
Veverve (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Veverve: Just a reminder that this is still open. Aircorn (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also it doesn't matter for stabilty purposes if the article has changed since it was first promoted, as long as those changes don't sufficiently reduce the quality of the article. OIn fact a bigger issue with GA's is them not being updated. Aircorn (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Aircorn: Thanks. I have been expecting some comments from @Bmclaughlin9: for about a month. If the user has not commented by 1 November, then I will remove this article's GA status. Veverve (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The poor quality of the sourcing should suffice to justify the withdrawal of GA. The sourcing is accurately described by user Veverve. I will not belabor the point. I've done a lot of work trying to improve the article, but I've not gotten far. I've tried to avoid controversy by concentrating on ML's activities before 1962.
The writing is sub-standard, starting with the extensive use of block quotes to present material easily summarized, sometimes already summarized. The section headed "Background", itself an apologia by ML's fans, is the worst example of this. (That section's tone is neutral, but its substance is not. It's a very difficult subject to cover succinctly: the Church in France since the French Revolution.) The two long quotes in "Breaking of the agreement" are no better. There is weasel language like "Lefebvre was associated with the following positions". Associated? He took positions and advocated on behalf of his views in provocative language, pulling no punches. The article as its stands reduces feisty argument and polemics to "views".
And there are gaps in coverage. Lefebvre's name was removed from the drafting committee described in the paragraph beginning "The CIP was especially concerned..." but the fact that it took a protest by a dozen cardinals (a key moment in the history of the Council) to make that happen is not mentioned. And Lefevbre's views at the time of the Council are not covered. What did he believe, assert or do that so aroused those cardinals and, in the following paragraphs, the bishops of the Holy Ghost Fathers and the General Convention of that order?
ML's exchange of views with Ratzinger on the interpretation of the Council's documents is mentioned without any description of its substance. Nor is his remarkable attack on JPII's prayer meeting in Assisi in 1986 ("an immeasurable, unprecedented scandal"), though the "spirit of Assisi" is mentioned and wikilinked without any way for the reader to grasp what ML means.
The article's summary could be picked apart for omissions and inaccuracies on his return to Europe, his resignation as head of his order, and the timing of his appointment to the Council's preparatory body, but the worst bit is probably this weasel: "He later took the lead in opposing certain changes within the church associated with the council". "Associated" avoids saying "what the Council taught" and what Popes Paul and JPII were doing. The phrase "changes within the church" doesn't begin to do justice to the issues: ecumenism, religious liberty and the right of conscience should not be buried in language that allows the uninformed reader to imagine we're talking about the Latin Mass.
Developing a quality article on such a controversial figure presents us with a great challenge. We do WP an injustice if we accept this article as it stands as anything more than a work in progress much in need of improvement. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has been more than one month since I have made this GAR, and it appears nobody objects removing the GA status from this article, so I will remove it. Veverve (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]