I don't know what this "ceremonial list" might have been: maybe just a memorializing document, signed by all who participated?
Two things are worth mentioning:
(1) Lefebvre, God bless his soul, voted against both documents in their final form
(2) Those "final forms" were perversions of the original schemata, which only reflects the fact that the so called "European Alliance" of liberal clerics and their Hop Frog theologians had assumed control of V2 agendas and debates before even the first session had ended.
Thus, what Lefebvre might have supported at the beginning of the council soon became that which he resolutely opposed.
I have no doubt that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre came to distance himself and reject Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae; but I understand he did approve of them (i.e. accept them) enough at one point to sign off on them (perhaps for the sake of Church unity? Loyalty to the Pope?). I stand to be corrected.
Does it matter 'now' what anyone thought of the "original schemata"? I ask this question seriously. It seems to me that only the final version approved by the Pope and the Council Fathers is offical.
==
From the rorate caeli article:
"The problem is: it is well known that Lefebvre placed his name upon the ceremonial lists of documents (for instance, both the list provided by Panorama and the one in our repository include a very diverse array of conciliar documents and, below them, signatures of bishops - the second list includes not only the above-mentioned documents, but also the only one which the Archbishop publicly praised, Presbyterorum Ordinis).
Irrespective of this, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Lefebvre's biographer and one of the Bishops consecrated by Lefebvre in 1988, had already written that the Archbishop had indeed placed his signature upon the Conciliar documents and among the Conciliar Fathers (Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography, published originally in French in 2002: cf. last pages of Chapter 13). This does not deny the fact that Lefebvre firmly voted against the final drafts both of Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae."
I take this to mean that Lefebvre signed some ceremonial document, of which there were probably many at this festival of self-congratulation, but opposed the documents when the actual voting took place. Subject to correction, of course, but after reading the quotations from Lefebvre assembled by Michael Davies in "Pope John's Council," I have trouble believing that Lefebvre would have voted to accept documents he consistently rejected and vigorously opposed during and after the council.
Often I have witnessed individuals holding strongly to an odd side of an argument, or proposing something very unbalanced.
At times I have come to the realization that those some of those individuals often don't truly hold the opinion, but use the method as an attempt to find the real answer or solution... truth.
Mr. Borealis, nice to see you again.
How did Lefebvre vote on Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium?
It is not uncommon, I believe, to debate and even vote against certain important matters/definitions at an Ecumenical Council, but then after the final vote, to accept or submit to what one had earlier opposed. This was true at the Vatican Council (1869-70) over the question of papal infallibility:
"After the council had made its decision everyone naturally looked with interest to those members of the minority who had maintained their opposition to the definition of infallibility up to the last moment. Would they recognize the decision of the council, or, [...] would they persist in their opposition? As a matter of fact, not a single one of them was disloyal to his sacred duties. As long as the discussions lasted they expressed their views freely and without molestation, and sought to carry them into effect. After the decision, without exception, they came over to it, The two bishops who on 18 July had voted non placet advanced to the papal throne at the same session and acknowledged their acceptance of the truth thus defined."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/
Ca...Vatican_Council
I understand most of the minority left the First Vatican Council before the final vote on this matter, but accepted papal infallibility later.
I suspect that in much or exactly the same way, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre at first accepted the offical Vatican II Council documents and teachings, - and this is why he signed and approved at the time.
==
I found again an article (polemical food for thought) that I had read some time ago, it goes over much of the ground we are attempting to cover, at least concerning the document on religious liberty:
'Marcel Lefebvre: Signatory to Dignitatis Humane'
http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id19.html
by Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S.
Fidelity Magazine, March 1994 Issue
==
Hello Pertinacious Papist, I hope you and family are well. Thanks. God bless.
BTW, Hi Ralph. Thanks for discussing this with me.
Randy, I think the Archbishop voted against. Anything else would be news to me.
==
I'm willing to accept Fr Harrison's article, as he has shown himself to be reliable in other circumstances.
I'm also willing to accept the bulk of Ab Lefebvre's courageous efforts over thirty years as tipping the scales decisively over what he may have signed or not signed (the final document, one of the many drafts, a table napkin), for whatever reason.
The hurly-burly atmosphere of the council sessions has been well documented. It was a chaos of inebriation bottled as inspiration. Council fathers typically signed documents they had not even read, on the recommendation of a colleague, or a colleague of a colleague, or one of the controlling periti. Lefebvre was one of the few who realized what was happening, and attempted, alas unsuccessfully, to do something about it.
Commenting by HaloScan
