From Ted Brassard (tbrass@nh.ultranet.com, apparently no relation): Le Fevre is a name which has loads of variations and also a lot of totally different families. The name means "bean" in French and you will find Lafavre, Lefebvre, La Favere, Le Febevere, Le Febvre, and loads of others.
OK, here's a little more detail on above from Mar/Apr 2013 B&C mag. 'A Very Young Council' by Thomas Albert Howard rvws the bk 'Vatican II' by Massimo Faggioli on the impact of that 1962-5 event. Interestingly, he says the RCC recognizes 21 ecumenical councils in all, of which Vat II is the most recent. MF id's 2 main 'schools' of Vat II interpretation; 'The more optimistic 'Thomists' [cf FT backpage ant-Thomist rant by David Bentley Hart ... summarize here?] tend to see Vat II as an optimistic 'updating' of RCC teachings to make them more compatible w/various modern ideals and aspirations, seeing the 'spirit' of Vat II as a 'down payment' on more 'progressive' chgs to come. This school's 'center of gravity' was the journal Concilium (fnd'd 1965) and included luminaries Yves Congar, Marie-Dominque Chenu and Edward Schillebeeckx. By contrast, the more pessimistic 'Augustinians' ... tend to see the RCC as an island of grace in a sea of sin and disorder, and interpret Vat II in more restrictive terms. Their organ was Communio (fnd'd 1972) and include Henri du Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar and Josef Ratzinger [later Pope]'. Besides those 2 schools there were of course the hyper-libs (e.g. Hans Kung, Karl Rahner) and hyper-trads (incl. 'sedavacantists' who claim Holy See hasn't had a legit Pope since Pius XII, and French AB Marcel Lebebvre and [other] members of the secretive Society of St Pius X [SSPX], who saw Vat II as vitiating many of the RCC's past teachings). Citing Wm Faulkner's quote 'the past isn't dead, its not even past', TAH notes [following MF] the LONG-TERM impact of these councils e.g. 4C Nicea, 16C Trent, saying Vat II will likely continue to be debated and 'processed' for decades centuries to come.
PatB's SoaS p107-8: He explains how Pope Benedict XVI's 2009 effort at reconciliation w/the traditionalist Society of Piux X (SSPX) caused a firestorm that blazed for weeks across Europe. The tempest began on Jan 24, the day the Holy Father lifted the excom of the 4 bishops of that Society. The 4 had been excom'd in 1988, when aging Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a severe critic of Vatican II, consecrated them, against the direct instructions of Pope JPII, who had authorized only 1 bishop to carry on L's work. In the meantime, quiet progress had been made to repair the RCC/SSPX breech. Why was Europe outraged? 1 of the 4, Richard Williamson, had long held some extreme views i.e. 9/11 was an inside job, RCC women shouldn't be sent to universities, Holocaust denier. So when his excom was lifted, European libs attacked him and the Pope (and the RCC). A key attacker was Peter Steinfels, rel. ed. of NYT. German Cardinal Walter Kasper and Austrian Card. Christoph Schoenborn joined the anti-Pope bandwagon. Even Angela Merkel intervened to demand 'purity' on the Holocaust issue. PatB says this event opened the RCC's eyes that their critics were NOT acting in good faith. That this attack was part of the culture war between Christianity (trads) and secularism (sec-progs) over who has moral authority in the modern world. Sec-progs seek out challenges to take high ground and force other side to capitulate.