Should we care what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say?
And is it fruitful to speculate on what he might say now?
Is it fruitful to speculate on what Archbishop Lefebvre might say now?
A flawed approach, a fool’s errand?
A friend of The WM Review has suggested that it is not a good idea to be publishing texts by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
He suggested that doing so elevates Lefebvre as a theological authority, or endows him with a hero status, beyond what is proportionate; he also argued that any “quest for the real Lefebvre” is a fool’s errand, given that the Archbishp expressed a variety of views throughout his post-conciliar career, and that selecting one set of views over another is arbitrary. Further, it could be added, the Archbishop expresses ideas in these texts with which we disagree.1
While we are sympathetic to these criticisms, let us examine them further to see why they do not apply to what we are doing.
The importance of Archbishop Lefebvre
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre casts a long shadow over the Catholic response to Vatican II, such that men of various views and conclusions seek to claim him for their own. What is more, different parties can make such claims with more or less plausibility.
While some implausibly reduce the matter solely to a question of Lefebvre changing his principles,2 it is a fact that he expressed a wide range of ideas about the crisis in the Church throughout his post-conciliar career.
Some of his less sympathetic critics have described this as “zig-zagging,”3 whereas others have emphasised the unprecedented nature of the situation, and suggested that alterations or developments in his thinking took place in response to changing situations, as well as concrete events and actual development of his thought.4 Regardless of the explanation, this phenomenon was noticed as early as the 1976 suspension: an article in Le Monde said, with specific examples of its point:
“Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre multiplies ‘exclusive’ interviews to the press. They do not always present the desired consistency.”5
This is the conflict which our friend believes we are joining in publishing texts by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Before explaining why this is not so, let us examine two different perspectives in the debate.
The ‘historical’ Lefebvre
There are some who claim that “the real Lefebvre” rejected Vatican II and the so-called “Conciliar Church,” and doubted its sacramental rites. They argue that the period at the end of his life represents Lefebvre’s “mature thought,” informed as it was by decades of engagement with the modernist Vatican, as well as the final insights that led to the 1988 episcopal consecrations, and were confirmed by events afterwards.
Some also add, based on this “mature thought,” that by now Lefebvre would have concluded that the post-conciliar claimants to the papacy have been illegitimate, and that the Holy See is vacant.
While we believe that this account is generally accurate, this is irrelevant to our publication of forgotten or entirely untranslated texts. Rather, this publication is a response to the growing hegemony of online influencers those who have made an ahistorical Lefebvre in their own image, which they then use to justify theological opinions and praxis that the Catholic faithful rejected for decades.
The ‘revisionist’ Lefebvre
The advocates of an ahistorical Lefebvre variously insist that he did not really reject the Council or the Conciliar Church – let alone its sacramental rites or its papal claimants.
The only difference between the SSPX and the FSSP, according to some of this new generation, is that the SSPX is a little bit “canonically naughty” – with such naughtiness deemed to be a key means of avoiding the predations of modernists, and ultimately nothing more than formalities. This basic equivalence explains why many openly attend Masses offered under the auspices of the dioceses, or permitted groups like the FSSP.
This group includes even those who have put themselves forward as lay spokesmen for the SSPX online.
Some persons of this general perspective have so succeeded in constructing a Lefebvre in their own image that even certain Novus Ordo clergymen are praising him as a “hero of the faith,” and using this revised Lefebvre to attack those who offer a more robust response to the religious revolution of which they are the partisans.
While any “appeal to Lefebvre” will be somewhat arbitrary, being based on a faulty method of attaining theological truth, this revisionist perspective lacks even the rationale of appealing to his “mature thought,” and can only thrive in the absence of the actual words and deeds of Lefebvre himself.
Conclusion: Make more of Archbishop Lefebvre’s words available
The texts which we are publishing are intended to show that the situation is considerably more complex than this latter group of persons convey – without ourselves advocating for our own view of the matter, or falling into the trap of justifying theological positions on the basis of our interpretation of Lefebvre.
This point is crucial. Speculating about what Lefebvre might think today is ultimately a distraction. He might have maintained his “mature thought” in the following decades, and even concluded that the See has been vacant; then again, he might not have done so, and nothing significant flows from either option. We do not hold to these positions because of what we think Lefebvre might or might not say today, nor do we hold them because he said them yesterday. We hold them because we have concluded that they are true – and because the facts and the Church’s doctrine compel us to reach such conclusions.
Far more fruitful than speculation is to let the texts speak for themselves. By making them more widely available, we can establish certain clear and objective points, such as the following:
First, that Lefebvre expressed a range of ideas throughout his life, sometimes contradictory. This is not intended as criticism (as discussed above), but it does show the inadequacy and arbitrary nature of the revisionist narrative in itself.
Second, that Lefebvre expressed a firm anti-collaborationist stance in the final years of his life. This is a powerful ad hominem argument (in the sense of appealing to our opponents’ principles) against the revisionists, showing that they cannot condemn those who advance ideas that Lefebvre himself articulated, without also condemning the man they have chosen as their authority – as well as showing that he himself condemned the ideas which they advance. Once again, this method cannot be turned back upon us; while we are always happy to present such ad hominem arguments, and have done so many times, we do not base our conclusions on Lefebvre’s thought, or seek to cloak ourselves in his prestige.
Third, that said, Lefebvre was the one who originally taught many of us to reject Vatican II, the Conciliar Church, and the Novus Ordo sacramental rites. For many, he was the source of ideas upon which others reasoned and attained further conclusions (e.g., the vacant See). The revisionists seek to deprive Lefebvre of the respect and gratitude which such persons owe him.
In brief, what matters to us is not establishing Lefebvre as an authority upon whom other positions depend, but refuting the revisionist attempt to marshal him in favour of their softer positions on the current crisis.
We publish these texts to that end, as well for the historical importance of his writings themselves. This purpose justifies the translation and publication even of texts which occasionally contain contradictions of our own conclusions.
This is why we disagree with our friend, who might consider what we are doing to be pointless, or shoring up a flawed approach to the late Archbishop. On many occasions, he was a powerful witness to and exponent of certain facts and points of doctrine, particularly in his final years.
For that, once again, we can admire, respect and thank the late Archbishop, without elevating him to a disproportionate status of authority – or attempting to recreate him in our own image, as do the revisionists.
Archbishop Lefebvre
Archbishop Lefebvre and the Conciliar Church
An updated edit of John Lane’s classic study:
What did Archbishop Lefebvre really think about the ‘Conciliar Church’?
Did Lefebvre see the Conciliar Church as a separate society to the Catholic Church?
Where is the Church today? Archbishop Lefebvre and the Conciliar Church
Archbishop Lefebvre and the Sacraments
Our series examining Archbishop Lefebvre’s words, ideas and deeds in relation to the Novus Ordo sacramental rites:
Archbishop Lefebvre & Conditional Confirmations—His pastoral practice explained
Archbishop Lefebvre & Conciliar Sacraments—Do they ‘come from the Church?’
Further material:
‘I do not hesitate to administer conditional confirmation when asked’—Archbishop Lefebvre
Classic study radically overstates Lefebvre’s position on holy orders
Is desiring the sacraments individualistic and emotional? Lefebvre and others answer
Archbishop Lefebvre and ‘The Pope Question’
A series of talks given in 1986 to seminarians and priests:
Archbishop Lefebvre: Three dispositions needed by priests and seminarians today
Archbishop Lefebvre: ‘Who is this man on the throne of Peter?’
+Lefebvre: ‘Any sensible man must ask’ if a heretic is still pope, can discuss with others
Further material:
+Marcel Lefebvre’s glowing tribute to ‘sedevacantist’ Fr Henri Mouraux
‘Medieval peasants didn’t know the pope’s name, why should we care?’ +Lefebvre answers
Various Addresses
Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration: Tension and the only possible resolution
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: ‘The visibility of the Church and the current situation’
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: ‘Two Years after the Consecrations’
Articles by our friends
Archbishop Lefebvre and Sedevacantism (John Daly)
Archbishop Lefebvre and The Sedevacantist Thesis (John Lane)
Archbishop Lefebvre and The Conciliar Popes (John Lane)
Fr. Celier’s Interpretation of Archbishop Lefebvre (John Lane)
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Read Next:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
For example, certain comments about the thesis that the Holy See has been vacant since Vatican II. On this, cf. John Lane:
“The facts remain, however, that Archbishop Lefebvre only ever expelled from the Society two priests for public sedevacantism, and never any priest for private sedevacantism. This may surprise some who have a different impression, but those are the facts.
“When we review the various texts in which Archbishop Lefebvre appeared not only to reject the sedevacantist solution himself, but to condemn it, we find that in each case he was reacting to the pressure of circumstances, and almost in every case he was referring to concrete cases of sedevacantist individuals rather than to the theoretical question itself. Thus when he stated that sedevacantism is ‘schismatic’ he clearly meant that the mentality of the specific sedevacantists he was then addressing or reacting to had a schismatic mentality – that is, they valued their opinions more than the unity of the faithful. And this interpretation is confirmed by consideration of the various statements made by Archbishop Lefebvre over the years – those presented above as well as of those which will follow below. If he really thought that the notion that Paul VI or John Paul II was not a true pope was essentially schismatic, then how could he possibly have honestly permitted many of his seminarians and priests to hold it, and a fortiori to consider adopting it himself?”
Archbishop Lefebvre and the Sedevacantist Thesis
E.g., Bishop Donald Sanborn:
“About every two years since 1970 there has been some major eruption. If I am counting correctly, nearly one-third of the priests whom Archbishop Lefebvre has ordained are now no longer part of the Society. The toll among seminarians is similarly staggering.
“Whenever circumstances would maneuver either the ‘hard line’ or the ‘soft line’ into a confrontation with the Archbishop’s line, the missiles of accusation of “disloyalty” and “disobedience” would be launched with jolting ferocity, and the targeted victim, regardless of his contributions or position in the Society up to that time, would just wither away from the heat of the opprobrium.
“The direction of the strikes usually depended on the weather in Rome. If Rome was conciliatory, then the soft-liners were ‘in’, and the hard-liners ‘out.’ If Rome pursued a hard line, then the soft-liners were ‘out’ and the hard-liners were “in”. Inevitably the strike against the one side would inflate those of the opposing victorious side with a false sense of security, compelling them to think that His Excellency had definitively sided with them. Little did they know that they would be the next ones on the block.
“The long-term survivors were the ones who did not think, and consequently found no trouble in zigzagging theologically, advancing when the Archbishop advanced, retreating when he retreated, affirming when he affirmed, negating when he negated, changing when he changed, accepting the reforms which he accepted, rejecting the reforms which he rejected. Such was the ideal seminarian.”
Bishop Donald Sanborn, The Crux of the Matter, 1984.
E.g., John Lane:
“Archbishop Lefebvre’s thinking altered in response to the changing concrete situation. He formed new judgements concerning the persons of both Paul VI and John Paul II as their actions made their dispositions more clear. In addition, the Archbishop’s grasp of the theory of the pope-heretic thesis appears to have evolved also. His later statements on the question display far greater sophistication than those made in the 1970s, when he generally contented himself with relatively brief and simple comments casting doubt upon the papal claim of Paul VI. Clearly he studied the matter further as the crisis deepened.”
John Lane, Archbishop Lefebvre and the Sedevacantist Thesis.