Should we care what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say? (with Index of Articles)
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?
The WM Review has been publishing and translating a series of difficult-to-find texts from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, particularly those from after the 1988 episcopal consecrations.
A friend of The WM Review has suggested that this is not a good idea. Doing so, he said, might elevate Lefebvre as a theological authority, or endow 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 Therefore, it has been suggested, we should not be publishing these texts.
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, the Novus Ordo, 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 – even though his attitude towards the Pope Question remained ambivalent, even at the end – this is irrelevant to our publication of forgotten or entirely untranslated texts.
Rather, it is a response to the growing hegemony of online influencers those who have created 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 Vatican II, the Novus Ordo or the Conciliar Church – let alone its sacramental rites or its papal claimants. In fact, these persons convey that he more or less accepted all of the above.
This group includes even those who have put themselves forward as lay spokesmen for the SSPX online.
According to some of this mindset, the only difference between the SSPX and groups such the FSSP is that the former 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 a problem with formalities.
This basic equivalence explains why many openly attend Masses offered under the auspices of the dioceses or groups like the FSSP, or why men such as Kennedy Hall – whom we note has always been very kind to The WM Review – has suggested that conciliar bishops administering confirmations and ordinations for Society “would be a good thing”:
Indeed, there are many problems with such an idea, as expressed in the sermon of the 1988 episcopal consecrations:
“When God calls me—this will certainly not be long—from whom would these seminarians receive the sacrament of [holy] orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments? This is not possible.
“Who are the bishops who have truly kept Tradition and the sacraments such as the Church has conferred them for 20 centuries until Vatican II? They are Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself. I cannot change that. That is how it is. Hence, many seminarians have entrusted themselves to us, they sensed that here was the continuity of the Church, the continuity of Tradition.
“And they came to our seminaries, despite all the difficulties that they have encountered, in order to receive a true ordination to the priesthood, to say the true Sacrifice of Calvary, the true Sacrifice of the Mass, and to give you the true Sacraments, true doctrine, the true catechism. This is the goal of these seminaries.”6
In short, Mr Hall’s suggestion is opposed to the very reason for the momentous decision of 1988 – and yet he is treated as a quasi-spokesman for the English-speaking SSPX.
Other “non-SSPX” outfits like One Peter Five, The Remnant and Rorate Caeli laud Lefebvre and present him, at least implicitly, as an authority for doctrines, ideas and sanitised approaches which he either firmly rejected, or at best only supported in an equivocal, inconsistent way.
We have reached such a stage of whitewashing that even Novus Ordo clergymen are praising Lefebvre as a “hero of the faith,” and using him as a means of attacking those who offer a more robust response to the religious revolution – of which they themselves are the partisans.
We agree with Mr Joseph Bevan, who said that it was a mistake…
“… to regard Archbishop Lefebvre as some kind of ‘guru’ who had laid down a set of principles which had to be followed through thick and thin.”
Of course, we must indeed follow, “through thick and thin”, whatever true principles expressed by the Archbishop – but we follow them because they are true, not because he set them down. The question “What would the Archbishop do?” is not a good means of discerning truth or the right course of action. While any “appeal to Lefebvre” will be somewhat arbitrary, being based on a faulty method of attaining theological truth, the revisionist use of Lefebvre lacks even the rationale of appealing to his “mature thought,” and can only thrive in the absence of the actual words and deeds of the man himself.
Making more of Archbishop Lefebvre’s words available
In making the following texts available, we do not seek to make the Archbishop into a guru: rather, we are responding to online pundits who themselves treat him in this way, in furtherance of an agenda which we hold to be wrong on other grounds.
The texts which we have pbulsihed are intended to show that the situation is considerably more complex than the “revisionists” convey – without advocating for our own view of the matter, or falling into the trap of justifying theological positions on the basis of our own 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 our conclusions because of what we think Lefebvre might or might not say today, nor do we hold them because he said them yesterday. We hold to our conclusions because we have concluded that they are true; because both 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 us for our conclusions without condemning Lefebvre himself, the man they whom have chosen as their authority. In fact, Lefebvre not only expressed, but also condemned many of the revisionists’ ideas. Given the spread of the Lefebvre revisionism, this ad hominem argument requires a greater dissemination of Lefebvre’s words, so that the whitewashed façade can be stripped away.
Once again, this apologetic method cannot be turned back upon us, as we are not the ones who have chosen the Archbishop as a theological authority. 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 our arguments in his prestige.
Third, in many cases, Lefebvre was the one in fact who taught us to reject Vatican II, the Conciliar Church, the Novus Ordo, and the reformed 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, however, seek to deprive him of the respect and gratitude which such persons owe him.
This present author, however, is not ashamed to include himself among them, nor to confess that many of his most fundamental conclusions were reached with the help of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Conclusion
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.
Don Francesco Ricossa IMBC suggests, in his long reply to the Italian SSPX Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem, it can be unhelpful to see “sedevacantists” as opposing our conclusions to those of Archbishop Lefebvre or the SSPX.7 In fact, he says, “we are convinced that we are also defending the essence of Archbishop Lefebvre” – namely, “the rejection of Vatican II and the new Mass in the name of Catholic orthodoxy.” Our concern is “precisely to demonstrate that [Lefebvre’s] criticism does not imply an attack on the indefectibility and perennity of the Church which is an article of our faith” – although it is true that few of his devotees seem to appreciate the necessity of such a demonstration.
This is a powerful argument, but it is inaccessible to us while Lefebvre’s stronger statements remain unknown.
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, thank and love 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 and whitewashers.
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
Summarised (and some what softened) in an English publication from the time:
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
Around the time of the suspension
Lead-up to the Consecrations
‘She is neither liberal, nor modernist, nor ecumenical’ – Abp. Lefebvre on Our Lady
‘Occupied by Antichrists’ – Abp. Lefebvre’s letter to the four bishops, 1987
(See also above under “The Pope Question”)
Post-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:
If you liked this article, why not get it in mug form?
Get your Archbishop Lefebvre Mug today:
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.
Fr Ricossa writes:
“Now, what is the position of the Society of Saint Pius X on Vatican II, the post-conciliar teaching and the current hierarchy?[1] As to the power of the magisterium, the Society of Saint Pius X rejects the teaching of the Council and the post Conciliar Popes, indeed the TC [Tradizione cattolica, where the pamphlet was originally published] supposes that it is even probable that it does not exist as such.[2] As to the power of jurisdiction, the Society of Saint Pius X refuses obedience to authorities that are declared legitimate. As to the power of legislation, the Society rejects the new Code of Canon Law. As to the power of sanctification, the Society refuses Sacraments administered by the new rites, and instructs their faithful to abstain from these celebrations.
“It follows that the recognition of John Paul II is more nominal than real; the existence of a hierarchy, of a magisterium, of jurisdiction is admitted: but this hierarchy, this magisterium, this jurisdiction, these external rites are declared devoid of ‘that perennial communication of gifts and Divine grace, and without those things which by their daily and habitual manifestation attest that one’s supernatural life comes from God’. Neither the Conciliar magisterium, nor the current discipline, nor the renewed liturgy of the mass and sacraments are valued as coming from God…
“The TC should therefore understand that we do not intend so much to defend Father Guérard’s personal opinions against Archbishop Lefebvre or the Society. Our intent is the other way around. Sodalitium supports the criticism of Vatican II by Archbishop Lefebvre (and others), and seeks precisely to demonstrate that this criticism does not imply an attack on the indefectibility and perennity of the Church which is an article of our faith, while the TC’s precise position might lead one to believe just that. By defending the Thesis of Cassiciacum, we are convinced that we are also defending the essence of Archbishop Lefebvre, that is, the rejection of Vatican II and the new Mass in the name of Catholic orthodoxy, since the Thesis seems to us the best solution that theology can give to the problem of indefectibility of the Church after Vatican II.
[1] At least up till now. Actually, in case of an accord between John Paul II similar to that signed by Bishops Rangel and Rifan by the Apostolic Administration Saint John Mary Vianney of Campos (Brazil), one can easily predict that even the position of the Society of Saint Pius X on the Council and the Mass (like that of the Brazilians, and of those who are under the Ecclesia Dei commission) will be essentially muted.
[2] On pages 24-25. To say that since Vatican Council II “Catholic Hierarchy” no longer teaches, may reassure their readers; but it is not a question of rejecting a teaching, but of noting its nonexistence while loudly shouting that the hierarchy remains with all its (unused) charisms of infallibility. In fact, the situation is very different: John Paul II and the bishops in communion with him teach almost daily, but their teaching is rejected by “traditionalists”.
Abbé Francesco Ricossa, ‘Réponse au numéro spécial de la Tradizione cattolica sur le sédévacantisme’ in Sodalitium, n. 55, November 2003, pp. 31-73. Available in English under the seemingly incorrectly labelled n. 56, September 2003, pp. 40-1.
The Archbishop was a man, a fallible, fallen, man, in time, who had his own thoughts, feelings and perspectives based on his formation and experience. This included being a missionary and being at the Second Vatican Council (something none of his current heralders nor detractors can claim...). I appreciate the attempt to "re-historify" him (should that be considered a word) and regard him for who he was, however the man himself never claimed to be perfect. He is also frankly more a leader than Mel Gibson, his father or frankly any online sedevacantist ever was or probably will be (including his former disgruntled students). He can be taken as an authority insofar as he was at the front-line at the time before you or I were a speck in our parent's eye. He spoke out for Tradition, albeit perhaps if in an imperfect fashion, in the Catholic Church (not known for, at least then, anyhow, being a democracy). He was a dutiful bishop to his superiors, until he felt he couldn't be. Then, he wasn't always entirely sure what to do. I can hardly fault him for that. However, he set the tone for the resistance, whatever you particularly think that should be now. For, I will always be grateful. Archbishop Lefebvre, pray for us!
Thank you for this article. I believe one should look at Abp. Lefebvre, his intentions, thoughts, and actions, as a true pastor whose sole purpose was the salvation of souls. From a broader perspective this is what has been lost, this zeal for souls, since Vatican II and its embrace and tolerance of the theological, philosophical, psychological, sociological, and scientific ideas rooted in the New Theology, Liberalism, and the Enlightenment. In fact, the very ideas of the soul, sin, judgment, etc. have been reinterpreted and redefined contrary to pre-Conciliar Catholic teaching, at least in practice if not in formal declarations. This influence is so apparent in any poll of Catholic clergy or laity as to be undeniable. The only question that remains is whether one thinks pre-Conciliar teaching was timeless and infallible, correct or incorrect.