A TRULY REMARKABLE MAN –

Still much confusion abounds in 2017 about the Society of Pius X (SSPX) and its founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. He was a confidant of Pope John XXIII, in the which is little averted to and needs more attention. “From the very first days, the Council was besieged by the progressive forces. We experienced it, felt it…We had the impression that something abnormal was happening and this impression rapidly confirmed; fifteen days after the opening session not one of the seventy-two schemas remained. All had been sent back, rejected, thrown into the waste-paper basket”. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Archbishop Lefebvre (1905 – 1991) who was on the Central Preparatory Committee for checking and overseeing all the Council documents had the above to say regarding confusion that ensued at Vatican II. Years later he added the following: The immense work that had been found accomplished was scrapped and the assembly found itself empty- handed, with nothing ready. What chairman of a board meeting, however small the company, would agree to carry on without an agenda and without documents? Yet that is how the Council commenced.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 1986)

Many of his Council colleagues shared his changeless vision of the authentic pursuit of Catholic doctrines, dogmas and history, in the usual manner of the Church, up to the time of the Council. His stoic resistance to attacks on the traditions of the reveal that Marcel Lefebvre was indubitably a man not only out of the ordinary but obviously a man of conviction. He became to be a man loved through the generations by so many worldwide, (belonging to various age groups) which is proof that this man had a special charisma. Much good has been attributed to him and his “CV” proves his worth to the Catholic Church. Flourishing seminaries he founded on all continents prove his valuable contribution, though endless arguments attributing polemics to him continue. Archbishop Lefebvre has attracted much criticism and even hatred from many Catholics. Why this should be remains a mystery to many who do not comprehend the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council.

Success the Archbishop achieved as a missioner to Africa was reflected by his 1962 election as Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers. Popes Pius XII and John XXII (who appointed him to be part of setting the agenda of the Preparatory Committee of the Second Vatican Council) appreciated his intellectual and theological prowess. Consequently acknowledgement of the trust he earned from two popes must be taken notice of. Instead, so much relevant information about this unusual man has been passed over, even ignored. It can easily be argued, from the evidence, that a vendetta of sorts was in fact waged against him; something he himself hinted at. Continuation of the ‘blackening’ of his good name became ‘fashionable’ though he was never accused of anything that required the kind of censorship given some of his theologian opponents at the Second Vatican Council.

The reality is that those who refuse to acknowledge that the traditional is of significant importance have buried the truth about Archbishop Lefebvre, and the society he founded. In point of fact the Latin Mass also attracted and continues to attract the same hatred as this remarkable man. Archbishop Lefebvre has been much criticized for his defence of the 1962 Missae of Pope John XXIII, in force at the time of the Second Vatican Council. He has been vilified for working for its restoration after its use was mysteriously banned.

Confrontation with Lefebvre started again in 1976 when he must have seemed more of a threat to the progressive element in the Church. His crime to them was dogged pursuit of continuation of the Mass as it was before 1969/70. Apostolic Visitors were impressed with SSPX “traditional “seminaries in 1976 but demanded the “forced march to unity”. Describing these seminaries as “tradition” refers to their ‘modes operandi’. This means that these seminaries were set up and operated according to the way things were pre Vatican II. Progressives wanted change in the way seminaries operated as part of their plan for a New Order in all of Catholicism. Plans had already been made for adoption of the New Order Mass, well in advance of its release. Lefebvre became aware of these plans of progressives, refused to adopt the New Order Mass and so paid the penalty.

It took ten years from the closing of Vatican II for the “Lefebvre case” to explode. Archbishop Lefebvre started expressing negative judgment on the Second Vatican Council from 1972 onwards. By 1976 his seminarians were due for to the priesthood and they were only trained to offer the traditional Mass. According to Lefebvre, French Cardinal Villot, Vatican Secretary of State wanted to satisfy the demands of the French bishops, that the traditional Latin Mass not continue and instead totally be replaced by the New Order Mass. Villot, therefore was said to be responsible for the campaign against the Society from beginning to end as he opposed Lefebvre vision. Since on the SSPX have been lifted and the traditional Latin Mass mandated by Pope Benedict XVI almost a decade ago, original decisions of Lefebvre, to continue what is now decreed, surely require vindication.

Understanding struggles and contradictions at the Second Vatican Council are crucial to understanding Lefebvre. He was a major contributor to the original schemas for the Council and therefore subject to much criticism from those favouring the jettisoning of tradition. Progressives managed to achieve change in all the schemas but did not achieve what they set out to do because of a Conservative Alliance made against them. Lefebvre was part of the Alliance and was accused of being “a reactionary, a dinosaur” unable to “move with the times”. (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p38). All members of this alliance also fell into the same category then due to their common goal, preservation of tradition. Criticism was not heaped upon them, to the same extent. Derision Lefebvre suffered and the descriptions of what were considered his ‘shortfalls’ are illuminating given that popes of recent times have also suffered the same criticism, from progressives.

Mystery no longer remains as to why a suspension a divinis was laid on Lefebvre in 1976 following his ordination of , due to the professional investigation of others. In 1984 Pope John Paul II declared the 1962 Missal still valid, thereby rendering licit Archbishop’s pursuit of the continuation of this Missal. An independent canonical inquiry into Lefebvre’s subsequent of four bishops (1988), found in his favour. (ref. Nemeth, The Case of Archbishop Lefebvre, 1994) What Lefebvre said at the time of these about what had happened to the Church up to that time, still pertains today. “The seminaries are empty. There is a loss of vocations. Immorality is rampant. There is a loss of faith in general. It is a tragic situation”. (Nemeth p8) It is said that Lefebvre was “lambasted” for being in what was referred to as a “time warp”. (p3) Well, there is now sufficient evidence to confirm that he was not alone in said ‘time warp’, which contained Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Lack of authentic knowledge of the Archbishop is breathtaking really. Bishops, priests and laypeople alike have published various books about him. Cardinals have supported him, including Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of Campos who shared his same concerns about post conciliar events. A published work about Mayer called, The Mouth of the Lion, (TML) contains appendices of two letters, Lefebvre and Mayer sent to Pope John Paul II in 1983, 1985 respectively, detailing their concerns. In the 1983 letter (from Rio de Janeiro) they express concerns regarding faithful “living in a state of anguish” due to “post-Conciliar reforms” and “false notions diffused by official documents”. Two years later, 1985, the letter this time from Econe, Mayer and Lefebvre commented on the upcoming extraordinary synod in marking twenty years since the close of the Second Vatican Council. They quoted the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith as saying that the past twenty years had “provided sufficient illustration of a situation resulting in a real self-destruction of the Church, except in those areas where the millennial Tradition of the Church has been maintained” (TML Ref. A1-A6). This Prefect was of course Cardinal Ratzinger.

Pope Benedict XVI's vindicated Lefebvre's defence of the 1962 Missae. Thus the Archbishop's work is worthy of considerably more respect than hitherto appears to be case. At the same time acknowledgement needs to be made of the efforts of Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI in their part in restoring the 1962 Missae, indicating that Lefebvre's pleas were heeded. He was not alone in his assessment though as the work of other in the Church confirms.

There is so much that needs to said about the heroic Archbishop Lefebvre that is beyond a short essay like this. In a book I have written about the never ending story of Vatican II (yet to be published) I have included a chapter called Archbishop Lefebvre. It is entitled Archbishop Lefebvre – Changeless Vision of the Good for a particular reason. This reason concerns not only the obvious goodness of the man but also his suffering for holy Mother Church. He returned to his native to retire but seminarians camped outside his door to plead for his need to found a seminary for the traditional Latin Mass. Numerous seminarians had no faith in the seminaries devoted only to the New Order (Novus Ordo) Mass.

So many in the Catholic Church, now with ‘two Forms of liturgy’, are convinced of the validity of unjust criticism of Lefebvre in relation to his insistence on the continuation of traditional liturgy. Their preference is not always for the New Order, Ordinary Form. Therein lies a dichotomy as the reality of the Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi of the Church that has been has glossed over to varying degrees by those who deny the relevance. This criticism commenced at the Council of Vatican II, where in the company of other likeminded prelates Lefebvre was labeled “ultramontantist”. Such a label points to this very dichotomy. Little is taught in post Vatican II education now of how the worship of the Church informs Catholic belief. In the interests of modern insistence of ‘moving on’ instead, demands are made for compliance to modern ideas. So, this requires cooperation in obedience to these ideas calling for changes in the Church (forced or cooperated with) in order to avoid any sort of conflict. The conviction caused by Lefebvre and his colleagues provoked unease and disconcertment. At all costs, the mantras of modernists were not to cause disturbance but to convince that all changes were for “the good”. Questions still remain though as to whose ‘good’ was truly being served: that of anti tradition theologians or enemies outside the Church.

Challenges are being made at present regarding the agendas of those who are against the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. Petitions are being presented to the current Holy Father, Pope Francis. These have been signed by many respected theologians, priests and bishops. The matter of confused thinking continues. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said in his book, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics,:

“confusion is seen everywhere – in conversations, in books, in newspapers, in radio and television broadcasts, in the behaviour of Catholics, which shows up as a sharp decline in the practice of the faith, as statistics reveal, a dissatisfaction with the Mass and the sacraments, a general relaxation of morals. We naturally ask, therefore, what brought on this state of things. For every effect there is a cause…The faith was based on certitudes. The certitudes have been overturned and confusion has resulted.” (p9-10) In a declaration on November 21, 1974, the SSPX founder said, “We adhere with all our heart and all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and the traditions necessary to maintain it, and to Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth. On the other hand we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of the neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies”