.from p. 9+
Archbishop Lefebvre Recognized His Mistake
in Signing the May 1988 Protocol,
And from Then Until His Death, He Maintained the Principle:
No Agreement With Unconverted Rome.
What happened immediately after Archbishop Lefebvre
signed the May 5th protocol in 1988?
[/b][/size]
Archbishop Lefebvre was pressured into signing the protocol and he recanted within hours of signing it, as soon as he had some quiet in which to reflect.
He signed the protocol at 4:30 p.m., on May 5, 1988. (
Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.554)
He then spent a sleepless night, during which he composed his retraction letter. He declared: “Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night [of May 5,1998].”
(
Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555)
[The] version [that Fr. Themann proffers] is far different from what Bishop Tissier says (above) in the Archbishop’s biography. This is what [Fr. Themann says]:
After he signed the May 5th protocol, Archbishop
Lefebvre wrote a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger the
very next day. ... But in this letter to Cardinal
Ratzinger, he does
not reject the protocol. He
simply adds one more provision. ...
[Then, speaking in the person of Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Themann says]:
I don’t take away what I said in the protocol ...
I ask for one more provision... [Then, going back to his own person, Fr. Themann says]:
He does not reject the May 5th protocol
as such. He insists on
one additional condition to test
the faith, the good faith of Rome. (8:29–11:16)
(emphasis added).
In this quote immediately above, [Fr. Themann says] repeatedly, that Archbishop Lefebvre “does not reject the protocol.” But [Fr. Themann is] wrong. Archbishop Lefebvre said he rejected the protocol (viz., his word was that he
retracted his agreement to this protocol). (
Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555)
We [would really LIKE to] assume [that] you, Fr. Themann, are not claiming that there is a relevant difference between the words “reject” and “retract”. Archbishop Lefebvre called his May 6, 1988 letter a “letter of retraction.”
Id.
Is that consistent with your claim that “he does not reject the protocol,” Fr. Themann?
Is his “retraction” consistent with
your claim that he said, “I don’t take away what I said in the protocol?” Hear
your words beginning at 8:29.
Further, on May 6, 1988
after he retracted his agreement to the protocol, Archbishop Lefebvre called the protocol “infamous.” (
Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555)
Do you think he did not reject what he called “infamous,” Fr. Themann?
You assert about the protocol that, on May 6, 1988, “He simply adds one more provision” which you also call “one additional condition.”
Id. But the truth is that Archbishop Lefebvre not only
retracted the “infamous” protocol, but
he gave an ultimatum to the pope.
Here is how Bishop Tissier recounts what
Archbishop Lefebvre did on May 6, 1988: The following day, after Mass and Prime, he finished
off his letter and put it in an envelope which he showed
to Fr. du Chalard at breakfast:
‘Father, before leaving, it is essential that this letter be
taken to Cardinal Ratzinger. It’s a little bomb.’
It was a new ultimatum: [Then Bishop Tissier quotes
Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter to Cardinal Ratzinger]:
The date of June 30 was clearly given as a deadline, in
one of my previous letters. I have given you a file
concerning the candidates. There are still nearly two
months to prepare the mandate ... The holy father can
easily shorten the process so that the mandate can be
sent by mid-June. Page 11
Were the reply to be in the negative, I would see
myself obliged in conscience to go ahead with the
consecration.... (
Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p.555 (emphasis added;
bracketed words added).)
Archbishop Lefebvre’s May 6, 1988 ultimatum was simply repeating what he had determined to do before May 6th. In January, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre had already decided to consecrate three bishops. (
Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, in a section called, “New Ultimatum,” p.551)
“On February 2nd, Archbishop Lefebvre confirmed the news: ‘I am resolved to consecrate at least three bishops on June 30th, and I hope to have the approval of John Paul II. But if he were not to give it to me, I would do it for the good of the Church and for the continuance of Tradition’.” (
Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, in a section called, “New Ultimatum,” p. 552 (emphasis added).)
On May 10, 1988, regarding the consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre said “June 30th is the deadline. ... As I said on the television in Germany:
On June 30, there will be Episcopal consecrations with or
without Rome’s agreement.” (
Biography of Archbishop
Lefebvre, p.556 (emphasis added).)
Note the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre repeated his ultimatum on television, shows that he was keeping the public informed about what he was doing.
So you see, Father Themann, your story is very different from the narrative in Bishop Tissier’s Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre. What happened on May 5th, as Bishop Tissier explains, is that Archbishop Lefebvre was pressured into signing the protocol and he recanted within hours. He spent a sleepless night, during which he wrote his retraction of the protocol, which protocol he called “infamous,” later that day. Then, on May 6, 1988, he renewed his ultimatum that he would consecrate at least three bishops (not one bishop, as you say) and that he would perform the consecrations on June 30th, with or without the pope’s permission.
Regarding the reason for Archbishop Lefebvre retracting his agreement to the protocol, you specifically say:
[He] simply adds one more provision. And I will say it
was a practical provision. In this letter, he says the pope
must guarantee that we will have the consecration of a
bishop by June 30th. (Disc 2, track 1, 9:00.)
The explanation you give regarding why Archbishop Lefebvre changed his mind, is false.
Whereas you say that Archbishop Lefebvre changed his mind regarding the protocol because there was no promise of a bishop, read the words of Archbishop Lefebvre (below), who tells us that he withdrew his signature as a matter of principle,
because Rome had not converted.During his Episcopal consecration sermon, Archbishop Lefebvre explains his reason for changing his mind regarding the May 1988 protocol.
...more later...
.