A second remark of his from 1991 deserving of further comment is where he said that when in 1988 he tried to reach an agreement with Rome by means of his Protocol of May 5, “I think I can say that I went even further than I should have.” Indeed that Protocol lays itself open to criticism on important points, so here is the Archbishop himself admitting that he momentarily lost his balance, tilting briefly in favour of Rome’s authority and against Tradition’s truth. But he tilted only briefly, because as is well-known, on the very next morning he repudiated the Protocol, and he never again wavered until his death, so that from then on nobody could say either that he had not done all he could to reach agreement with Authority, or that it is an easy thing to get the balance always right between Truth and Authority.
This statement of Bp Williamson is utterly false.Here is what the Archbishop wrote the next morning:
"Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days." (Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, May 6, 1988)
A few months after the consecrations Fr. Laisney (Editor of the Angelus Press) was tasked with publishing the events and exchanges between the Archbishop and Rome leading up to the consecrations. Here is what he wrote:
"Many accused Archbishop Lefebvre of having reneged on the Protocol by this letter. However, a careful reading of both cannot show any opposition between them. No date was mentioned in the Protocol, therefore he asked for a date. This was not to oppose the protocol, but rather to take steps to put it in practice."* (commentary on the May 6 letter by Fr. Laisney: Archbishop LEFEBVRE and the VATICAN, 1988)
The book, Archbishop LEFEBVRE and the VATICAN, has a foreward by Bp. Williamson, he wrote:
"To these texts all that has been added is a narrative by Fr. François Laisney, Editor of the Angelus Press, to connect them in their sequence and to set them in their context, with a few footnotes to uncover the issues at stake from the standpoint of the Society of Saint Pius X." So the question arises, if the Protocol was repudiated the following day why didn't Bp. Williamson seek a correction? And it is highly likely that the Archbishop himself reviewed the book, since the purpose publish the Society's standpoint, so why didn't the Archbishop seek a correction? Simply because there was no repudiation.
The Seminary Rector of Econe, Fr. Simoulin, said, at that time
"Let the letter of May 6 be read and re-read and let someone tell me where the terms are that indicate a refusal, a breaking of the accords of May 5. For myself, I see there only an insistence and a demand for precisions not determined by the agreement."* (Fr. Simoulin, Rector, St. Pius X International Seminary, August 1988). It is clear then, this was how that May 6 letter was seen.
Further, if the Protocol was rejected on May 6, how could the Archbishop say only four days later:
"Thus I have signed the Protocol; I have it here." (Abp. Lefebvre's address to his priests given at St Nicolas du Chardonnet, May 10, 1988)
Bp. Williamson claims the Archbishop "momentarily lost his balance" and that the "Protocol lays itself open to criticism on important points", but a little over a month after signing the Protocol the Archbishop said
"I signed the protocol on 5th May a little reluctantly, it must be said, but still ... in itself, is acceptable, otherwise I would not have even signed, of course" (Conférence à Ecône, Colloques avec Rome, 125-B, 9 juin 1988). Was this another loss of balance?
Further, a few months after the consecrations Bp. Tissier de Mallerais wrote:
"Archbishop Lefebvre had judged [the text] on May 5 as being at the extreme limit of acceptability" (Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, October 1988)
And 10 months after signing the Protcol the Archbishop said:
"I would have indeed signed a definitive accord after signing the protocol if we had had the possibility of protecting ourselves effectively against the modernism of Rome." (Fideliter 68, March 1989). How could he say this if the
Protocol lays itself open to criticism on important points? Was it yet another loss of balance?
The simple fact is: The Archbishop did not repudiate the Protocol on the following day.The breakdown was caused by Cardinal Ratzinger, as Fr. Laisney explained:
"In that letter of May 30, 1988, by asking for “a greater number of dossiers on possible candidates,” Cardinal Ratzinger practically rejected all the candidates proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre. That was the real cause of the break of negotiations." (commentary on the May 6 letter by Fr. Laisney: Archbishop LEFEBVRE and the VATICAN, 1988)
And, for his part, the Archbishop applied the Protocol as best he could:
"You four will be bishops for the Church, at the service of the Society of St. Pius X, as laid out in the Protocol of May 5. The Society has the standing to deal with Rome. It will be the Superior General's job, when the time comes, to pick up the threads again with Rome..
On the eve of the consecrations, the Archbishop said:
"I would postpone the consecrations until the day that Rome selected if they would given me permission today to consecrate." (Quoting Abp. Lefebvre on the eve of the consecrations: Marcel Lefebvre, Tissier de Mallerais, 2004). How could he have said that if there remained problems with the Protocol?
It is really easy to shoot down Bp. Williamson. It just takes truth.
Seriously, if anyone still thinks, after reading the above, the Archbishop did repudiate the Protocol on May 6 they really are truth-haters.
* Both Frs. Simoulin & Laisney reiterated this 24 years later:
"on the morning of May 6th the Archbishop wrote a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, not to retract his signature but to urgently require that this consecration could take place on June 30th" (DICI Editorial, Fr. Simoulin, May 2012)
"it is wrong to say that he rejected it the next day: read the text of that May 6th letter, it is the best refutation of such affirmation: Archbishop Lefebvre affirms there that he is grateful for having signed it! The truth is that what he asked on May 6 is the prompt implementation of that protocol" (Fr. Laisney, April 2013)