ARCHBISHOP COMMENTED – II

January 10, 2015
Number CCCXCI (391)

 
The Archbishop wished Rome not himself to approve, Rather that Rome for the Church’s good would move.

Before leaving Archbishop Lefebvre’s realistic remarks of 1991 (cf. the last two EC’s), let us comment further, in the hope of helping Catholics to keep their balance between scorning authority in the name of truth and belittling truth for the sake of authority. For ever since the churchmen of Vatican II (1962–1965) put their full authority behind the Church Revolution (religious liberty, collegial equality and ecuмenical fraternity), Catholics have been thrown off balance: when Authority tramples upon Truth, how indeed is one to maintain one’s respect for both?

Now in the tormented aftermath of Vatican II, who can be said to have borne fruits comparable to that preservation of Catholic doctrine, Mass and sacraments for which the Archbishop was mainly (albeit not solely) responsible? In which case, the balance that he himself struck between Truth and Authority must be especially deserving of consideration.

Firstly, let us consider a simple observation of the Archbishop on authority: “Now we have the tyranny of authority because there are no more rules from the past.” Amongst human beings all with original sin, truth needs authority to back it, because it is a Jeffersonian illusion that truth thrown into the market-place will prevail all on its own without a disaster being necessary to teach reality. Authority is to truth as means to end, not end to means. It is Catholic faith which saves, and that Faith lies in a series of truths, not in authority. Those truths are so much the substance and purpose of Catholic Authority that when it is cut loose from them, as by Vatican II, then it is cut adrift until the first tyrant to lay hands on it bends it to his will. The tyranny of Paul VI followed naturally on the Council, just as by pursuing approval from the champions of the same Council, the leadership of the Society of St Pius X has likewise behaved itself tyranically in recent years. Contrast how the Archbishop built up his authority over Tradition by serving the truth.

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.

A third remark throws light on his motivation in seeking from 1975 to 1988 some agreement with Roman Authority. Judging his motives by their own, his successors at the head of the SSPX talk as though he was always seeking its canonical regularisation. But he explained the Protocol as follows: “I hoped until the last minute that in Rome we would witness a little bit of loyalty.” In other words he was always pursuing the good of the Faith, and he never honoured Authority for anything other than for the sake of the Truth. Can as much be said for his successors?

Kyrie eleison.

peterp:  

It is really easy to shoot down Bp. Williamson. It just takes truth.

Ah, speaking of truth, what is the "truth" about your identity, peterp?  Who are we dealing with here?  I myself have had all this information for three years, and have written about it in the past.   I want everyone to not how reluctant peterp is, not only to identify himself by name, but to reveal anything at all about his current situation and associations.  The only thing we really know about peterp is that he has a rather unhealthy fixation on flatulence. :rolleyes:

peterp:

Hollingworth, I am not required, like everyone else here, to reveal my identity. The fact that you chose to is your own choice.

Of course you're not required.  You're the only one to my knowledge, though, who has been directly challenged to reveal his identity.  You have assiduously avoided doing so.  I think the reason is obvious.  Once your identity is known, the game is up.  We'll all know who you are and  what prompts your remorseless, relentless tirades.  We'll all just aknowledge that "Oh, it's him is it."  or "Oh, so he's a part of that bunch, huh. No wonder!"  And then you will be regarded for what you really in fact, an insincere, though pesky forum nuisance. :furtive:

The truth of the matter is ABL was pretty indecisive when it came down to important decisions. Any history has to be written by a dispassionate outsider freed from the glare of his personality. Bp. Williamson has an interest because of his long career as one of the Society's key officials and any account will have to show him in a good light as well as presenting a picture of the archbishop that suits him and his remaining career. Would you expect anything else in the clerical sphere?

We do really have to settle down to the fact that there were many sides to ABL and each side has its promoters, now actively at odds with one another. Maybe collectively they will wipe out his memory but I would say that the failure of the 'recognise and resist' policy in practical terms  will have a crucial bearing.

ABL was a holy Archbishop, no one thinks he walked on water; he passed on what he himself received, and for that we are grateful to him.

This is indeed the truth of the matter, cleansed of presumptuously dismissive implications about the merit of the so-called R&R position.

In the past fifteen years, I have heard or read dozens of "prooftext debates" founded upon duelling quotations from the full spectrum of Lefebvrian sources. What I have taken away from this anything but edifying experience is that the winner of any given debate is far more likely to be the person with the superior cherry-picking skills, not the one who "proves" that the archbishop, in absolute terms, favored one sort of attitude toward the Vatican authorities rather than another—or another or another or another. Indeed, I see no reason to conclude that the docuмentary evidence alone will ever serve to impregnably buttress the widely differing stances of Bishops Fellay and Williamson and a score or so others.

Peterp, that great pillar of truth, pounces upon the good bishop as might a jackal upon its wounded prey.  He’s found, he thinks, His Excellency’s soft underbelly.  But, of course, peterp would never characterize his assault upon the bishop’s integrity in quite that manner.  No, it is in the interests of pure, undefiled ‘truth’ that peterp conducts his attack.  For every fibre of peterp’s being is committed to the pursuit of truth,  except, perhaps, when it comes to the truth of his own personal identity.

 We must concede, though, that peterp may have made a semi-valid point, though a minor one, in the grand scheme of things.  Even a truth seeking ‘broken clock’ can be right twice a day.  He joins Frs. Simoulin and Laisney in asserting that the Archbishop, in his May 6, 1988 letter to Card. Ratzinger did not repudiate the signature he had affixed to the May 5 Protocol.  That is apparently a fact.  It appears, prima facie anyway, that Bp. Williamson may be wrong in asserting that ABL rejected the Protocol the following day.  The bishop’s merely being wrong or in error would of course in no way satisfy peterp, the unflappable seeker of truth.  No, peterp wants us all to agree that H.E.  was “utterly false” in his assertion.

 Out of respect for His Excellency, however, I think it must be noted that EC #391 says nothing about the repudiation of the Protocol being carried out in the form of a letter to the Cardinal.  We can speculate, perhaps, that ABL was in consultation with His Excellency that day of the 6th, and that the former revealed in confidence to the latter that the agreement would never work, even though he had signed it with “real satisfaction.”  I really don’t know.

Most of us, including ‘The Truth,’ have no idea what happened that day.  There is apparently no record of conversations which the Archbishop may have had with +Williamson or others.  The only thing we seem to know is that ABL did write a letter to the cardinal.  That letter has been preserved, yet in the absence of knowledge about any extenuating circuмstances or other defining events which might help us better understand and interpret  its contents.

A couple of things we do know, however.  Though Bp. W may have had the ‘repudiation’ timeline wrong, the final and total repudiation of the Protocol was never in doubt.  Scarcely a month after May 6, on June 12, 1988, ABL addressed the four bishops elect.  In the course of his remarks, he said the following:

"It's over. The talks between Rome and ourselves are over. The more one thinks about it, the more one realizes their intentions are not good…”

Whoaa!  The Archbishop goes from “real satisfaction” to what can only be described as ‘real dissatisfaction.’  In those intervening 30 plus days, Lefebvre’s previous optimism apparently collapsed.

ABL continues:
“ Look at what happened to the Traditional leaders, Dom Augustin, Fr. de Blignieres, who went over to Rome and have been swallowed up. Rome wants everything to go Vatican II, while they leave us a little bit of Tradition. "De Saventhem [then President of the conservative (not Traditional) organization, "Una Voce"] tells me we could still come to an understanding. But I tell him the misunderstanding is not over little things. They are not changing their position. We cannot put ourselves in the hands of those people. We would be fooling ourselves. We do not mean to let ourselves be eaten up"

Wow! From “real satisfaction” to an existential fear of being “eaten up.”  That emotional sea change occurs in just a month and six days from the signing.  What specific events occurred in the interim to bring ABL back to his senses?  Or had he ever really lost them?  Will we ever know?

On the following day, June 13, apparently, ABL extended his remarks from the pervious day’s address to the bishops elect.  He said:
 
“With the May 5 Protocol we would soon have been dead. We would not have lasted a year. As of now the Society is united, but with that Protocol we would have had to make contacts with them, there would have been division within the Society, everything would have been a cause of division” (emphasis added). “New vocations might have flowed our way because we were united with Rome, but such vocations would have tolerated no disagreement with Rome which means division. As it is, vocations sift themselves before they reach us”

So where does all this place Fr. Laisney?  Borrowing from peterp’s own post, it appears that Fr. L. as late as April 2013, is affirming that ABL wanted then “the prompt implementation of that protocol.”   Well, what can one say?  ABL’s call for a prompt implementation must have been an extremely brief desire at best, and a misrepresentation of Lefebvre’s real and genuine desire at worst.

Even peterp admits in his post, though he may wish now that he had not, that Bp. Tissier wrote of Lefebvre’s misgivings, saying that ABL “had judged the text (of the Protocol)”..as being at the extreme limit of acceptability.” So then, do we understand that ABL was greatly satisfied and extremely grateful to put his signature to a docuмent which he felt to be only marginally acceptable?

We “truth-haters” have a hard time believing this.

 

wessex:

The truth of the matter is ABL was pretty indecisive when it came down to important decisions. Any history has to be written by a dispassionate outsider freed from the glare of his personality.

There's that word "truth" again.  But in the hands of that "dispassionate outsider" wessex,  we can trust that genuine truth will out, freed from the glare of wessex's own personality.  That's why I pose the following question to him:
Wessex, was there a time after June 12, 1988 where ABL was seen clearly foundering about in indecision?  I mean, did the Archbishop from 1988 until the time of his death in 1991 contemplate striking a deal with Rome, or drawing up in cooperation with the Vatican some kind of practical accord?  We understand that he left any future contact with the officials of the conciliar church in the hands of his SG Fr. Schmidberger.  But did he himself waffle indecisively during those final years?  If the answer is yes, could I ask you to supply some docuмentation to the effect?  Bp. Williamson testifies that ABL was extremely resolute after the Protocol debacle.  
Can you handle these questions or must we leave them to Super Truther Peterp? :thinking:

I'm coming late into this discussion but it has caused me to remember something that might add to the discussion concerning the Archbishop and Rome.  This quote comes from a talk given by ABL at Flavigny, France, December 1988; Fideliter No. 68, p. 15).  It can be found in the book, "The Impossible Reconciliation", p. 2.

"I waited until June 5th to write to the Pope: 'I regret, but we cannot go along with this.  You do not have the same goal as us.  In making an accord, your goal is to bring us back to the Council.  Mine, on the other hand, is to keep us outside the Council and your influence.' "

I believe this refers to the accord of June 1988 since this was spoken in December of 1988.  Whether or not the Archbishop decided against it the very next day or whether he waited does not matter.  The fact is that he did and he didn't look back.