A Tribute to Archbishop Lefebvre

The following tribute to Archbishop Lefebvre was written shortly after his death by three clerical students at what was then Ireland’s principal seminary, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth, but is now its only remaining one. It was intended for publication in the seminary journal, but, not surprisingly, it was not accepted. The names of the authors cannot be disclosed as they have since been ordained and could still face persecution.

In an age of much theological relativism, liturgical confusion and pastoral disarray the strong witness of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to the enduring truths of Christianity was especially welcome. His portrayal in the Catholic press was often less than impartial (a point Bishop Duffy should note when next he speaks on the question of media bias) and that in itself is a mark of the spinelessness which has characterised so much of the post-Vatican II Church.

His years of faithful ministry to the Church as a missionary in Gabon, as Apostolic Delegate to over 55 dioceses in Africa and later as Superior-General of the Holy Ghost Fathers was often neglected by his critics. Rather they sought to present him as a latter day Tertullian; talented but too rigorous, controversial and one who from good beginnings within the Church ended up in heresy outside it. Yet if one were genuinely to seek an analogy in the Patristic era surely it would be more profitable to speak of Athanasius? His powerful denunciations and long struggles against the Arian heresy at Nicea have forever earned him the title fidei defensor.

As a Frenchman Archbishop Lefebvre had an intuitive sense of the damage inflicted upon the Church by that spirit of Modernism ushered into Sancta Mater Ecclesiae by the periti (i.e. the experts)of the Second Vatican Council. France, the eldest daughter of the Church had in earlier centuries suffered the twin ravages of Rationalism in which man was exalted as master of his own destiny and Republicanism in which the brotherhood of man was rendered meaningless by the absence of any real sense of the fatherhood of God.

The Fraternity of St. Pius X was founded to serve that number within the Church who were dismayed by the liturgical changes of Vatican II. Despite predictions of imminent collapse the Society continued to grow and when in 1983 he retired as Superior, Mgr Lefebvre could point to over 250 priests ministering to 100,000 faithful as evidence ( if it were needed) of the genuine love of the Tridentine Mass in the Church. A year later in October 1984 when Pope John Paul II authorised limited approval for the Mass of Trent to be said the Archbishop must have wondered why it took so long for Rome to accept what he had been saying for twenty years - that the Tridentine Mass was a sublime experience of worship oriented towards praise of God and not a banal celebration of humanity prompted by a vague sense of fraternity. As no less eminent or august a person as Cardinal Ratzinger has written "One shudders at the lacklustre face of the post-conciliar liturgy as it has become, or one is simply bored with its hankering after banality and its lack of artistic standards." (The Feast of Faith)

The judgement of the Church in respect of the outer forum after the Episcopal Consecrations of June 29th 1988 can in no way pre-empt the judgement in foro interno carried out by the Almighty. Those who knew the Archbishop personally say that never for a moment did they doubt his sincerity. What will the verdict of history be on the Archbishop? Future generations of commentators may well recognise that sooner than most Mgr Lefebvre recognised how the avowed pluralism of Vatican II was a pluralism which extended no further than to those who wanted mediocrity in worship and a theological free-for-all.

Anima ejus et animae omnium fidelium defunctorum, per misericordiam Dei requiescant in pace.

N.B. It is noteworthy that Cardinal Ratzinger confines his criticism of the new liturgy to the 'externals' of worship and considers that any aberrations in the Novus Ordo are the result of "abuses" or departures from the rubrics stipulated by the Holy See. On no occasion has the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith admitted that the Novus Ordo is theologically flawed. In his opinion, whatever damage he attributes to the effects of the reforms can be rectified by greater attention to cosmetic and aesthetic considerations. Hence his preference for a "Reform of the Reform" which would refashion the liturgy yet again according to the ideas and tastes of a new set of reformers, all claiming ever greater fidelity to the wishes of the Council Fathers. But what about Tradition? The Cardinal has made it abundantly clear that, as far as Rome is concerned, there is no question of a return to the traditional Roman rite.

We must be wary of reading too much into his 'criticisms' of the post-conciliar reforms and avoid the temptation to interpret them as a defence of Tradition.