The dehabilitation of Archbishop Lefebvre by the Neo-resistance priests

Sooner or later it was bound to happen. There are too many inconvenient truths concerning the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's sometimes conflicting words and actions. It has been difficult, if not impossible, for the neo-resistance priests, and their moral authority, Bishop Richard Williamson, to use Archbishop Lefebvre as a standard bearer and yet explain away some of his actions. In the same way, Thuc-line sedevacantists have a problem justifying the soundness of mind of Archbishop Thuc while avoiding the fact that at times, he appeared willing to make a bishop of anyone with a pulse. Here are the inconvenient truths that the neo-resistance group have so far swept under the rug, so it speak.

1. The Archbishop signed all but two of the Council documents. Very awkward.

 2. In February of 1966, the Archbishop informed his colleagues in the Coetus that he proposed to publish a “combative, multilingual interepiscopal bulletin of information and analysis which will help the bishops to take practical measures against progressivism and in favor of a sound interpretation of the Council”. This must certainly be a very embarrasing piece of history for the neo-resistance and their moral authoritarian. The Archbishop apparently felt, a year after the conclusion of the council, that it was possible to interpret it in the light of Tradition!!

3. It is tantamount to heresy to even meet with the conciliar Cardinals and Pope, yet the Archbishop met with Paul VI and John Paul II. Actually, all four of the SSPX Bishops met with Cardinal Castrillon, but apparently, that was just for tea and nuts, so no harm done.

4. After penning "I accuse the Council" in 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre found his way clear to collaborate with Cardinal Ratzinger over several weeks to produce an agreement that would recognize the SSPX and give it a canonical structure within the church with the SSPX Superior General answering to some loosely defined council. This became known as the 1988 Protocol. The lynchpin of this agreement was the replacement of Archbishop Lefebvre with a new bishop to be chosen from within the SSPX. The day after signing the Protocol, the Archbishop contacted Cardinal Ratzinger and told him that he changed his mind. By his account, he did not trust that the promised and oft-postponed consecration of an SSPX bishop would ever be honored by the Vatican. According to Bishop Tissier’s book, even on the day of the episcopal consecrations, the Archbishop confided that he was willing to postpone them until the following August if Rome agreed to this condition. Apparently, this was the archbishop's criterion for the “conversion of Rome”. He reiterated this when challenged about his criticism of the FSSP and the Benedictines for accepting the same Protocol. His answer was emphatic: “No, they have NOT signed the same Protocol, for they have not been granted a Bishop.” This, along with the fact that Archbishop told Ratzinger that he signed the Protocol with "enthusiasm", must really cause some hand-wringing among the neo-resistance.

What to do? Well, one certainly cannot take the Archbishop's life and events in the church in chronological order and build a case to use him as support for rejecting a canonical recognition of the SSPX by the Pope. Therefore, they do the only thing they can do which is to take a line from the last priestly retreat Archbishop Lefebvre preached that was subsequently turned into a book "Spiritual Journey" to justify the rejection of the Pope until he converts, which is not specifically what the Archbishop said. With the prospect of any near-term developments between the SSPX and the Pope close to nil, and the SSPX not yet celebrating the Novus Ordo or holding hands during the Pater Noster, it appears that it now is necessary to begin to marginalize Archbishop Lefebvre and expose some of the chinks in his armor. The moral authoritarian of the neo-resistance has begun, in his recent English language writings, to recall liberalism, in definition and origin. Fine, you might think, as all Popes prior to the council have also done. What has not received much notice in the English press is a conference given by His Excellency in French last month. Here is what he said: (from http://lefebvristes.forum-box.com)  

Je pense que chez Mgr Lefebvre la pastorale minait sa doctrine, une pastorale qui correspondait à une doctrine qui n'était pas la sienne. Je crois qu'il a été moulé par l'Eglise des années 30, 40, 50 et on se souvient que déjà le vers était dans le fruit aux années 20: Action française et toute la décadence qui a suivi! Donc le mal était déjà bien installé dans l’Église dés les années 20. Mgr Lefebvre était très loyal, il a su apprendre du père Le Floch au séminaire français, il a su assimiler la bonne doctrine. La bonne doctrine des encycliques anti-libérales qu'il a apprises auprès du père Le Floch, mais il nous disait lui-même que quand il est arrivé au séminaire, il croyait encore à la séparation de l'Eglise et de l’État. Ses idées libérales étaient tout-à-fait courantes depuis depuis un siècle à ce moment-là. Autrement dit, quand j'analyse la chose maintenant, je pense qu'il y a eu un aspect "cinquantiste" même chez Mgr Lefebvre. Et je crois que c'est cela qui a mis la pagaille, parce que la moindre faille dans un fondateur se montre inéluctablement par la suite. Il y a un dicton, très amusant, pas très élégant en espagnol: "Ce n'est que quand le singe monte dans l'arbre qu'on voit son derrière!" C'est graphique mais ça dit une grande vérité! A savoir, plus on est supérieur, plus ses déficiences sont dangereuses. C'est pour ça qu'il faut que les supérieurs soient les plus parfaits possibles.

Bishop Williamson often offers an analogy of the conciliar faith with even a slight bit of error like a cake with a slight bit of poison that a mother would never serve to her children. Here, he is using the same analogy with Archbishop Lefebvre saying that because modernism was already rooted in the church as early as the 1920's, the Archbishop was already tainted with this "flaw" (faille) which has apparently now come to roost in the SSPX. Sins of our fathers equals Flaws of Our Founders (faille dans un fondateur). Luckily, the neo-resistance priests and their moral authoritarian have benefited by an Immaculate Formation whereby they were preserved from the original flaw of modernism, unlike the unfortunate Archbishop and the whole of the SSPX, save for those in Kentucky and Wimbledon. Now I will expect that little by little, in the future neo-resistance YouTube sermons, we will begin to hear about the flaws and non-infallibility of the Archbishop. It is the next logical step in the side-stepping of the inexplicable episodes in the life of the Archbishop who appeared to be ever interested in a (now taboo, regardless of conditions) canonical status for the Society of St. Pius X.