Posted on 11/30/2004 7:57:16 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
Marcel Lefebvre -- by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais
Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais is one of the four episcopal “sons” of Archbishop Lefebvre, uniquely qualified to offer a definitive account of Lefebvre’s life and career, much of which he personally witnessed. His personal experience of the archbishop, and his having been formed in the priesthood – and the episcopate – by Lefebvre himself, certainly provide a much-needed “inside view” of the prelate’s motivations and character, something often lacking in the thirty-second soundbite polemics of our day. Nevertheless, the work undertaken here by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is not a personal memoir. Instead, this is a work comprising years of painstaking research, a comprehensive review of documentation and literature, and a gathering of interviews and anecdotes from virtually all relevant sources regarding the life of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. While some aspects of the development of Lefebvre’s character, like that of all men, must remain a mystery known only to God, yet perhaps it is now possible to better understand, from the trajectory of the life, and that of the Second Vatican Council, the decisions that he faced near the end.
Tissier de Mallerais traces for us the origins of Lefebvre’s family and describes in detail the environment and the times in which he was born and came of age. This son of a locally prominent French industrialist and resistor during both World Wars, Rene Lefebvre, and of his mother, the gentle mystic, Gabrielle, was given an exceptional formation in the Catholic religion in his earliest years. He was one of eight children, five of whom received religious vocations. As a responsible factory owner, Rene faithfully worked for the implementation of Catholic social principles in chaotic postwar France, while Marie led the children to a deep love for Church and faith, and for the prayerful union with God which both engendered in her.
Taught by his family to follow the light of Catholic faith and principles and to apply them in tumultuous times, Marcel was blessed next with good and faithful priest-mentors, and with a complete Thomistic seminary formation – a rare gem, even then. At last he discerned a missionary vocation that led him to the Holy Ghost Fathers. The author shows us how this industrious missionary demonstrated striking gifts of planning, organization and leadership along with orthodox doctrine which led him to a singular missionary career in Africa, becoming the first Archbishop of Dakar and the Apostolic Delegate for French Black Africa and Madagascar. The fruits of the young prelate’s work in Africa are quite stunning; and through it all his character develops into that of a prudent, gentle father figure, careful, superior, and discerning defender of orthodoxy – and especially, that of a disciplined man of principle who has renounced his own ideas in order to always “think with the mind of the Church.”
Archbishop Lefebvre’s involvement in the Second Vatican Council is described in detail and makes a fascinating story. His alarm grew as he saw that same “mind of the Church” seem to question its own principles, and he was far from silent or passive through the proceedings, building coalitions and making interventions. But he was too late, outnumbered, and out-foxed. The deck was stacked against him. Tissier de Mallerais also addresses the questions about Lefebvre’s own signatures on the Council documents.
The picture painted of Lefebvre is not that of an implacable reactionary who could not bear the onslaught of progress and change. Such a man could not have made such incredible inroads in missionary Africa in prior decades. Lefebvre was quite willing to make adaptations and adjustments whenever necessary or prudent. In many ways he was quite flexible and even innovative regarding the application of the apostolate, but always without compromising the integrity of the Faith and the sacred tradition of the Church. After all, was not the unbroken transmission of that Faith to souls, for their salvation, the very purpose of the apostolate and the mission of the Church?
Obedient and not unwilling to adapt, nevertheless Lefebvre became a witness to the “autodemolition of the Church” (as Paul VI put it) during the postconciliar years – the demolition, especially, of the integrity of the priesthood and the liturgy. Novel doctrine regarding religious liberty and the social reign of Christ the King were also foremost concerns.
Although he was supposed to retire, he was deeply concerned, and, responding to the pleas of others, he took action to foster the formation of holy priests and the preservation of tradition – the missionary bishop to the end! The struggles of the early years of the formation of the Society of St. Pius X, and mounting opposition and intrigue from the French episcopate, are recounted in great detail. With this biography, the light of day now shines on the obstructionist tactics of his enemies, part of a long chain of events that would climax with Lefebvre’s decision to consecrate four bishops without papal mandate, in order to insure the survival of the Society after his death. Dramatic behind-the-scenes encounters with popes and cardinals fill the pages; but in the end, we are presented the picture of a man at peace. “Tradidi quod et accepi,” he said, quoting St. Paul. It was to be his epitaph: “I have handed on what I received.”
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais’ biography of Archbishop Lefebvre is replete with quotations, documentation, primary source references and firsthand interviews. Numerous maps and charts help the reader to orient himself as he follows the remarkable story of this lifelong defender of Catholic truth. Now that nearly forty years have passed since the close of Vatican II, perhaps some of the smoke begins to clear. In recounting the life and work of Archbishop Lefebvre, this volume becomes a contemporaneous history of an entire era of the Church, deepening our understanding of the movements, events and major figures leading up to and following the Council. As the conciliar era fades, the time to gain perspective has arrived, especially among a new generation who did not live through the battle but must now reap its consequences. Understanding the life and times of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre means understanding events within the Church that have brought us to where we stand.
--
Father Frank Parrinello, currently a pastor in the rural Midwest, holds a M.A. degree in theology.
1. More nonsense. Of course Bellarmine's view is traditional Catholic thinking. St. Thomas thought the same. So also did Suarez and countless saints. It is interesting that the editor for the 63 edition of the Enchiridion Symbolorum was Karl Rahner--who found a lot of reasons to leave a lot of Catholic traditional thought out of his effort.
2. The SSPX never refused to be subject to the Pontiff. You need to make distinctions. Someone who refuses to give the car keys to his inebriated father does not refuse to be subject to him as a son. The father may rail drunkenly, but the son is nevertheless right to refuse the father. Yet the filial bond is not broken, nor is it broken if the father berates the son and later unjustly casts him out.
3. Sure the Pope has full power over spiritual things--but not to the harm of souls. This is because the pope is not limited from below--but he is limited from above. He cannot command a destruction of something vital to the Church, for instance. Nor can he accuse the innocent unjustly. He has the legal clout to do so, but not the moral clout.
4. Sure he's the supreme judge. But this is a legal supremacy. He can still make mistakes in his judgments. He can say that a fact is a fiction and vice versa. He can condemn the innocent as guilty and be totally wrong. He can also punish the innocent unjustly without weighing any of the evidence. These judgments are legal only--they can have no moral validity.
5. Your notion that because a pope says a man is excommunicated, he is therefore actually excommunicated, is only true if the man is guilty of some wrong that is worthy of such a punishment. If he is innocent of what he is charged with, the excommunication can have no moral effect. It would be a moral nullity, though it would still have a legal consequence and the man would still suffer unjustly until the decree was lifted.
6. Where the pope is, there is the Church is a pious saying, but beside the point. Pope Alexander was sometimes in bed with his mistress--was the Church also present? Perhaps--but I like to think not. This is the kind of catchy phrase that makes people like you imagine that to oppose the pope on a contentious issue is tantamount to opposing the Church itself. But the pope is not the Church, he is the steward of the Kingdom, not the King Himself.
7. Wrong. The pope may err on faith and morals--when he is not speaking ex cathedra--in off-the-cuff remarks, in unofficial letters, in speeches to this or that group. He is only guaranteed divine protection from errancy when he speaks officially to the universal Church from the chair of Peter. Otherwise, he can be as wrong as you or I--and often is.
"You didn't answer my question. Did you ask him about religious liberty and ecumenism? Those have been two big hang-ups about Vatican II from the SSPX."
These are both big hang-ups for many of us in the N.O. Church as well, sink. The fact is that neither of these novelties have been asserted under the form of either a formal definition or a teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium which commands assent.
As far as I am aware, when Campos reconciled, the only thing that was asked of them wrt VII was the acceptance of Lumen Gentium n. 25 on the doctrinal teaching regarding the episcopacy. According to Ratzinger, this was the only part of Vatican II which could be construed as teaching a formal doctrinal definition.
The rest is either repetition of previous teachings of the Ordinary & Universal Magisterium, or it is commentary, or even speculation and hypothesis in places.
As such the work has still to be done on whether or how this all is reconcilable with Tradition (cf. Ecclesia Dei).
*Witness? He was part and parcel of it with his schism. And he was disobedient - to a schismatic fault.
Although he was supposed to retire
*He did. Do facts matter to trad-peeps?
The struggles of the early years of the formation of the Society of St. Pius X, and mounting opposition and intrigue from the French episcopate, are recounted in great detail.
*He was granted, and agreed to, a six year time limit of experimentation. When he was asked to cease his org, he refused. So much for his "obedience" and his word when it comes to certain commitments. He later repeated this pattern in discussions/ accords with Rome.
With this biography, the light of day now shines on the obstructionist tactics of his enemies, part of a long chain of events that would climax with Lefebvre’s decision to consecrate four bishops without papal mandate.
This is the "reasoning" of a liberal. A willful man is warned not to committ a certain act by those holding legitimate authority bestowed upon them by the God-Man, Jesus. Despite the warnings, he commits the schismatic act and who is blamed? The Living Magisterium. This is nothing but the liberalism of the extreme right.
The Living Magisterium is the enemy. Latin Mass magazine reveals more about itself than it does the facts about the excommunicated shismatic.
While his life included great service to the church, it ended in senseless tragedy.
A schismatic is never a hero.
The key word there is "legitimate." Not every order is legitimate
Legitimate authority, not legitimate orders
Anyone can decide for themselves what is "legitimate" when one is a liberal of the right. That decision makes them the ultimate authority and it is nothing more than protestantism
*Matt 16:18-19 not good enough?
why not?
............
Off to piano!
"That decision makes them the ultimate authority and it is nothing more than protestantism"
Gee, do you suppose God accepts the Nuremburg defense? Aquinas didn't think so.
Applying your logic, if the AntiChrist usurped the See of Peter, you would obey his orders to rape and barbeque children.
No.
Do you?
Pastoral-Practice-wise, I think that the 3-hour fast (was it Pius XII or John XXIII?) was a mistake. "From midnight" was just fine, and 6 hours would be better, given that some attend a Saturday anticipation or Sunday late-afternoon Mass.
This outfit makes pre-printed BULLETIN covers.
You may as well quote the Daily Worker regarding the cost of breakfast cereal.
But hey!! Anything for Marcel, no?
"This is the "reasoning" of a liberal."
Seagull? That you?
"A willful man is warned not to committ a certain act by those holding legitimate authority bestowed upon them by the God-Man, Jesus. Despite the warnings, he commits the schismatic act and who is blamed? The Living Magisterium."
Ultima Ratio described your error quite well: "Pope Alexander was sometimes in bed with his mistress...people like you imagine that to oppose the pope on a contentious issue is tantamount to opposing the Church itself. But the pope is not the Church, he is the steward of the Kingdom, not the King Himself."
The Church has had corrupt popes and much corruption in the living magisterium more than once in its history. Your only response to assertions that the men who currently occupy offices within the Church may be either misguided or corrupt is to say, "That couldn't happen."
Well, listen up: it has happened in the past, and it can happen again. It may be happening again right now. If you want to argue that it's not happening, you need a better argument than, "It couldn't happen," because that argument is patent nonsense.
"This is nothing but the liberalism of the extreme right."
The what?
Firstly, there is no spectrum with God in the middle, a left, and a right. There is only closer to God (moving rightward) and further from God (moving leftward). In this universe, "extreme right" is a compliment.
You have to move pretty far to the left (away from God) before you encounter anything that can correctly be described as "liberalism," as reasonable men use the term in America today.
Secondly, there is nothing "liberal" at all about fidelity to God that puts one in opposition to those who disregard or scorn Him.
Yeah, but it fits the post hoc/propter hoc mentality, usually found in sitcoms and cartoons, but now accorded status as a "historical method" by the schizzies.
"No. Do you?"
Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote. That seemed to be your meaning.
Easily the best one-worder I've seen on FR in 60 days!
Ummm--off the top of my head, you ignore Britten's "War Requiem" and a number of works by Ralph Vaughn Williams, not to mention minor but sterling liturgical music by Flor Peeters (all in Latin, of course, for your delicate sensiblities)...
But then, given your understanding of authority, it's no surprise that you can't discern art, either.
Good stuff.
Of course, the Enchiridion was annulled by the emergence of Marcel--or haven't you heard?
I can't get a bead on you. One minute you're high-fiving "feminaries" -- which is something I really wish I'd said (and I will) -- and the next minute you're on about "schizzies."
Works in reverse, too, which is why LeFebvre's illicit consecrations are, uh, problematic.
You contradict Chesterton, which is an act requiring immediate Confession.
It is only parenthetical that your subsequent definition of terms is blatantly self-serving...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.