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.
Actually, I post that way so that NOBODY can 'get a bead on me.'--which is how one stays alive in a free-fire zone.
More seriously, as you ought to know by now, I think that there are plenty of flaws, many of them visible, in the Church. But the Church remains indefectible--and under the Authority of the Pope.
There are those who think otherwise and arrogate to themselves the monicker of "Traditionalist." They are wrong.
Well, dern it, my animation don't animate.
"You contradict Chesterton"
Citation, please.
"It is only parenthetical that your subsequent definition of terms is blatantly self-serving..."
It's awfully congenial when the truth happens to be self-serving.
"But the Church remains indefectible--and under the Authority of the Pope."
Aquinas specifically posited the possibility of the pope acting wrongly, and clearly stated that disobedience was a moral duty in such cases.
Why are the Traditional Catholics seen as such a threat? Why has discipline been applied so seemingly arbitrarily? Specifically, why was the punishment for a disobedient act of Archbishop Lefebvre so severe while other bishops, and cardinals not only directly defy Rome, but commit personal immoral acts and cover up the immoral acts of the priests they are responsible for, as well as openly preach heresy, scandalizing the faithful, with no consequences for their actions? Why is there not a uniform application of justice and canon law?
Good questions.
"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"
Your take on this is absurd. A papal command is illegitimate if it would harm the Church and do injury to souls. Traditionalists have been schooled by preconciliar popes and councils--by Catholic Tradition itself--to distinguish legitimate change from illegitimate revolution--and to resist the latter.
First Friday has never been considered a day of fast, as far as I know. First Friday should be a day of special devotion to the Sacred Heart. Jesus told St. Margaret Mary to ask people to attend Mass on the First Friday of each month in honor of his Sacred Heart. I've never heard of any special fast provisions.
However this is Advent season which is already penitential. Fasting has always been traditional during Advent, although it is not as strict or obligatory as in Lent. The traditional Catholic fast was 2 small meatless meals (technically called "collations") and 1 main meal that could be the same as usual and could have meat except on days of abstinence like Fridays and Ash Wednesday. And no eating between meals.
This sounds like a joke fast when it's only assigned to a single day like it is today in the New Church for Ash Wednesday and Good Friday only. It's hardly any sacrifice at all to do for 1 day. But it is a pretty big sacrifice when you do it for 40 days in a row during Lent, or for 4 weeks of Advent.
Perhaps it does. But it if nothing else it reveals that the "rad-trad" label is a "distinction without a difference." The attempt to use the indult to divide traditionalists appears to be failing.
While his life included great service to the church, it ended in senseless tragedy.
Tragedy, yes, but not senseless. Most great lives end in tragedy. Saints never witness victory here on earth. But far from being "senseless," Archbishop Lefebvre died for the only thing on earth worth fighting for, the traditional Catholic faith.
I'm afraid that I am not a sola scriptura protestant. I require a real living community of Catholics headed by a priest, all of whom are believe the traditional Catholic faith of all time, offer the traditional Catholic Mass of all time, and live a traditional Catholic life. This can only be found in the SSPX, except perhaps for a half dozen FSSP parishes, which is itself a spin off from the SSPX.
Yes, this is true. This was all part of the Bugnini-led "reform" of the Mass that began in the 1950s. The 3-hour fast perhaps should have been limited only to Mass beginning after a certain time in the afternoon, for example, but it shouldn't apply to morning Mass.
I consider myself a slacker because I don't eat in the morning before going to communion, but I do take advantage of the relaxed 1950's rules to drink a cup of tea or coffee. That way I stay awake during the sermon.
My eyes passed right over that the first time through the original post. Thanks for putting it in bold.
First of all Flor Peeters fails to qualify because an artist can't be so obscure that no one has ever heard of him (or her?). Not one person in a million, without exaggeration, could tell you who Flor Peeters was. Beethoven and Mozart were some of the most famous men of their day. So were Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci. In our own time, so were T.S. Elliott and Salvador Dali.
Britten and Williams do qualify on that score. They were famous composers. Let's look at your examples.
It was dedicated to four of Britten's friends who were killed during World War I. The first London performance was on 6 Dec 1942, in Westminster Abbey.So I'm afraid that doesn't qualify.
Vaughan Williams, Ralph (b Down Ampney, Glos., 1872; d London, 1958). Eng. composer, conductor, and organist. Studied at Cambridge Univ. 1892-5 and RCM 1890-2, 1895, teachers incl. Parry, Charles Wood, Alan Gray, and Stanford; later in Ger. with Bruch and in Paris 1908 with Ravel. Org., St Barnabas, S. Lambeth, 1897. Began collecting Eng. folk-songs 1902. Mus. ed., English Hymnal, 1906. Cond. Leith Hill (Dorking) Fest., 1905-53. Prof. of comp. RCM 1919-39. Cond., Bach Choir, London, 1920-7. OM 1935.Looking over his principal works, nearly all of them were composed long before WWII, although he did turn out a few pieces after the war, mostly adaptations of earlier work. Precisely as I said in my previous post, "There may have been a few pieces of work that qualify as art that technically were created after 1945, but they would all have been just the unspent momentum of the pre-war years."The basis of his work is melody, rhythm sometimes being unsubtle, but its visionary quality, as in the masque Job and the 5th and 9th syms., its broad humanity, and its appeal at several levels make it a remarkable expression of the nat. spirit in mus. just as the man himself personified all that was best in the liberal 19th-cent. tradition of which he was a scion.
Next time you have the urge to be snide, you might want to check your facts first. It helps to avoid embarrassment.
I didn’t seek the advice of experts, I asked the Holy Spirit to guide me to my answer, and with the hope that I was listening properly, this is what I was told.
All of the Sins of the all of pederasts and those who aided and abetted their crimes against the innocents, and all of the sins of all the Cardinals, Bishops and Priests who:
depict the Holy Spirit as our Blessed Dove dive-bombing in rainbow colors
swear from the pulpit that Jesus Christ is “a” son of god, not THE Son of God
pose that malign influence usually referred to as reformists or modernists
committed all of their Sins while still “in” the Church.
The Sins of Archbishop Lefebvre placed him simultaneously outside the Church.
The pederasts, pederast pushers, heretics, apostates and such avoided direct confrontation with the Vicar of Christ, thereby avoiding forcing his hand. In essence, they were more clever, in the cunning sense of that word, than the Archbishop.
Moreover, if the Church were to excommunicate everyone who so richly deserved it, that so admired 1 billion count would, no doubt, be substantially reduced. I’m sure there are a good share of ‘Traditional” priests who are in a state of sin. Maybe not buggery, just good old-fashioned fornication with good old-fashion women. And I’m just as sure they’re not running to their Ordinaries as fast as their wing-tips will take them, seeking to expose all to the light of day. Remain In The Church, and work from within to expose and excoriate the reformists, modernists, heretics, apostates, etc.
Nobody said that it would be easy, but surely we don’t face the same difficulties that, say, the Martyrs did, do we? It is easier to leave, harder to stay. Staying is the narrow path. Our good poster Arguss, helped me arrive at this conclusion. Perhaps, if the Archbishop’s mind and that of his “Bishops” had been a little less brittle there would be more Bishops in positions within the Church to act as a countercurrent to those Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, etc. currently leading us down the road to perdition.
Tastes differ. I think the War Requiem is an excellent example of text being illuminated by music--which is the first sign of artistic competence. You certainly cannot complain about the text...
As to GKC, read "Orthodoxy," a short book--in it he has the famous line about the 'Church..wildly reeling but still erect..' near which is his vision of orthodoxy being a "center."
It's shameful to be congenial to oneself, btw.
Nice sidestep. You ought to get into politics.
1) The Church is indefectible.
2) The Church is under the Authority of the Pope.
Descartes will be happy to tell you that leaving the Church for the SSPX is, ah, fatal.
As to "Facts," Re-read your source material. The War Requiem was first performed in the 1950's, not 1940's. (I think offhand it was 1959 ...) The first recording of the piece was immediately after its premier, and it was recorded IN STEREO.
As to Peeters--only Europeans and Americans who are Catholic and were exposed to excellent Church music know of him--but your claim was that there was "no Art" created after WWII. You're full of it.
" .... so there is absolutely no grounds for saying that it was necessary for ARchbishop Lefebvre to illicitly consecrate bishops in order for the Tridentine rite to survive."
The archbishop concecrated bishops to maintain orthodoxy in the Church weakened by continuing innovation and revision. Precise legalities are therefore less important and are cited dishonestly by those who would enthusiastically follow a monkey if it were ever elected pope.
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.