Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre - Vol. III - Mgr. Lefebvre: Two Viewpoints

The Historical Significance of Mgr. Lefebvre
by Dr. Greorg May

The British¹ Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, penned the beautiful sentence: “The most important and the most necessary characteristic of a politician is courage.” The office of a bishop is related to the activity of a politician insofar as they are both concerned with taking care of public business and furthering the common good. For this reason as well as others a bishop needs courage just as much as a politician. There are few things we miss in most present-day bishops as much as this particular quality. Nothing is done against well-known false teachers simply because they are public opinion and the mass media on their side. They are able to proceed energetically only when someone stands consistently for the preservation of the spiritual treasures of the Church; for such a one stands alone today; his disciplining provokes no contradiction from the leaders of public opinion. Then suddenly, one hears pithy words, then ecclesiastical penal law is appealed to, which they have otherwise forgotten about; then sanctions are imposed which they want to forget about in other connections. To cite a scandalous example of this conduct: the Bishop of Augsburg suspended a thirty-two-year-old priest because the latter could not in good conscience give Communion in the hand.

We of the Una Voce movement work for the recovery of the Church independently of Archbishop Lefebvre. But in view of the bedevilment of this man, on grounds of justice, I cannot withhold some comment. They say that Lefebvre challenges the Second Vatican Council. I know bishops who challenge a great many more councils than just this one. They say Lefebvre divides the Church. I know bishops who protect and favor schismatics. They say that Lefebvre is disobedient. It is strange that the very ones who accuse Lefebvre of disobedience are the ones who haven't done their duty for fifteen years, who encourage or tolerate insubordination, and even in numerous cases have not concerned themselves with law and order in the Church. I do not understand the accusation of disobedience cast at Lefebvre who protects, upholds and defends values which the Pope and bishops have protected, upheld and defended insufficiently or not at all. He is therefore not disobedient. For years the bishops have invoked conscience, and referred the faithful to conscience. But when someone moved by conscience stands up and takes a stand against innovations, then all of a sudden conscience is not worth considering.

The historical significance of Archbishop Lefebvre lies in his carrying, in a way, the care of millions of the best Catholics who can no longer be ignored. Without his public protest, the concerns of orthodox believers would have been poo-pooed and dismissed with a wave of the hand, the way we were used to it from Herr Döpfner,² for example. Before Archbishop Lefebvre arrived on the scene the hierarchy of the Church passed over them carelessly or cynically; since his appearance they must at least take note of them, and perhaps even concern themselves with them.³

* * *

Dr. May's remarks coincide very closely with the opinion of Dr. Urs von Balthasar, a moderately conservative Swiss theologian, as expressed in a lecture he delivered at St. Gallen in Switzerland on 13 June 1977. An English translation of his lecture appeared in the 30 June 1979 issue of The Remnant.

 

The True Background to Ecône
by Dr. Urs von Balthasar ⁴

We are all aware of the disgraceful state of the French seminaries: nearly all of them have been closed down. There are no university faculties (for clerical students) except in the Instituts Catholiques. The rector of the faculty in Paris complained to me recently, "Why is my school in this state?" The reason is that the Jesuits and Dominicans no longer supply professors. One group is Marxist, the other is inclined towards atheism. You have only to read Etudes or the books published by these gentlemen. All that we can hope for is that some of them, at any rate, will soon get out of their Orders. And these were the Orders which once upon a time furnished men for the great faculties. Not long ago the former Revue ascétique et mystique, later changed to the merely historical Revue de Spiritualité, ceased publication because the Jesuits refused to support it financially any longer.

It has been found impossible to set up a seminary which – though in no way on traditionalist lines – is yet conformed to Christian and Catholic tradition in its lecture courses and general condition. The last attempt was made at Paray-Le-Monial – all previous attempts were failures – and it is uncertain whether it will have any better fate. There is no lack of candidates. But unless they are sufficiently imbued with psychology, psychiatry, sociology, etc., they are not accepted. Great Jesuit colleges have been closed and sold. Even the Dominican Le Saulchoir has been sold…

My beloved friend, Daniélou,⁵ who was a fellow student of mine, has turned some young men away from the idea of joining the Jesuits – at least in France. This is important to note because there, over the heads of the bishops, and whether they agree or not, a systematic destruction of the Faith is in progress. I have in my hands a booklet called Foi à l’épreuve produced by a group who call themselves Animateurs de catéchèse région ouest. In volume two it is stated that the former dogmatic beliefs can no longer be accepted because there is now a completely different approach to truth. As a basic concept Truth comes into being, "happens," when people come into contact with one another. Each time they do so truth is, of course, new truth. The old dogmas, at best, represent a theory. Les données de la révelations répètent donc une thérie. Another booklet poses the question: Is Jesus present in the Eucharist? The answer is: Yes, but this ancient manner of presence can no longer be held literally as though we were talking of a local presence. In some way Christ is present everywhere by means of the idea of Him. These booklets carry the imprimatur of the Bishop of Angers.

I have a sister who is the superior general of a Congregation of Franciscans who have their mother-house in Angers. She tells me that the sisters there object to making their hour of adoration before the Blessed Sacrament because the theologians have told them that they were no longer sure about the Real Presence.

Such, then, is the true background to the long, drawn-out saga of Archbishop Lefebvre. None of those who have reported the case in Switzerland have told us who are the true guilty parties in the case. Beyond all doubt it is the French clergy, or indeed the French bishops who, as long as fifteen years ago, excluded Lefebvre from the Bishops’ Conference on the ground that he was too right-wing while they were left-wing. So since there are no seminaries in France where men can study proper theology they will go to Ecône. Now that Rome has joined the fight and it has become so easy to attack this man, I find that the French bishops have very hypocritically – I am bound to say – suddenly become pro-Roman. For a long time they were so anti-Roman, as I saw for myself during the Bishops’ Synod in 1971 in Rome, where I acted as secretary. The French were the leaders of the opposition and constantly gained the votes by getting the better of the black cardinals and bishops. All this sounds not very pretty and even a bit primitive. But I think it must be admitted that such a background is really present in what I can only call a bitter and altogether primitive Gallicanism…

We received the other day a letter from the bishops warning us about the extreme conservatism of Mgr. Lefebvre and his followers. We were informed that they celebrate irregular Masses which many people attend. This is to stop and these men must not be allowed in our churches. All very well, but why don't they tell us about the other side of the coin, too? Why do the French bishops say nothing, too? I am thinking of such excesses as those crazy Eucharistic celebrations where lay people are invited to join in the words of consecration; or, of those ecumenical services where one man says the words over the bread, another over the wine, and then the mixed assembly receive what I might call the end-product. This sort of thing happens too in our own country. There are fancy liturgies with all sorts of changes and inventions: new canons and readings from non-scriptural works. The clergy have run amuck. I imagine that clericalism never before bore such fruit.

Nowadays the celebrant has so much to say and the lay folk present don't get much of a look in; perhaps they are allowed to sing a bit here and there. But the celebrant goes on as though he were the boss of the service and arranges it completely as he wishes, as though it were a work of art to be exhibited on Sunday. There are churches in Basle that many of my friends refuse to attend, because in them Mass is quite unrecognizable. You can make a good guess when the consecration takes place, but everything else is changed. I myself was asked to say Mass in two churches, ordinary ones. But I was told, "We don't have the Epistle any more, we have organ music instead." Surely the Council had no idea of all this, even if it did introduce four Eucharistic canons and a Eucharistic service people could understand. These fancy services produce a feeling of frustration in the minds of people. No wonder that, according to French statistics, attendance at Mass sank from 25% to 12% in two or three years.

Much more could be said of the same matter, as, for instance, when a parish priest from near Zurich invited the parents of those to be confirmed, and told them that "Essentially confirmation is all about acceptance of your own life," and that "the death of Jesus is heaven's cry that man must be anxious about his own life." But what I have said so far is only because, though we have heard all about Lefebvre, they haven't uttered a syllable about things like this. Why? Is it lack of courage?

---

1. Extract from a lecture given to the German Branch of Una Voce Association. Dr. May is Professor of Canon Law at the University of Mainz.

2. i.e., Julius Cardinal Döpfner of Munich.

3. This extract was taken from a translation of Dr. May’s lecture which was published in the 30 June 1980 issue of The Remnant.

4. Father von Balthasar was to have been created a cardinal by Pope John Paul II, but died in June 1988, before the Consistory.

5. Jean Cardinal Daniélou, S.J.
us about the other side of the coin, too? Why do the French bishops say nothing, too? I am thinking of such excesses as those crazy Eucharistic celebrations where lay people are invited to join in the words of consecration; or, of those ecumenical services where one man says the words over the bread, another over the wine, and then the mixed assembly receive what I might call the end-product. This sort of thing happens too in our own country. There are fancy liturgies with all sorts of changes and inventions: new canons and readings from non-scriptural works. The clergy have run amuck. I imagine that clericalism never before bore such fruit.