The Bishop's Weekly Column from the Parish Bulletin

OUR LADY OF FATIMA

CATHOLIC CHURCH

Archbishop-Liners

March 25, 2007

I took these photographs of Archbishop Lefebvre the day he came to bless the Church of Ss Peter and Paul in Liverpool. At the foot of this altar I had been received into the Church some months earlier. It seems like yesterday yet it was 18 years ago. Yesterday evening the Archbishop died. I was in the seminary chapel as the bell started tolling. I wrote a Latin inscription in my breviary at the seventh psalm of Matins for Monday of Holy Week. I did not keep that book. I gave it to a friend who is now a priest in an Indult community.

There is a time for all of us to reflect on the events of life, its twists and turns. Many of us are faced with the contradictions of our past. Prior to entering the Society of St. Pius X in my final year at university, I gave a viva voce examination in French on the life of the Archbishop. There were three examiners one internal, two external. The internal examiner, Dr. Monica Nurnberg, was a Traditional Catholic and had attended the Society Masses up until the schismatic break because of the consecration of the 4 bishops in 1988.

Father Godfrey Carney, an old Irish priest who, as I believe, is still going strong well into his 90s had flown to Rome in the aftermath of the issuance of John Paul II's Motu proprio: Ecclesia Dei adflicta and had managed to obtain a celebret to offer the Traditional Mass. Armed with this piece of paper he began (Motu proprio) to offer the Mass at 11.30 am at St. John's Kirkdale, the church where he had been Parish Priest for most of his life. The Archbishop (Derek Worlock), was most incensed at this (and not with incense I can assure you). In order to "control" the Mass, he moved it to St. Mary's Highfield Street, since demolished and the parish in which my Father was Baptized and in which his parents had married etc. "Control" was the right word to use - the priest offering the Mass, as he pointed out in a sermon one time, was the Archdiocesan secretary for the "Movement for Married Priests" - I think you get my drift...

Having set the stage - back to my exam: Dr. Nurnberg with her usual wit asked me to inform the three panelists on the situation of the Trad Mass in Liverpool. I told them without batting an eye-lid that "Here in Liverpool there are two Masses, one offered by the SSPX, the other set up by the Archdiocese to fool the people !" Monica laughed uproariously at this jibe. Then I sincerely believed it. The kicker to this anecdote came some 4 years later. After leaving the SSPX I myself began to attend the Indult Mass. The first time Monica caught sight of me, she stopped in her tracks, a look of joking triumph passed over her face and I nodded in her direction. My look said it all: "You won !"

During my time in the Society one common feature could be found amongst most of the followers; the following anecdote illustrates my point: Once I acted as MC at a Missa Cantata celebrated by the priest who received me into the Church. I asked if he would be kind enough to wear the biretta. Birettas mean an awful lot to young seminarians I can tell you, especially when it cannot be worn in the seminary ! He agreed to do so, after first observing that the Archbishop didn't like the biretta and then he made me a counter-proposal - if I would agree to omit the incensation of the celebrant after the chanting of the Gospel he would wear the hat. I said that was prescribed by the rubrics. He told me that it was omitted at Ecône - again on the liturgical fancy of the Archbishop. Stunned by this I said: "Well is the Archbishop the Congregation of Sacred Rites ?" (Boy did I get a glare for that one !) This is my point, in the Society (and especially dyed-in-the-wool ex-Society types) the Archbishop is the final arbiter in all matters theological, philosophical and liturgical.

Now I called this column Archbishop-liners. I am not one to take credit where credit is not due. This term was coined by Father Donald Sanborn in 1983 after the dismissal of the "Naughty Nine" in his piece: "The Crux of the Matter". I scanned this article back in the 1990s and used to have it posted on this site. Since it defends the sede line quite obviously you won't find it here. However, a snippet for your enlightenment of this point:

Hard-Liners Soft-Liners

GREAT LATITUDE prevailed in these matters at Econe. There were "soft-liners" and "hard- liners." Soft-liners wanted the Society to be a religious congregation which would retain the traditional practices of the Church, but which would not condemn as "non-Catholic" the changes of Vatican II. For example, there were some priests on the faculty who would say the New Mass in parishes on Sunday or while on vacation. They saw no theological problems there, since after all, both were approved. The hard-liners, on the other hand, saw the Society as the "new Jesuits," so to speak, this time fighting Protestants not in northern Germany, but Protestants in purple, sitting in high places of authority in the Church, injecting into the veins of the Church a false religion. The soft-liners would constantly worry about what the modernist hierarchy was thinking about Econe, and would conjure up ways of pleasing them. Hard-liners would disregard the modernist hierarchy, assuming that they were wolves in sheep's clothing, and should be treated as such.

The underlying question which divided these two groups, but which was seldom stated, was: "Are the Modernists Catholics?" or "Are the changes of Vatican II a true form of the Catholic religion?" or "Can someone who promotes the changes of Vatican II lay claim to the name 'Catholic'?"

If one answers the question in the affirmative, then logically traditionalists can only hope to be a pea in the modernist pod, a separate rite perhaps, recognizing the legitimacy of the entire post-Vatican II Church, at least in its officially approved disciplines. Such an answer would make someone worry about what the modernist hierarchy thought of Econe, and would always keep open the option of returning to them, if things became too hot in the traditional camp. After all, they would say, the Vatican II changes are Catholic. A negative answer, on the other hand, is a call to outrage, a call to arms, the arms of preaching, teaching, writing, the arms of traditional sacraments, traditional spirituality, traditional philosophy and theology. It is a call to cleanse the Temple with a whip.

Unfortunately Archbishop Lefebvre gave both sides something to work with. Both sides could legitimately point to words and actions of His Excellency to support their respective positions. Each side claimed to be his true followers, to have his true spirit.

True Followers: Archbishop-Liners

THE FACT IS that neither side was or did, since Archbishop Lefebvre never really answered the fundamental question - whether the modernists were Catholic or not--which answer would have placed him on one or the other side. Rather, the Archbishop "played by ear" his reaction to the crisis, and would occasionally say things and do things from which you could logically conclude that he felt that the modernists were not Catholics, and occasionally say things and do things from which you could conclude that the modernists were Catholics. The ones who were considered by the Archbishop to be his true followers were those who did not draw any conclusions from his sayings or actions, who did not seek an answer to the fundamental question, who were neither hard-liners nor soft-liners, but only "Archbishop-liners." His Excellency always cultivated and favored this kind of seminarian, and surrounded himself with them when they were ordained. He would visibly spurn those who, either by word or deed, manifested an adherence to a principle which lay above and beyond the Archbishop, and to which the Archbishop himself was considered subject and responsible. I think that he felt that such clerics threatened the unity of his Society, and were simply "using" him for ordination. His attitude, one sensed, was, "Why come to Econe if not to follow Monsignor Lefebvre?" I think he believed that the fundamental operating principle of Econe was to follow Archbishop Lefebvre in his struggle to retain tradition. In order to help seminarians who came to him, he was willing to lead them on a step-by-step basis through the dark tunnel of the crisis in the Church; all were invited but none forced to. take the same steps as he. If you felt squeamish about continuing at any point you were free to leave, and if he felt squeamish about your continuing in his Society, he would ask you to please leave, thank you.

And leave they did. Econe and the Society as a whole has been plagued, from the beginning, with controversies, divisions, defections, purges, and expulsions. About every two years since 1970 there has been some major eruption. If I am counting correctly, nearly one-third of the priests whom Archbishop Lefebvre has ordained are now no longer considered to be associated with him. The toll among seminarians is similarly staggering. Whenever circumstances would maneuver either the "hard line" or the "soft line" into a confrontation with the Archbishop's line, the missiles of accusation of "disloyalty" and "disobedience" would be launched with jolting ferocity, and the targeted victim, regardless of his contributions or position in the Society up to that time, would just wither away from the heat of the opprobrium.

The direction of the strikes usually depended on the weather in Rome. If Rome was conciliatory, then the soft-liners were "in", and the hard-liners "out." If Rome pursued a hard line, then the soft-liners were "out" and the hard-liners were "in". Inevitably the strike against the one side would inflate those of the opposing victorious side with a false sense of security, compelling them to think that His Excellency had definitively sided with them. Little did they know that they would be the next ones on the block. The long-term survivors were the ones who did not think, and consequently found no trouble in zigzagging theologically, advancing when the Archbishop advanced, retreating when he retreated, affirming when he affirmed, negating when he negated, changing when he changed, accepting the reforms which he accepted, rejecting the reforms which he rejected. Such was the ideal seminarian.

Are You Against The Archbishop?

LET EXAMPLES illustrate the point. Something which always made me uneasy at Econe was a certain "picking and choosing" of reforms, which, in Archbishop Lefebvre's mind, were acceptable and in accordance with tradition. The dialogue Mass, the Paul VI reforms in the traditional Mass, the use of the lecterns instead of the altar for the Epistle and Gospel, the observance of the Paul VI eucharistic fast, and the suppression of the traditional fasts of Lent and Ember Days are all examples of the picking and choosing. One got the impression of being somewhere in between the reforms and tradition, a third entity somewhere between new and old. The only apparent measuring stick was Archbishop Lefebvre's own judgment concerning the acceptability of the innovation.

An incident which is vivid in my mind from about ten years ago further illustrates the point. I was assigned to take part as a server in a Solemn Mass at Econe. In order to accomplish the task accurately, I studied from a traditional manual of liturgy, a French one, the very one named by Econe to be the standard manual of the seminary. When the practice time came, I was discussing certain movements with the Master of Ceremonies, and pointed out to him that he had instructed us differently from what was indicated in the book. His response was that Archbishop Lefebvre wanted it that way, and then glared at me and roared, "Are you against the Archbishop?"

I peeped a meek "no," and did it the "Archbishop's way." I later pondered the conversation, and realized, I think for the first time, that what the Church commanded and what Archbishop Lefebvre commanded were, in this case, two different things. Which was the higher authority, Catholic tradition or Archbishop Lefebvre?

Many in the Society argue that since we cannot follow our local hierarchy, modernists that they are, we must follow and obey someone, and that someone is Archbishop Lefebvre. They contend that he has a certain authority over traditional Catholics, since he is the one "chosen by God to be the Athanasius of our time." Accordingly, they assign to him an authority to rule traditional Catholics all over the world. This authority requires Catholics to trust him to make decisions through the crisis, and to select from the Vatican's reforms what is traditional and what is not. In other words, he is regarded by many to be the living tradition of the Catholic Church. In the above example of the liturgy, they would argue that I would have been obliged in obedience to Archbishop Lefebvre, over any obligation to the previous tradition, to do it his way. After all, they would say, you have the guarantee that it is Catholic since Archbishop Lefebvre approves of it.

The account of the serving practice reminds me of an incident with one of the priests in the seminary - the same one I had called on about changing Church teaching in the classroom. In a meeting with him in his office, after regaling me with all his objections to me, he then concluded with the line of lines: "In sum you are not one of us !" The scales literally dropped from my eyes ! When I heard this I said to myself, "I'm in a cult, this is a cult ! Not 'one of us' ? I didn't come here to join a sect, I came to follow Jesus Christ !".

Father Sanborn's article, when I first read it years ago, not long after arriving in Florida was like a "de-briefing session". All the conclusions he had formed were my own. It would be foolish for anyone to try and maintain that the Archbishop was completely logical in his opposition. There was much vacillating as Sanborn's eye-witness account demonstrates.

At the end of my first year in the seminary the priest who received me into the Church brought two young men to catechism camp. We fell to talking in the garden. He said that both he and another priest agreed I would persevere to ordination within the Society. I looked at him squarely in the eye and told him firmly I was sure that that would not be the case. "Why ?" he wondered, "Because unlike you I'm not a 'company man'." I used the same expression three years later to another seminarian. He reminded me of that last year in an e-mail. He isn't a company man either any more ! I said above: there is a time for all of us to reflect on the events of life, its twists and turns. Many of us are faced with the contradictions of our past.

Without the Archbishop, none of us would be here. He had his contradictions, I have mine, we all do. As we stand before God, we carry only ourselves, yet with Silvio Cardinal Oddi who knelt at the tomb of the Archbishop I too can whisper "Merci, Monseigneur !"

+TF