The Archbishop's Principle

Editorial:

Friends tell me that our humble Seignadou is widely read, commented on, and even criticized, but since nothing is ever addressed to us, we are unable to answer!

So it would surely be more useful and interesting, at the close of this year that marked the 25th anniversary of our founder’s death, to recall to mind the soul of his action, his acting principle.

As an introduction, I would like to mention this idea that seems to have spread far and wide that Pope Francis gave us “jurisdiction” for the Jubilee Year and just recently renewed it. Let us simply read the terms he used:

 

For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”

He used the same words in his letter to Archbishop Rino Fisichella, in which he spoke not to the Society but to the faithful:

 

A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. . . . Through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.”

Among other things, the Pope clearly pays no heed to Canon Law, for not once do I see him mention giving “jurisdiction” or a “faculty” to the priests of the Society. He speaks not to the priests but to the faithful. He did not change anything in the priests’ canonical situation – that would have required a clear act and an explicit declaration – and it is therefore obvious that this gesture made for the faithful presupposes that we already possessed the power to absolve them. Indeed, Bishop Bernard Fellay was far from mistaken in his reaction:

 

The Society of St. Pius X expresses its gratitude to the Sovereign Pontiff for this fatherly gesture. In the ministry of the sacrament of penance, we have always relied, with all certainty, on the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by the Normae generales of the Code of Canon Law. On the occasion of this Holy Year, Pope Francis wants all the faithful who wish to confess to the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to be able to do so without being worried.”

Should he have told the faithful not to come to confession to us, so as not to run the risk of receiving a “conciliar” absolution? Jurisdiction, even supplied jurisdiction, like grace itself, is a good that belongs to the treasury of the Church and serves to establish order and supply the faithful with the means of grace, and it has nothing to do with what is “conciliar” in her. It is one of the normal and good measures that are part of the normal life of the Catholic Church. It does not belong exclusively to the “conciliar” Church.

These considerations are not off topic for they clearly show the principle that guided the Archbishop and that still guides us. It is a prudential principle, and not an a priori determination, that applies this fundamental law of the Church’s supplied jurisdiction for the salvation of souls: salus animarum suprema lex (“the salvation of souls is the highest law”).

Although in the past I have often focused on the “battlefield Archbishop” with his polemical declarations, his refusals, his criticisms, and his condemnations (unfortunately some wish to hear of nothing else, as if he had been a warmonger, always at the breach ready to fire at anything that moved in the Vatican), I would like today to recall the Archbishop we speak less of. That is, I wish to speak of the man of flesh and blood and not the disincarnate myth, the man I l knew and who formed me: a father, a priest, a missionary, and the bishop, founder, and former of priestly souls! I dare to claim that that was the “substantial” Archbishop, who never changed behind his different faces, deeply faithful to his priestly grace, unchanging in his vocation at the service of the Church, the Mass, and the priesthood. The other, better known face, the Archbishop of holy resistance, is no less true than the first, but it is the fruit of circumstances and events; it is the face that never should have had to show itself. It is the prudent Archbishop, acting and reacting strongly to the needs and necessities of souls and of the Church.

Behind these various faces, the soul of the Archbishop remained the same after the condemnations as before. How many times have we heard it said that he would rather have died than go against Rome! And those who knew him will agree with me that when the Archbishop had to take up sensational public stances, it was in spite of himself, reluctantly, moved only by necessity and out of the sense of his duty as bishop. For his heart was elsewhere, and only freely revealed itself when he was with those he trusted, his family, priests, and seminarians. To them, when he had the joy of being with them, he revealed and set free his soul:

 

I apologize for bringing up again these problems that seem to be somewhat polemical problems. I do not much like to do so – I would rather give conferences on doctrine as I did on Our Lord Jesus Christ” (June 7, 1979).

And if we must look further to find the principle of the Archbishop’s action, it is enough to hear the conferences he gave to the seminarians back in February 1979. In them he laid out for us the principle of action that his Roman interlocutors attributed to him in a little phrase they wished to make him sign:

 

In your letter . . . you voiced general considerations on the situation of the Church since Vatican Council II that are by themselves allow for an adequate answer to the questions on the Ordo Missae, on your perseverance in the activity of the Society of St. Pius X despite the interdictions you have received from the Bishop of Rome. Based on these considerations, it seems to us that your position can be expressed by the following statement:

A bishop, judging in conscience that the pope and the episcopate no longer exercise in general their authority, in order to ensure the faithful and exact transmission of the faith, can, in order to maintain the Catholic Faith, legitimately ordain priests without being a diocesan bishop, without have received dimissorial letters, and against the Pope’s formal and express proscription and attribute to these priests the charge of the ecclesiastical ministry in different dioceses.”

This is what the Archbishop went on to say about this statement made by his interlocutors.

 

There, that’s what they found! I have to admit they are better than me, since I didn’t find this principle, and they tell me: ‘This is your principle, this is the principle that makes you act.’ I told them: ‘It’s not true. In any case, even if that is what you see, that is not what I see, at least not formulated like that! Certainly not! What makes me act is not a principle, a general principle, it is the situation the Church is in. We have found ourselves in circumstances that every month, every year, have made us take decisions that seemed to be asked of us by God, that is all, demanded by the needs of the Church, by the needs of souls, for the salvation of souls, that is all. And not because of some general principle like this one. Obviously we could lay down a general principle, but not formulate like that.’ Doubts are arising everywhere, more and more, so the faithful are confused. And since the faithful have a right, an absolutely strict right to receive the sacraments for the life of their souls, for their spiritual life, so those who can give the faithful this help, the help of the doctrine, the help of the faith and the help of the sacraments, have the duty to go give it to them. And so I say: ‘A bishop has the duty to do everything that is in his power to ensure that the faith and grace are transmitted to the faithful who legitimately request them, especially for the formation of true and holy priests formed on every point according to the spirit of the Church, even if these priests have only a fictitious incardination.’”

That is the principle that made the Archbishop act, the exercise of the virtue of prudence, mixed with fortitude and justice, and not an implacable and immutable theoretical principle that would apply to every situation. This same principle is what led him to consecrate four bishops in 1988, so that the Faith and grace might be transmitted to the faithful who legitimately request them, especially for the formation of true and holy priests formed on every point according to the spirit of the Church.

And if I must also quote the post-condemnation Archbishop, I will point out a sign of what always animated his soul, in his Spiritual Journey where he confides: "I have always been haunted by the desire to show the means for true priestly sanctification according to the fundamental principles of Catholic doctrine concerning Christian and priestly sanctification.”

And again, we have his last conferences at the seminary on February 7 and 11, 1991, a few weeks before his death. Except for a few quick comments on Cardinal Bea, he speaks only of the liturgy and priestly holiness, the dispositions priests must have in their apostolate!

 

What should be the fundamental disposition of the priest towards the faithful entrusted to him? It is clear that the fundamental disposition should be above all a disposition of faith! . . . [T]he first thing is to pray and ask God, through the intermediary of Our Lord, for the sense of God. . . . That is the fundamental disposition in which you must place yourselves, we must place ourselves, in order to try to be the best instruments possible. And for that, once again, ask Our Lord to help us, since it is through Him that all things are given to us, He is our light, He is our way, He is our holiness; ask Him to help us better understand God’s plan, to understand better what God wants of souls and what He wants of us!”

That is the true Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, revealing one last time the priestly soul that animated his entire life, even in the heart of the most terrible combats for Jesus Christ, for Christ the King, for the Church, the Holy Mass, the priesthood, the Catholic Faith, and the traditional moral and spiritual doctrine of the Church. That was his one and only fight from the first to the last day of his priestly life! Reread The Mystery of Jesus. The soul of Archbishop Lefebvre is revealed in it. It would be a good book to start the year off well.

I do not know what the year 2017 holds in store for us: the Church, the Society of St. Pius X, politics, etc. But I do know that we will be celebrating the hundredth anniversary of the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima. Even if the consecration of Russia has not been made as the Blessed Virgin asked, if we do what Our Lady asks, only good surprises await us!