A Real Tribute to Archbishop Lefebvre

“Dear Editor,

I've been a supporter of The Recusant with a few donations over the past couple of years. I read the January/February issue cover to cover. I'd like to tell you my observations, for what they may be worth.

[...]

The Recusant newsletter is entertaining and well written. I appreciate the updates on the goings-on within the neo-SSPX and the Resistance. I don't disagree with the observations and conclusions you've recently made regarding Bsp. Williamson and Bsp Fellay. But, I do disagree with the penchant for making the traditional movement all about Archbishop Lefebvre. It has gotten to thepoint when I read The Recusant, that I think I'm reading something written by the Church of Lefebvre. I comprehend the enormity of what Abp. Lefebvre did to help ensure apostolic succession, having recognized the invalidity of the "sacraments" of the new Montinian religion. Without validly ordained priests, there is no sacrifice and thus no valid Mass being offered, regardless of whether the old Latin rite is used. Abp. Lefebvre's efforts were extraordinary. And he was basically alone in the fight. I comprehend the desire to invoke the Archbishop's name in that regard.
But, the Faith doesn't hinge solely on 'following the Archbishop'. We are to follow Jesus Christ, his Apostles, the unchanging and unchangeable Magisterium and the Scriptures.

I respectfully submit The Recusant teeters near to becoming a Lefebvre cult rather than a group of Catholics fighting for the unchangeable Faith. I welcome your thoughts. [...]”​

“Broadly, let me say this. You seem to be under the mistaken impression (if you'll forgive me) that what Archbishop Lefebvre did is all about orders and validity and apostolic succession. That's not where it's at. His contribution is something far more important than just passing on his orders. I think the fact that there are a very large number of sedevacantist and independent bishops out there, several different Thuc-lines, Duarte-Costa line and others, proves that this is not all that's required. On its own, it's not enough. What we need above all is the Faith, with or without sacraments, with or without a bishop, with or without a priest. [...]

If you want to see what I think we need to be most grateful to Archbishop Lefebvre for, you only have to look at what is missing today from Bishop Williamson & co. Moral leadership. Conviction in the Faith. Apostolic zeal. A complete willingness to sacrifice his own considerable reputation and become an outcast from amongst his peers in order to perpetuate the Faith amongst souls whom no one cared about. He didn't just agree to set up a seminary for those French seminarians, he set up seminaries in other countries, priories, gave structure and organisation to something that was in its own way unprecedented, with no blueprint to work off. He stood up and took responsibility, took the decisions, took the criticism which he's still taking to this day! Just try for one moment to imagine what would have happened had he behaved in the selfish manner of Bishop Williamson.

Imagine, even if he had just been like Bishop de Castro Mayer and refused to do anything outside his own little corner of Switzerland. How different would things have been? But he was apostolic. He loved souls, he loved the Faith, and he made whatever sacrifice was necessary. That's really what we ought to be thankful for. That's why I say he was the man sent by God.

Now, as to your main point, I agree. As you say, the Faith does not hinge solely on Archbishop Lefebvre. We follow Our Lord. One proof of that is that all the Archbishop's credentials are wrong. On a human level what does he have to recommend himself to us? He's dead, first of all. Nobody is interested in someone who was but no longer is, just think what short memories people have. And what's worse, HE WAS FRENCH! Instantly he's starting off at a disadvantage for anyone like me! A dead Frenchman! Humanly speaking, I ought to have no interest whatever. If we in any way "“follow” him, it is 100% because of his words and deeds, and then only because what they represent is something unchanging since before the Council. Now, there are today four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, and yet not one of them is acceptable to us, despite their proximity to him, despite their direct apostolic succession, and why? Because they are betraying Our Lord. Had Archbishop Lefebvre betrayed Our Lord, we would not be looking to his example either (who knows, maybe we'd have barely heard of him). But he didn't. If I understand about Vatican II and its errors, if I appreciate the distinction between the conciliar church and the Catholic Church, if I truly love and appreciate the Tridentine Mass and hate and detest the New Mass, then that is thanks, directly and indirectly, to Archbishop Lefebvre. Give the man his due. He really was the Doctor of the Crisis in the Church, he taught and led the way. And like all good teachers, he didn't just talk the talk: he led by example.

If you can point to an error taught by Archbishop Lefebvre and then beyond that to the fact that we accept that error " because it's the Archbishop saying it!", rather in the way that some souls are now accepting the Novus Ordo nonsense, the structureless-Church nonsense, the homo-pederast nonsense, and all the rest, "“because it's Bishop Williamson!"- then you might have a point. So far I have read as much Archbishop Lefebvre as anyone, and I have found nothing like that. Please note as well that we go to some effort to reproduce Archbishop Lefebvre at length, usually full interviews, full sermons, etc, 4,000 words, 6,000 words in one go... unlike most of the opinionated talking heads (neo-SSPX, " the nine", Ecclesia Dei, etc.) who never seem to go beyond generalisations or very short soundbite quotes. The greatest apologetic for the Archbishop is the Archbishop himself. That's why we try to let him speak for himself, and at some length.

Does that make sense? I'm proud to be known as a Lefebvrist. It was originally intended as a derogatory term, and it's true, as you say, that's we're not actually following the man, but Our Lord who made use of the man. What concerns me above all is that all the people who have left the line of Archbishop Lefebvre have all done so for their own reasons and motives, replacing his wisdom with their own. In the absence of any actual error on the part of the Archbishop, if I stop being a “follower” of him then it can only mean that I'm now following something of my own making, which is bound to be far worse. That's what the nine are doing. That's what the Ecclesia Dei folks are doing. That's what the neo-SSPX are doing. And now that's what Bishops Williamson and Faure [we can add Bishops Aquinas and Zendjas too to this list - The Catacombs] are doing too.

God bless and Happy Easter,
-Editor.”​