A Homeless Bishop

[Nihil Obstat]

Over the summer I read the biography of Marcel Lefebvre. I thought it was an excellent book. It offered a perspective that I very much wanted to hear, and I feel that I took some significant steps in understanding Archbishop Lefebvre as a person.

There were a couple 'events' or passages in his biography that really struck me. One of those points was the time when he left the Holy Ghost Fathers.

In 1962 Lefebvre was elected as Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, which was a good move for them. Lefebvre's work in Dakar and Gabon was masterful.
Anyway, as you can imagine, change was very much taking hold by 1962, and the tension was just beginning to surface. By the mid sixties Archbishop Lefebvre was being criticized even by his own congregation. Obviously the criticism coming from other bishops during the Council was rather intense at certain points as well.
In 1968, the Holy Ghost Fathers convened a general council in Rome, at which point they essentially made it clear that Archbishop Lefebvre was no longer welcome as the Superior General, and his authority would no longer be honoured. So Archbishop Lefebvre resigned as Superior General. "He would later say that it had become impossible for him to remain superior of an institute that no longer wanted or listened to him."
So that sets the stage for this passage that struck me:


[indent=1]A Homeless Bishop:[/indent]

[indent=1]The Archbishop left the motherhouse, one simple bag in hand. A French seminarian saw him and asked "Where are you going like that, Excellency?"[/indent]
[indent=1]"I don't know..."[/indent]
[indent=1]"Can I be of assistance?"[/indent]
[indent=1]"Thank you, that's all right."[/indent]
[indent=1]He found refuge firstly on November 1 at the Institute of the Holy Ghost on Via Machiavelli. A little later, he found a small room at the Villa Lituania on Via Casalmonferrato. It was maintained by the sisters who were attached to the Lithuanian seminary. He bought himself a desk, a wardrobe, and some shelving, and he had just enough to pay his rent with the ninety thousand lira he received monthly from the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith for his work as a consulter and as president of the commission responsible for catechisms in Africa. It was a role he kept until 1972.[/indent]

Basically he was thrown out of the order that had been his family since 1931. The order that he gave his life to in going to the west African missions, first as a simple professor, a rector, a superior of some missions, later Vicar Apostolic, Apostolic Delegate of French West Africa, then Metropolitan Archbishop. He did so much good in Africa. He never expected thanks, because he knew it was his vocation, but how could anyone expect that kind of rejection?

Whenever I read about Archbishop Lefebvre, I always wonder about what might have been. How might things have been different if the Holy Ghost Fathers through the 60s recognized the great Superior General they had in Archbishop Lefebvre? What if they had accepted his leadership and let him direct them through the turmoil that was the Church through the 60s and 70s? How much more good might he have done?
Would he have ever started the SSPX? Maybe he would not have felt the need. Maybe the whole painful SSPX situation would never have developed. A lot of hurt could have been avoided. It is very frustrating. So many great things might have happened, but we will never know what they might have been.
That is why I pray every day that the whole thing is resolved in a way that is acceptable both to Rome and to Econe. I believe we need the SSPX, especially Bishop Fellay. Or at the very least, that they can offer us effective and faithful service.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

But don't you kind of think that is he was leading the Holy Spirit Fathers (and say they actually listened to him) that he would have lead them the same way he did SSPX- out of union with the Holy Father? Correct me if I am wrong, but SSPX was in union with Rome for a while until he consecrated those bishops. Why do you think he wouldn't have done the same thing with the Holy Spirit Fathers?

I don't know if we "need" SSPX- He didn't say the gates of hell won't prevail if you have SSPX in your ranks. I am more inclined to say SSPX needs the Church and the Holy Father who unites and leads her.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='To Jesus Through Mary' timestamp='1348603647' post='2486628']
But don't you kind of think that is he was leading the Holy Spirit Fathers (and say they actually listened to him) that he would have lead them the same way he did SSPX- out of union with the Holy Father? Correct me if I am wrong, but SSPX was in union with Rome for a while until he consecrated those bishops. Why do you think he wouldn't have done the same thing with the Holy Spirit Fathers?

I don't know if we "need" SSPX- He didn't say the gates of hell won't prevail if you have SSPX in your ranks. I am more inclined to say SSPX needs the Church and the Holy Father who unites and leads her.
[/quote]

Good questions.

Would he have brought the Holy Ghost Fathers into the same situation as the SSPX? Of course we should accept that it is possible, but I do not think it is likely. The Holy Ghost Fathers were and are a large, well established congregation. If they presented a united front behind the authority of Archbishop Lefebvre, I think that they would have had some significant influence in how the Church moved after the Council.
From a position of authority, Archbishop Lefebvre may have been able to reach far more people, and influence many hearts and minds. The establishment of the SSPX in a certain way of looking at it kind of was a self-imposed exile. It was isolating. That, I think, is one big reason that their influence was rather limited.

[quote]I don't know if we "need" SSPX- He didn't say the gates of hell won't prevail if you have SSPX in your ranks. I am more inclined to say SSPX needs the Church and the Holy Father who unites and leads her.[/quote]

Of course nobody thinks it is a matter of revelation that the SSPX is necessary. But I think they are a part of God's plan for the Church, and in that manner of speaking, necessary.
I do not know how things will work out, but I think a reunion is by far the ideal.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

I haven't really read enough... ok let's be honest, [i]any[/i] of Archbishop Lefebvre works to even begin to hypothesize what his line thinking was with SSPX to how it could have been different with the Holy Ghost Fathers. So I join with you on the "maybe"

But if it is apart of Gods plan, and you are Thomistic in your thinking (and I would bet 50 cents you are), God is sovereign and it will happen. I, on the other hand, am skeptical that SSPX will be reunited with the Church and if it is not all of the society would return and sadly there will be another splinter. I guess after how things played out this summer I am a bit reluctant to hope they would. Although I completely agree it would be the ideal for [i]anyone[/i] to reunite with the Church.

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, perhaps in a more informal sense we can say that it is God's plan, but we being fallen and often ignorant, may not cooperate.
Because it would be contradictory to say "it is not God's plan for the sspx and Rome to reconcile."

[To Jesus Through Mary]

I am not saying what is God's will and what is not. What I am saying if something is God's will it would happen. Sorry if I wasn't clear. (And I am not trying to hijack this thread and make it about predestination)

I may not be wearing a traddy button, but I still would love to see SSPX come back into the Church for their sake. I also know they would benefit the body of Christ as well. I am just reluctant to hold Archbishop Lefebvre in such a way to say he was kind of forced into this departure [I am referring to SSPX departure from the Church- I want to say schism, but think that is the proper term?] and the Holy Ghost Fathers were to blame. In a round about way. Naturally whoever wrote the biography would hold favorably to him. But what about from the Holy Ghost Fathers side of things. It all just seems kind of grey to me. I am not trying to demonize Lefebvre but don't think he was some sort of saint and was wrong for consecrating those bishops and led thousands away from the Holy Father. Maybe the order had good reason to state they would not follow him.

ETA the wording the brackets

Edited September 25, 2012 by To Jesus Through Mary

[Indwelling Trinity]

Those were such painfu a nd soul searching times for all priests and religious. I have compassion for his sufferings as i do for many reigious who some are still undergoing the same struggles. It is clear that he should have remained under the umbrella of the church with others who effected reform of the reform of Vatican II. So many good souls lost footing during those turbulent times.

I posit one thought.... and that is if those of us in those times did not try and stand fast in an attempt to hold on to what was good and let go of the dross that had accumulated; would there still be such a resurgence of new traditional communities for young people to go to now? Yes mistakes were made on all sides but i truly believe that most hearts of those on both sides meant well For God and his church.. There is no birth without the pans of pain. What you saw in the sixties were exactly that birthing pains for a new generation of strong priests religious and laity who now have the mission to strengthen God's people through the difficult times ahead.

I see no judgement here but just in case that some may be quietly judging Bishop LeFevbre and others like him, right or wrong at least he tried and in the end of all of that pain and confusion God brought good out of it. Now it is for a new and Younger generation to hold fast to all that is good holy and beautiful in our faith. Follow the wind, but do not try to grasp it. for once you do it is wind no longer, but only stagnant air and gives life to nothing. The wind is the spirit of God.

May we all learn to be like fields of wheat, that bend and sway to the tiniest movements of the wind, yet are not uprooted because they are deeply rooted in the soil and that soil is the word of God. Finally let us remember that the tears of those who suffered for the last 50 years perhaps were the water that nurtured future crops of religious and laity that mature today.

In the end we will be judged only love remains... and in God's infinite mercy we will be judged on love By LOVE Incarnate.

Just my musings.

[GeorgiiMichael]

What's the title of the book? I'm writing my final history thesis on the SSPX and this would be a great resource.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='To Jesus Through Mary' timestamp='1348607115' post='2486647']
I am not saying what is God's will and what is not. What I am saying if something is God's will it would happen. Sorry if I wasn't clear. (And I am not trying to hijack this thread and make it about predestination)

I may not be wearing a traddy button, but I still would love to see SSPX come back into the Church for their sake. I also know they would benefit the body of Christ as well. I am just reluctant to hold Archbishop Lefebvre in such a way to say he was kind of forced into this departure [I am referring to SSPX departure from the Church- I want to say schism, but think that is the proper term?] and the Holy Ghost Fathers were to blame. In a round about way. Naturally whoever wrote the biography would hold favorably to him. But what about from the Holy Ghost Fathers side of things. It all just seems kind of grey to me. I am not trying to demonize Lefebvre but don't think he was some sort of saint and was wrong for consecrating those bishops and led thousands away from the Holy Father. Maybe the order had good reason to state they would not follow him.

ETA the wording the brackets
[/quote]

I have often said that it is all a very confusing situation. I agree that things look rather grey. Certainly there is some fault on both 'sides', and few can be said to be truly blameless.
I do think that it is clear, in an objective analysis, that some actions of some bishops caused Archbishop Lefebvre to feel that he was forced into certain actions. I also think it is clear that there has been antagonism from some corners of Econe. Basically, we are not out of the woods yet. There is much left to, and a better historical perspective will help some time from now in sorting out precisely how things should have been handled in a perfect world.

[quote name='Indwelling Trinity' timestamp='1348608516' post='2486654']
Those were such painfu a nd soul searching times for all priests and religious. I have compassion for his sufferings as i do for many reigious who some are still undergoing the same struggles. It is clear that he should have remained under the umbrella of the church with others who effected reform of the reform of Vatican II. So many good souls lost footing during those turbulent times.

I posit one thought.... and that is if those of us in those times did not try and stand fast in an attempt to hold on to what was good and let go of the dross that had accumulated; would there still be such a resurgence of new traditional communities for young people to go to now? Yes mistakes were made on all sides but i truly believe that most hearts of those on both sides meant well For God and his church.. There is no birth without the pans of pain. What you saw in the sixties were exactly that birthing pains for a new generation of strong priests religious and laity who now have the mission to strengthen God's people through the difficult times ahead.

I see no judgement here but just in case that some may be quietly judging Bishop LeFevbre and others like him, right or wrong at least he tried and in the end of all of that pain and confusion God brought good out of it. Now it is for a new and Younger generation to hold fast to all that is good holy and beautiful in our faith. Follow the wind, but do not try to grasp it. for once you do it is wind no longer, but only stagnant air and gives life to nothing. The wind is the spirit of God.

May we all learn to be like fields of wheat, that bend and sway to the tiniest movements of the wind, yet are not uprooted because they are deeply rooted in the soil and that soil is the word of God. Finally let us remember that the tears of those who suffered for the last 50 years perhaps were the water that nurtured future crops of religious and laity that mature today.

In the end we will be judged only love remains... and in God's infinite mercy we will be judged on love By LOVE Incarnate.

Just my musings.
[/quote]

Very nice.
I am not sure it is entirely correct to say that the 60s constitute birthing pains for a new generation of priests... though I see what you are saying. I think that the current generation is, all in all, going to surpass their predecessors from the 70s and 80s. But I understand what you are saying, and I agree with your sentiment.

[quote name='GeorgiiMichael' timestamp='1348608872' post='2486660']
What's the title of the book? I'm writing my final history thesis on the SSPX and this would be a great resource.
[/quote]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Marcel-Lefebvre-Bernard-Tissier-Mallerais/dp/1892331241/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1348609307&sr=8-14&keywords=archbishop+lefebvre"]Here's a link[/url] to the book on Amazon.

[Indwelling Trinity]

hose were such painful and soul searching times for all priests and religious. I have compassion for his sufferings as i do for the many religious who some are still undergoing the same struggles. It is clear that he should have remained under the umbrella of the church with others who effected reform of the reform of Vatican II.

So many good souls lost footing during those turbulent times. In those days there was much open and also quiet persecution within religious houses and monasteries against those who tried to move more slowly and prudently.Those of us who wished to retain some tradition of our roots were openly criticized and even ostracized from community. I have seen sisters locked out of their convents, i have seen other nuns tearing off the veils and scapulars of those who continued to wear them. I have sen false accusations and even psychiatric hospitalizations, not for mental illness but for standing faithful in silly things like refusing to attend happy hours or going on a community outing to casinos gambling with the rest of the community. The sisters were admitted for being depressed and antisocial by their local superiors.I have seen Monasteries suppressed by lies and pressure to the bishops by other monasteries All for doing nothing more than your newer stronger religious communities are doing today. New communities that have young people flocking to them. I agree that some who left never should have been in religious life in the first place, but that was only a minority of the 60,000 exodus that ensued after Vatican II. Yes before Vatican II there were many practices that developed over time that were choking some communities, some resulting in stagnation. Yes perhaps some religious were more attached to these practices and externals than to seeking God but Only God Knows that. But in the frenzied climate that ensued after Vatican II, Many good souls were broken, some became bitter and others just gave up.

I Remember returning to my high school after my profession as a Missionary of Charity to see some of the sisters who taught me. I was not welcomed in the door and told i looked ridiculous wearing a habit. and the door closed on my face. It was the first experience i had of how deep the rift had become. I was not bitter or shaken but only had a sense of sadness how friends could no longer be friends over a few pieces of clothing. You might imagine how much more devastating it must have been for those who actually lived in those communities day in and day out.

I do not know Archbishops Le Fevbre' heart. Only God Does. I have met him when he came to Rome for three days to speak with Mother Teresa. My first impression was of a good but lost man who dearly believed what he was doing was right. I heard him talk laugh and even argue for three days with Mother Teresa as she tried to persuade him to stay within the Church,, but in the end he would not change his convictions.I felt sad he could not at that time find safe haven in the church.



I posit one thought.... and that is, if those of us in those times did not try and stand fast in an attempt to hold on to what was good and let go of the dross that had accumulated; would there still be such a resurgence of new traditional communities for young people to go to now? Yes mistakes were made on all sides but i truly believe that most hearts of those on both sides meant well For God and his church.. There is no birth without the pangs of pain. What you saw in the sixties and even to now were and are exactly that birthing pains for a new generation of strong priests religious and laity who now have the mission to strengthen God's people through the difficult times ahead.

I see no judgement here but just in case that some may be quietly judging Bishop LeFevbre and others like him, right or wrong at least he tried . He was not Luke warm. And in the end out of all of that pain and confusion God brought good out of it. as new communities are forged and many old ones revived hopefully with the balance that The Second Council first envisioned. Now it is for a new and Younger generation to hold fast to all that is good holy and beautiful in our faith.Tradition is a beautiful thing, but only if it gives life and meaning to tell us where we came from, show us where we are and to where we are going. But be careful not to be stifled by it.

Hold on to Sacred tradition but also follow the wind, but do not try to grasp it. for once you do so it is wind no longer, but only stagnant air and gives life to nothing. The wind is the spirit of God.

May we all learn to be like fields of wheat, that bend and sway to the tiniest movements of the wind, yet are not uprooted because they are deeply rooted in the soil and that soil is the word of God. There in is the heart of all tradition.

Finally let us remember that the tears of those who suffered for the last 50 years perhaps were the water that nurtured future crops of religious and laity that mature today. They say hindsight vision is 20/20. Let us learn from others struggles and perhaps be grateful for what they have taught us for good or bad on how to follow the Lord Today.

In the end we will be judged on By Love Invcarnate, love for only love remains... Lets us be merciful in our thinking of others so when we too come to judgment our Merciful Loving God will judge us not on what we have done but on our love of God and by extension the love and mercy we have shown to others.

[Indwelling Trinity]

I am sorry for the double post.... I was trying to edit the content to make it clearer but phatmass would not allow it..
This second one is a clarification. Hugs! IT

[Nihil Obstat]

It is my fervent hope that at some point in the future Archbishop Lefebvre is looked upon rather more kindly than he is now. At the end of the day, all controversy aside, I do believe he was a good faithful man who was devoted to the Church.

[reminiscere]

Oh yes, Archbishop Lefebvre was trying to lead them "out of union with the Holy Father." He wanted the Holy Ghost Fathers - of which he was the elected superior general - to maintain regular, communal prayer; observance of the congregation's constitutions, and to continue wearing clerical dress.

Archbishop Lefebvre and his decisions were by no means perfect. However he did so much for the Church. Everyone's so quick to criticize him for the ordinations and consecrations, but no one seems to remember how he magnanimously built up the Church in Africa for example. Or how much he was trusted and revered by Popes Pius XII and John XXIII whom he advised, including on Encyclicals.

We don't "need" 569+ priests? Hundreds and hundreds of religious? Thousands and thousands of faithful?

[quote name='To Jesus Through Mary' timestamp='1348603647' post='2486628']
But don't you kind of think that is he was leading the Holy Spirit Fathers (and say they actually listened to him) that he would have lead them the same way he did SSPX- out of union with the Holy Father? Correct me if I am wrong, but SSPX was in union with Rome for a while until he consecrated those bishops. Why do you think he wouldn't have done the same thing with the Holy Spirit Fathers?

I don't know if we "need" SSPX- He didn't say the gates of hell won't prevail if you have SSPX in your ranks. I am more inclined to say SSPX needs the Church and the Holy Father who unites and leads her.
[/quote]

[Mr Cameron]

I don't think we can know if he would have led the Congregation in the same way he led the SSPX. Maybe he might not, because formed in the Holy Ghost Fathers....he would have been more obedient, and since the Spiritans were an already established congregation, with more than just Lefebvre as a bishop, he wouldn't have the problem of ordaining, disobediently, new bishops like he did? But I could be wrong.

I read today that the talks between the SSPX were over, though I pray the SSPX will finally, once and for all, become regularised and into full communion.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mr Cameron' timestamp='1349382838' post='2490027']

I read today that the talks between the SSPX were over, though I pray the SSPX will finally, once and for all, become regularised and into full communion.
[/quote]
Over *for now* and in the personal opinion of Archbishop Muller. I hope desperately that this does not mean that the 'case is closed', so to speak.