Preserving the Faith
Note: Bishop Tissier wrote the interview below by hand just five weeks before his death. In submitting the interview, he said, “I hadn’t time to be short!” With his death, we lost a most faithful son of Archbishop Lefebvre and also a faithful transmitter of the Archbishop’s memory. Below are, as it were, Bishop Tissier’s last words about his spiritual father. We share these precious words with our readers while asking them to pray for the repose of the soul of their author.
1. How would you characterize the Archbishop’s style of leadership?
Archbishop Lefebvre had a very gentle way of exercising authority. He had a great respect for the person of his subordinates and would give them a few minutes to reflect before obeying. He never imposed his orders brusquely, except when he considered it necessary to put his foot down when dealing with a stubborn or ill-disposed individual, as once happened with a priest in charge of Catholic Action in Dakar. Ordinarily, he would lay out for his subordinate reasons justifying his order, a transfer for example, that were not the principal motive but secondary ones [that were likely to attract an act of obedience]. The French call this a “siderail attack” in pool terms (when the player bounces the white ball off the side of the table instead of hitting the ball he wants to move head-on). It was a velvet-glove style of government.
Once his command was accepted, he would leave the entire execution up to the subordinate, without giving him too many recommendations, leaving the necessary choices and initiatives up to him.
In my case, when he made me rector of the seminary in 1979, he gave me no directives at all and trusted me entirely.
Fr. Bussard, his vicar general in Dakar, spoke the same way about Archbishop Lefebvre’s leadership. Br. Christian, his accountant in Fribourg, said the following: “He led men the way he drove his car, without lagging, fairly quickly, but without ever lessening the throttle or allowing any jolts. He knew how to take turns gently without jostling his passenger.”
Fr. Bussard told me, “I greatly appreciated his style of government. Archbishop Lefebvre had authority, but not an oppressive authority, and that made obeying and having good relations between the leader and the subordinate very easy.”
For my part, I suffered from not receiving from Archbishop Lefebvre the directives I needed. Doubtless he esteemed me more than I deserved.
Around the year 1982-1983, although he was aware that his American priests were refusing the new Holy Week of Pius XII and tending towards a sedevacantist position, he did not wish to rush them. He reminded them that our practice was what was called the “John XXIII Holy Week” and he simply asked them not to publicize their sedevacantist position but to keep it to themselves. He showed tolerance towards them, because he did not want to break the bond that still united these priests to their Superior General. He did not want to exclude them from the Society so long as they respected certain limits in their opinions, desires and demands. His underlying reason was that he wanted to preserve the SSPX in the US.
I see no difference, despite the lapse of time, between his very gentle, sometimes oblique way of governing in Dakar, and his authority in Écône with his priests.
I think that he made an effort to dominate his “sanguine” temperament, as he described it upon his entry into the Holy Ghost Novitiate in October 1931. He knew how to remain master of himself.
I sensed this self-mastery one day in 1980 or 1981 when he pointed out to me that one of the professors at the seminary for philosophy in Albano wanted to teach the De Ecclesia treatise (on the Church) beginning with “the mystery of the Church.” When I objected that it was very beautiful to begin “with the top,” he reacted with a certain indignation and charitably explained to me that I was mistaken and that it was important to begin with the historical institution of the Church and her visible, hierarchical and monarchical structure. He was perfectly right, but he explained it all calmly, having mastered his initial reaction that could have turned it into a heated discussion.
2. In his book A Priest in Changing Times, Holy Ghost Father Michael O’Carroll stated that “Archbishop Lefebvre was magnetic.” Could you speak about why the Archbishop had such an influence on others?
This term “magnetic” comes from his brother Michel Lefebvre. He remembered being disciplined by his father for his bad grades at school when he was about eleven years old. Marcel intervened. He was already a seminarian and he was home on vacation. He told his father, “It is shameful to beat a boy like that for a bad grade!” That was all, and their father, René Lefebvre, immediately left the room without a word.
Fr. Michael O’Carroll, a friend of Archbishop Lefebvre, also spoke to me of the Archbishop’s “magnetic authority,” In his book A Priest in Changing Times, he wrote, “When Marcel Lefebvre appeared in any group, there was a certain silence at the sight of the prelate’s very dignified, calm, amiable countenance that unwittingly commanded the respect of those present.”
The biographer of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, Fr. Koran, reported the same effect Superior General Lefebvre had on others. I quoted him in my biography Marcel Lefebvre, The Biography, and it is worth rereading what he has to say: “He was imposing, had a confident bearing, and his face shone with interest and goodness. When he spoke he made an immediate and deep impression. He had a particular magnetic quality: something more than charm. He always retained this aura of distinction, this irresistible personal power.”1
There is no better way to describe this gift, a gift of nature and of grace, that considerably assisted Archbishop Lefebvre in his relations with priests, the faithful, and even certain Roman authorities (the Holy See). Sometimes he did not know how to defend himself sufficiently, for example in his meetings with the three cardinals appointed by Pope Paul VI to interrogate him in 1974, but the power of his personal influence still produced its effect.
3. What differences existed for the Archbishop in being the Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers and being the Superior General of the SSPX?
When he was elected Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, in 1962, Archbishop Lefebvre barely knew many of his subjects. He had been in Africa…He knew and loved some of his fellow priests and bishops from having lived with them or seen proof of their healthy doctrine and attachment to religious life. They were well-disposed to support the exercise of his new function, but they were a small handful of friends. He felt isolated, especially in France where some of the young priests and even certain Holy Ghost bishops were liberal-minded.
At the head of the Priestly Society he had founded and of which he remained both the founder and the Superior General, it was different. He knew all his men, for he had formed them himself in the traditional doctrine, the liturgy of all time (even if Pius XII had simplified it a little) and the priestly spirit full of “missionary charity,” without any excessive attachment to detail or any progressive tendencies. In his Priestly Society, Archbishop Lefebvre lived cor unum et anima una with his fellow priests, with one heart and one soul.
He made sure it was clear to us that his Priestly Society was no simple “priestly society,” or free association of priests under a rule, but a true and real fraternity, brotherhood, priesterbruderschaft, between sons and their father. He hated the fact that Frs. Kelly and Sanborn had given the Society of St. Pius X the legal title of a civil association to serve as owner and manager of the SSPX’s possessions in the United States. “No!” he said, “we are a true priestly fraternity, that is the name!”
4. The Archbishop would speak of the SSPX as being neither on the right nor on the left. What balance did he seek to achieve in the positions and spirit he communicated to his priestly family?
Right and left are political terms for conservative and progressivist, innovative or revolutionary. In the Church, Archbishop Lefebvre never used these terms, but rather “traditional” and “liberal.”
He considered himself as “anti-liberal,” but that is not how he defined the position of the Priestly Society:
In the Priestly Society, we are fighting a great fight, even on the political level. But it is the highest politics, those of Christ the King! Begin by studying and meditating on how the popes fought against liberalism, for example Pius IX in Quanta Cura, denouncing the religious liberty of the Second Vatican Council a hundred years ahead of time. These popes were priests first and foremost, spiritual men, filled with the desire to make Our Lord reign. Our battle is a battle of giants, giants of sanctity, and not a tournament of intellectual jousts. When you entered this seminary, you entered into the history of the Church, far more so than you could have done in a university. For what we do here is not on the natural level, but on the level of divine grace.2
5. Why was the Archbishop so strong in resisting the New Mass?
As soon as Pope Paul VI published his New Mass, the new ordinary of the Mass, Novus Ordo Missae, on April 4, 1969, Archbishop Lefebvre organized a group to study the text and point out its deficiencies and ask the pope to correct it and to allow the traditional missal of St. Pius V to remain free.
This was the Brief Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae. Two cardinals, Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci, signed the petition to Pope Paul VI that accompanied the text.
Archbishop Lefebvre explained to his seminarians and priests (I paraphrase):
Three realities are necessary for the Sacrifice of the Mass to be real:
- The priest, the only minister of Christ, with the character of the sacrament of Holy Orders.
- The real and substantial presence of the Victim, who is Christ.
- The priestly action of the sacrificial oblation that is essentially accomplished in the consecration.
We are forced to say that the entire reform of the Ordo Missae directly or indirectly attacks these three essential realities of the Catholic Faith.
Archbishop Lefebvre particularly denounced the suppression of the Offertory prayer, “Receive, O Holy Father, this immaculate host…”—which expresses a sacrifice, a propitiatory sacrifice—“…which I, thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee…for my own countless sins, offenses and negligences, and for all the faithful present… that it may avail for my own and for their salvation.” This prayer is replaced by the presentation of the offerings: “Blessed are You, O God of the universe, who gives us this bread…it will become the bread of the eternal kingdom.”
The words of the consecration are recited aloud as a simple continuation of the story of the institution of the Eucharist. This is more noticeable when the priest celebrates in the vernacular. The “mysterium fidei” has been removed from the words of the consecration of the Precious Blood and transferred to being an acclamation by the faithful, followed by, “We await His coming in glory,” which expresses hope and not faith in the actual presence of Christ. Many of the priest’s genuflections have disappeared, in particular, the genuflection that immediately follows each of the consecrations and expresses the priest’s adoration and faith in the Real Presence of Christ through the effect of his priestly action. In the Novus Ordo, the priest immediately proceeds with the elevation and presentation of the consecrated species to the faithful before genuflecting, as if it was the faith of the faithful that causes the Real Presence.
Archbishop Lefebvre saw the New Mass as the cause of the loss of the Catholic Faith and the disappearance of priestly vocations because they both lost their purpose. He also saw it as causing secularization of priests who found themselves without a reason to be priests.
6. Why did Archbishop Lefebvre reject sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism is an opinion according to which, due to heresy or new laws contrary to the preservation of the Faith, the post-conciliar popes, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis, lost their function and power as Successors of Peter and Heads of the Catholic Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that it was possible to have doubts on the matter. “We have witnessed the most serious and extensive undertaking ever to destroy the Church, at the initiative of the popes themselves.” These facts seem to contradict Christ’s words to St. Peter and the promise to preserve him from error in the profession of the Faith: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).
But the Archbishop never gave in to the temptation to conclude, “Therefore, these popes were not true popes.” He explained many times his reasons for refusing to draw this conclusion and adhering to an attitude of prudence:
I prefer to consider that these popes, legitimately elected and accepted by the universal Church, were true popes. I think that the promises of indefectibility made by Our Lord did not exclude periods during which the Church would undergo an overshadowing of the profession of the Faith. What is more, I wish to remain in relation with Rome, which obliges me to consider the pope as pope. And I warn the priests among us who might claim to be sedevacantist—God forbid!—that should they do so; they will become leaders of insignificant little groups divided among each other and doomed to dispersion. The permanency of the leader divinely instituted by Christ as the visible head of the Church is so indispensable for the visibility of the Church itself that it is impossible to think that it can be lacking for decades on end.
After all, what God has asked me to do with the Society is not to judge the pope—besides, I have no power to do so—but to preserve the priesthood and the Catholic Faith and to continue what the Church has always done.
7. What traits did the Archbishop look for in his priestly candidates?
Archbishop Lefebvre asked that a candidate to the seminary have a high school diploma, and he appreciated a candidate having successfully pursued a college education.
As for the morality of the candidates, he required a letter of recommendation from a priest who knew the candidate upon his entry into the seminary.
The perseverance of the seminarians depended on the judgment of their spiritual director, who was generally one of the priests at the seminary, and on the decision of the council of professors known as the scrutinia.
The virtues appreciated by Archbishop Lefebvre in his seminarians were first of all a certain maturity and the absence of any “schoolboy mindset.” He insisted upon seriousness and docility. Indocile or insubordinate young men were expelled from the seminary.
He also insisted on the ability to live harmoniously with others. Community life followed a rule in order to teach the seminarians to practice fraternal charity and accept their mutual contrasts. In his mind, obedience to the seminary rule was not supposed to be mechanical but come from the free consent of the seminarian.
When it came to piety, which he called “the virtue of religion,” he expected it to blossom in the seminarians through the liturgy. The beautiful and simple Roman liturgy, with its ceremonies, its bows and incensing, etc., teaches two capital things: first of all, respect (or reverence) for one’s superiors in age or by the dignity of their function, and secondly, respect for others considered as temples of the Holy Ghost due to the sanctifying grace in their souls.
As for the appearance of the members of his Priestly Society, he required cleanliness and simplicity in their priestly attire, normally the cassock, with a black cloth belt and no visible buttons or fringes or lace or frills that could give an impression of worldliness. But he did tolerate national particularities and legitimate customs.
8. The Archbishop was a religious and valued the religious life greatly. What role did he see the religious life playing in the life of the SSPX?
You know that Archbishop Lefebvre did not want his priests to make the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience proper to religious. Most of his seminarians simply wanted to be priests, and he thought—with good reason—that religious orders would rise again within the family of Tradition thanks to the Priestly Society.
But he always insisted on the virtue of poverty for his priests. Here is some of his advice:
You are not religious, but you must have the religious spirit and above all practice the virtue of poverty. Your priories should be appropriately furnished and arranged, without any luxuries. Your subsistence depends entirely on our benefactors; make no useless expenses. Be careful! Do not seek money in your apostolate. ‘Money flees those who seek it!’ Be disinterested. Do not accumulate books in your office or room; the priory library should be sufficiently furnished. It should not take a two-ton tractor trailer to move you with each transfer! As a religious, I was allowed only a totum breviary, a Christian’s Handbook (with the New Testament), and a parish missal. That was all. I took St. Thomas with me to Gabon, but then I had to leave him in Libreville when I went to Ndjolé. It was the same thing every time! It was not easy, but it helps to learn detachment!
Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Brothers, of course, who do make the three religious vows, and he saw what a marvelous help the Brothers were in our priories, schools, retreat houses and district houses, as handymen, woodworkers, mechanics or teachers and supervisors in schools, or even accountants if they have a degree.
And what devotion he showed to the Oblates of his Priestly Society and especially to the Sisters of the Society of St. Pius X, whose constitutions he drafted with his sister, Sister Marie Gabriel. How often he would go preach retreats for them on the religious spirit and the healthy doctrine of the Faith and the spiritual life!
9. Archbishop Lefebvre wanted his priests to found schools for the raising up of vocations and good Catholic families. What was his vision on the importance of schools?
In the early days of the SSPX, he did not want his priests to found or direct schools. He thought there were still congregations specializing in Catholic education, but there were none! To his credit, Fr. Kelly opened a Catholic school, and the faithful in France explained to the Archbishop, “Your Excellency, if you do not open schools, you will be responsible for the souls of our children!”
Archbishop Lefebvre admitted, “I gave in. Providence forced my hand!”
He gave conferences on the importance of our truly Catholic schools:
Our Catholic schools are meant to imbue our children with religion. We are often afraid of asking too much of young children, but that is a mistake. Children needs to pushed, encouraged to piety.
A Catholic school is a school in which one learns discipline and sacrifice, to devote oneself, give of oneself and be truly charitable.
The intelligence is disciplined by receiving the truth and submitting to it: the truth of natural realities (country, family, marriage, work, service) and the truth of supernatural realities (the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His evangelical law).
The will is disciplined as well by fighting against the evil tendencies that come from original sin. We learn to be aware of these tendencies and to fight them. But for that, it takes the grace of God and that is why, at the heart of the school, there is the chapel and Holy Mass. An educator can do nothing without the action of sanctifying grace in the soul of the student.
Without a doubt, the liturgy well understood, well explained, well lived by the students, should be the distinctive characteristic of the school. It should be its life and resource, so that the youth may remain attached forever to Our Lord, to Our Lady and to the entire Faith of the Church. If the Faith at school is profound, then the studies are good, the discipline is easy, and the family spirit is natural. Then will priestly and religious vocations blossom. The example of our priests, always available to listen, comfort, play with the students, is decisive for their entire future.
10. Would you have a story about Archbishop Lefebvre we may not know?
Here is one from his sister Christiane:
It was 1914, just before the war. Marcel was nine years old.
At school, he did not care a bit about the heckling from his older brother René’s comrades. They would shout at him in the street when they ran into him “piti, piti, pitichou!”
One day I caught them in the act. I was going to meet Marcel on the corner of Poutrains Street and National Street; he was on his way back from school and I was coming home from the Immaculate Conception boarding house. When I heard them shouting at him like that, my blood began to boil interiorly for Marcel; but he kept going without a word, as if they were not even talking to him.
I asked him, ‘Are you the one they’re shouting at?’ Marcel did not even answer me. I admired his self-possession, and he was right to think that they would soon tire of the game if he didn’t even acknowledge them.
But there was another boy who was a little slow and often got picked on and did not know how to defend himself. As soon as they were away from the school’s supervision, his comrades would attack him and knock him down. Marcel immediately flew to his rescue and in no time at all the others were scampering off with their tails between their legs.
It is a true that it is a merciless age…It took real courage to overcome the other boys, but after that, they had learned their lesson and did not come back quite so easily.
Endnotes
1 Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography (Angelus Press), p. 576.
2 Spiritual conference, February 23, 1976.
Current Issue
