[Question]{.underline}: Did Archbishop Lefebvre consider it important that the religious communities of the traditional movement be united to his consecration of bishops?
[Answer]{.underline}: He most assuredly did, as was manifested by his desire to consult with them, and form a common front in the negotiations that preceded the consecrations. Faced with the increasing opposition of Rome, he called together a meeting of all the superiors of the traditional communities, that took place at Le Pointet, France, on May 30, 1988. He there asked for their prayers and counsel, explaining the difficulties with Rome, namely that “the atmosphere of these contacts and talks, the reflections of both sides during the conversations, clearly manifests to us that the desire of the Holy See is to bring us back to the Council and to the reforms, also to place us back into the bosom of the conciliar church as a religious congregation” (Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 105).
He went on to explain that the real problem was not that of the formality of jurisdiction but rather that of protecting ourselves from the “contaminated atmosphere” of Rome and the dioceses. In order to strengthen and protect ourselves, he said, it is a true Catholic and religious atmosphere and way of life that we must create. Otherwise there can be no resistance to the bait of gradually giving in to the conciliar spirit.
“Thus a moral problem is posed for all of us. Must we run the risk of contacts with this modernist atmosphere … or must we, before all else, preserve the traditional family to maintain its cohesion and vigor in the Faith and in grace, considering that the purely formal tie with modernist Rome cannot be as important as the protection of this family, representing those who remain faithful to the Catholic Church” (ibid., p. 106).
All agreed to the obvious conclusion, and so two days later Archbishop Lefebvre wrote to the Holy Father, on June 2, 1988, explaining his determination to consecrate bishops, even without permission: “Being radically opposed to this destruction of our Faith and determined to remain with the traditional doctrine and discipline of the Church, especially as far as the formation of priests and the religious life is concerned, we find ourselves in the absolute necessity of having ecclesiastical authorities who embrace our concerns and will help us to protect ourselves against the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi” (ibid., p. 108).
However, just as the fidelity of the various Dominican, Franciscan, and Capuchin communities, the Carmelites, and the priests of the Transfiguration, as well as the Benedictines from Brazil, was a great strengthening for the traditional movement, so also was the betrayal of Dom. Gérard from Le Barroux deplorable. In fact, when Dom. Gérard came to see Archbishop Lefebvre on July 26, 1988, the Archbishop refused to grant his approval to the project of separate recognition of the monastery, after which meeting the Archbishop refused even to see him, since Dom. Gérard had hidden from the Archbishop his letters of July 8 to the Pope and to Cardinal Ratzinger.
The rectitude of Archbishop Lefebvre´s assessment is confirmed by the fact that since that fatal day the monastery of Le Barroux has not only embraced the errors of Vatican II, but even become a proponent of its religious liberty. However, this is hardly surprising given the superficiality of the reason given by Dom Gérard for accepting an agreement with Rome, a reason that showed that he had not understood the danger of the “contaminated atmosphere” which the Archbishop so feared: “Lastly the reason, perhaps the determining one, which inclined us to accept that the suspense a divinis be lifted from our priests, is a missionary reason: should not the maximum number of faithful be enabled to assist at our Masses and liturgical celebrations without being hindered by their local priests or bishop?” (Ibid., p. 200.)
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.