I can't find an image of Houghton-Brown online, but he was an artist and this is by him: Richeldis founding the Holy House at Walsingham. |
From Unwanted Priest, p141
I may say that this was not the first time that I met Monsignor Lefebvre. I had already met him (perhaps in the summer of 1969) at the Kenworthy-Browns. There had been present: Mr and Mrs Kenworthy-Brown, Monsignor Lefebvre, Mr and Mrs de Saventhem, Mr Geoffrey Houghton-Brown, Mr Vernor Miles (representing the Countess of Kinnoull) and myself. Monsignor’s lack of English was a bit of a bore, but luckily the de Saventhems, Geoffrey and I were fluent in French, and the Kenworthy-Browns understood most of it, although a bit tongue-tied. But poor Vernor Miles was still at school-French: “My aunt’s pen: la plume de ma tante.” This was perhaps rather fortunate—divine Providence. Monsignor Lefebvre wanted money to start up in England in a big way. Now, Vernor Miles represented Lady Kinnoull, who had one of the biggest Catholic fortunes in England. It had been left to her by her husband and she was childless. At the crucial moment Mr Vernor Miles was unable to understand.Anyway, the problem was: whether the Latin Mass Society should associate itself with Lefebvre or not? It was decided that the two organisations should remain divided: the LMS trying to get the hierarchy to admit the old Mass; Lefebvre producing the old Mass in spite of the hierarchy. I felt quite sure that this was the right decision.
With hindsight the wisdom of the decision may seem evident, but of course in 1969 the SSPX had not been suppressed (1975), and the Archbishop had not been excommunicated (1988). Neither side knew how the situation of the other would develop, what threats and opportunities it would face. In 1971 the LMS won the first great concession from the Holy See, the English Indult, under which it gained the thankless task of seeking permissions for celebrations of the ancient Mass. A world-wide version followed in 1984. These document rather defined the task of the Una Voce movement up to 2007, and it seems we are back to that situation again today. On the other hand, the SSPX gained complete freedom of action at the cost of canonical regularity.
Whether the Archbishop and his followers were justified in doing what they did I leave to readers to judge. What is perfectly clear is that it would not have helped the situation if the Una Voce movement had stopped trying to get permissions from bishops and popes. Insofar as we have been successful, we have carried on the same battle, the battle for the Traditional Mass and the Faith it embodies, as the SSPX, from another direction. Insofar as we have failed, we--or rather, the bishops and popes at issue--have provided the SSPX with evidence that their disobedience was necessary.
This has been true throughout our history, and it certainly has not ceased to be true today.
Support the Latin Mass Society
What interests me here is the implication that the Archbishop knew very well, as early as 1969, that he and his Society would likely be operating without official sanction, and was apparently reconciled to this.
ReplyDeleteIt proved to be correct &, in hindsight, useful to have priests able to celebrate the EF. Whilst not a supporter nor a regular attendee at SSPX Masses I do realise their worth.
DeletePerhaps Fr. Houghton’s memory was slightly off? The SSPX had not been instituted in 1969. In any case, I think this post is another example of an anti-SSPX bias in this blog. It’s instructive to have the reminder of the long toil of the LMS, especially for us across the pond. But can we afford to bicker at this juncture? I know there are some who will never countenance any recognition of the SSPX, but this reader believes Abp. Lefebvre was right. I write this as someone who fled Eastern Orthodoxy for Rome and only slowly and almost against my will was driven to the SSPX—I am at peace. An imperfect analogy might be the Russian Old Believer situation. Since no bishops sided with them, once the last priest died they were priestless until a few decades ago when the Orthodox made some kind of accommodation with some of them. Fighting battles with bureaucratic methods is doomed to failure.
ReplyDeleteWho is bickering? Not me. Sounds like you are.
DeleteThe LMS has often provided people with their first taste of the old mass and has been responsible for rescuing countless souls. Many have gone on to SSPX and vocations have followed in some cases. Now is not the time for recriminations or blame. The LMS has always been tolerated by the Catholic bishops but that period is nearly over. The question is: will the clergy and faithful come over to SSPX now? Or give up?
ReplyDeleteI think that is a premature conclusion. Our bishop (+Lancs) for example, continues to tolerate us, and there are others similar. Moreover, it tends to be the older bishops who are the least tolerant. Given that, and Our Lord's great promise: portae inferi non praevalaebunt adversus eam, I will remain, singing chant for the glory of God, in the formal diocesan structure as long as I may.
DeleteThank God we have a bishop (+ H&N) who much more than tolerates us.
DeleteYou are fortunate, David. It's a very different story down here in Clifton Diocese.
DeleteFr Houghton may or may not have confused his dates. But I don't perceive this passage as being Lefebvre-bashing any more than it is LMS-bashing. As an honest recollection of events, by someone who was present, it throws interesting light on events. My copy of the book arrived today, and I see that in some ways Fr H is very complimentary about Mgr, while in others he is critical.
ReplyDeleteA trivial point, but I am not sure that Fr. Houghton was correct to say that Lady Kinnoull inherited her fortune from her husband. She was wealthy in her own right from a Wills Tobacco fortune.
ReplyDelete