Archbishop Lefebvre & Conciliar Sacraments – Do they 'come from the Church?'

Traditional doctrine and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre show that the reformed Novus Ordo liturgical rites could not have come from the Church with her approval or sanction.

Image: Wiki Commons CC. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. Click here for The WM Review Reading List.

Introduction

This is the second part of a series on Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the reformed rites of the sacraments.

Previously, we discussed Lefebvre’s attitude towards the rite of confirmation reformed following Vatican II. We saw that in explaining his pastoral practice, he explicitly recognised the legitimacy of doubt about the reformed rite itself, and was prepared to act outside of the ordinary way in order to give the faithful certainty and peace.

Archbishop Lefebvre and Conditional Confirmations – his pastoral practice explained

The purpose of this article is to show that a position of universal and absolute doubt about some of the reformed sacramental rites in themselves flows from Archbishop Lefebvre’s words, premises and argumentation – and that the Archbishop not only tolerated this position, but more or less embraced it himself.

Here is the outline of the argument which can be derived from the juxtaposition of Lefebvre’s analysis of the crisis and traditional Catholic theology.

The reformed liturgical and sacramental rites “do not come from the Church,” and therefore do not have her approval or sanction.

Because of this, we have no prima facie guarantee of validity for those reformed rites which have endured a change to their matter or form. This is the case for four of the seven sacraments, namely:

1. Confirmation

2. Holy Orders

3. Eucharist

4. Extreme unction.

Without such a guarantee, we may be unable to attain certainty of validity for one or more of these four sacraments.

If this is so, we would be obliged to abstain from receiving sacraments conferred in such rites, and those which are doubtful should be repeated conditionally.

This applies especially to the reformed rites confirmation and of episcopal consecration, as well as to priestly ordination, extreme unction and the eucharist, as discussed below:

Are Novus Ordo sacraments valid – and how would we know?

Distinctions of types of doubt

In order to discuss this question, it is necessary to make a few distinctions about three grounds for doubt about any given administration of the sacraments in the new rites. The comments on Lefebvre’s views will be proved in due course.

Extension

• Universal doubt – the doubt applies to all administrations of a given rite, at least in the form of a rebuttable presumption

• Particular doubt – the doubt applies to a subset of administrations.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s words and actions generally point towards a universal or general presumption against the validity of the sacraments conferred with the new rites.

Rationale

• Extrinsic doubt – the doubt is based on how an otherwise valid sacramental rite was administered (e.g., defective use of matter and form or defective intention). This is similar to the “particular doubt” mentioned above, but is not identical.

• Intrinsic doubt – the doubt is based on the sacramental rite itself (e.g., changes to matter, form or other aspects of the rite itself)

Much of the time, Lefebvre’s doubts were extrinsic to the rite itself, based on concerns about:

• Defective sacramental intention on the part of the minister

• Widespread carelessness in administration amongst the Novus Ordo clergy.

However, Lefebvre’s doubts were at times more intrinsic to the reformed rites, in that he expressed doubt about the rites themselves, whether that was based on:

• Changes to the matter (e.g., the permission to use vegetable oils other than olive oil for confirmation)

• Changes to the form (e.g., as discussed, he at times expressed concerns and reservations regarding the form of confirmation).

In addition, Lefebvre also acknowledged that the sacraments could be doubtful or invalid because of uncertainty as to whether the minister had been validly ordained or consecrated.¹

Resolvability

• Absolute doubt – the doubt cannot be resolved

• Conditional doubt – the doubt can be resolved (e.g., through investigation, eyewitnesses, etc.)

At times, Lefebvre’s doubts seem to have been conditional, in the sense that they could be resolved in some way. At other times, his doubts appeared to be more absolute, in the sense that resolution (whether of validity or invalidity) would be basically impossible.

Over time, his doubts about the validity of certain reformed sacramental rites appeared to become more and more universal and absolute (irresolvable) in practice.

In our opinion, universal, intrinsic and absolute doubt about at least the four reformed rites mentioned necessarily flows from the Archbishop’s analysis of the crisis. It also would appear to be the safest and most reasonable position to hold in our day.

Having set this out, let us set out clearly the traditional theology of the Church and see what it tells us about Lefebvre’s analysis of the crisis.

---

This was an advanced preview post for members who choose to support us with a monthly or annual subscription.

Our work takes a lot of time and energy. Please consider subscribing if you like it.

We make members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.

You might also want to take a look at this:

Archbishop Lefebvre and Conditional Confirmations – his pastoral practice explained