Classic study radically overstates Lefebvre's position on holy orders
It’s been claimed that Lefebvre 'never called in question the validity of the new rite of episcopal ordinations.' This is an untenable claim, even if some wish it were true.
It’s been claimed that Lefebvre 'never called in question the validity of the new rite of episcopal ordinations.' This is an untenable claim, even if some wish it were true.
Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr Athanasius Kröger
In his foundational study into the new rite of episcopal consecration (NREC) promulgated in 1968 by Paul VI, Fr Pierre-Marie Kergorlay wrote the following:
In 1978, a certain Fr. Athanasius Kröger, O.S.B., published a study in the Una Voce Korrespondenz (Vol. 2, pp. 95-106), in which he raised doubts about the validity of episcopal consecrations accomplished with the new rite.
According to him, the new form was not specific enough, and it created a situation analogous to that of the Anglican ordinations that were declared null and void by Pope Leo XIII.
Kröger was a German author known for his contributions to theological discussions in the 20th century. He also contributed to theological discussions on the other sacramental rites, and Vatican II’s doctrine of religious liberty.
We have already published our translation of his study of the NREC elsewhere. This study was far from perfect, and some of its contentions were indeed answered and refuted by Fr Pierre-Marie. Nonetheless, it remains an important text because of its date (10 years after the promulgation of the NREC) and having been published in the German Una Voce journal.
The inclusion of such daring work in the journal of the leading mainstream traditional Latin Mass group is remarkable. It seems hard to imagine it could occur today – at least in the English-speaking branches, in which key figures appear to be more interested in promoting ideas drawn from occult and esoteric writers.
However, Kröger’s study is also important for its readership, which Fr Pierre-Marie claims included Archbishop Lefebvre himself.
Pierre-Marie adds that Lefebvre – to whom he attributes a prophetic and providential role in the post-conciliar period – “never called in question the validity of the new rite of episcopal ordinations,” at least in their official texts:
Archbishop Lefebvre, visibly raised up by God to sustain the little flock of the faithful, never called in question the validity of the new rite of episcopal ordinations as published by Rome. We know that he was informed of the objections made against the ritual, especially by Fr. Kröger.
If Archbishop Lefebvre had had a serious and positive doubt about the validity of the ordinations, he would not have failed to say so given the seriousness of the consequences.1
Of course we should note that the rite is usually administered in vernacular translations, and very rarely administered in the form “published by Rome” – a fact mentioned in the same study, and presented there as grounds for conditional repetition.
Pierre-Marie returns to this argument later, again emphasising his conception of Lefebvre’s quasi-prophetic role:
There is no proof that Archbishop Lefebvre studied the reform of the episcopal consecration. A former seminarian even claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre had been tricked by a false report that presented Pope Paul VI’s reform as being in conformity with the Eastern rites. In fact, it is possible that Archbishop Lefebvre was shown the resemblance between the rite of Pope Paul VI and the Eastern rites, but in that there is no deception. The former seminarian of whom we speak was himself deceived by R. Coomaraswamy and did not notice this resemblance.
Consequently, not much can be inferred from Archbishop Lefebvre’s silence, except a certain probability: it is likely that, if the new rite were certainly invalid, as some “Coomaraswamists” claim, then Providence would not have allowed a fact of such importance to escape the notice of a person manifestly chosen by God to guide faithful Catholics in this time of confusion.2
In fact, as discussed elsewhere, it is not necessary to argue that the rites are “certainly invalid” in order to make conditional repetition a moral necessity – it is a strawman to make such a claim.
The late Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais made a similar claim to Fr Pierre-Marie, in an interview with Stephen Heiner in 2006.3
Stephen Heiner: […] There are, circulating on the Internet, statements that the Archbishop doubted the validity of the new rites of episcopal consecration…
Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais: No, no, no. He never discussed the matter, never. No, no.SH: So there has never been a question in the Society about the validity of any of the new sacraments?
TdM: Archbishop Lefebvre never discussed the validity of episcopal consecrations.SH: No, not about the episcopacy?
TdM: I do not know his mind on this subject. The New Rite regarding episcopacy, he did not know it. He did not study these matters – or read it. Because, simply, he continued with the Old Rite.
However, both Fr Pierre-Marie and the late bishop were mistaken in some of these points. Lefebvre did indeed call the NREC’s validity into question, at least in the early days of the SSPX. Further, while he may appear to have later accepted the validity of the rite itself, he clearly came to consider it necessary to treat the validity of its administration as doubtful or invalid in practice.
Let us note, before proceeding, that while we respect and admire Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, we consider it fundamentally unsound to treat him as a source of theology in the post-conciliar period. Decisions about how to proceed in the current crisis in the Church should be based on doctrine, rather than on the actions of a fallible man – no matter how great his virtues. This is even more important when that man’s legacy is contested.
Nonetheless, the present matter is important for its historical interest, and as an ad hominem against those who attempt to marshal Lefebvre for their own positions.
In order to rebut the central claim – that Lefebvre never called the NREC's validity into doubt – we have the twofold witness of Bishop Donald Sanborn, and Fr Anthony Cekada, both of whom were ordained to the priesthood by Lefebvre in the 1970s.4
Following this, we will consider another important testimony about Lefebvre’s later thought.
The testimony of Fr Anthony Cekada
In 2011, Fr Cekada said the following:
I went to see Archbishop Lefebvre, during my first year [1975-6] at St Pius X Seminary in Écône, to ask him about the case of friends of mine in the seminary in Milwaukee, who might be interested in the traditional Mass, might be interested in working with the traditionalist movement. So I asked the Archbishop, would it be permissible for them, after they were ordained, to come and work with us. Would, in effect, their ordinations be okay?
The Archbishop told me that, well, he saw a difficulty and a doubt with the new rite of priestly ordination that Paul VI had promulgated, that he felt that the form there was doubtful. As regards the rite of episcopal consecration he told me that there’s a bigger problem there; they had completely changed the form in 1968, and as far as he was concerned, it was invalid.
This was the first time that I had ever heard this, and it was quite surprising. […]
He said that the new form for episcopal consecration was completely changed and invalid, and he regarded the new form for priestly ordination as doubtful.5
Cekada related this in similar terms in his article Absolutely Null and Utterly Void.6
The testimony of Bishop Donald Sanborn
While Cekada provides a date for his conversation (his first year at seminary, so 1975-6), it is unclear when Lefebvre made his views known to Bishop Sanborn. His account is as follows:
“I remember sitting in his office, and we were discussing the new rite of ordination, and he said he thought it was doubtful.
“And then he talked about the new rite of consecration of bishops, and he said ‘I think it’s invalid.’
“And I said, ‘You mean doubtful?’
“‘No, invalid.’
“I remember it. And he gave the reason about the form, etc.”7
Sanborn proceeds to explain how even Lefebvre’s later acceptance of the validity of the new rites demonstrate the truth of his testimony:
“And I brought it up to him in 1983 [during a dispute over several issues, including working with clergy whose orders depended on these rites]. I was there in the room with Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr Schmidberger. And I said to him as they were talking about getting together with Rome… I said, ‘Monseigneur, you yourself said that the new rite of consecration is invalid, you told me that.’
“He said, ‘Well, I guess it’s valid now.’ And he points to Fr Schmidberger, and he said ‘I did a study, and it’s an Eastern Rite thing.’
“[…] But notice that he didn’t say ‘Oh, I never said it was invalid.’ He remembered that he did say it was invalid.
“[…] the Archbishop brought it up to me, that he thought it was invalid.”8
These conversations took place in the mid-1970s. As discussed in our full-length study of Lefebvre’s approach to these questions, the Archbishop adopted different positions and practical courses of action at different times. In the early 1980s, he appears to have leant more towards the idea that the new rites were indeed valid – although this changed around the mid/late 1980s.
Fr Paul Robinson recently rejected the possibility of such changes in Lefebvre’s approach, claiming that this would constitute a change in his theological principles, which Robinson apparently believes is impossible.9 However, the present question is rather one of how theological principles should be applied in practice. This application will necessarily be determined by the facts and data available at any given moment.
We trust that Robinson does not wish to argue that Lefebvre was incapable of responding to facts and data, and so consider his objection adequately addressed.
‘In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word stand’
In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, St Paul refers to the Old Testament and says:
“In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word stand.” (2 Cor. 13.1)
It would be unjust to reject the testimonies featured here on the grounds that they have been relayed by “sedevacantists” (or “resistance”).
First, testimony should be evaluated on its own merits. The men cited in this article knew Lefebvre personally, and lived with him for years. To dismiss their testimony merely because they are “sedevacantists” (or any other kind of bogeyman) is an instance of the genetic fallacy—rejecting evidence based on its source, rather than its content. Would those who fall into this fallacy tolerate equivalent claims made about women, or Jews, or Protestants?
Second, accusations of dishonesty or unreliability require evidence. Without evidence, treating the testimony as dishonest – perhaps on the grounds of motivated fabrications – is rash and unjust.
Third, evidence that Lefebvre at another time seems to have accepted the validity of the New Rites does not undermine this testimony. Sanborn acknowledges that Lefebvre accepted the new rites for a time, and his testimony even accounts for the changes.
Fourth, it is extraordinarily difficult to prove a universal negative—in this case, that Lefebvre “never called in question the validity of the new rite of episcopal ordinations as published by Rome,” as Pierre-Marie and Tissier de Mallerais claim. But just one single expression of doubt on Lefebvre’s part would disprove this, and here we have testimony of two such expressions. In fact, if we are confronted between two witnesses asserting a universal negative, and two asserting a contradictory proposition, all things being equal, the latter have the stronger prima facie case. After all, how could Tissier de Mallerais have a complete knowledge of what Lefebvre did and did not say throughout his whole life?
Fifth, we should be consistent in how we treat sources, whether they are sympathetic or critical of Lefebvre. If the testimony of so-called “sedevacantists” should be dismissed when it points towards theological theses associated with “sedevacantism,” then why should we accept the testimony of sedeplenists, when it points towards their theological theses?
Sixth, as just suggested, imputing motives is a two-edged sword. Many persons are uncomfortable with the idea that the new sacramental rites might be doubtful or invalid. They may be similarly uncomfortable with the idea that Lefebvre himself might have embraced such ideas. There are those with a motive to whitewash the historical record. On the contrary: we must acknowledge the truth as it is, not as we wish it to be.
Bishop Williamson and the trajectory of Lefebvre’s opinions
Throughout his addresses in the mid- to late-1980s, and leading up to the episcopal consecrations in 1988, Lefebvre referred to the doubtfulness of sacraments conferred in the Conciliar structures. He indicated, on several occasions, that providing moral certainty for the sacraments was a key motive for that momentous event. He wrote at least two private letters (one about holy orders, and one about confirmation) stating his belief that sacraments conferred by the Conciliar bishops could and should be repeated conditionally.
However, some deny or ignore all this, and have claimed that Lefebvre specifically advised the four men whom he consecrated as bishops against a systematic programme of conditional ordination. The implication, we are to assume, is that he accepted both the validity of the new rite, and that any doubts about their administration could be resolved through an investigation, or presumed valid.
However, the claim itself is false.
Just a few weeks before Bishop Williamson’s death, Fr Reid Hennick (formerly of the SSPX) visited him in Broadstairs, and asked him about the truth of this claim.
Hennick has relayed to this author that Williamson had “firmly” rejected the claim. He stated that Lefebvre had advised caution about ordaining unsuitable men – not that he had advised a general presumption of validity, or that he had presumed the intrinsic validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration (NREC). Hennick said:
“He rejected such an interpretation of Archbishop’s admonition not to ordain conditionally. He is convinced Abp Lefebvre wanted people conditionally ordained, especially after 1988.”
He continued:
“Bishop Williamson stressed the importance of referring to the Archbishop at the height of his maturity, after the 1988 consecrations. At that point, he said, the Archbishop’s thinking was clear. He even cited the now-famous post-1988 note Lefebvre wrote in English to an American layman, declaring that ‘all their sacraments are doubtful.’”
Williamson’s emphasis on Lefebvre’s “mature thought” represents a different kind of testimony to that of Cekada and Sanborn. While the harder position which Lefebvre adopted at the later stage ends in the same necessity of conditional repetition of ordination/consecration, it is based on a different cause, namely the impossibility of attaining moral certainty about any given use of the NREC/NRPO after so many decades of chaos.
For example, an investigation for a young priest ordained this year would require not just an investigation into his own ordination, but also both the ordination and consecration of his ordaining bishop, as well as both the ordination and consecration of this bishop’s ordaining and consecrating bishop(s), and so on, back to the 1960s. The idea that watching a video of a single priest’s ordination could be sufficient is extremely misguided.
(This also is to say nothing of the documented problem of baptismal validity, which is more significant than many realise or wish to admit – and is resolutely not an instance of “negative doubt.”)
This is why a systematic programme of (at least) conditional ordination/consecration of clerics whose orders depend on the validity of the Novus Ordo rites is both proportionate, and even necessary.10
This prescinds from theological arguments about the rites themselves, implicit in and behind Lefebvre’s body of writings, but is further supported by
The pastoral practice which Lefebvre adopted throughout his post-Vatican II career
The practical doubts which he expressed throughout the period.
This is important because it prevents us falling to a trap, against which Fr Paul Robinson warns us in his recent video:
“There’s this practice online of people taking quotes detached from the context of the life of the person […] to try and make them prove more than they prove.”11
We are not the ones who are doing this.
Conclusion
To summarise, Fr Pierre-Marie’s classic study into the validity of the NREC radically overstates Lefebvre’s position on the matter.
The testimonies of Cekada and Sanborn show that Lefebvre did in fact question the new rites; Williamson’s testimony shows that, at the height of his clarity, Lefebvre effectively questioned the rite by holding that every use of it was subject to irresolvable practical doubt.
The claim that he “never called in question the validity of the new rite of episcopal ordinations as published by Rome” cannot stand. We must also question the reliability of a study that presents such an error.
This is to leave aside the problems with treating Archbishop Lefebvre as a theological authority capable of settling this question – especially in favour of validity, for which there is an insurmountably high bar.
We have already mentioned Fr Pierre-Marie’s attribution of a providential and quasi-prophetic role to Lefebvre, and the unsoundness of such a method of making theological decisions in the present crisis. However, some give the strong inpression of arguing for their positions not because of what Lefebvre believed, but based on what they believe or want to be true – with the Archbishop cited as an authority, after the fact.
The reality is that Lefebvre’s legacy is highly contested, with it being possible to cite his words and actions in favour of mutually exclusive ideas – whether about the new sacramental rites, the status of the post-conciliar claimants to the papacy, or other major questions.
This is why, as previously stated, such questions must be resolved with regard to Catholic doctrine and theology, rather than by appealing to the person and actions of one’s preferred figure – a subjectivist and charismatic method that cannot produce clarity or consensus.12
See the full index on this matter here:
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
p 7.
pp 26-7.
Sanborn was one of the SSPX’s first seminarians, having entered Ecône in 1971. He was ordained in 1975.
Cekada entered Ecône in 1975, having previously been a Cistercian monk. He was ordained in 1977.
The interviewer amid this part of the interview asks a question about Lefebvre’s reported one-time use of the NRPO (new rite of priestly ordination) for the ordination of Fr Yves Cottard. Cekada continues as follows:
Who knows exactly what he did. He could have used the old form, because it's something, as a bishop, he would probably remember. […]
This [doubts about validity] was the first time I’d heard this anywhere [and to hear it from a bishop] was significant, to say the least.
I encountered the issue by chance during my first year (1975-76) at the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) seminary at Ecône, Switzerland. I went to ask Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre about whether conservative friends from my former seminary could work with the Society after ordination. He told me yes, in principle, but they would need to be conditionally ordained first, because Paul VI had changed the rite for Holy Orders.
The Archbishop explained that the new form (essential formula) in the rite for priestly ordination was doubtful because one word had been subtracted. The new form for episcopal consecration, the Archbishop continued, was completely different and thus invalid.
Anthony Cekada, ‘Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration,’ 2006, p 1. Source.
Regarding proportionality and what is meant by a “positive doubt” in such a situation, we have explored this issue at length on several occasions:
We say this, even though we believe that the least unsound forms of “arguing from Lefebvre” would indeed point to the requirement of systematic conditional repetition. First, the least unsound way of “arguing from Lefebvre” requires following his later and most mature thought, attained at the end of his struggles and in light of 1988, the crowning event of his life – not another, arbitrarily selected point, whether directly or through the imposition of an artificial harmonization. It makes little sense for those in SSPX circles to treat 1988 and Lefebvre's mature thought in any other way, foundational as they are for the Society's continued existence and legitimacy.
Further, as demonstrated below, Lefebvre himself can be cited for all the necessary principles for the sounder doctrinal/theological approach:
Great article. A couple thought it inspired:
1) The new SSPX holds out the example of Fr. Starks (admitted by Lefebvre into the Society without conditional ordination) as a justification for not requiring conditional ordination. But as the article shows, Lefebvre’s position on some issues changed or matured over time (eg., new Mass attendance; negotiating with Rome) and perhaps also in this matter of conditional ordination. Not sure exactly when Starks was admitted, but I seem to recall it was one of the issues raised by “the Nine,” which would put it no later than 1983.
2) As regards the new 1968 rites and the “saved by context” argument (ie., the ambiguity of the essential form is rectified by the ancillary rites clearly supposing the consecration of a bishop/priest):
I’m wondering if that principle (I forget the Latin phrase at the moment, but it seems to be well-grounded in Catholic theology) is a two-way street: If it can be used to resolve an ambiguity, can it also be used to cause one?
For example, in the new ordination rite: The essential form is nearly identical to the traditional one, but the ancillary rites approximate the null Anglican rite. Does this principle remove the otherwise univocal meaning of the essential form (ie., must not this principle regarding the ancillary rites always remain in consideration, whether to resolve an ambiguity, or to cause one)?
An absurd example to explain the question: Let’s say a Novus Ordo is said, in which the first half of the Mass is about the psychological history of Daffy Duck. Then the priest pronounces the correct words of consecration. Then he continues blathering on about what the future holds for Daffy Duck.
In such a case, would the ancillary rites have no bearing because the essential form was unambiguous? Or would we be compelled to question the intention of the minister using such a rite, notwithstanding the safeguarding of the essential form?
I really don’t know the answer, but my initial reaction was that if the ancillary rites can be used to resolve an ambiguity, maybe they can also be used to cause one. And on a slightly different note, even if the essential form is protected, would not the use of such a rite make the minister’s intention inherently dubious?
Msgr. Lefebvre never ever called into question the validity of the new sacramental rites or of Vatican II, here is a small excerpt from one of his sermons in 1976, Lille, France:
The union desired by these Liberal Catholics, a union between the Church and the Revolution and subversion is, for the Church, an adulterous union, adulterous. And that adulterous union can produce only bastards. And who are those bastards? They are our rites: the rite of Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments-we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ or if it does not give them. The priests coming out of the seminaries do not themselves know what they are. In Rome it was the Archbishop of Cincinnati who said: "Why are there no more vocations? Because the Church no longer knows what a priest is." How then can She still form priests if She does not know what a priest is? The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests. They do not know what they are. They do not know that they were made to go up to the altar to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to give Jesus Christ to souls, and to call souls to Jesus Christ. That is what a priest is. Our young men here know that very well. Their whole life is going to be consecrated to that, to love, adore, and serve Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.