Have the Avrillé Dominicans moved beyond their new rite of episcopal consecration study?
Although Fr Pierre-Marie Kergorlay's study of the new rite of episcopal consecration remains foundational for many, his own community appears to have moved beyond it.
Although Fr Pierre-Marie Kergorlay's study of the new rite of episcopal consecration remains foundational for many, his own community appears to have moved beyond it.
Introduction
In a previous article, we discussed the 2005 study into the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, written by Fr Pierre-Marie Kergorlay of the Dominicans of Avrillé. The Avrillé Dominicans are a traditionalist order, now affiliated with Bishop Jean-Michel Faure of “The Resistance.”
In his classic study, Fr Pierre-Marie argues that the new rite of episcopal consecration (NREC) is indeed valid, at least in its Latin form.
It was originally published in their quarterly journal, Le Sel de la terre, under the title ‘Le nouveau rituel de consécration épiscopale est-il valide ?’—which translates into English as ‘Is the new rite of episcopal consecration valid?’1
It was translated and published by the American magazine The Angelus in December 2005 and January 2006.2 Its new title (‘Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid’) was an intriguing reframing of the issue. As we shall see in this piece, the Dominicans themselves have objected to this reframing.
Since 2005, nearly every “validist”—as we might dub those who defend the validity of the new rites—cites Fr Pierre-Marie’s study in defence of their opinion. Because of this, there have also been many rebuttals and refutations of Fr Pierre-Marie’s study over the years.
However, as I said previously, I do not wish to enter the field of controversy in this mini-series on that study. In place of an adversarial approach, I have been highlighting some key points made by this study, which appear to have been forgotten or overlooked today.
For example, in the previous part, we saw that this study explicitly rejects certain faulty ideas which are sometimes used to bolster his own conclusions:
In another part, we saw that it presents rather stronger argumentation and conclusions than are sometimes appreciated:
In a third part, we examined its comments about the position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
In this final part, we will see that the Avrillé Dominicans have, in recent years, appeared to distance themselves somewhat from the study in question – or at least from the ideas a) that the study justifies the assumption of validity in every case, and b) that men whose orders depend on the validity of these rites can be approached for the sacraments.
In this part, we are going to consider this “afterlife” of this study amongst the Avrillé Dominicans themselves, by surveying several articles dealing with the same topic.
‘Reviews: Are episcopal consecrations according to the Paul VI ritual valid?’ (2015)
In 2015, Fr Pierre-Marie himself reviewed the 2014 study of Fr Álvaro Calderón FSSPX on the same issue.
Calderón, professor of theology at the Seminary of La Reja, Argentina, admitted a slight doubt about the validity of the NREC, and stated that as a result, conditional ordination/consecration was necessary for all those whose orders depended on the new rites.
Fr Pierre-Marie takes a slight issue at some aspects of Calderón’s argumentation, but appears to agree with his conclusion:
… the positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent certainty of its validity, seem to us – until there is a Roman judgment, for which many things would have to change – to justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional reconsecration of these bishops. Such uncertainties cannot be tolerated at the very root of the sacraments.3
We shall discuss Calderón’s study further in due course.
‘Questionable priestly ordinations in the conciliar Church’ (2017)
In an article titled ‘Questionable priestly ordinations in the conciliar Church,’ the Dominicans cited a 1988 letter from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to Mr Wilson. Here is an extract:
I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times. All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now.
The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.
We are in the time of great apostasy.4 (Typographical errors in the original.)
This article also refers to the words of Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais in an ordination sermon in 2016 at Econe:
Clearly, we cannot accept this faked new rite of ordination that leaves doubts concerning the validity of numerous ordinations done according to the new rite.
Thus this new rite of ordination is not Catholic. And so we will of course faithfully continue to transmit the real and valid priesthood by the traditional priestly rite of ordination.5
We have discussed Tissier de Mallerais’ views in greater detail elsewhere.
When the article finally mentions Fr Pierre-Marie’s 2005 study, it describes it only as “showing that the rite in itself is probably valid.” (Emphasis added.)
But this is not what Fr Pierre-Marie stated in his study. For example:
Its validity cannot be doubted […]6
It can be concluded that the formula is certainly valid, for it has been utilized from time immemorial in numerous Eastern rites […]7
The utilization of the form that is in use in two certainly valid Eastern rites assures its validity.8
This 2017 article then cites a part of Fr Pierre-Marie’s study that provides grounds for practical doubt of validity:
[B]ecause of the generalized disorder that prevails in matters both of liturgy and dogma, there can be serious reasons for doubting the validity of certain episcopal consecrations.9
It adds the following text from that study, in which Fr Pierre-Marie refers to two specific examples of doubtful ordinations given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre – although he does appear to have had the matter of sacramental intention in mind:
For instance, on the occasion of the episcopal consecration of Msgr. Daneels, Auxiliary Bishop of Brussels, Archbishop Lefebvre said:
They published booklets for this consecration. For the public prayers, here is what was said and then repeated by the crowd: “Be an apostle like Peter and Paul, be an apostle like the patron saint of this parish, be an apostle like Gandhi, be an apostle like Luther, be an apostle like Martin Luther King, be an apostle like Helder Camara, be an apostle like Romero....” An apostle like Luther?! What intention did those bishops have when they consecrated this bishop, Msgr. Daneels? (1983)
It’s frightening... Has this bishop really been consecrated? It can be doubted, all the same. If that was the intention of the consecrators, then it is unimaginable! The situation is even more serious than we had thought.10 (1988)
This article also cites Calderón’s 2014 approvingly:
We also point out that Fr Alvaro Calderon (SSPX), in the Spanish language review Si Si No No (#267, November 2014), speaks of a “slight doubt,” a “shadow” concerning the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration in itself.11
It concludes, not by claiming that the NREC is valid, but by insisting on the necessity of conditional ordination:
This is why the position of Archbishop Lefebvre in the letter that we have quoted here, appears wise: because of the particular importance of the sacrament of ordination, it is necessary to conditionally re-ordain the priests who come from the conciliar Church to the Traditional one.12
‘Conciliar Bishops in Schools of Tradition’ (2019)
In 2019, Avrillé published an article about two conciliar bishops and their presence at traditionalist schools.
This article states, in relation to the late Vitus Huonder:
He was ordained a priest on September 25, 1971 (thus in the new rite) by Bishop Johannes Vonderach and consecrated bishop of Chur (this diocese includes the cantons of Graubünden and Zurich) on September 8, 2007 by Bishop Amédée Grab. Hence arises the question of the validity of his ordination and consecration. We know that Archbishop Lefebvre did not hesitate to conditionally ordain those of the new rite.
As to the bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI, the only known example of a bishop who joined Tradition is Bishop Lazo. This return to Tradition took place after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, but the SSPX has prudently kept away from ensuring [sic] him about episcopal functions.13
This article makes no reference to Fr Pierre-Marie’s study at all.
‘Is the pope a bishop?’ (2019)
This anonymous article, available only in French, took up the issue again.
It begins by citing Fr Calderón’s study approvingly, along with its conclusion that conditional ordination/consecration are both necessary steps in the cases in question.
It mentions Fr Pierre-Marie’s study on two occasions.
On the first occasion, it claimed that the study intended to show that “arguments put forward until then against the validity of the rite of episcopal ordination, as promulgated by Rome in 1968, were of no value”—and not that every use of this rite would result in a validly consecrated bishop:
In the article published in Le Sel de la terre 54 (autumn 2005) entitled ‘Le nouveau rituel de consécration épiscopale est-il valide 1 ?’ (Is the new ritual of episcopal consecration valid?), the conclusion was that the arguments put forward until then against the validity of the rite of episcopal ordination, as promulgated by Rome in 1968, were of no value, but with this clarification:
If the new rite ‘in itself’ is valid, it is quite possible that in certain particular cases, as a result of bad translations, or an adaptation of the rite that deviates greatly from the original, or even a lack of intention on the part of the celebrant, we may have an invalid ceremony.
In the same article, we quoted Bishop Lefebvre on the episcopal consecration of Bishop Daneels, auxiliary bishop of Brussels:
It’s frightening... Is this bishop really consecrated? It’s doubtful. If this is the intention of the consecrators, it's unimaginable! The situation is even more serious than we think.
Finally, let us recall the practice of the Society of St Pius X during Archbishop Lefebvre's lifetime and even several years after his death: priests coming from the conciliar Church, ordained with the new rite, were generally conditionally re-ordained.14
While this is a positive presentation of Fr Pierre-Marie’s original study, it is clearly distancing itself from the way in which it has been used in the Anglophone world.
This distancing is even clearer in the second mention of this article, in which they object to the editorialisation of the English title:
[T]he title has been changed to ‘Why the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid’. The deletion of the question mark is regrettable because it gives the impression that the article affirms the validity of the rite without any restrictions, which, as we have said, is not the case.
The deletion of the question mark stems from the English edition of this article in the Society of Saint Pius X newspaper in the United States, The Angelus, in December 2005 and January 2006.15
This article also makes the following powerful points against those who insist that either all putative bishops are validly consecrated as such, or that the hierarchy has disappeared. First, the objection:
So all the bishops currently in office (there may be a few bishops consecrated before 1968 who are still alive, but given their age they've probably retired) would only be doubtful bishops! And all the priests ordained by them would be doubtful priests! It's unthinkable!16
The answer is as follows:
The question is not whether it is ‘thinkable’ or not, but whether it is true or false. Now, as we have just said, the dubious nature of priestly ordinations has been generally accepted for several decades by the best representatives of the Tradition.
It should also be noted that, as far as we know, the reform affects only the Roman rite. Consequently, the question does not arise for bishops consecrated in the other Catholic rites.
Let us add that there are at least eight bishops validly ordained in the Roman rite:
Mgr Tisser de Mallerais
Mgr Williamson
Mgr de Galarreta
Mgr Fellay
Mgr Faure
Mgr Thomas d'Aquin
Mgr Zendejas
… to whom we can add Mgr Rifan: It is true that the main consecrator was Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, who was himself consecrated in 1971 using the new rite, but Bishop Licinio Rangel, consecrated in 1991 by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, was co-consecrator, and the ceremony was performed using the traditional rite.17
(Indeed, there are rather more than eight such bishops.)
The author ends his answer by pointing out the elephant in the room, the importance of which is overlooked by those excessively concerned about the visibility of what is left of the hierarchy:
Finally, it should be pointed out that the doubt about the validity of these ordinations is perhaps not the most serious issue.
The most serious is the certainty that all but a very small number of bishops publicly profess the conciliar errors.18
This article then criticises another organisation’s study of the issue of the NREC:
It also concludes that the new rites are valid:
‘As we have seen, the validity of the new form of bishop's consecration is fundamentally unquestionable’.
The study does admit the possibility of invalidity due to a lack of intention. But this lack of intention seems to be scorned, as it would occur ‘despite the use of liturgical books’. What's more, the study immediately points out that Archbishop Lefebvre…
‘was ordained priest and bishop by Cardinal Lienart, a cardinal at least close to Freemasonry and one of the string-pullers behind Vatican II’.
In other words, if we start to doubt the validity of this new rite because of a lack of intention, we should also doubt the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre's ordination and episcopal consecration. 19
The words of the alternative study are hardly less definitive than that of Fr Pierre-Marie. As such, this 2019 article represents a further distancing for his study.
‘Validity of the Sacraments Reformed by Paul VI’ (2023)
In Spring 2023, Le Sel de la terre published an article by ‘Dominicus’ titled ‘La validité des sacrements réformés par Paul VI’—in English, ‘Validity of the Sacraments Reformed by Paul VI.’20
In this paper, Dominicus acknowledged several problems with the new rites, and with the intentions of ordaining/consecrating bishops.
To this end, he cited the 1988 letter from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to Mr Wilson which we have already seen. He then referred to the words of Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais on the topic.
Dominicus does not cite Fr Pierre-Marie’s study at all; instead, he refers to Fr Calderón’s. He refers to Calderón’s arguments that the NREC comes to us “without the guarantees of either the ordinary or the extraordinary magisterium,” and cites the following claim from the Argentine seminary professor:
“If we want complete peace of conscience, we must ask the Popes for an infallible declaration for each of the vernacular versions of the sacramental forms.”
Because of this, Dominicus refers to the “necessity of conditional re-ordinations and re-consecrations,” saying that the Fr Calderón’s conclusion “seems self-evident.”
Here is that conclusion again:
“[T]he positive and objective defects that this rite suffers, which prevent certainty of its validity, seem to us – until there is a Roman judgment, for which many things would have to change – to justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional reconsecration of these bishops. Such uncertainties cannot be tolerated at the very root of the sacraments.”21 (Emphasis in Dominicus’ original)
Conclusion
In our consideration of Fr Pierre-Marie’s study, we have noted the following points:
The study does not justify assuming that any given man ordained/consecrated in the new rites has validly received orders; nor does it claim to do so.
It does not justify approaching any such man for the sacraments, or for permitting such a man to be approached; nor does it claim to do so.
It does not present its conclusions basis for attaining moral certainty as to the validity of such a man’s ordination/consecration
It does affirm “the usage that seems to prevail” as a “prudential measure” for attaining such moral certainty, namely conditional ordination/consecration of such a man.
It admits that, if the NREC was not certainly valid, this would not destroy the hierarchy of the Church
It overstates Archbishop Lefebvre’s position on the new rite.
In addition, we can see from the “afterlife” of Fr Pierre-Marie’s study within his own Dominican community that:
The Dominicans of Avrillé seem to have progressively favoured Fr Calderón’s study, at the expense of Fr Pierre-Marie’s
They especially favour his conclusion, that conditional ordination/consecration are necessary in a systematic way for those whose orders depend on the new rites.
To summarise this matter, we can repeat again the words of Fr Peter Scott FSSPX:
“For regardless of the technical question of the validity of a priest’s holy orders, we all recognize the Catholic sense that tells us that there can be no mixing of the illegitimate new rites with the traditional Catholic rites, a principle so simply elucidated by Archbishop Lefebvre on June 29, 1976:
“‘We are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time, of the Catholic religion. We are not of that universal religion, as they call it today. It is no longer the Catholic religion. We are not of that liberal, modernist religion that has its worship, its priests, its faith, its catechisms, its Bible….’”22 (Emphasis added)
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.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(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!
Read Next:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)
‘Le nouveau rituel de consécration épiscopale est-il valide ?’ Sel de la Terre, No.54., Autumn 2005. Available in French here.
Fr Pierre-Marie OP, ‘Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid’, published in The Angelus from Sel de la Terre, No. 54, Autumn 2005, pp 72-129.
Ibid.
Fr Pierre-Marie OP, ‘Why the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is Valid’, published in The Angelus from Sel de la Terre, No. 54, Autumn 2005, pp 72-129. p 16.
Ibid., 17
Ibid., 22
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Le pape est-il évêque ? Le Sel de la terre Nº 110, Automne 2019, 182
Ibid. p 184
Ibid. p 183
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid. 185
Ibid. Our translation of Fr Calderón.
Though it does not detract from your thesis (I think you have succeeded in demonstrating your point about Avrille quietly moving away from Fr. Pierre-Marie’s study), the 2019 Avrille article is mistaken when it asserts:
“As to the bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI, the only known example of a bishop who joined Tradition is Bishop Lazo. This return to Tradition took place after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, but the SSPX has prudently kept away from ensuring [sic] him about episcopal functions.13”
The SSPX did not ensure +Lazo was not entrusted with episcopal functions, for as +de Mallerais stated:
“Another thought: Mgr Lazo has already confirmed “quite a few” [people] with us. Obviously, this is valid because “the Church supplies” (canon 209), because a simple priest can confirm with jurisdiction. And it is difficult to see how to make our doubt known to Mgr Lazo. So silence and discretion about this, please!”
https://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/