Archbishop Lefebvre, Conciliar Sacraments, Doubtful Holy Orders
What did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre think about the validity of the Novus Ordo rites, which he said did not come from the Church? Could they confer valid holy orders?
Editors’ Notes
This is a significantly expanded version of a previous essay, bringing more data and focus to the matter of the reformed rites of ordination (i.e., Novus Ordo Holy Orders.)
It is the third part of a series on Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the reformed rites of the sacraments.
Introduction
This series is presenting three main arguments, based on the Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s words, actions and principles, which establish the necessity of a universal practice of conditional ordination/consecration for all whose holy orders depend on the reformed Novus Ordo sacramental rites.
In the first part, we discussed “the pastoral argument.” This is based on 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 – including through conditionally “re-confirming” those putatively confirmed in the new rites – in order to give the faithful certainty and peace.
In the second part, we discussed “the theological argument.” We saw that the combination of traditional theology and Lefebvre’s analysis of the Vatican II reformation points inexorably to the conclusion that the reformed rites “did not come from the Church.” We saw that those sacraments – including that of holy orders – whose essentials had been changed, without her approval or sanction, necessarily lacked her guarantees of validity. The solution to this problem was for such sacraments to be repeated conditionally in the traditional rites.
In this part, we will consider “the practical argument.” We will consider the occasions on which Lefebvre himself expressed doubt about the validity of these reformed rites (particularly that of holy orders),1 and an argument for conditional repetition of the relevant sacraments based on more practical grounds.
“The practical argument” to which we now turn is this: prescinding from problems intrinsic to the rites themselves, the combination of a) Lefebvre’s concerns about careless administration and defective sacramental intention, and b) the passage of over fifty years, and the increasing chaos of this period, mean that c) investigations into sacramental validity (which would need to go back to 1968) are burdensome and morally impossible. As a result, moral certainty for some sacraments can only be attained with the certainly valid conditional repetition.
Lefebvre’s early doubts about the reformed rites
I have already provided many examples of the Archbishop’s thought on the validity of the new rite of confirmation in the first piece. In the previous piece, I also demonstrated that his doubts were about “officially-approved” problems intrinsic to the new rite itself, rather than just the administration or intention. I shall minimise repetition of this material here.
In a 1975 conference in Canada, again of confirmation, Archbishop Lefebvre stated:
“I believe that we all have a serious requirement for the type of priests who transmit the life of the soul. I am certain you do not wish to have priests who are apt to administer sacraments, which are invalid.
“From time to time I am asked to administer Confirmation which, of course, is irritating to local bishops who remind me that I have no right to confirm in their dioceses.
“Naturally, I recognize this, but I remind them in turn that they have no right to administer sacraments of doubtful validity to children whose parents want them to receive the sacramental grace. These parents have the right to be certain that their children are receiving the grace of Confirmation.2
If a bishop might confer confirmation in a doubtful or invalid way, what should we think of his ordinations and consecrations?
Lefebvre went on to discuss the duty he felt towards parents:
“I may at least rest easy in the knowledge that the children confirmed in the manner prescribed by the Church for centuries truly carry the sacramental grace within them, that the Sacrament is truly valid.”3
As discussed previously, this was a central motivation for his pastoral practise with regards to confirmation. It obviously also applies to all the sacraments which would require a certainly valid clergy.
In his book Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Archbishop Lefebvre discusses the various papal documents directed against the principles of the French Revolution.4 He concludes, in words which he also used at his famous 1976 sermon in Lille:
“All these Popes have resisted the union of the Church with the revolution; it is an adulterous union and from such a union only bastards can come.
“The rite of the new mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it. The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests, who do not know what they are.
“They are unaware that they are made to go up to the altar, to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to give Jesus Christ to souls.”5 (Emphasis added)
It would be mistaken, in light of the tenor of the passage and other texts, to seize on this last sentence and assume that he was saying that the new priests really were indeed “made to go up to the altar,” as if this passing comment represents Lefebvre’s definitive opinion on validity. The key point here is that “we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it.”
Elsewhere in the same book, he writes in reference to the sacraments in general, and that of holy orders in particular:
“And even a further question, regarding some of the priests ordained in recent years: are they true priests at all? Put it another way, are their ordinations valid?
“The same doubt overhangs other sacraments.
“It applies to certain ordinations of bishops such as that which took place in Brussels in the summer of 1982 when the consecrating bishop said to the ordinand ‘Be an apostle like Gandhi, Helder Camara, and Mahomet!’
“Can we reconcile these references, at least as regards Gandhi and Mahomet, with the evident intention of doing what the Church intends?”6
This text expresses doubts about particular administrations of the reformed rite, based on factors extrinsic to the rite itself. However, extrinsic considerations were not all that Lefebvre ever had in view.
For example, in 1977, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote the words in a foreword to Fr Guérard des Lauriers’ book, Réflexions sur le Nouvel Ordo Missae. This book questioned the validity of the Novus Ordo’s changed words of consecration, for reasons similar to those outlined in this present essay. It appears to arrive at a conclusion of absolute intrinsic doubt about the Novus Ordo.
Lefebvre wrote, in the foreword to this book:
“The extent and depth of the change in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and its similarity to the modifications made by Luther, compel Catholics faithful to their faith to ask themselves the question of the validity of this new rite.
“Who better than the Reverend Father Guérard des Lauriers to make an informed contribution to the solution of this problem, which is still under study?”7 (Emphasis added)
Given the context, this is a clear recognition by Archbishop Lefebvre of the acceptability of absolute and intrinsic doubt about the reformed rite of Mass, as well as of the reasoning expressed by Guérard des Lauriers.
This remains so, notwithstanding the subsequent breakdown of Lefebvre and Guérard des Lauriers’ relationship. Lefebvre later distanced himself from Fr Guérard des Lauriers, and his conclusions on the Mass and the Pope, wishing to avoid “confusion and violent divisions”.
But Lefebvre’s practical distancing from Guérard des Lauriers as a man and from the certainty of some of his conclusions is not a reprobation of the questions and doubts expressed – especially when the same reasoning remained so evident throughout the Archbishop’s other words and actions.
In the same year (1977), whilst himself still seeming somewhat uncertain, the Archbishop acknowledges the legitimacy of doubts about the reformed rites in themselves:
“If we consider this reformed liturgy heretical and invalid, either because of the changes in matter and form, or because of the intention of the reformer inscribed in the new rite and contrary to the intention of the Catholic Church, it is obvious that we are forbidden to participate in these reformed rites, we would be participating in a sacrilegious action.
“There are serious reasons for this opinion, but they are not absolutely obvious.”8
In this text, he also makes clear that his references to “intention” do not refer only to extrinsic issues with the sacramental intentions of individual ministers, but rather to the intentions of “the framers of the rite,” along the lines already discussed in relation to Leo XIII and Apostolicae Curae. In other words, he presents this as a problem intrinsic to the reformed rites.
It would be another mistake to focus on Lefebvre holding back from the conclusion himself, and saying that it was not “absolutely obvious.” What is relevant here is that he stated explicitly that there were “serious reasons” behind the idea that “the changes in matter and form” have rendered these sacraments are invalid.
Having “serious reasons,” whilst not being convinced one way or another, is the very definition of doubt.
In an ordination sermon in June 1978, Lefebvre said:
“My dear friends, we have been betrayed. Betrayed by all of those who ought to be giving us the truth…
“Likewise, they must give us all the Sacraments, without any doubt concerning their validity, Sacraments which are certainly valid.
“It is a duty for us to ask them for these things and they have a duty to give them to us.”9 (Emphasis added)
In 1980, Lefebvre said:
“We must protect the worship of the Church, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacraments instituted by Our Lord, practicing them according to the rites honored by twenty centuries of tradition. Thus we will properly honor Our Lord, and thus be assured of receiving His grace.
“It is because the novelties which have invaded the Church since the Council diminish the adoration and the honor due to Our Lord, and implicitly throw doubt upon His divinity, that we refuse them.
“These novelties do not come from the Holy Ghost, nor from His Church, but from those who are imbued with the spirit of Modernism, and with all the errors which convey this spirit, condemned with so much courage and energy by St. Pius X. […]
“The Church cannot content herself with doubtful sacraments nor with ambiguous teaching. Those who have introduced these doubts and this ambiguity are not disciples of the Church. Whatever their intentions may have been, they in fact worked against the Church.
“The disastrous results of their industry exceed the worst examining, and are not lessened by the apparent exceptions of a few regions. When Luther introduced the vernacular into the liturgy, the crowds rushed into the churches. But later?
“It is consoling to note that in the Catholic world, the sense of faith of the faithful rejects these novelties and attaches itself to Tradition. It is from this that the true renewal of the Church will come.”10 (Emphases added)
Investigations and the 1980s
The year 1983 and following years saw some conflict within the SSPX, in part derived from this issue.
While this conflict was simmering away, Archbishop Lefebvre made the following statements in a conference to the seminarians at Ridgefield:
“The rule of theology for the condition of validity of Sacraments, can be found in (your manuals) of Theology. We must perform an application of these conditions… to the new rite Sacraments of the reform of Vatican II.
“In some cases it is very difficult to know if it is valid or not. Especially in the vernacular translations of the form of the sacraments. In Latin it is easier to know if its valid or invalid, but in the vernacular, it is very difficult to know if some words invalidate a sacrament.
“So we must do, in some cases, a detailed study of that case. You know that many priests today change the form of the Sacrament! That is another difficulty in determining validity or invalidity, e.g. 'What did this bishop say when he did this sacrament? A bishop said, e.g. concerning the form of Confirmation... that it was certainly valid (in the vernacular).' We ask; 'Well, what did he say? What did he do?' We must perform an examination of these things before we can say they are valid or invalid. We must study each case.
"It is very difficult, as in the case of the ordination of new priests, because... what do they have as the intention when they perform the Sacraments? […]
"It is very difficult, we know that. But we cannot be saying 'All the Sacraments are invalid', without performing an examination… we cannot say that. We must do a study. For example you may say, in this country (they do this), in this diocese, (they do that), etc... we must consider these things before passing judgment. We cannot say, 'a priori', that all sacraments are invalid.11
Lefebvre then discusses the problems with the permissions for non-olive oils. We have already seen this text above. He continues:
"The situation is very difficult now for us... but I think after 10 or 20 years it will be even more difficult for you, because the situation is getting progressively worse with time… they change... no rite to give the Sacrament (no rule), etc.
"Now, for priestly ordinations it is the same situation. We must see what they have done in each case, and to determine if the form was: valid or not, we must do a study. In some cases, some theologians are against the validity, while some theologians are for validity, etc. […]
“If we think truly that a Sacrament is (most likely) invalid, then we must redo the Sacrament conditionally. I have done so many times with confirmation.”12 (Line breaks added)
A few days later he made the following comments:
“As for the validity of the Sacraments, I think that many sacraments... are valid if they use the Latin form. However, with the vernacular translations, there begins the doubt of validity.
“In practice, we must study each sacrament, each circumstance where these sacraments are given. One bishop said the words of Confirmation with another form? We do not know. We must investigate and find out which form. The same with the oil he used, etc. Perhaps its valid, invalid... we must do an inquisition. But I cannot say as these priests (of the Northeast) said, that we consider all sacraments of the new rite, practically all are invalid. That is impossible.”13
These texts portray a change in the Archbishop’s opinion, at least for this time, to holding that the reformed rites were, at least in themselves, valid. In any case, while it might be tempting to take these to be definitive statements (especially if one personally favours the idea that these rites are valid), the reality appears to be that Lefebvre was undecided on these issues, as we shall see.
This is hardly surprising, given the implications. The doubtfulness or invalidity of any of the sacraments had serious implications for the indefectibility of the Church, but those of holy orders maybe most of all. It is unfortunate that the Archbishop was nonetheless forced to take public stances on these tremendously difficult questions.
However, there are a few points worth noting even about these conferences:
This text expresses his opinion that all sacraments conferred with these rites were under suspicion until certainty had been established. This is more significant than many realise, especially when we consider that we are obliged to take the “tutiorist” (or “safer course) with regards to the the validity of the sacraments sacraments. (I.e., if we cannot attain moral certainty of validity, then in practice we are obliged not to treat them as valid, but as invalid; and the burden of proof is on those who think they are valid.)
While Lefebvre talks about investigations and the necessity of positive reasons for doubt, this has not been a real requirement in the life of the SSPX with regards to conditional confirmation. I have already discussed the implications of this elsewhere.
As discussed, doubts about confirmations used with non-olive oil are just as intrinsic to the reformed rites as those pertaining to a change of from. Doubts about one reformed rite have the same implications for the indefectibility of the Church as any of the others. One cannot entertain such doubts for one sacrament, and then exclude for the others on principle, without further argumentation.
Once someone has started talking of “studies” and trying to prove that the reformed rites fulfil the requirements of Catholic sacramental theology on intrinsic grounds, he has already implicitly conceded that "the authority of the Church" – at least, the Conciliar-Synodal Church – is insufficient to guarantee these rites.
We are not considering the idea that “all the reformed rites are invalid”; rather, we are showing that all the arguments and context point to these rites being doubtful, and thus calling for conditional repetition. There is a significant difference between the two.
Also, in the same conferences, Lefebvre emphasises, in strong terms, the same the sentiment which we addressed in the part on confirmation, namely the pastoral importance which he placed on the needs of the faithful, as well as the importance of not disregarding their concerns when making important decisions which affect them:
“For us, you can understand that our first worry is the faithful… If we do something, if we take some decision, what is the consequence for the faithful? That is very important. We cannot say, ‘Oh the faithful... oh no, no, we cannot be concerned whether they are happy or not with this, or whether they still have the sacraments, etc... that it is not important.’ No, no, we cannot disregard them. We must ask always, ‘What is the consequence of our decision for souls... We are priests for serving the souls (of the faithful).”14
Around the same time, Lefebvre published a Letter to Friends and Benefactors which stated that more and more sacraments were invalid or doubtful:
“The Society does not say that all the sacraments according to the new post-conciliar rites are invalid, but that due to bad translations, the lack of proper intention, and the changes introduced in the matter and form, the number of invalid and doubtful sacraments is increasing.
“In order, then, to reach a decision in the practical order concerning the doubtfulness or invalidity of sacraments given by priests imbued with the ideas of the Council, a serious study of the various circumstances is necessary.”15
Examples and counter-examples of conditional ordinations
It is well known that on several occasions, Archbishop Lefebvre did conditionally ordain men previously ordained in the reformed rites.
In his book on Michael Davies, John Daly names five well-known examples of men whom the Arhcbishop conditionally ordained: Frs Sullivan, Ringrose, Bedingfeld, Hopkins and Michael-Mary Sim CSSR.16
Archbishop Lefebvre himself wrote, in 1988:
“I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.”17 (grammar as in the original)
Nonetheless, he did not follow this as a universal practice. It seems that Lefebvre felt unable to make a universal rule on the topic, and Daly names three men ordained in the reformed rites who were allowed to collaborate with the SSPX, at least for a time.18 Even more surprisingly, Daly states that the Archbishop even himself ordained Fr Jean-Yves Cottard using the reformed rites in 1973.19
However, what occurred historically with men who were not conditionally ordained is instructive. Daly gives the following account of an event in the early decades of the Society’s Great Britain district, which took place in living memory for some:
“Dr. Thomas Glover, who was employed to teach Canon Law at Écône and served Society of St. Pius X Mass centres in England despite having been ordained in the new rite – a fact which gave rise to such a rift at the Society’s London Mass Centre when Dr. Glover was transferred there that he was hastily despatched to the backwater of Yorkshire where he was later to abandon the clerical state altogether.”20
What exactly are we seeing here, in such an example?
First, we are seeing the faithful of the Society of St Pius X following Archbishop Lefebvre’s principle that they should have nothing to do with reformed religion – including receiving the sacraments from men ordained in its rites. Fr Peter Scott summarised this instinct :
“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….’”21 (Emphasis added)
Second, we are seeing that it is perhaps not reasonable to think that the faithful (and priests) can or will put aside their concerns about the reformed rites, defended by Fr Scott above; or that they can or will accept the outcome of secret investigations into whether a Novus Ordo priest was ordained “correctly” in a given case.
But why might it be unreasonable to think this, especially if some of the priests whom they approach for the sacraments think that the matter is closed?
The words and actions in the final stage of Archbishop Lefebvre’s career make this clear.
Operation Survival – the clarifying of Lefebvre’s position
When we look at the run-up to the consecrations of 1988, it is difficult to avoid concluding that Archbishop Lefebvre’s position hardened in significant ways.
In 1986, Archbishop Lefebvre was asked again about the validity of the reformed sacraments. While maintaining a focus on intention, and an inability to be sure that the reformed rites are themselves invalid, the Archbishop is quite modest in his claims, and recognises the ever-increasing scale of the problems:
“I cannot say, myself, that for all sacraments in the Conciliar Church, these three conditions [of validity] are never met. I don't think we can say that.
“But I think with new priests, with priests who no longer have Catholic intentions, they don't know what the proper intention is, the intention of the Church, so that perhaps the validity of their sacraments is at least doubtful.”22 (Emphasis added)
If this is the case for the sacraments conferred by such priests, it is obviously also the case for the ordinations and consecrations conferred by their episcopal superiors.
One of his stated aims for consecrating bishops was to ensure the continuation of the true and valid sacraments of the traditional Roman rite. In August 1987, in a letter to the four future bishops, the Archbishop stated that:
“[T]he absolute need appears obvious of ensuring the permanency and continuation of the adorable Sacrifice of Our Lord in order that ‘His Kingdom come.’ […]
“Since this Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the Liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove, I find myself constrained by Divine Providence to pass on the grace of the Catholic episcopacy which I received, in order that the Church and the Catholic priesthood continue to subsist for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls. […]
“The main purpose of my passing on the episcopacy is that the grace of priestly orders be continued, for the true Sacrifice of the Mass to be continued, and that the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation be bestowed upon children and upon the faithful who will ask you for it.”23 (Emphasis added)
In his sermon at the priestly ordinations in June 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre asked the following questions, and answered them with reference to the problem of doubtful sacraments:
“Why Ecône? At that time, perhaps you were not fully aware of the struggle Ecône was waging. You came because you were attracted by your desire to be formed in Tradition.
“It seemed to you that to separate from Tradition was to separate from the Church. And therefore to receive sacraments that are perhaps doubtful and a formation that is not, in any case, according to the principles of the magisterium of the Church of All Time.”24 (Line break and emphases added)
On the actual day of the episcopal consecrations, the Archbishop preached:
“You well know, my dear brethren, that there can be no priests without bishops. When God calls me – this will certainly not be long – from whom would these seminarians receive the sacrament of Orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments? This is not possible.”25 (Emphasis added)
The “doubtful sacraments” of the “conciliar bishops” mentioned obviously include the sacrament of holy orders.
He continues, explaining how crucial this consideration of absolutely certain sacraments was for his dramatic actions:
“And they came to our seminaries, despite all the difficulties that they have encountered, in order to receive a true ordination to the priesthood, to say the true Sacrifice of Calvary, the true Sacrifice of the Mass, and to give you the true Sacraments, true doctrine, the true catechism. This is the goal of these seminaries.
“So I cannot, in good conscience, leave these seminarians orphaned. Neither can I leave you orphans by dying without providing for the future. That is not possible. It would be contrary to my duty.”26 (Emphasis added)
Nor is this all. In 1990, in one of the last documents we have from him, the Archbishop wrote to Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, the co-consecrator of the four bishops in 1988, urging him to consecrate a successor for himself in the diocese of Campos. One of the reasons given implies the need to ensure the continuation of the traditional rites of the sacraments:
“[P]riests and faithful have a strict right to have shepherds who profess the Catholic Faith in its entirety, essential for the salvation of their souls, and to have priests who are true Catholic priests.”
“[…] the Conciliar Church, having now reached everywhere, is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic Faith and, as a result of these errors, it has corrupted the sources of grace, which are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments.
“This false Church is in an ever-deeper state of rupture with the Catholic Church. Resulting from these principles and facts is the absolute need to continue the Catholic episcopacy in order to continue the Catholic Church.”27 (Emphasis added)
Also in 1990, in his sermon for his 60th anniversary of priestly ordination, he said:
“[T]here can be no Catholic priests without Catholic bishops. We could have had, as you know, after the conversations with Rome, one bishop. But what would this bishop have been? They demanded that he have the "profile desired by the Vatican". What does that mean? That he have the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Vatican II.
“It is precisely to protect ourselves from that spirit which is not the Spirit of God, which is not the Catholic Spirit, that we decided to make these dear four Catholic bishops, and to transmit to the coming generations of seminarians the Catholic Priesthood.
“This way, you are assured that some priests shall continue to teach you and your children the True Catholic Faith and to transmit the grace through true Sacraments and the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”28
One does not need bishops to impart the proper formation he wished his seminarians to receive; this is clear from the role of the bishops in the SSPX today. As such, the Archbishop’s repeated references to “the true priesthood” and “the true sacraments” cannot be explained away with reference to formation. His meaning was clear: he was, among other things, providing for concerns about sacramental validity, and removing any need to be dependent on modernists of doubtful validity.
How to explain this hardening in the final years?
Why Lefebvre’s position hardened, and what it means for us
Let us recall that even in 1983, at the height of his sympathy towards the reformed rites’ validity, Lefebvre had written:
“The situation is very difficult now for us... but I think after 10 or 20 years it will be even more difficult for you, because the situation is getting progressively worse with time… they change ... no rite to give the Sacrament (no rule), etc.”29
And yet in 1988, within five years, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote the following letter to a “Mr Wilson”, evidently answering another letter about conditional ordinations for priests ordained in the new rites, in which he said:
Very dear Mr. Wilson,
thank you very much for your kind letter.
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.
We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics. It is necessary everywhere in the world.
Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!
We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.
I pray for you and your lovely family.
Devotly in Jesus and Mary.
Marcel Lefebvre30 (Emphasis added. Typographical errors in the original.)
Here, we find no more hints about studies or investigations, and the reason why is clear. While Lefebvre continued to be concerned with faulty sacramental intentions, it also seems that he concluded that decades of conciliar revolution had made the rot too widespread, rendering investigations practically impossible.
Even if doubts about validity had initially been about individual cases, and on the basis of careless administration and defective intentions, the problems had grown more and more widespread by 1988, such that the idea of investigations and studies had been rendered obsolete, as well as morally impossible in most cases.
Writing in 2024, we are now not 10 or 20 years later from the 1983 conference, but over 40 years later; and over 50 years since the reformed rites of holy orders.
We should also remember that those who advocate a course of practical investigations, and who may even be responsible for them, already believe that the reformed rites are valid, on the basis of private reasoning or studies.
But – as Lefebvre implies above – investigations appear to be now almost impossible in the practical order.
That is because 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 this ordaining bishop’s own ordination and consecration, and so on back to the 1960s.
It does not seem unreasonable to think that those who favour the intrinsic validity of these rites may lack their own internal motivation for such thoroughness here.
(This also is to say nothing of the documented problem of baptismal validity, which is more significant than many realise or wish to admit.)
The implications of all this should be obvious, and it should be clear what the Archbishop would say today.
Aside from anything else, this seems like a colossal waste of time and resources, when we consider that the objective situation would always seem to justify a simple conditional ordination, which would definitively secure peace and the common good by resolving the situation for everyone, without any crises of conscience for anyone.
Some theoretical conclusions from this series
Throughout this series, we have shown that Lefebvre himself expressed doubts about the validity of the reformed rites (including ordination) on many occasions, for a range of different reasons.
We considered the theological aspects of the crisis in the previous piece, which require us to conclude that the reformed rites have not come from the Church, and, as such, we have no prima facie guarantee of their validity, and are subject to prima facie doubt, with no guarantee that a resolution is possible.
The scale of labour that legitimate ecclesiastical authority invested into settling the question of Anglican orders in Apostolicae Curae should also give us pause in thinking that such complex questions can be resolved by the studies of private individuals or groups. Lefebvre himself commented on this in 1983, saying:
“In the Anglican Ordinations, you know that the Church spent [3.5] centuries (studying its validity), before finally giving a decision about the validity of Anglican Ordinations, i.e., that they are invalid. It is only after 350 years that we are finally sure that the Anglican Ordinations are invalid! (Laughingly); Oh... it is very difficult to come to a decision (on the new rite) in one week!”31
Such prima facie doubt also arises in the face of a decades-long breakdown in sacramental discipline in the Conciliar-Synodal Church. Investigations into the administration or the ministerial intention are presuppose the validity of the reformed rites; whereas, aside from doubt being “in possession” (as we have demonstrated), it seems that both the “theoretical” validity of an unauthorised sacramental rite and the “practical” validity of an allegedly defective ordination are matters which can only answered authoritatively by Rome.32
Tutiorism
Without the judgment of the Church, such studies and investigations may arrive at nothing more than probable opinions of validity, which will only be as probable as the arguments on which they are based. It is hard to see how clergy or faithful can be obliged (or even permitted) to act on the merely probable opinion of validity – even if it seems very probable (or even certain) to private individuals.
This is because, according to a unanimous body of moral theology, we are not permitted to act on merely probable opinions about the validity of the sacraments. The Church requires us to treat doubtful sacraments as invalid in practice and to avoid them, until she rules otherwise.
It would be a desolate prospect to find oneself in a situation without moral certainty of the sacraments available, due to the presence of a doubtfully ordained minister. The celebrated Father Faber painted a horrible picture of the analogous state of the “High Church Anglicans,” faced with doubts about their clergy’s orders, and concluded:
“Is not this positively affrighting?”33
May God forbid that any traditional Catholic is reduced to such a state. And yet, this is precisely what Fr Nicolas Portail reports regarding men ordained for the FSSP:
“[S]ome young priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter, ordained on June 29, 1993 by Archbishop Decourtray of Lyon, to say that ‘you [at St. Pius X] are more sure of your ordination than we are!’”34
However, this is not to say that the reformed rites are certainly invalid. Rather, it is to recognise that, given the facts of the reform, doubt is actually what is “in possession” and represents the default position. It is to recognise that the burden of proof is on those who wish to establish validity, and that discharging this burden of proof is probably an impossible task until the questions are answered authoritatively by Rome.
To return to the division of doubt discussed in a previous piece: Archbishop Lefebvre’s own position seems to have settled as a conditional (i.e. potentially resolvable) and universal doubt (i.e., applied to all sacraments prima facie) based on extrinsic grounds (i.e., defective administration and intention).
But, practically speaking, when investigations into sacramental validity (which would need to go back to 1968) are burdensome and morally impossible, and in which private studies into validity cannot attain certainty, this theoretically conditional doubt ultimately resolves itself into absolute doubt in practice.
As a result, moral certainty for some sacraments can only be attained with the certainly valid conditional repetition. This is the main focus of this present piece.
The combination of traditional theology and Archbishop Lefebvre’s analysis of the conciliar crisis point to only one conclusion: whether based on intrinsic or the insurmountable extrinsic grounds, the safer and more prudent course is to retreat into a position of universal and absolute doubt, and to await the judgment of the Church.
Some practical conclusions from this series
This has two key implications:
First, regarding those rites which were changed in their essentials (or which depend on their validity), we cannot assume that any given administration of the reformed sacramental rites was or is valid.
We are obliged, according to the settled conclusions of moral theology, to avoid all such doubtful sacraments themselves. In his Catechism on the Crisis in the Church, Fr Matthias Gaudron stated:
“[O]ne should not receive the sacraments in the new rites, but only in the traditional rites, which alone are worthy and certainly valid.
“Receiving the sacraments under a form that is even slightly doubtful is not allowed.”14 (Emphasis added)
However, it would seem that we are also obliged to avoid the sacraments administered even in the traditional rites, when their validity depends on the validity of the reformed rites (e.g., when we are receiving them from ministers whose orders are derived directly or indirectly from the reformed rites).
This means that we cannot assume that a man is a priest or a bishop simply on the basis of his having been ordained in these rites, and therefore such men cannot be approached for the sacraments until moral certainty has been attained.
(Discussion about whether this obligation might cease for the relevant sacraments in danger of death would be beneficial.35)
Second, several sacraments would appear to require at least conditional repetition:
Baptism: Aside from the matters discussed in this piece, documented events in recent years have shown that a mere entry in a baptismal register is not necessarily sufficient to achieve moral certainty of one’s baptism. This moral certainty may be attainable in many other ways, as discussed elsewhere; but if such certainty cannot be attained, conditional baptism would appear to be necessary.
Confirmation: Those putatively confirmed in the reformed rite would seem to be either entitled or obliged to seek conditional repetition of the sacrament, from a minister whose orders are not derived from the reformed rites.
Holy Orders: Given that there seems to be at least “a prudent fear” about validity, as outlined in this series, it would seem to be “gravely obligatory” for those who were putatively ordained or consecrated in the reformed rites to seek at least conditional ordination (and consecration) from a bishop whose orders are not derived from the reformed rites.36
As Fr Álvaro Calderón SSPX also said in his study on the new rite of episcopal consecrations:
“… 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.”37
As mentioned before, private individuals may think that their arguments, studies or investigations have proved validity, but it seems wrong to require (or to permit) others to rely on expertise and intrinsic authority, liable to mistakes, on a matter of such importance. Anything other than conditional ordination would seem to be taking the place of the Church’s right to judge the matter, as well as to be imposing private conclusions on others, whether directly or indirectly.
There is a note following this piece, clarifying what this dramatic step would and would not mean for those individuals ordained or consecrated with the reformed rites, depending on how they choose to look at it.
Final conclusions and overview
Let us conclude this piece by recognising that despite his many outstanding qualities, Archbishop Lefebvre cannot be used as an extrinsic authority to settle these questions one way or another. Nevertheless, his thoughts on the matter have their own intrinsic interest, given his influence and the number of those who wish to marshal him for various conclusions.
Aside from the question being proper to a higher authority, Lefebvre also said and did different things at different times, and it would be a mistake to impose an artificial systematisation onto his words and actions. There is perhaps greater legitimacy in pointing towards the thoughts of his final years, but even this is not necessary in order to establish the legitimacy of holding a universal and practically absolute doubt about the validity of the reformed rites.
It is true that, for at least a large part of his career, Archbishop Lefebvre believed that an investigation could overcome this universal doubt. Even conceding this, we are left with the conclusion that it is morally impossible in the sacramental order, to treat men ordained in the reformed rites as priests simply because they have been ordained in these rites.
In short, there are three arguments to recognise in this series.
The first argument, which we addressed in relation to confirmation, pertained to Lefebvre’s repeated emphasis on rights of the faithful, not only to receive valid sacraments, but to be certain that they were receiving valid sacraments; as well as his preference for acting in an unusual way in order to secure this certainty for the faithful. Now, the idea that studies into the rites and investigations into ordinations can secure moral certainty has always been disputed; relying on such means is liable to cause a serious crisis of conscience for many of the faithful (and not a few priests). As a result, peace and the common good can only be attained with the certainly valid conditional ordination of men previously ordained in the reformed rites.
Second, the combination of Lefebvre's correct factual analysis of the Vatican II revolution and its reformed rites on the one hand, and true theological principles (also expressed by Lefebvre) about why these rites cannot be said to have come from the Church on the other hand, points inexorably to a position of universal, intrinsic and absolute doubt; and this calls for a universal practice of conditional ordination for all whose orders depend on these rites.
Third, prescinding from possible problems intrinsic to the rites themselves, the combination of a) Lefebvre’s concerns about careless administration and defective sacramental intention, and b) the passage of over fifty years, and the increasing chaos of this period, mean that c) investigations into sacramental validity (which would need to go back to 1968) are burdensome and morally impossible. This means that theoretically conditional and extrinsic doubts about the reformed rites of holy orders now ultimately resolve into the same practical position of absolute and intrinsic doubt; requiring, therefore, a universal practice of conditional ordination in the same way as above.
We should note, finally, that these conclusions are reached without any direct reference to the legitimacy (or otherwise) of the post-conciliar papal claimants.
In the next piece we shall consider the words and opinions of priests (and even bishops) in the Society of St Pius X who have expressed similar opinions on this topic, showing that this universal doubt about conciliar ordinations has always been present within the SSPX since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre.
To summarise, let us repeat the Archbishop’s words from 1974:
“It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.”
Post-script - Reassurance for individuals
There is no doubt that this topic is dramatic. It is very important to keep in mind that such conditional repetition of sacraments does not entail concluding that one’s baptism, confirmation or orders were invalid.
The argument proposed is that these reformed rites are doubtful, which means that they might well have been valid.
It appears possible for someone to submit to conditional repetition of these sacraments, in good conscience, despite remaining personally unconvinced of the arguments. One can recognise the worth of arguments, of an objective state of doubt, or of the necessities of the common good, without personally embracing the doubt or conclusion of invalidity oneself.
The same would seem to apply to the minister conditionally repeating the sacrament, and both matters were discussed in a previous part. There was no hint that the minister or subject is required to have a personal or subjective doubt in order to justify these steps. The external and objective state appears to be sufficient.
Finally, no-one is obliged to believe that what may be many graces, apparently attached to these reformed rites and sacraments, were mere illusions. On the contrary, “The Church does not tell you to believe anything so absurd.”
This latter quote is taken from the article below, which addresses this very topic.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
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 from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all. Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material.
(We make our members-only material freely available clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Read Next:
While I give an overview of the different stages, the “validist” texts are already well-known; my purpose is to present “the other side” of his thoughts on the issue.
Lefebvre, ‘The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass’, An Address Given by His Grace: Ottawa, Canada November 1975. http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/The-Holy-Sacrifice-of-the-Mass.htm
Ibid.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p 127-9. Angleus Press, Kansas City MO, 1986. 2010 edition.
Ibid. 59
Archbishop Lefebvre, ‘Foreword’ dated 2 February 1977, in Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers, Réflexions sur le Nouvel Ordo Missae, preview available at http://www.virgo-maria.org/articles/2007/Reflexions_NOM_Mgr_Guerard_1977.pdf
Archbishop Lefebvre, Reponses à diverses questions d'actualite - Aux eleves du seminaire d'Ecône, Le 24 Fevrier 1977. Our translation. Available at: http://www.virgo-maria.org/Documents/mgr-lefebvre/1977-02-24-Mgr-Lefebvre-Questions-d-actualites.pdf
April 25, 1983 - Conference with the seminarians of St Thomas Aquinas Seminary.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Conference April 26, 1983. Ibid.
John Daly, Michael Davies – An Evaluation, p 395. New edition, Tradibooks, Rouchas Sud, France, 2015.
Frs. Thomas Glover, Philippe Tournyol du Clos and Philip Stark S.J. Daly p 394. Regarding Fr Stark, Lefebvre himself said in the 1983 conferences:
The Father Stark issue
That is another question, another problem. Fr. Stark said himself: ‘My ordination is good.’ I am sure he is a priest. He has been a priest for eleven years now, I think. He is a very intelligent man. Not just because he is a Jesuit, no, no, no. ((laughingly))… but certainly he is a very intelligent man. He was a professor. He said to me, ‘My word, somebody is discussing about the validity of my ordination.’ They discuss ‘No, his ordination is not valid.’
Well, that is the reason why I said to you yesterday, or the day before, that we must do an inquisition, (a study of each case) to know what the situation really is – in this case – not in all cases in general (i.e., not a blanket judgment) but in this case, to see if his ordination is valid or invalid.
And I... I am responsible, and I make the decision. I can say to him: 'You must be re-ordained.' Otherwise, if I think that his ordination is valid, really valid, then I have no right to repeat the sacrament. (N.B.: It would be a grave sacrilege to knowingly do so). If the sacrament was valid then I have no right to repeat it.
The same principle applies to you when you ask of me Confirmation, “I hope that you know if your Confirmation was valid or very doubtful. If there is no doubt, then you cannot ask me to repeat it. You know, that is very important. In Rome, they accuse me of performing many conditional sacraments without having investigated to see if there was sufficient doubt to warrant repeating them.”
(Lefebvre goes on to discuss a situation involving some Indian priests, some of whom were ordained in the new rites by a certainly valid bishop, who wished to collaborate with the SSPX. The Archbishop opines about the validity of their orders, but then moves to discuss their questionable formation.)
Regarding “The Fr Stark Issue,” the idea that the minister cannot conditionally repeat these sacraments if he privately thinks that they were valid seems to be contradicted by Lefebvre’s own practice regarding confirmation; it is also contradicted by the explanations given by McHugh and Callan, both of which are discussed in the below article:
Daly 395
Ibid. 394
Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography, p 626. Trans. Brian Sudlow, Angelus Press, Kansas City MO, 2004.
“Pourquoi Écône ? En ce temps-là, peut-être ne vous rendiez-vous pas parfaitement compte du combat qu’Écône menait. Vous êtes venus, parce que attirés par votre désir d’être formé dans la Tradition. Il vous a semblé en effet que se séparer de la Tradition, c’était se séparer de l’Église. Et donc recevoir des sacrements peut-être douteux et une formation en tout cas, qui n’est pas selon les principes du magistère de l’Église de toujours.”
Sermon de Mgr Lefebvre – Saint Pierre – Saint Paul – Ordinations sacerdotales – 29 juin 1988. Available online.
Ibid.
Tissier de Mallerais, pp 634-5
April 25, 1983 - Conference with the seminarians of St Thomas Aquinas Seminary
Letter dated 28 October 1988. The handwritten letter and transcription have been made available by the Dominicans of Avrillé here.
Conference April 25 1983, St Thomas Aquinas Seminary.
For example, investigations into invalidity and substantial defects of rite are proper to the Holy Office in Can. 1993:
Canon 1993
§ 1. In cases in which the obligations contracted from sacred ordination are impugned, or the validity of sacred ordination itself [is impugned], the libellus must be sent to the Sacred Congregation for the discipline of Sacraments, or if the ordination is impugned due to substantial defect of sacred rite, [to] the Sacred Congregation of the H. Office; and [either] Sacred Congregation decides whether the case will be treated in the judicial order or heard as a disciplinary case.
“Il est aussi très probable, lorsque des prélats conciliaires vraiment ordonnés usent du rite traditionnel pour les ordinations des ralliés, qu'ils gardent l'intention que leur transmet habituellement l'utilisation des sacrements conciliaires. Ce qui faisait dire à certains jeunes prêtres de la Fraternité Saint-Pierre ordonnés le 29 juin 1993 par Mgr Decourtray, archevêque de Lyon, que «vous [à Saint-Pie X] êtes plus sûrs de votre ordination que nous»!”
Fr Nicolas Portail, ‘À propos du rite d'ordination reforme par Paul VI’, Le Chardonnet – n°224 – janvier 2007
I do not know what to think of this matter, of calling doubtfully ordained priests in danger of death, whether they confer the sacrament of extreme unction in the old rite, or in the new and changed rite and with potentially doubtful matter.
I have not seen it discussed directly, however the principles around the use of doubtful matter may apply when considering what to do when the only person available to visit a dying person is a doubtfully ordained minister. Consider the analogous matter explained by McHugh and Callan below:
2660. Doubtful Matter.—It is sometimes probable but not certain that an element suffices for the matter of a Sacrament (e.g., coffee or tea for Baptism, chrism for Extreme Unction). Hence the question: “Is it lawful to use probable matter in the administration of a Sacrament?”
(a) If certain matter cannot be had and the Sacrament is urgently necessary or very useful, probable matter may be used. For the Sacraments were instituted by Christ to benefit man (“The Sacraments are for men”), and hence it is not irreverent to give to one in need a probably valid Sacrament when a certainly valid Sacrament is impossible. Thus, a dying infant may and should be baptized with coffee, if no pure water can be procured in time; the last anointing may be conferred with chrism, if the oil of the sick cannot be had before a dying man will have expired.
(b) If certain matter can be had, or if the Sacrament is not urgently necessary or useful, probable matter may not be used without grave sin; for there is then no reason of necessity to justify the risk to which the Sacrament and perhaps also the recipient are exposed, Thus, it is not lawful to baptize with coffee when pure water can be secured, or to confirm with chrism not blessed by a bishop a dying man who had just received the last Sacraments, even though other chrism is unobtainable (see 661, 678, 711, and Denziger, n. 1151).
John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P., Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities.
McHugh and Callan, n. 2862:
Repetition of a Sacrament on Account of Invalid Administration.
(a) This is unlawful when the fear of invalidity is groundless and foolish; for it is seriously disrespectful to a Sacrament and disedifying to others to repeat the rite without reason. But scrupulous persons are sometimes free of grave sin, since they mean well in repeating and are not accountable for their fears.
(b) This is lawful but not obligatory when there is a prudent misgiving about a useful Sacrament (Confirmation, Matrimony, anointing of one who is conscious); also when there is a slight reason of law or fact for fear about a necessary or more important Sacrament (Baptism, Orders, absolution of a dying person, anointing of an unconscious person, consecration of the Eucharist). For the Sacraments are for men. But if only a small loss or an unlikely loss will be caused by their non-repetition, the duty of repeating them cannot be insisted on.
(c) This is gravely obligatory when there is a prudent fear about a necessary or more important Sacrament; it is gravely or lightly obligatory (to be determined in each case) when there is a well-founded fear about a useful Sacrament, if charity, justice or religion calls for repetition and the inconvenience will not be too great. In Matrimony the alternate methods of convalidation or sanation may be used as the case demands. Again, the Sacraments are for men, and hence, if man will likely be subjected to a notable loss by the minister’s neglect of repetition, the duty of repetition is clear. (Emphasis added)
Fr Alvaro Calderon’s study, translated by The WM Review here: