'Are men ordained since 1968 priests?' Abbé Mouraux answers
Longtime friend and collaborator of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre answers in the negative. Abbé Henri Mouraux even shows that some who use the new rite deny that it makes priests in a Catholic sense.
Editors’ Notes
Abbé Henri Mouraux and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Abbé Henri Mouraux was a longtime friend and collaborator with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. In the sermon for Mouraux’s golden anniversary of his priestly ordination, Lefebvre praised his
Faith and faithfulness
Boldness and courage
Refusal to cower under accusations of “disobedience”
Example, which (Lefebvre said) he and his seminarians would follow.
However, in light of such praise, it may surprise some to realise that Mouraux openly held the conclusion that the Holy See was vacant—that John Paul II and the post-conciliar claimants were not true popes.
Mouraux was responsible for the bulletin Bonum Certamen, in which he advanced controversial theses, such as the invalidity or doubtfulness of the new rites of Holy Orders.
What follows is a translation of Bonum Certamen No. 58 (Sep-Oct 1981).
Mouraux’s treatment of the new rite of priestly ordination
In this edition, Mouraux analyses the new rite of priestly ordination, and the comments of those who use it. He concludes that the altered form is invalid in itself, and that the changes to the surrounding rites mean that “a bishop who uses this text very probably does not intend to create a Catholic priest.”
This text is of value even merely as an historical document, in that it shows the sorts of arguments current in the 1980s, amongst those with warm relations with groups like the SSPX.
The WM Review has refrained from arguing for a hard conclusion of invalidity of the reformed/deformed rites. Nonetheless, one does not have to accept arguments such as Mouraux’s personally and fully in order to acknowledge that they give rise to a reasonable and prudent doubt about the rite of priestly ordination itself, and every single use of it. This is especially so given the number of different arguments converging on this conclusion.
This doubt is, in fact, not resolvable by studies or investigations: it is only resolvable by conditional repetition of the sacraments in question. As such this route of conditional repetition has frequently been followed by traditional groups since Vatican II.
This is justifiable on theological, practical and pastoral grounds. It is also justified on “customary” or “traditional” grounds, in that so many men involved in the traditionalist response to Vatican II—including Archbishop Lefebvre, the recently departed Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Fr Álvaro Calderón and many more—have held to these conclusions.
This route of conditional ordination is also justifiable on the grounds of natural justice: it would place those many men in an inescapable difficulty of conscience to impose a conclusion of validity upon them, even solely in practice. This is especially so, because even if one believes for oneself that the arguments have been refuted, it is the role of the Church alone to resolve such evidently open questions for all, and not private scholars or superiors of congregations.
Following this article, there is some important reassurance for individuals who have been ordained in these new rites, or who might be troubled by the ideas expressed.
Are men ordained in France since 1968 priests?
An agonising question; A tragic answer
Bonum Certamen, No. 58, Sep-Oct 1981
Translated by The WM Review, with additional line breaks for ease of reading.
The conditions of the Catholic priesthood
Pius XII, by the Apostolic Constitution of 30 November 1947, using his supreme and infallible authority, definitively and irrevocably established the requirements for the validity of priestly ordination.
Among the many rites that, up until this definition, governed Ordination, which ones constituted the matter and form of the sacrament? Theologians debated this.
Pius XII put an end to all discussion and definitively declared that the matter of the sacrament was the initial silent imposition of the consecrating bishop’s hand, while the form was the words of the preface as handed down by Tradition.
Here is the text of the Preface translated into French, according to the manual from my Ordination (printed in 1927):
“Therefore, Almighty Father, grant to these your servants the dignity of the Priesthood. Pour forth again upon their souls the Spirit of holiness. May they receive from You, O God, the office of second merit. May they instil the reform of morals by the example of their lives. May they show themselves wise collaborators of our Order. Let holiness, in all its forms, shine forth in their lives, so that when called to give an account of the ministry entrusted to them, they may obtain as their reward eternal beatitude.”
To these consecratory words are added the essential complements: the bestowal of priestly powers over the Body of Christ, that is, the power to say Mass; and, on the other hand, the power over the Mystical Body of Christ, that is, the Faithful, also called the power of the Keys or the power to absolve in confession. Here is the translation of this second text from the previously cited manual:
“Receive the Holy Spirit; the sins of those whom you forgive are forgiven, and the sins of those whom you retain are retained.”
Destruction of the Catholic priesthood
Without giving any reason for his action (even though a legislator should not change a serious law without serious reason; and, from time immemorial in the Church, the reasons for a law are given in the preamble), Paul VI altered the ritual of Ordination, the text of which dated from the 17th century.
Indeed, it was Urban VIII who, on 17 June 1644, unified the ancient rites of ordination into a single ritual. Let us note that, just as St. Pius V did for the Mass, Urban VIII for ordination did not invent anything but codified Tradition. By contrast, Paul VI’s text, published on 16 June 1968, includes grave innovations and omissions without foundation in tradition.
Let us examine these.
This is a members-only post for those who support us with monthly or annual subscriptions.
Our work takes a lot of time and energy. Please consider subscribing if you like it.
We make members-only material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.
A small monthly membership really helps us keep The WM Review going. Can you chip in today?
In the meantime, you might enjoy this:
