In 1988, despite having failed to secure papal authorization to consecrate new bishops for his priestly society, an aged Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre defied the the threat of excommunication and consecrated 5 bishops— 4 for the SSPX, and 1 for the Diocese of Campos, Brazil. As a result he and the other bishops were all excommunicated. Or not. The SSPX argued against the validity of the excommunication decree until Pope Benedict XVI declared them void (possibly ab initio) prior to issuing Summorum Pontificum. [As an aside, please note the way a truly humble pope brings peace to a contentious situation. The way Pope Bendict phrased the ‘lifting’ of the excommunication decree, he left room for the interpretation that it never really was valid at all, thus allowing all parties who acted in good faith in 1988 to save face.]
Though I have always understood the SSPX’s position on why they thought the Lefebvre excommunication was invalid, and while I believe their position was held in good faith, I admit that it sometimes wearied me whenever an SSPX attendee would go on about how Lefebvre saved the Traditional Mass by consecrating the bishops, ensuring the SSPX would continue to have priests. I recall many conversations where I simply posed the question, “What better good might not have come from obedience? We’ll never know.”
As it turns out, the claim that Lefebvre saved the traditional Mass (which retains its obvious merit) makes way more sense to me now. Not because of 1988. But because of 1976. Wait, 1976, you ask? Let me explain.
The issue involved the ability of a bishop of the Catholic Church being able to ordain priests in an approved Catholic rite of priestly ordination. The traditional Mass had not been abrogated, nor had the rite of priestly ordination. But Pope Paul VI forbade Lefebvre from ordaining the priests in the traditional rite. He didn’t forbid their ordinations, but just the use of the traditional rite of ordination.
Does this sound familiar?
Archbishop Lefebvre judged that he had the right to ordain these priests in the traditional manner. As Pope Benedict confirmed in Summorum Pontificum, he did indeed. But Pope Paul VI declared him and his priests suspended a divinis. Because he judged he was in the right legally and morally, Archbishop Lefebvre continued to ordain traditional priests and always maintained that the suspensions were illegitimate and invalid. It was this action, much more than in 1988, that one can claim that Lefebvre saved the Mass, in a manner of speaking (Our Lord is Sovereign and responsible for all good). He died without knowing whether his position would be vindicated.
You could say that it is 1976 again for traditional societies and institutes previously under the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. The Vatican has said traditional priestly ordinations are no longer possible. The FSSP, ICRSP and others have lots of vocations and of course have ordinations scheduled this year. And some bishops, like the odious Cardinal Cupich, have forbidden even traditional societies from celebrating the traditional Mass on the first Sunday of every month and on high holy days, beginning February 6. A watershed moment awaits.
One thing you could say for the Vatican’s position in 1976 was that there was an uncontestedly legitimate pope who ordered Lefebvre to refrain from the traditional ordination of priests. The same cannot be said for 2022.
Even if Bergoglio were pope, his orders to block the traditional Mass and sacraments are just as invalid, assuming for a moment they were drafted in accordance with the law. His censures are equally invalid should they be issued for a priest, prelate or layman making use of his right to the Mass and Sacraments. Lastly, Bergoglio’s motives are so more obvious in their hatred for the Mass, the Sacraments, the faithful, and Him of Whom he claims to be vicar.
Fr. Laguerie of the IBP stated it very well that we must simply persevere in our lawful adherence to the traditional Mass and sacraments. That there must be a continuation of everything the traditional societies have been doing already. Father notes what lots of us sense— he hears of none of his confreres who will cave into the unjust forcing of the novus ordo onto traditional priests. The traditional laity have their back and will not betray faithful priests. There is a large traditional community.
We are in the right.
This is 1976. But really it isn’t. A Lefebvre moment is being forced on us in 2022. it starts in Chicago on February 6. It will occur worldwide by Midsummer. Let us remain faithful to Christ and to His sacraments. Let us respond with at least as much courage as Lefebvre showed in 1976.
This is the reality, whether Bergoglio or Pope Benedict XVI is pope. That question need not divide us nor cause us to waver. The prohibition against the Mass is invalid either way. But I would add this could very well be the perfect time to bring that question to a head for the good of souls. The time has come to acknowledge, and come to the aid of Pope Benedict XVI. That would save the Mass, and so much more.
Geminiano said:
http://www.eglise-la-crise.fr
Aqua said:
Thanks be to God, for this!
Before the end, we will all follow Arbp LeFebvre and make our own choice about the same conditions. No one will be left out. The Church
has been defiled and the time of purification is upon us.
The winnowing fork is in His hand – King, Judge, Redeemer, Physician, Holy Spouse. He will defend and protect that which He won with His redemption; His Bride, eternal and holy, His true delight.
Arthur McGowan said:
All the Emergency Use Authorizations of “Covid vaccines” are illegal, because effective alternative treatments for “Covid” exist. This is why the depopulation party judged it essential to demonize and ban those medications.
Even if the EUA’s were legal, the following would be true:
Anyone who coerces or even pressures any person to be the subject of a medical experiment is guilty of a crime against humanity. (Many of those convicted of this crime before the Nuremberg Tribunal were executed.) Obvious current examples (along with many subordinates): millions of parents of minor children; employers, large and small, public and private sector; religious authorities, Catholic and non-Catholic–including bishops–whose victims include employees, priests, deacons, seminarians, and patients in Catholic hospitals–thousands upon thousands of whom have not only been forcibly injected with the “vaccines,” but have been murdered outright using Remdesivir and other dangerous sedatives, and deadly ventilators. (Needless to say, these murders have been occurring in virtually all hospitals. According to Dr. Peter McCullough, 95% of people who have died of “Covid” in hospitals have been murdered.)
And, of course, there are heads of state.
Joe Biden has mandated injections for wide categories of state and non-state employees. Along with only six or eight other governments, the Vatican City State has mandated injections for virtually every human being within its borders. It has sacked every non-compliant employee without pay. This makes Jorge Bergoglio perhaps the most prominent violator of the Nuremberg Code in the world.
Catholics, along with all people of good will, ought to be industriously pursuing the enforcement of the Nuremberg Code and other just legal norms.
Clearly, the trial and conviction of all members of the Catholic hierarchy who have, during 2020-22, committed these crimes against humanity would effect considerable reform of the Catholic Church.
magnusdominus said:
Great arguments, but … congruous to this particular post? Maybe I missed something.
Arthur McGowan said:
Quod scripsi scripsi.
magnusdominus said:
Indeed.
jawkins1 said:
“We are in the right”.
So say the Dimond brothers.
thetimman said:
So said lots of villains and heroes in the Church’s history. So said Arius. So said Athanasius. So the question is whether we are in the right to assist at the traditional Mass in the face of an illegitimate order not to. We all must make an answer.
Aqua said:
“We are in the right”.
So said Abraham Lincoln.
“We are in the right”.
So said John Adams.
“We are in the right”.
So said St. Paul.
“We are in the right”.
So said every martyr.
“Right” is an objective, knowable thing. It is not subject to opinion. Which is how Arbp LeFebvre can say, faced with excommunication by the Pope himself:
“If one day they shall excommuncate us because we remain faithful to these theses, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Freemasonry”.
Aqua said:
With respect to the Dimon Brothers, founders of the Holy Family Monastery (I presume), I refer you to the following fallacy – appeal to the extreme:
“An appeal to extremes is an often fallacious application of reductio ad absurdum where one takes an argument to an extreme and *neglects the actual circumstances or implications of the initial statement*. The appeal to extremes relies on hyperbole or exaggeration to the exclusion of other logical constraints”.
What separates Arbp LeFebvre and his Society is that it is *they* who have very carefully and methodically connected every action to the sacred Magisterium and have made every effort possible to remain faithful to lawful authority, and legitimate hierarchy; accept everything promulgated that can be accepted,reject everything that must be rejected.
The Dimond Brothers and their Most Holy Family Monastery are a completely different kettle of fish.
When it comes to making the claim “we are in the right”, as a Roman Catholic, it requires more than just demonstrating that you submit to everything promulgated by your Priest, Bishop, Pope. We all serve Jesus Christ in mutual submission to Him through the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition and all its Dogmas. “We are in the right, as a RC, means you can demonstrate with footnotes your connection to all of that – starting with the Pope and moving down from there. Arbp LeFebvre and his Society has carefully, methodically, meticulously done, and is doing, that.
thetimman said:
And yet their coziness to Bergoglio for favors given by him that they have always argued they didn’t need— jurisdiction, faculties, etc., is troubling indeed.
And what if Bergoglio isn’t pope, and they have all the incentive in the world to say he is?
The only reason this isn’t a major problem yet is that, for whatever reason, Pope Benedict hasn’t claimed it openly. One day he may, or perhaps his successor. Then all of the incentives for the SSPX will be to adhere to the bergoglio line.
Would be very ironical, not in a good way, if the group that maintain the mass and adhere to the true line of popes for 45 years became symptomatic in the end without even knowing it
thetimman said:
Autocorrect is my bane. By “symptomatic”, I meant “schismatic”.
Aqua said:
What they have consistently told me, in my multiple conversations across different Priests and Parishes is, it is not a matter of Faith to consent to the name of a given Pope. You can disagree on the name. You must consent to the Papacy and its authority, but you are allowed to disagree as to the current occupant.
I always explain to my current Priest (we have moved much over the past two years) my firmly held belief about the current occupant. Their response is that views about the current occupant have been in dispute before and are not a matter of Faith and Morals, to which we MUST assent as Catholics.
And so, I return the favor to them, in that if they do not insist I share their view that Bergoglio is Pope, I do not insist they share mine that Benedict XVI is Pope. I disagree with their reasoning on why Bergoglio is Pope, but I am willing to assent to their reasoning that it is not a matter of Faith and Morals to correctly name the current occupant.
In my experience, SSPX transcends current disputations and stands for something much deeper. The Magisterium and its Sacred Tradition is the sea on which they sail, and I respect their position in this dispute, because I deeply appreciate their defense of Magisterial Truth. They do not need Bergoglio’s permission, nor are they in need of any of his “incentives”. They live over and above such things – that is my experience with them.
thetimman said:
I agree with your reasoning on the papal identity issue in all its substance. Here is where I think the institute and the sspx are in agreement. We all know that Saints backed different claimants during the Great Western Schism. That comforts me. Then I remember they are way better than me and I worry. Like I said, it only really will matter if/when Benedict claims it. Then going to a “Francis” commemorated Mass could be a schismatic act.
Aqua said:
When (if) Benedict XVI makes that claim, that will be a glorious day, indeed. It will undoubtedly follow the death of the usurper, and it will be an intense religious experience if that were to be so.
I don’t predict it. I merely hope for it. From what I know about Pope Benedict XVI, and the fact he is sustained in life approaching 100 years (longest in history), there is something more to be said before this strange, potentially mystical series of events gives way to what happens next.
Whatever happens – I cling to Sacred Tradition and the apostolic line which is guaranteed. Awsome blog! I’d forgotten about it, until Fred Martinez linked you. God bless your work.