On this day in 1991 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre died. 30 years ago, today.
Lefebvre was in his day a great churchman, an astoundingly effective missionary in Africa.
Of course you most of you know Lefebvre only as the “renegade” who founded the SSPX.
I learned of Lefebvre’s death in an interesting way. I was that morning opening up our office (the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei“) because I was the first to arrive. As I was switching on lights and machines, there the doorbell rang. Thinking it was our secretary, who might not have the key handy, I opened the door to find… then-Card. Ratzinger. He gave me the news that Lefebvre had died. He had just received a phone call about his death and stopped at our office on his way in to the Congregation. I got on the phone to our own Cardinal right away.
Here are shots of Lefebvre’s memorial card, which I have kept these years. I have it in a plastic holder, usually also with a short list of names of bishops for whom I say a Memorare after every Mass I say.
Lefebvre needs prayers. He died excommunicated, poor man, although there are those who think that both the latae sententiae and ferendae decree might not have been legit. His case was never heard.
In your charity, you might pray for him too. It is a work of mercy to pray for the dead.
Loading ...
I have heard it argued that Lefebvre did not die as an excommunicant due to “danger of death” faculties granted by canon law to both absolve and lift excommunications to the confessor who would have performed his last rites. I’m nowhere near educated enough to judge that claim one way or another but I’ve heard it claimed.
I had recently read this interesting piece of news regarding the Archbishops funeral, on the SSPX US news site regarding the Death of Cardinal Henri Schwery, who presided over the diocese where Archbishop Lefebvre conducted the consecration of 4 bishops in 1988.
“When Archbishop Lefebvre reposed in 1991, no official representatives from either the Vatican or the Swiss Church attended his funeral. However, Bishop Schwery along with Edoardo Rovida, Papal Nuncio to Switzerland, privately visited the Archbishop’s body and prayed over it.”
I am of the firm belief that there will come a day when he is officially canonized a Saint in the Church. The society that he founded have indeed faithfully passed on what they have received, and I believe preserved tradition through a time where it may have otherwise been lost. I pray for a swift reconciliation for the SSPX, when they come back into the full embrace of mother Church there will be a large resurgence of tradition throughout the world.
Requiem æternam dona ei, Domine Et lux perpetua luceat ei
Fidelium animae, per misericordiam Dei, requiescant in pace. Amen
Forgive this question if the answer is obvious, if the sspx was an established order, why did he need consecrate bishops? Does every order have bishops?
mo7: why did he need consecrate bishops?
Orders don’t have bishops for their own, internal affairs. However, the Archbishop was afraid that the Holy See would not keep to the arrangement that was struck. He was worried that, after his death, there would be no bishop available or willing or even permitted by the Holy See to ordain me for their “priestly fraternity”. Therefore, he consecrated four bishops without the required mandate from the Holy See. The consecration was valid but illicit.
God rest his soul!
Snapshot of 2021: The Holy Catholic Church today – we have Bishops saying they are certain most people will not go to hell, priests encouraging sodomy, Cardinals giving the Body of Christ to people who promote murder, we have entire nations wanting to destroy the priesthood Christ established so that women can be ordained, we have a Pope worshiping a pagan idol in St Peter’s cathedral.
Good, solid, truly Catholic catechesis is hard to find in the post-Vatican II Church.
Archbishop LeFebvre was preserving the Faith in the seminaries. As Fr. Z said, he did not think anyone else was willing (able?) to preserve the Faith of 2,000 years. Fifty years later, it is the rare manly priest, bishops and Cardinals, the lone voices, who stand up for our Faith. In other words, he was right.
From where I am, in 2021, it appears the Freemasons have the upper hand on destroying the church.
Unless one doesn’t believe in the Freemasons.
Then maybe one doesn’t believe in hell.
In which case, yes, one may think Archbishop LeFebvre was simply being “disobedient”.
I say he was trying to preserve the faith in the seminaries so that souls would stay out of hell by following a Faith that had produced Saints for 2000 years. Remember, back before we had “Insta-Saint” where you only have to have 1 miracle.
Holy Spirit, please infuse souls with Your gifts that we may have more leaders like Archbishop LeFebvre, willing to stand up for the True Faith so that souls will be saved. Blessed Mother help us.
God bless you Fr. Z! Thank you for all you do. Have a blessed Feast of the Annunciation.
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf said this on 25 March 2021 at 11:43 AM: …”However, the Archbishop was afraid that the Holy See would not keep to the arrangement that was struck. He was worried that, after his death, there would be no bishop available or willing or even permitted by the Holy See to ordain me for their “priestly fraternity”…”
EXACTLY. AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT. EVERYONE.
Canon 1323/4 says: “The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept: 4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib6-cann1311-1363_en.html
Now, if words have ANY meaning at all under Canon Law, I cannot conceive how in any way, shape, manner or form the Archbishop’s excommunication was valid.
EVERYONE knew he lived in great fear of dying and leaving the Society w/o episcopal representation…NOT for jurisdiction…but for simply preserving the ordination of Society priests which he made clear he believed would be suppressed after his death. Further, EVERYONE knew and knows that he lived in {and publicly expressed numerous times for some 18 years} great fear of the direction the Church had taken and the necessity to preserve the Society in order to preserve the TLM and the faith itself, especially at a time when many Bishops were acting as if the TLM had been officially abrogated…a lie which Pope Benedict finally laid bare in Summorum Pontificum.
Arguments against this are totally incoherent. First, it doesn’t matter…according to Canon Law itself…whether an “Emergency” truly existed in the Church…Lefebvre feared its existence. The Canons don’t state fear must be based on the existence of a real threat, only that the fear exists in the mind of the one accused. {But who now can deny that an Emergency did exist…and still is with us?}
The “best” argument I’ve ever heard in support of the validity of the Archbishop’s excommunication is that the Pope is the highest authority over the law and thereby has the authority to interpret it. This is absolutely true EXCEPT in the case of a Canon which states in the clear that it is the mind of the accused that determines the guilt, NOT the mind of the Pope. 1323/4 makes this absolutely clear and no sober person can doubt it. To then state that it is the mind of the Pope who has the authority to interpret this Canon as it applies to the accused drives us into the realm of the absurd and makes a total mockery of Canon Law and indeed, to a reasonable and thinking person, potentially even the Church itself!
Archbishop Lefebvre’s excommunication cannot have been valid.
In a saner world and perhaps at the great restoration of the Church as Our Lady has prophesied, this ‘excommunication’ will be considered null and void. While schism is not a good thing, God can bring good from evil and He did because of the SSPX we have had the preservation of the glorious TLM and now have other Institutes and dioceses offering it.
Many people who, even five to ten years ago, who would have and have called the good bishop a “rebel excommunicate” have now changed their perspective and view him as a hero, a warrior. His reputation is becoming increasingly popular with each passing year.
The Annunciation was during Holy Week that year 1991, what a beautiful week and feast to die on. A signal grace for him and a warning/sign for us.
May the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God, Rest In Peace. Amen.
In my opinion, it would have been likely that the TLM would have slowly died out if it were not for the SSPX.
Pingback: Canon212 Update: Prophet of Vain Hope and False Mercy – The Stumbling Block
Rod Halvorsen,
The problem with your canonical reasoning is that if Lefebvre was so overcome with fear, that he could not obey a clear and direct order from the Pope NOT to ordain bishops, guess what? That means the episcopal ordinations would also be invalid.
Because the same defense is applied as well to the Bishop of Campos, the co-consecrator. After all, being under such mental duress and anxiety is not something that is turned off, and then turned on again, like a light switch.
Calling the excommunications invalid because there was a mental duress in the mind of the consecrators reasonably raises the question of their fitness to ordain at the time. The other problem with your reasoning is that the canon you quote makes clear when “fear” does not let someone off the hook: “unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;”
Now, it certainly was within St. John Paul’s authority and competence to determine whether the consecrations were harmful to souls. And if the Pope determined that they were, then that makes Lefebvre morally responsible for the act of ordaining bishops “without Papal Mandate.”
The final point I would point out is that in the imposition of sanctions or penalties, the Pope is not ruled, restricted, or empowered by Canon Law. He has the power of the keys. Thus, when St. Pius V imposed excommunication on Queen Elizabeth I of England, there was no discussion on whether he had followed procedure or canons correctly. As Pope, he was not bound by any particular canon in order to inflict a spiritual punishment on the queen.
Fr_Sotelo:
Your post here is based on “opinion”…yours.
And certainly not cited Canon Law which you have, of course, not cited.
My statement stands; Supported by history, the words and actions of Archbishop Lefebvre for nearly two decades at the time and which anyone with an 8th Grade American public school education can read and understand in the clear, and Canon Law itself.
“Now, it certainly was within St. John Paul’s authority and competence to determine whether the consecrations were harmful to souls.” Well of course. No one doubts that the Pope has authority covering many subjects. But the subject of our topic today is the specific wording of Canon Law. And that specific Canon does not in any way allude to or suggest or at all cite that as a mitigating consideration. The mind of the accused IS.
As for your citation of Queen Bess, well, this ex-Protestant history major holding a Masters in Heretical Theology from a Protestant theological wonders just how far you want to take this? I mean, are you suggesting that she was bound by the 1983 Code of Canon Law?
I have absolutely no doubt at all that the good Archbishop will be declared a Saint of the Roman Church within the next 150 years.
Hindsight being 20/20, given the current theological/moral collapse in the hierarchy and orthodoxy in teaching & praxis, Canon 1323/4 almost certainly applies in this instance, to whit: a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls.
I entertain more than a few doubts about the validity of the saintly Archbishop’s excommunication. Fr. Dan, you’re 100% right, he will be declared a saint when sanity has been restored by Our Lady of Fatima.
I know I am in the minority around here, but I find Lefebvre and the SSPX somewhat analogous to Martin Luther, with the Council of Trent being the Church’s response to Luther and the Ecclesia Dei communities and Summorum Pontificum being the Church’s response to Lefebvre.
RE: Geoffrey says:
26 March 2021 at 1:39 PM
I used to think the same thing.
Then I studied the history, the relationship of the SSPX to the Church as well as statements by knowledgeable individuals like Father Z and the official Papal Visitor investigating the SSPX {Bishop Athanasius Schneider} and of course most importantly, the actual statements and treatment of the SSPX by the relevant authorities in the Church. The latter answers the question: “How has the Church actually treated the priests of the SSPX?”. For example, has the Church identified and condemned any doctrine of the SSPX as heretical? Does the Church actually treat SSPX priests as if they are “suspended” according to the normal canonical use of the term? In fact, what we see is the SSPX taking stands and not giving an inch while the relevant bureaucracies of the Church little by little confirm the SSPX in their position. Indeed, though oddly enough, the greatest advance has occurred under Pope Francis who has granted a number of very important permissions to the SSPX clergy to the point that they are now effectively “irregularly regularized”. That is, regularized by a different approach or system than that which we normally associate with such matters. In THAT we see the monarchical and total administrative authority of a Pope exercised in a different way than “normal”, yet we also see many who just don’t like the SSPX ignoring THAT exercise of clear if unusual Papal authority.
Now, if you want to find “Lutherans” masquerading as Catholics you do not need to look very far in the Church, but among that group you will not find the SSPX.
Fr_Sotelo says: The problem with your canonical reasoning is that if Lefebvre was so overcome with fear, that he could not obey a clear and direct order from the Pope NOT to ordain bishops, guess what? That means the episcopal ordinations would also be invalid.
It’s always great to see you here, old friend. I hope all is well with you.
There is a little flaw in your approach. You wrote about being “so overcome with fear, that”.
The canon, however, doesn’t set that bar.
Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
That’s the bar, “even if only relatively grave”. Also here is the mention of “necessity” or “inconvenience”.
Moreover, in the same canon:
7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.
There is nothing in the consecration of a bishop that is “intrinsically evil”. It is in no way obvious that the consecration of a bishop without mandate “tends to the harm of souls”. The circumstances would determine that. It is reasonable to describe Archbp. Lefebvre, from his point of view, as thought he was in such a circumstance as mentioned in n. 4, above.
While it is true that John Paul’s Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta warned the faithful about adherence to schism, it is also true that he, as Legislator, never required any of the people involved to be processed for schism, either cleric or lay. The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts didn’t say anything about whether “danger to souls” applied in this case. John Paul and Benedict both continued to reach to the SSPX and both altered the landscape for them as well. Francis would do more yet. Also, the Pontifical Commission erected by John Paul in Ecclesia Dei adflicta did not say that the SSPX was in schism. If that is case for the clerics, it is even more so for lay followers. If it was determined by the Commission that one could fulfill one’s obligation by attending a Sunday Mass at an SSPX chapel, and the Commission DID write that (I know, because I wrote some of those letters) then it is hard to say that “harm of souls” was resulting.
Praxis is one of the crucial elements in the interpretation of Canon Law: how is the law actually being applied in life.
On the other hand, Archbp. L had been formally and informally warned and admonished not to consecrate, both by the Prefect of Bishops and by John Paul himself. John Paul’s private Letter of 9 June 1988 to Lefebvre in French is quite poignant: “I ask it of you by the wounds of Christ our Redeemer”.
I don’t know if Lefebvre had been informed about a determination of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1951 that even in the case of grave fear consecrating without a mandate incurred excommunication… under the 1917 CIC. But this is the 1983 Code.
Like everything else having to do with the SSPX, even the point of the excommunications can be discussed with strong points on either side, very strong on the side of the validity and effect of the excommunications. The very fact that Benedict formally LIFTED the excommunications of the bishops Lefebvre consecrated speaks to that. However, each of those men had their own thing going on in their mental real estate, and Lefebvre had his own. Can. 14 says that laws do not oblige when there is a doubt of law. And can. 16 says that laws which restrict or censure must be interpreted strictly. What we will not know until the Judgment is what the mind of Lefebvre was and what the effect on souls there has been. Lefebvre clearly felt compelled to do what he did. Sadly, in his lifetime he did not receive the opportunity to have his case tested in the proper ecclesial forum. Harm to souls? I don’t think there has been widespread harm to souls. Time will tell and I am not a judge in the matter.
Perhaps I should hesitate to sound off on this, but I will do so because mainly I want to give a reason to be more cautious: I feel very strongly that the phrasing in the canon “4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience ” must be interpreted according to norms that regulate how such terms are understood under canon law – not just as they are used in ordinary daily life. In particular, “coerced by grave fear”, I suspect, is the kind of fear that could be used to coerce someone into doing a gravely wrong (or gravely dangerous) act that they would not otherwise do: “steal money from the bank or I will kill your wife” kind of coercion. I don’t know that THAT kind of coercive fear can be argued applied for Archbishop Lefebvre, but then again, I don’t know it can’t, either. I have similar but slightly different doubts about “grave inconvenience”: different because, (a) it sounds downright oxymoronic to use the two words together, but maybe in Latin they have some other import than what we would typically take for English. (b) because it seems downright useless to (potentially) nullify the effect of a penalty provision by an “inconvenience”: has there EVER been a person committing a delict that falls under this canon that WASN’T experiencing some inconvenience that he thought was pretty important? Who, then, decides what “grave” means: if it is ENTIRELY subjective, then the canon would never have force in any actual case. And, for that reason, it seems unlikely that that is how to read it. I suspect that canon lawyers would have to weigh in on what interpretive norms apply to understanding these phrases and how they work, because they probably DON’T mean the sorts of rough, approximate, and vague things that non-canonists would be tempted to think they mean. They probably have fairly determinate meanings we aren’t seeing.
For myself: I am convinced that Lefebvre had lived a devout and virtuous life, and that he did not enter into this act out of self-aggrandizement, and that he had no intention of separating from the Church (nor did he establish a separate hierarchy). At the same time, he was explicitly ordered not to do the ordinations, and disobeyed those orders. I fear that the excommunication was valid, but HOPE that he died in a state of grace. I don’t think the excommunication (even if valid) necessarily means he was in a state of mortal sin, and we should pray for him because of his great trials. As Fr. Z has indicated above. I will add my poor prayers to those of others.
If you ask me, the thing that is bad for souls is the revolution within the Church, not those who strove to resist it. If there had not been an element within the Church trying to transform her into something unrecognizable, there would have been no need for any traditionalist reaction. When are we going to stop blaming the victims?
It seems clear that, at the very least, Archbishop Lefebvre was not a crank, and his reasons for consecrating the bishops were non-trivial and should have gotten him a respectful hearing. With the passage of time, it becomes more and more clear how right he was to fear for the state of the Church. We should not forget the lessons of 2020, when the “spirit of Vatican II” hierarchs proved themselves completely useless and worse than useless in the face of a global campaign of social engineering that has been at bottom an assault on the Catholic Church and Christian civilization.
We should also not forget that there are a lot of Catholics who owe their continued access to the Mass and the Sacraments to the priests of the SSPX. Also, most of the Catholic plaintiffs in the anti-lockdown lawsuits in the U.S. have been SSPX priests. Their pesky uncompromising stance seems an awful lot less pesky these days.
Thank you TonyO for the cautionary note. That said, going with Dan, RosaryRose, Fr. Dan and Rod Halvorsen et al.
God bless Abp. Lefebvre, the SSPX and all faithful priests and laity.
Anita Moore OP (lay) makes a good point:
“We should not forget the lessons of 2020, when the “spirit of Vatican II” hierarchs proved themselves completely useless and worse than useless in the face of a global campaign of social engineering that has been at bottom an assault on the Catholic Church and Christian civilization.”