Fighting to Maintain the Catholic Faith Whole and Inviolate and the Line of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre under the Pontificate of Benedict XVI
Tony La Rosa I wish you all a most blessed Feast of the Ascension of Our Lord!
“And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
I have demonstrated in past posts (see here, here, and here) that one who holds the position that the Novus Ordo Rite of episcopal consecration is doubtfully valid must conclude that we have had doubtfully valid popes since 2005 (i.e., since the death of Pope John Paul II). This applies to both Joseph Ratzinger and Jorge Bergoglio (for those who hold that Jorge Bergoglio’s election in 2013 was valid) because both of them were consecrated bishops in the Novus Ordo Rite. I have also shown that the practical attitude to have towards them (for those who doubt whether they are/were valid bishops) is that they are/were not valid popes. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, “A doubtful pope is no pope.” This is the same practical attitude that we should have towards doubtfully valid sacraments, that is, treat them as if they were invalid and stay away.
It is common today in the Resistance to find clergy or faithful who hold the position that the Novus Ordo Rite of episcopal consecration is doubtfully valid. This is of course a problem given what I wrote above, that is, they hold (whether they realize it or not) that we have had doubtfully valid popes since 2005. Therefore, we have possibly been in a period of sede vacante (not “Sedevacantism”, that is, there has been no true pope since 1958) for the past 17 years. Some of these clergy and faithful defend their position by claiming that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre held the same position. Really? Let us take a look.
One would be hard pressed to find where Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre taught publicly that the Novus Ordo Rite of episcopal consecration was invalid or even doubtfully valid. It is true that he did speak and write publicly about the concerns with the validity of the Novus Ordo Rite of priestly ordination, but not with the Novus Ordo Rite of episcopal consecration. In one of his most popular works, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, published in 1986, not once does he directly question the validity of the Novus Ordo Rite of episcopal consecration. One would think that if he doubted the validity of the Novus Ordo Rite of episcopal consecration, it would be in this work that he would mention it, since it was addressed to Catholics at large and addressed many issues, including his concerns with the Novus Ordo Rite of priestly ordination.
In Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s dealings with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, during the 1980s, not once did he publicly question the validity of Cardinal Ratzinger’s episcopacy. Furthermore, he did not publicly raise concerns during that time about the validity of the Novus Ordo Rite of episcopal consecration as one of the reasons why he needed to consecrate bishops and do so in the Traditional Rite. Now some point to the following statement that the Archbishop made during his sermon on the day he consecrated four bishops as evidence that he did publicly question the validity of the Novus Ordo Rite of episcopal consecration:
“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 [holy] orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments?”
Note the phrase “due to their doubtful intentions”. A defect of intention is not an element within the Novus Ordo Rite of episcopal consecration itself. Rather, a defect of intention is an element of the consecrating bishop and therefore can be present even when using the Traditional Rite of episcopal consecration.
In 2006, the Remnant Newspaper conducted an interview (see here a pdf version) with Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais. Here is a screenshot of the exchange regarding Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s position on the Novus Ordo Rite of episcopal consecration:
The words of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, being the official biographer of Archbishop Lefebvre, carry heavy weight. It would have been a grave negligence on the part of the Archbishop, because of the serious matter, if he held the Novus Ordo Rite of episcopal consecration as invalid or doubtfully valid and at the same time did not publicly voice his position.
Given what is written above, we can safely assume that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre accepted the Novus Ordo Rite of episcopal consecration as valid. If one holds that it is invalid or doubtfully valid, be prepared to accept the logical and practical consequences of such a position. However, do not look to the Archbishop to support your position. For my part, I have no doubt that the Archbishop would have accepted Benedict XVI, the current pope, as a true pope.
“I saw the capital (Paris) burned, looted, ransacked. At this sight sight I was so frightened that I thought we were all going to perish, but the Voice said to me: “Do not fear, I have views of mercy on France, I am going to give her a king according to My Heart; he will have in share gentleness, wisdom and severity; I will make everything easy for him and all will surrender to his will, he will return everything to order and duty; he will give back all the ill gotten goods, of whatever kind they are: this will be very easy for him, since most of those who possessed them will have perished in the great battle; and those who survive, being frightened by the punishment of the others, will not be able to help recognizing the finger of God in these events and admiring His Omnipotence. Many will be converted…
“At that moment I saw a young man who seemed to me to be about thirty-three years old. He had a ravishing beauty and a demeanor that announced something great and majestic; at the same time the Voice said to me: “Here is the one whom I am keeping from all perils for the happiness of France.” I heard that he bore the two names of Louis-Charles (Louis XVII); he was saved from the Tower of the Temple and taken to Spain; he then passed to Rome, then to Naples and from there to Sicily where he was taught by the Jesuits (secularized): in 1801 he returned to France where he was arrested and put in prison; he escaped from there because God protected him and preserved him for our happiness (this passage seems foreign to the vision of the nun itself). He will return to France only after the great battle and he will be led by the emperor of Russia, at the head of a beautiful army. I saw another army of French royalists going to meet the first one to receive the Great Monarch, and at the meeting of the two armies, the air resounded with cries of Long live Religion, Long live the King. Immediately I heard music so delightful that I thought I was hearing heavenly concerts. He will make a close alliance with the emperor of Russia who will become a Catholic and both will use their power for the good of religion.”
Prophecy of the Trappistine Nun of Notre-Dame des Gardes, in Anjou.
Voix prophétiques Volume II (Prophetic Voices) by Fr. Jean-Marie Curicque, pages 331-332.
Translated from the French by Melanie Fournier.
One of the common arguments I hear from the Catholic Resistance against the fact that Benedict XVI is still the true pope is that if Benedict XVI dies before Jorge Bergoglio I would become a Sedevacantist. I wrote in this post that the use of the term “Sedevacantist” is an equivocation in this matter. Rather, I would simply hold that the Chair of Peter is vacant (i.e., sede vacante). Nevertheless, let us look more closely to which segment of the Catholic Resistance is at this point in time, while Benedict XVI and Jorge Bergoglio are both living, closer to holding the position of “sede vacante”.
There is a segment of the Catholic Resistance that holds that the Novus Ordo Rite of episcopal consecration is doubtful. Some within this segment do not realize the logical conclusion of holding this position, that is, that Benedict XVI was a doubtful pope and that Jorge Bergoglio is currently a doubtful pope. The argument in syllogistic format is as follows:
Every true pope is a validly consecrated bishop.
But Jorge Bergoglio, elected by the cardinals in 2013, is doubtfully a validly consecrated bishop.
Therefore, Jorge Bergoglio is doubtfully a true pope.
The conclusion that “Jorge Bergoglio is doubtfully a true pope” logically follows from the major and minor premise.
Proof of the Major Premise
A “true pope” is a Catholic man who has accepted his election to the papacy and is a valid bishop.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law (emphasis mine)1:
Canon 218
§1. The Roman Pontiff, the Successor in primacy to Blessed Peter, has not only a primacy of honor, but supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church both in those things that pertain to faith and morals, and in those things that affect the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world.
§2. This power is truly episcopal, ordinary, and immediate both over each and every church and over each and every pastor and faithful independent from any human authority.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law (emphasis mine)2:
Canon 331
The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
Canon 332 §1
The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.
Proof of the Minor Premise
This is the premise held by the segment of the Catholic Resistance in question.
So this segment of the Catholic Resistance doubt (whether they realize it or not) whether we have had a true pope since the death of Pope John Paul II in 2005! Yet they worry about what would be the result (i.e., sede vacante) if Benedict XVI were to die before Jorge Bergoglio. So who is closer right now to holding the position of “sede vacante”?
But does this segment follow in practice the consequence of their position (logically deduced) that Jorge Bergoglio is a doubtful pope? Nope. Rather than accepting that a doubtful pope is no pope, they go around speaking and acting like they have moral certitude that Jorge Bergoglio is a true pope ascribing to him all the powers of a true pope (e.g., primacy, universal jurisdiction, infallibility, etc.). Yet, inconsistent with their practical attitude toward Jorge Bergoglio, when it comes to doubtful sacraments (because of the doubt of whether one is receiving them from a true priest or bishop), they (correctly) say, “Stay away!”
