The Validity of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Ordination

This Sunday (September 21st) marks the 85th anniversary of the day a young Marcel Lefebvre was ordained to the priesthood, while this Thursday (September 18th) is the 67th anniversary of the day he was Consecrated a Bishop.

As many of you are aware, his ordination has unfortunately been the subject of much wrongful speculation, doubt, and controversy over the years. Some people assert that his ordination and Consecration were “invalid” because the person administering them, Cardinal Leinart, was (supposedly) a Freemason seeking to infiltrate the Church, and because he was a Freemason with malign intentions, he could not have possibly intended to ordain Marcel Lefebvre or anyone else, thus meaning Archbishop Lefebvre was never a legitimate priest.

I have briefly addressed this before, but I feel it is necessary to devote an entire article to debunking this madness.

It is, firstly, worth noting that most of the proponents of this theory do not like Archbishop Lefebvre; most adherents to this position are dogmatic sedevacantists who have some sort of axe to grind with the Archbishop. Their intense disdain (if not outright hatred) towards him can be attributed largely to the fact that he was not a sedevacantist. Because these dogmatic sedevacantists I am speaking of cannot stand to see this “recognize and resister” portrayed by Traditionalists as a hero, they will go to extreme lengths to tarnish his image.

One of the most outspoken critics of the Archbishop and the SSPX is Hutton Gibson, the father of the Traditional Catholic celebrity Mel Gibson. Hutton is one of the people I speak of whom cannot stand the Archbishop, and, like others, is simply using this absurd argument against the validity of his orders to persuade people to distance themselves from the Archbishop and the Society of St. Pius X. He’s using it to fuel his own hatred for him and determination to damage his reputation. Hutton’s hatred for the Archbishop is quite evident from reading his book The Enemy is Still Here, in which he not only claims the Archbishop wasn’t a valid priest, but goes as far as to accuse him of “Masonic entanglement”, while even admitting he couldn’t provide any proof. It is an incredibly scandalous book, and one which should be avoided.

The problem with this theory about the Archbishop’s “invalid” ordination held by Hutton and others is that it is contrary to both logic and Church teaching.

First of all, it has never been proven that Cardinal Leinart was a Mason. And even if he was, would that mean he couldn’t have had the proper intention, and therefore all of his Sacraments were invalid? The answer is no.

Here is what St. Thomas Aquinas says:

“In the words uttered by (the minister), the intention of the Church is expressed; and this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, EXCEPT THE CONTRARY BE EXPRESSED EXTERIORLY on the part of the minister”.

Pope Leo XIII echoes this:

“Concerning the mind or intention, inasmuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but in so far as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it. Now, if in order to effect and confer a Sacrament a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. It is on this principle that the doctrine is solidly founded which holds as a true Sacrament that which is conferred by the ministry of a heretic or of a non-baptized person, as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite.“

In other words, the intention of the Church is expressed when the minister utters the proper words, and it is ONLY when he exteriorly expresses otherwise that the validity of his Sacraments become suspect.

Furthermore, even if, hypothetically-speaking, Leinart was a Mason and really did withhold the proper intent, meaning the ordination in 1929 was not valid, +Lefebvre would have undoubtedly become a priest in 1947. Here is what Bishop Williamson wrote on the matter in 1992:

“But again, fourthly, let us assume that Lienart was a Mason and let us assume that he deliberately invalidated the Orders he conferred on Marcel Lefebvre. The Anti-Lefebvrists have still not won their point, because, as Michael Davies quite correctly argues, Marcel Lefebvre would still have become bishop and priest in 1947 at the hands of either or both of the two bishops co-consecrating him then with Cardinal Lienart: he would have become bishop, because out of the three bishops performing the rite of his consecration, one alone needs to have had the correct intention for the sacrament to have been valid, and the odds against all three having secretly withheld their intention are simply astronomical; he would have become a priest because as the greater contains the lesser, so bishopric contains priesthood.”

His Excellency is correct, only one of the three Consecrating Bishops must have the proper intention in order for the Consecration to be valid. This is precisely what Pope Pius XII stated:

“In accordance with the most ancient tradition of the Church, a new bishop is always consecrated by THREE other bishops. The Pontificale Romanum refers them as assistentes, but since, as the rubrics prescribe, all three bishops impose hands on the bishop-elect (the matter of the sacrament), and recite the form of consecration, Pope Pius XII (Episcopalis consecrationis, Nov. 30, 1944) insists that they are to be referred to as co-consecrators. Thus, as this was already obvious, all three concur in the consecration (where only one would suffice for validity), and, therefore, even in the unimaginable case where two of the three bishops would lack the necessary intention, the remaining bishop would still validly consecrate the elect.” (Cf. also Pius XII, Allocution to the International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy, Sep. 22, 1956.)

It is, then, ridiculous to argue that the Archbishop was not a valid priest. Again, even if, by some chance, Leinart withheld his intention to ordain Marcel Lefebvre in 1929 – which we cannot prove – then +Lefebvre would still have become a priest in 1947, for Consecration is the “fullness of orders”, and it is valid if only one of three Consecrators has the proper intention.

So let us put these nonsensical arguments to rest once and for all. Hutton Gibson – along with those who share his views on the issue – are WRONG. Period. Their stance is not supported by the teachings of the Church.

However many may not approve of him, because he was “schismatic” (an absurd accusation) or “wasn’t a sede”, we should ignore what others think and continue to thank God for blessing us with such a true Catholic hero and loyal defender of the true Faith, who fought endlessly until his death to preserve the Faith and Mass of all-time.

God Bless.

Nativity of the Blessed Mother

Blessed Virgin Mary

Today, September 8th, is the Feast Day of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Novena – Preparation for the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

September 7: Day Eight:

V. O God, come to my assistance

R. O Lord, make haste to help me

Gloria Patri… (Glory Be)

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

Brilliant Aurora of Heaven, lovable Mary, thy birth brought great consolation to the souls of the saints detained in limbo, for it announced the approach of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ, Who would enlighten their darkness and then conduct them to paradise. May thy birth give joy to my soul also, and obtain for me from God, patience in all adversities, a perfect and constant conformity to His most holy will.

Ave Maria …(Hail Mary)

Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.

Antiphon: Thy Nativity, O Virgin Mother of God, was the herald of joy to the whole world; since from thee arose the Sun of Justice, Christ our God, Who, destroying the curse, bestowed the blessing, and confounding death, rewarded us with life everlasting.

V. Let us celebrate with joy the birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

R. That she may intercede for us with Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let us pray

Grant to us Thy servants, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the gift of Thy heavenly grace, that as our salvation was begun in the child-bearing of the Blessed Virgin, so from this solemn festival of her Nativity may we obtain an increase of peace. Through Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

A Happy and Blessed Feast of the Nativity of Our Lady to everyone.

Pope St. Pius X

Pope St. Pius X

Today, September 3rd, is the Feast Day of Pope St. Pius X. Pius X was one of the greatest Popes in the history of the Catholic Church, and did a tremendous job of fighting modernism.

A Happy and Blessed Feast Day of St. Pius X to everyone!

Assumption of Mary


Today, August 15th, is the Feast Day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

A Happy and Blessed Feast Day of the Assumption of Mary to everyone.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri


St. Alphonsus Ligouri

Today, August 2nd, is the Feast Day of St. Alphonsus Ligouri.

A Happy and Blessed Feast Day of St. Alphonsus Ligouri to everyone.

Sacred Heart

Sacred Heart of Jesus

Today, June 27th, is the Feast Day of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Here is the Prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart (composed by Pope Leo XIII):

Prayer of Consecration to the Sacred Heart:

Most sweet Jesus, Redeemer of the human race, look down upon us humbly prostrate before Thine altar. We are Thine, and Thine we wish to be; but, to be more surely united with Thee, behold each one of us freely consecrates himself today to Thy most Sacred Heart.

Many indeed have never known Thee; many too, despising Thy precepts, have rejected Thee. Have mercy on them all, most merciful Jesus, and draw them to Thy sacred Heart. Be Thou King, O Lord, not only of the faithful who have never forsaken Thee, but also of the prodigal children who have abandoned Thee; grant that they may quickly return to Thy Father’s house lest they die of wretchedness and hunger.

Be Thou King of those who are deceived by erroneous opinions, or whom discord keeps aloof, and call them back to the harbor of truth and unity of faith, so that there may be but one flock and one Shepherd.

Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism, and refuse not to draw them into the light and kingdom of God. Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of the race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life.

Grant, O Lord, to Thy Church assurance of freedom and immunity from harm; give peace and order to all nations, and make the earth resound from pole to pole with one cry: “Praise be to the divine Heart that wrought our salvation; to it be glory and honor for ever.” Amen.

A Happy and Blessed Feast Day of the Sacred Heart to everyone.

St. Anthony of Padua

St. Anthony of Padua

Today, June 13th, is the Feast Day of St. Anthony of Padua, also known as the “Hammer of Heretics”.

A Happy and Blessed Feast Day of St. Anthony of Padua to everyone.

Resistance Still Relevant

It seems that there has been an increase in the number of attacks against the Resistance lately. A Jewish news source recently targeted the Resistance by name, labeling them a “schismatic group refusing to accept anything from Vatican II”. This is most interesting. And that’s not to mention all the anti-Resistance rubbish we’re seeing pushed on certain “Trad” forums nowadays. For a group which some claim is “withering away”, it sure is getting a lot of attention. If it actually is falling apart as some say, why is so much attention being given to it?

Here is the answer to that question: the reason is because the enemies of the Resistance  obviously feel threatened by it, which is why they are spending so much of their time and energy attempting to discredit it with their fallacy-filled arguments. The Neo-SSPX has been doing this from the beginning, and now the Judeo-Masons are firing insults at the group.

If the Resistance were such a small, weak, insignificant group, no one would give them any advertisement or waste their time fighting with them. They’d simply ignore them and let them fizzle out on their own.

But as much as some people may dislike it, the Resistance isn’t going anywhere any time soon. It’s here to stay, and it has become a real pest to the NSSPX leadership, who still release propaganda-filled, anti-Resistance articles on their sites every once in a while as a means of damage control.

Naturally, the NSSPX laity aren’t thrilled about the Resistance’s growth. The Resistance doesn’t appeal to them, because they don’t want to have to fight (unless they’re fighting either the Resistance or sedevacantists, who, in their minds, are the only REAL enemies, or at least that’s the impression they give). They don’t want to hear sermons about how abhorrent the modern world is, or how rotten the conciliar church is. They want to keep their comfort. They want to pretend the conciliar church, while in error, isn’t all that bad and that we shouldn’t entirely avoid it. They want to persist in their delusion that the evils of the modern world should be ignored. They prefer priests who have an “ignore the evil and just seek the good” approach; priests who never warn their flock about the dangers of Vatican II or of modern society. (+Fellay supporters really do complain about Resistance sermons being all about how bad the world and the conciliar church are, and never “about the Faith”. With a mindset like that, one wonders why they don’t just go attend an FSSP chapel. And as far the Resistance’s sermons never touching on anything spiritual, that’s not true. Listen to Fr. Hewko’s sermons. You’ll be amazed. There’s a lot you can learn from his sermons even if you’re not a Resister.)

Despite all of the criticisms and hatred, the Resistance is still very relevant today. It is not overpowering in size, true. But what it lacks in number, it makes up for in quality.

In times such as these, we should be thankful that someone is standing up for the truth. Remember to listen to the sermons of Bishop Williamson and the Resistance priests. Read the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre. And, as Bishop Williamson so often reminds us:

“Watch and pray, watch and pray, fifteen decades every day.”

God Bless.

A Fallen Resistance site

Some of you may have heard several months ago the news that the formerly pro-Resistance website – “Our Lady’s Resistance Kansas” – announced that it was no longer supportive of the Resistance. Now, the website has added a “Characters of Schism” page, condemning various Traditional laymen, priests, and Bishops as “schismatics” or “conciliarists/liberals”. Here are all of those on the list:

Fr. Pfeiffer

Fr. Hewko

Fr. Chazal

Bishop Fellay

John Vennari

Fr. Gregory Hesse

Fr. Nicholas Gruner

Michael Matt

Bishop Pivarunas

Fr. Cekada

Bishop Williamson

Archbishop Lefebvre

Some on the list certainly are not figures we should consider reliable, such as Bishop Fellay and Michael Matt. But seriously, Fr. Hewko? Bishop Williamson? Even Archbishop Lefebvre?!

They sound like dogmatic sedevacantists, only they don’t believe the Chair of Peter is empty (therefore they technically aren’t sedevacantists), they think there is a true Pope… in Portugal. Yes, Portugal.

They call Bishop Williamson a “conciliarist”, and accuse Archbishop Lefebvre of “trying to turn people away from the truth”. They also dishonestly accuse Fr. Hewko of making a “devilish sign of the cross”, pointing to a video of a sermon he gave where he can be seen making a (supposedly) “circular” sign of the cross. What they neglect to point out is that the camera was not pointed at Fr. Hewko as he began making the sign of the cross but then suddenly flashed back to him, hence making it look like he made a circular sign of the cross. But the fact is that he didn’t.

I must say, the depth that the owners of this website have sunk to is almost as laughable as it is pathetic. I mean, really. Because Our Lady said that Portugal would keep the Faith, they therefore conclude that the true Pope is in Portugal? Where is the logic in that reasoning?

Please stay away from websites such as “Our Lady’s Resistance Kansas”, which promotes nothing but mind-rotting slush. The slander that they level against Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and the Resistance priests is truly disgusting. Certainly Our Lady and Our Lord Jesus Christ will not bless the efforts of such disgraceful work.

This also, however, serves as an example of why dogmatic sedevacantism is dangerous. Again, these people technically are not sedevacantists, but notice how they condemn anyone who accepts Francis as Pope as a schismatic. If they want to merely disagree with the recognize and resist position, that would be one thing, but to treat it as an intolerable evil is quite another. For some people, the Vatican II Popes being antipopes becomes the most important issue, but as Bishop Williamson noted in a 2013 conference, it is not the most important issue. What matters most is that we keep the Faith.

The fact remains that, were it not for Archbishop Lefebvre, Traditional Catholicism would not be what it is today. And were it not for Bishop Williamson, what other Traditional cleric would warn us of the New World Order? And were it not for him and the Resistance, who would continue the Archbishop’s work now that the NSSPX has abandoned the Archbishop’s principles?

Let us never cease to appreciate what the Archbishop did for Tradition, and what Bishop Williamson and the Resistance priests continue to do for Tradition.

God Bless.

Recognition of Tolerance

Bishop Williamson has recently claimed that a “recognition of tolerance” agreement will soon be reached by the Neo-SSPX and the Vatican. Multiple sources have confirmed this to be true, and Bishop Fellay himself mentioned it at a recent conference.

What is this “recognition of tolerance”? It is not the actual “regularization” that Bishop Fellay has so strongly desired to obtain. In the words of NSSPX priest Fr. Nely, it is a “unilateral recognition by Rome”. Nothing will be signed, however. It is, essentially, Rome agreeing to simply “tolerate” the SSPX for a few years, and then they will see where things go from there.

So what, you might ask, is the problem with this? As Bishop Williamson explained in a 2013 conference:

“If you’ve got the truth, you should not go begging to anybody.”

In other words, if you have the truth, you shouldn’t go begging to those who do NOT have the truth to “recognize” or “tolerate” it. You don’t need anyone’s permission to keep the Mass and Faith of all-time.

But here, we  have the SSPX asking Rome to “tolerate” the truth! Who cares what modernist Rome thinks? They are liars and modernists who do not have the truth, so why should we care whether or not they find us “tolerable”?

Nevertheless, Bishop Fellay will be giving quite the sales pitch to make the faithful go along with it. “Oh, we don’t have to sign anything, everything will continue as it is, all that changes is that Rome agrees to tolerate us. Then, in a few years, we’ll see where things go from there. It’s a step in the right direction!”

Undoubtedly, most of the clueless faithful will buy his sales pitch hook, line, and sinker.

In fact, some already are expressing their support of the idea. Here is what one person stated on another forum:

“Sounds great to me.  Personally I think that the SSPX should drop any “fight” and just provide the sacraments.  It is time to ignore Rome.  God is going to flatten the place.  Kind of like Lot leaving Sodom.  Just concentrate on building up the SSPX.  Provide the Mass and provide schooling.”

This comment is absolutely ridiculous. Archbishop Lefebvre would NEVER have approved of his Society “giving up the fight” against the modernists. He never ceased criticizing their scandalous words and actions. Even when negotiations with Rome were taking place, that did not stop him from blasting the abhorrent Assisi meeting. We must follow his example and continue to condemn error when we see it.

Dear readers, this is simply another nail in the coffin of the Neo-SSPX. It shows how far the SSPX has strayed from the path of its founder. As the Archbishop once said: “We cannot work together with these enemies of Our Lord”. If he couldn’t work with them, why should we think that he would have strived to be “tolerated” by them?

God Bless.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 102 other followers