September 1-6, 2003
volume 14, no. 34

E-mail       Print

The Illicit Episcopal Consecrations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

   Next, Kaiser recounts a particularly interesting incident, one whose contents have probably converted one or another back to Novus Ordoism. It is therefore of specific importance that we look at this more closely:

One Sunday . . . he [my husband] appeared with a book. "Honey, who does this sound like?" he asked. "Whatever I do will be done . . . by the counsel of God. If the work be of God, who shall stop it? If it be not, who can forward it? Not my will, nor ours, but Thy Will, O holy Father, which art in Heaven . . ."
"Marcel Lefebvre", I announced triumphantly.
"No. Martin Luther", came David's matter-of-fact response. "How about this one: 'It was never my intention to revolt from the Roman Apostolic chair.'"
"Marcel Lefebvre?"
"No. Martin Luther. Try this one: 'These things are clearer than the light to all men: the Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all churches, has become . . . the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even Antichrist, if he were to come, could desire any addition to its wickedness.'"
"Martin Luther, of course", I answered.
"Right", David smiled. "Try just one more: 'The See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by Antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below . . .'"
"Martin Luther said that one too. What's your point?" By now I was irritated.
"Archbishop Lefebvre said that one. . . ."
[from pp. 317-318]

   Now, this may stump a few people, especially those not very well-grounded in traditionalism, but let's examine these things here in the light of reason.

   First of all, the husband's tactic is logically invalid. Mere parallels or similarities in statements or attitudes with those of a false teacher prove nothing. The Protestants sometimes try to convince Catholics that Mary couldn't be the Queen of Heaven because there was a false goddess called by this title, mentioned in the book of Jeremias. So what? Just because there was a false queen of heaven doesn't mean there can't be a true one! Likewise, one might argue that there cannot be a True Lord because the title "Lord" was idolatrously given to the evil god Baal, also in the Old Testament. These things prove nothing.

   But now about the content of the similarities. So Kaiser's hubby found that Luther and Lefebvre said some of the same things. Well, what follows? Depending on what they said, nothing necessarily. Let's see. Here's quote 1: "Whatever I do will be done . . . by the counsel of God." Now, given that we know this refers to Luther's wicked Revolution, of course this is totally unacceptable. But I'm not aware that Archbishop Lefebvre ever said such a thing in regards to his consecrations or the SSPX. The issue here is what the "whatever" is that is mentioned in the quote. By itself, if empty of content, the statement is neutral. So, the similarity, if there indeed were one, would prove nothing.

   Further: "If the work be of God, who shall stop it? If it be not, who can forward it? Not my will, nor ours, but Thy Will, O holy Father, which art in Heaven . . ." Is Kaiser actually going to say that when Luther uttered these words, he was uttering something worthy of being condemned? That would be horrendous! They're even based on Sacred Scripture! Thus, we can affirm without the slightest qualms of conscience that these words and the attitude they express are beautiful, and we just wish that Luther had actually acted on his expressed thoughts here. Of course, again, "the work" he was referring to was evil. But by itself, without content, the quote is beautiful and entirely acceptable.

   Next: "It was never my intention to revolt from the Roman Apostolic chair." Again, a perfectly acceptable thing to say. Thus, we know Luther's original intention as expressed here, if it can be believed, was good. The problem, though, is that he quickly didn't give a flip anymore about his original intention and then did revolt against the Apostolic Chair! That is where the evil lies.

   Finally, the one that really came from Archbishop Lefebvre: "The See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by Antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below. . . ." Yes, what about it? What's wrong with that? The question is not whether perhaps we might find here a similarity to what Luther once said, but whether it's true. But as I pointed out earlier, to the Neo-Catholic, whether something is true is not considered, at least not primarily. What is always considered first and foremost is who said it. But this is a pernicious attitude to have, one divorced from a love of the Truth!

   Kaiser's husband then goes into the whole thing about the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church, etc., as though the Church's indefectibility could baptize the modernist crisis into acceptability. The interesting thing here is that all the abuses, errors, heresies, idolatries, sacrileges, blasphemies, and the whole Novus Ordo mess gets taken care of by the a priori argument that since the Church can't defect, it must all be just fine (sure, admit a few abuses here and there, but essentially, embrace it all!). Of course, this way Kaiser and her husband don't need to actually deal with the individual problems. Put on your "everything-has-to-be-fine" goggles, and all problems either vanish or appear only half as bad.

   Kaiser writes further:

"He [my husband] read me passages from the documents of Vatican I, stating explicitly that the Pope must be obeyed in all matters pertaining to faith, morals, and discipline" (p. 318).

   So, merely quoting Vatican I will not do. Or if you do, at least quote the whole story. Vatican I, after all, also teaches: "For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth" (Denzinger #1836; Vatican I Session IV, Constitution Pastor Aeternus; emphasis added). The Pope is essentially a servant; he is not above the Faith and he does not make the Faith. It is his mission to protect and safeguard it, and this mission has been fundamentally betrayed since Vatican II!

   If it were not possible for the Pope to tamper with the Faith and scorn holy doctrine and sacred traditions, why does the traditional papal coronation oath-not taken by John Paul II, interestingly enough-state: "I vow to change nothing of the received tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein"? You can see the entire Oath here on The Daily Catholic

   The arguments Kaiser puts forth here are simply shallow. They do not really go into the real complexity of things. And that is very misleading. I understand that a conversion story is not a scholarly essay. However, just presenting the arguments the way she does is simply misleading and dishonest. They do not give the whole story. This is serious business, and if you cannot make your conversion story fair, then don't publish it.

   Another interesting remark by Kaiser:

"That Council [Vatican I]-accepted as valid by the SSPX - also held that only the Pope is guaranteed not to lose his faith" (p. 318).

   Then, of course, there's the case of Pope Honorius I, who was anathematized at the Third Council of Constantinople, ratified by Pope St. Leo II. The article on Honorius in the Catholic Encyclopedia has the story.

   And so on. But Kaiser's curious remarks continue:

"How could it have struck me as at all odd that Catholicism requires unity of belief, sacrifice, and sacraments, with and under the Pope?" (p. 319).

   But "unity of belief under the Pope" does not mean that we must agree to every error and novelty that a Pope might set forth. Unfortunately, since the 1960's, novelties are more the rule than the exception. The Pope has an obligation to conform himself to the True Faith and to holy doctrine; in fact, it is his mission to watch over the purity of that doctrine. This should not require a large amount of humility; it should be a matter of common sense. The Pope is not here to "reveal" to us new teachings or to impose his novel philosophical theories on the faithful. Obedience to the Pope is always conditional, never absolute. In fact, it is possible for the Pope himself to be a schismatic; that is, if he should refuse to be in communion with the faithful. That's right-schism can work both ways. The eminent theologian Francisco Suarez of the 16th century writes:

The Pope can be a schismatic if he does not want to have union and bond with the whole body of the Church, as he should, if he attempts to excommunicate the whole Church, or if he wants to abolish all ecclesiastical ceremonies, which are confirmed by apostolic tradition as Cajetan remarks.

[De charitate, Disputatio XII de schismate, sectio I (Opera Omnia, Paris, 1858), 12, 733ff.]

   The theologian Jean de Torquemada, of the 14the century, further developed the hypothesis of a schismatic Pope. But we need not enter into this here.

   Given her warped notion of obedience to and union with the Pope, it is clear that Kaiser was convinced by the arguments of her husband. She relates that it was not easy for her to switch to Novus Ordoism, but if she had just researched the issues a bit better, she would have seen that going Novus Ordo was the wrong thing to do!

   She claims that by instinctively rejecting the idea of becoming Novus Ordo, especially going to that mass, she was exhibiting a demonic, luciferian attitude: "Non serviam. I will not serve." But this is nonsense. What was wrong with Satan's attitude was that he refused to obey God and to do good - he didn't refuse to serve or do evil! But alas, Kaiser let her husband talk her into obedience-at-all-costs, no matter if at the same time it constitutes disobedience to all tradition and to perennial Catholic doctrine and principles. Apparently, she does not distinguish between disobeying a legitimate order and disobeying an evil, illegitimate order. Sigh.

   Now, here's one for some hearty laughter:

"In the years since then, I have found that weekday [Novus Ordo] Masses are usually tolerable . . ." (p. 320).

   Her husband's argument was basically only, "Well, it's valid." But so what!!! Even if all the average English Novus Ordo Masses are valid, this does not mean we can go there!

Her husband "asked how Jesus could be more truly present in one Consecration than in another" (p. 320).

   In Chris Ferrara and Tom Woods' book The Great Façade, they make the point about mere validity in the New Mass quite well:

"Surely we have the right to insist on more than the bare minimum of mere validity. No one hosting an elegant dinner party announces with pride that nothing at the table is fatally poisonous" (p. 98).

   Indeed!

   We must always remember that the Holy Mass is offered first of all FOR GOD! Of course there are immeasurable benefits for us from hearing even a single Mass, but this is because of God's great mercy and beneficence. The Holy Mass is offered always to God and therefore for Him! Of course, this fundamental truth is totally lost in the Novus Ordo, which makes people think that the Mass is a nice present from God to them, to do with as the "presider" pleases. But because the Mass is first and foremostly for God, that is the reason why we cannot "suffer and endure" as a penance the Novus Ordo, as some have suggested. You cannot attend sacrilege and "offer it up," just like you cannot go see a porn movie or a blasphemous movie and "offer it up."

   Finally, on page 321, Kaiser expresses outrage at the idea that

"SSPX priests were forbidding their followers to attend the Indult Mass, explaining that a priest who would offer both the New Mass and the Old could not be very orthodox and so must be a hazard to the faith."

   This concludes her story. All in all, I have to conclude that Kaiser never was a real traditionalist to begin with, or if she was, then she was one for the wrong reasons. This alone can explain her being converted back to the Novus Ordo by such poor arguments; this alone can explain her really strange comments. If she knew what traditionalism really meant or why one ought to be a traditionalist, she would not be wondering why we cannot attend the indult or why one must shun contact with those who can seriously undermine one's faith.

   His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay once remarked that Catholic traditionalists often go through four stages: first they are Novus Ordo because that's all they know; then they join the SSPX because they can't take the Novus Ordo anymore; then they go back to the Novus Ordo because their friends have scared them with false assertions about schism, disobedience, "Protestantism on the right," and that they'd rather be "wrong with John Paul II than right without him," and so they rejoin the New Religion; but then, after perhaps another two years of suffering through the "New Springtime," they're finally ready to bid farewell to the Novus Ordo monster once and for all. It is then that they return to the SSPX, this time for good. They have piqued through all the Neo-Catholic rhetoric, they have studied the issues well for themselves, and they realize that the state of the Church really is as bad as the traditionalists are saying. They realize that one day they will stand before Almighty God, and then John Paul II will not be there to hold their hand, and Cardinal Ratzinger will not be there to "explain" to God how it all really was a legitimate development.

   Let us pray that Mary Epcke Kaiser and all the other fallen-away traditionalists will soon return to true Catholicism, to a true notion of obedience, and to the true traditions of Our Holy Mother, the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. May St. Pius X, model Pope and model Christian, intercede for us, that the Lord may speedily deliver us from the horrible siege that has been laid over our holy and beloved Church.

This concludes this series on the Illicit Episcopal Consecrations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Editor's Note: For the all installments of this series just concluding with this issue, see:
• installment 1: The Illicit Episcopal Ordinations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
      Part One: Refuting Claims of Excommunication Before June 30, 1988

• installment 2: The Illicit Episcopal Ordinations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
      Part Two: No Schism or Excommunication On or Immediately After June 30, 1988 - Bait and Switch!

• installment 3: The Illicit Episcopal Ordinations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
      Part Three: No Schism or Excommunication On or Immediately After June 30, 1988 - Canon Backfire!

• installment 4: The Illicit Episcopal Ordinations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
      Part Four: No Schism or Excommunication On or Immediately After June 30, 1988 - Salvation of souls is the paramount necessity!

• installment 5:The Illicit Episcopal Ordinations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
      Part Five: Schism or the Syllogism of Truth?

• installment 6:The Illicit Episcopal Ordinations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
      Part Six: Why not the indult?

• installment 7:The Illicit Episcopal Ordinations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
      Part Seven: True Papal Authority and the Necessity of Keeping the Faith Alive

• installment 8:The Illicit Episcopal Ordinations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
      Part Eight: Rome is burning and still the Pope refuses to recognize the fires of destruction

• installment 9:The Illicit Episcopal Ordinations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
      Part Nine: The salvation of souls is the issue!

• installment 10:The Illicit Episcopal Ordinations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
      Part Ten: Illusion and Appearance

• installment 11:The Illicit Episcopal Ordinations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
      Part Eleven: Admissions of Acceptance

• installment 12:The Illicit Episcopal Ordinations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
      Part Twelve: Conclusion

  
  

  Note: [bold, brackets and italicized words used for emphasis]

For past columns by Mario Derksen, see Archives for www.DailyCatholic.org/2003mdi.htm

SEPTEMBER 2003 Late Summer Hiatus Issue volume 14, no. 34 Mario Derksen's TRADITIONAL INSIGHTS www.DailyCatholic.org