Did Abp. Lefebvre Say the New Mass?
Kennedy Hall, the
self-proclaimed lay apologist for the SSPX, recently released a video accusing
Michael Lofton and me of calumny for claiming Archbishop Lefebvre celebrated
the New Mass. Yes, this accusation comes from a man who falsely accused me of backing
out of a debate, even though his own emails admit that he was the one to back
out. (here) This
also comes from a man who almost exclusively uses ad hominem arguments
against his opponents, whom he labels “enemies of the Church.” Even though I
have over 20 hours of podcasts and as many articles
defending the Church by explaining the errors of the SSPX, Hall conspicuously avoids
engaging my theological and canonical arguments on any meaningful level; he
would rather attack my character with lies and misrepresentations, and claim
that Marcel Lefebvre, who died under a declared
excommunication for schism, is the victim. That is his approach.
Mr. Hall certainly has
a distorted understanding of what calumny is. The Catholic Encyclopedia
defines calumny as “the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing
to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty.” So, according to Hall, a
priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass – a rite promulgated by the Roman
Pontiff for the entire Latin Church – is
actually guilty of committing a crime or grave fault. And, in his mind, to
falsely accuse a priest of celebrating such a legitimate rite of the
Church is a mortal sin. All this would be news to the last five
Popes, or actually, to all 266 of them. Needless to say, Hall not only has a
distorted understanding of calumny, but also of the Roman Catholic Church and
her Supreme Authority.
We should first note
that our assertion that Archbishop Lefebvre celebrated the New Mass was not
intended to damage his reputation, as Hall recklessly alleges. After all, how
could asserting that a bishop celebrated a legitimate rite of Mass be harmful
to his reputation? We do not need to, nor would we, fabricate testimony to harm
Lefebvre’s reputation; the acts Lefebvre committed which led to his
suppression, suspension, and excommunication speak for themselves.
Rather, our statement was to show that Lefebvre’s later rejection of the New Mass was inconsistent with his initial acceptance of it, and we have a factual basis to conclude Lefebvre celebrated the New Mass based upon historical accounts that even the Society acknowledges. From the SSPX website, which transcribes a talk given by Fr. Michel Simoulin in 2017, we read:
“Or when I was a young subdeacon, I went with Archbishop Lefebvre to his sister-in-law’s funeral. The Archbishop hesitated, then chose to assist at the new Mass before blessing the casket. A few days later, an article was published in certain bulletins: We must rally! The example is given from on high! Born of the Conciliar Church through Bishop Charrière on November 1, 1970, in the diocese of Freiburg, the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) has today returned to the Conciliar Church! Its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, gave a beautiful example on June 30, 1980, by participating ‘actively’ in the Conciliar rite” (emphasis added).[1]
Lefebvre’s assistance at the new rite is also corroborated in the book Econe Full Stop (1983) by Fr. Noel Barbara, who states:
“We might add that in regard to the new mass, Mgr. Lefebvre knows how to join deeds with words and give an example. On 30 June 1980, on the occasion of the obsequies of a member of his family, accompanied by Fr. Simoulin, he assisted ‘actively’ at ‘Luther's mass’ completely in the modern fashion.” (emphasis added).[2]
Thus, we have a
reasonable, factual basis for our assertion that Lefebvre celebrated the new
rite (which we assume would have been in Latin, ad orientem), and we say
so to underscore that Lefebvre was in good standing with the Church at the
beginning of his founding of the Society. It’s simply a matter of historical
accuracy and fairness to note that Lefebvre showed initial support for the
reforms, and didn’t go off the rails until later on. Lefebvre allowed Catholics
to attend the New Mass, for a time, and even said “it is right to assist at
this Sunday Mass in order to fulfill the obligation.”[3] This demonstrates that
Lefebvre did not initially have a schismatic spirit toward the new rite, until
later. This seems to be something Kennedy Hall wishes to conceal. Why?
Now, we are well aware
of the questions that some have raised about whether Lefebvre actually celebrated
the New Mass, but those questions do not prevent one from concluding he did, and
certainly without being accused of a calumny. This conclusion can be drawn not
only from the references cited above, but also from
the April 12, 1979 letter of Fr. Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., which refers to Lefebvre
celebrating the New Mass from 1969 to December of 1970. When des Lauriers
mentions that Lefebvre celebrated the New Mass in his
letter to him, he refers to particular details (dates,
places, witnesses, gestures), the inclusion of which would be unusual if he was
just making it up.[4]
Such details give the testimony
credibility, because they open up the witness to greater scrutiny.
Fr. des Lauriers also
notes that Lefebvre was confronted by six other witnesses about his celebration
of the New Mass, and des Lauriers does not record a denial by Lefebvre in that
letter. This is also very significant. Finally, as Fr. Francesco Ricossa notes,
from 1969 to 1975, Abp. Lefebvre’s official position was that the New Mass was
legitimate and even obligatory in certain circumstances. Lefebvre acknowledged
that there were both “good Masses” and “bad Masses” in the new rite, depending
upon how they were celebrated.
We are also aware
that Jean Madiran, a long-time ally of Lefebvre and founder of the French
magazine Itineraires, wrote a retort to des Lauriers (in 1980), claiming
that Lefebvre did not actually celebrate the New Mass. This is the
evidence Hall relies upon to debunk our claim. We have read the letter in
detail (we had it translated by a native French speaker) and note that Madiran
provides absolutely no substantive rebuttal to des Lauriers’ conclusion
that Lefebvre celebrated the New Mass. Anyone who reads the letter can see the
same. Madiran simply accuses des Lauriers of being a liar. That’s it.
Now, Kennedy Hall may
be persuaded by such “evidence” (which is no evidence at all), but we are not.
In addition to the historical account already cited, Madiran’s credibility is
also called into question because of false statements he had publicly made on
another matter concerning the New Mass. Specifically, Madiran
falsely claimed that Cardinal Ottaviani did not write his letter of
commendation to Dom Gerard (on February 17, 1970). Ottaviani’s letter praised
Gerard’s study of the New Mass, which was much less critical of the New
Mass. It was also quite critical of the so-called “Ottaviani Intervention,”
which is wrongly attributed to Cardinal Ottaviani, as if he were the author.
Madiran’s false allegation was exposed by Ottaviani’s secretary, among others. Being
an
ally of Lefebvre and guilty of false statements on the topic of the New Mass
does not make Madiran a credible witness, and one should not be accused of
calumny for rejecting his testimony.
While des Lauriers, in
his humility, was willing to give Madiran the benefit of the doubt and withdraw
his conclusion that Lefebvre said the new rite, whether or not Madiran was
telling the truth remains a question of fact, and we are free to reject his
testimony without being guilty of calumny, based on the evidence. In addition
to what we have already presented, des Lauriers continued to maintain
that Lefebvre gave the appearance of saying the New Mass, which led him to his
conclusion, because Lefebvre had engaged in movements and omissions that were
not part of the rubrics of the Tridentine Mass (i.e., omission of
genuflections).[5]
Think hard about that.
If Abp. Lefebvre was not saying the New Mass as Madiran claims, then we would
have to conclude, based on des Lauriers’ testimony which Madiran does not
refute, that Lefebvre instead engaged in illicit gestures in celebrating the
Tridentine Mass, and these gestures were sufficient to “induce” des Lauriers (his
words) and others into believing he was celebrating the New Mass (in part due
to the omission of genuflections). Madiran categorically fails to refute des
Lauriers’ claim, and des Lauriers even notes that the controversy precipitated a “very heated
incident” among Lefebvre and the six other witnesses,
which would not have been necessary if it had been a simple
misunderstanding.
Thus, in light of des
Lauriers’ testimony which Madiran does not refute, is it really reasonable to
conclude that Lefebvre celebrated illicit Traditional Masses (insofar as
he was deviating from the rubrics, including omitting the grave requirement of
genuflecting before Our immolated Lord), as opposed to celebrating a licit
Novus Ordo rite – the same rite that was being celebrated by the Pope and
bishops throughout the Roman Church, and which Lefebvre had not yet rejected,
in principle? After all, wasn’t Lefebvre an absolute stickler for the rubrics?
Didn’t Lefebvre center his entire life around celebrating the Traditional Mass
as reverent and “traditional” as possible? Or did Lefebvre routinely omit
genuflecting after the consecration? Was Lefebvre really a liturgical innovator
when he celebrated the old Mass? I and many others personally doubt it.
Again, which scenario
seems more likely? That Lefebvre celebrated the new rite, in the traditional
manner, borne from the council’s reforms which he himself approved, on at least
a very limited basis, for a short period of time, during which time he maintained
that the New Mass was even obligatory to attend, in certain cases, even under
pain of sin? Or, rather, are we to believe that Lefebvre celebrated the
Traditional Mass in an illicit manner, by deviating from the rubrics and
introducing innovations, which included failing to genuflect before Our Lord
when the rubrics required it, and which actions were sufficient to induce
learned men to believe that he was celebrating the New Mass (along with the
testimony of an unreliable witness, who himself rejected the liturgical reforms
and was guilty of his own public misrepresentations concerning Cardinal
Ottaviani’s support of Dom Gerard’s critique of the New Mass)?
We
maintain the former is more likely than the latter, and cannot be accused of
calumny for believing so – especially since calumny involves the accusation of
committing a crime or grave fault, which celebrating an approved rite of
Mass is not. We are simply making a judgment based upon all the evidence
as we understand it. Of course, from 1976 and forward, all the Masses that
Lefebvre celebrated were illicit, whether he followed the rubrics or not, given
that he was suspended a divinis by the Pope himself and no longer had
the faculty to say Mass or perform any priestly function.
That Archbishop
Lefebvre would later deny that he celebrated the New Mass means very little
in light of his track record. After all, Lefebvre signed all of the documents
of Vatican II (as even Bp. Tissier
admits) and then later publicly claimed that he didn’t. Lefebvre also entered
into an oral and written agreement with the Supreme Pontiff, which would have
given the SSPX a canonical status, before he disgraced himself by reneging on
the agreement the very next day. Archbishop Lefebvre comes off as
an ecclesiastical double-dealer, who even accused Popes Paul VI and John Paul
II of being anti-christs who taught a false religion. In light of the history,
it is difficult to give Lefebvre the benefit of the doubt.
Nevertheless, as an act
of good faith, I and my fellow colleagues (which include Andrew Bartel, Dom
Dalmasso, Matt Fradd, Michael Lofton and Robert Siscoe) submit that if it can
be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Lefebvre never celebrated the New Mass
in the face of the current evidence which says he did, then we will be happy to
retract our assertion that Lefebvre celebrated the New Mass (although we don’t think
such proof is possible). After all, we are not afraid of changing our views
when the truth demands it, which our own track records demonstrate.
However, note well that this would actually
make things worse for Lefebvre, Hall and the SSPX. Why? Because it
would show that Lefebvre rejected the New Mass in principle, from the very
beginning, even before the liturgical revolution gained a real foothold in the
Latin Church. And by rejecting a rite of Mass that was legitimately promulgated
by the Roman Pontiff and universally accepted by the College of Bishops,
Lefebvre would have proven himself to be schismatic even before 1976 or 1988 –
by refusing communion with 99.9% of the Roman Church which celebrated the new
rite, as soon as it was promulgated.
Hence, Kennedy Hall’s claim that
Archbishop Lefebvre refused to celebrate the New Mass only makes things worse
for the SSPX and its adherents, because it underscores the schismatic position
of the Society of St. Pius X. It also means Hall is effectively
accusing every priest and bishop who says the New Mass of a
crime or grave fault. That Hall does not recognize the consequences of his position
reveals much about his understanding of the Roman Catholic Church. But this is
not surprising, since Hall does not even recognize the legitimate factual basis
for concluding that Lefebvre said the New Mass. To even entertain such a
possibility is the mortal sin of calumny, according to Hall.
It is also extremely
unfortunate that Hall consistently attempts to harm the reputation of his
opponents by calling them “enemies of the Church” and imputes evil motives to
them. A genuine disagreement of fact does not warrant such harsh indictments. This
is likely a bitter fruit of Hall’s formal adherence to the SSPX schism, which ultimately
destroys the virtue of charity. Hall is certainly doing no favors for the
Society or himself. To the contrary, he is providing more evidence of
the existence of the very schism he denies.
[1] On
the SSPX Seeking Cooperation within the Church – Le Seignadou, https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx-seeking-cooperation-within-church-le-seignadou.
[2]
Footnote 17.
[3]
Letter to Mlle., T., March 15, 1974.
[4]
Dates: From April 1969 to December 24, 1970; places: in the Roman basilica of
St. Mary Major at the altar of St. Pius V; Fribourg; and Econe; witnesses:
Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Paul Aulagnier, Bernard Waltz and three
others.
[5] For
example, see des Lauriers’ letter to Mr. Einsicht, February 1980.
