Was Archbishop Lefebvre Really Excommunicated?

On June 30th 1988 Archbishop marcel Lefebvre, founder of the society of saint pius X, and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer consecrated 4 Bishops for the sspx against the explicit orders of pope john paul ii
Detractors of the sspx often say that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, as well as the other 5 bishops, were excommunicated by Pope John paul ii. As a result of these unauthorized consecrations.
But is this true?

[@leeristow8211]

Please keep on posting your excellent content. Many years ago I was a 'word of faith' protestant following celebrity preachers (and my own mother's faith) until I discovered a cluster of English books in a second-hand bookshop in Tokyo where I was living at the time relating to Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Fatima, Lourdes and Garabandal) and secretly bought them and read them without telling my protestant friends and family who all thought Catholics were un-saved and idolatrous. I became completely devoted to Our Lady and left Japan to return home to England to join the Catholic church and its infinite treasures. I really appreciate your perspective because there is so much to take on board with the current seeming division in the church regarding the traditional Catholics and the pro-Vatican 2 Catholics and the differences between the Mass types that it can look rather overwhelming at times. Your videos are faithfully educative and help me to get a foothold into all this important history. The recent post you made on Eucharistic miracles I even risked sending to my protestant mother and she was clearly blown away by the recorded footage of the beating heart of Jesus! Keep up the great work and Peace be with you.

[@nl396]

Saint Athanasius was wrongly excommunicated and banished but stayed loyal to tradition to the end. What does that say about a man like Archbishop Lefebvre?

[@oskarvalance3041]

In the 1960's I attended a private Catholic school. The whole school went mass every morning before beginning class. The only day I didn't go to mass was Saturday. I was a kid, but I do remember the mass before Vatican 2. I, for one, wish we could go back to tradition. Your video of Archbishop Lefebvre is very informative. It's confusing at first and a lot to take in but at the end you pointed out what really happened. Just like all your other videos, you gave it clear meaning. Thanks.

[@toxicharm7239]

Just when I search for an answer, you already did the research. Thanks again for all your help in these videos.

[@imisschristendom5293]

Glad to be of service

[@watcheuropathelastbattle]

Bishop Richard Williamson is the reason I became a Catholic, he was talking about the 6 million and JQ and got me interested into catholicism

[@patrickmartin8783]

That is absolutely the worst reason to become Catholic I have ever heard of, and I would even say not a legitimate conversion. Catholicism is not a faith you join because a bishop said something in line with your anti Jewish theories. I’m sure holding onto these ideas like the JQ and the 6 million will get you through purgatory into heaven. And I’m sure Christ will welcome you into his kingdom because you exposed the JQ and for being “based”. I pray for your conversion of heart.

[@vaderkurt7848]

Hitler and national socialism are post modernist ideologies. "Jq" Do you mean the general population?

[@willwi90]

He is unbelievably giga based

[@TR4G1CK]

​@@willwi90Imagine actually talking like this. Embarrassing.

[@LavaDrink]

​@@TR4G1CK gigga cringe

[@Nefertum1000]

It’s pretty complicated even from the hierarchy at Rome. I just ordered SSPX the Defense from Kennedy Hall to dig if there any further insight to Lefebvre and SSPX. What I contemplate on is a simple question; are Holy Orders and the Catholic Church better today than 60 years ago? And, if the Council’s objective was to attract more to the Church, has it done so?

[@JM-740]

Should read the 40 page Study by the FSSP on the consecrations

[@themysteriousdomainmoviepalace]

LeFebvre was 100% correct! You only have to have lived through it to see that.

[@michaelkaiser8694]

Dude, I’m a convert. Richard Rohr allowed me to convert. My wife was raised Catholic. I was a progressive leftist, spiritual but not religious. Through the Church enabling an experiential relationship with Christ through the Eucharist, and the examples of the saints, my faith exploded and prayer life increased. I didn’t even know that the Mass was anything different when I converted. When I learned the Mass that Thomas Merton wrote about in Seven Story Mountain was the TLM, and that the modernist Church is suppressing it, it BROKE MY HEART… A LOT has changed fundamentally in me thanks to the Church. It was your video on the SSPX and that brought me to your channel. Thank God for the SSPX… because we are being ROBBED and the Church (and the world as a result) is in serious trouble… ❤❤❤ I am optimistic because God knows what He’s doing.. but I have young children and I’m desperate for them to know the true beauty of the true Catholic faith. It is extremely clear to me that the changes after Vatican 2 were intentional sabotage. Crystal clear. The TLM is INSANE and breath takingly beautiful, like an old cathedral amidst a mountain of modern box sky scrapers.

[@imisschristendom5293]

Man, I love hearing that

[@GabrielRevert]

bro accept islam💗

[@michaelkaiser8694]

@@GabrielRevert haha. I'm flattered. I think I'd make a great moslem. But I have to say, I like references. The bible has 72 more references than the Quran, 72-ish more authors. Also, when the omnipotent Almighty God incarnates into our humanity and creates a Church while a human Himself, well... I'm gonna go ahead and follow that Church. Longest continuous elected institution on Earth could only come from Above.

[@johnhaggerty4396]

It is worthwhile to revisit the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, that is what historians do. I must say that I like the title of your site, I Miss Christendom. It expresses what many of us felt as we saw Notre Dame in flames.

[@sttlok]

Wow, this is a drastically different position than in your first SSPX videos.

[@imisschristendom5293]

Well, quite honestly, I looked into the matter more. But I dont really it as all that different. I said in the first video that the excommunications were lifted, and therefore no longer an issue.

[@GabrielRevert]

no one christianity in the world older than catholicsm

[@julielolos4552]

Great video.

[@willwi90]

Hey, have you or will you ever cover why the pope's announcement hall is designed to be a serpent's head?

[@imisschristendom5293]

Because the catholic hierarchy has been infiltrated by freemasons, and communists

[@willwi90]

​@@imisschristendom5293I suggested this in a Catholic discord server and pretty much got laughed at

[@burtonspringer8327]

It just looks like that through a fish eyed camera lens

[@user-ji2on8eg3l]

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil; May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

[@JM-740]

The defense of the SSPX being free from all penalty due to the canonical exemption simply doesn’t work out. As the belief of being in a state of necessity only pertains to matters of canon law. However consecration of bishops is above the law, as it is a matter of faith. In the same way it doesn’t follow that if a bishop today who in believing there is a state of necessity splits from Rome and declares the Pontiff an anti pope (or defects to the Orthodox Church) he isn’t exempt from the state of schism from the Catholic Church. While there canonical penalties for doing so, the fact consecrations are directly a matter of faith makes it so a schismatic act has occurred and it just so happens to also come with canonical penalties. The FSSP has an entire study on this that I highly recommend. Consecrating bishops without papal mandate specifically *against the will* of the Apostolic head is a matter of faith rather than merely Canon Law. It’s Traditional Church teaching that the episcopal college derives their authority from the Successor of Peter as Peter is the one who received the keys and has that authority flow to the possession of the entire body of bishops. Patristics and Church history support this. Upon consecrations *against the will* of the Pope, who made it clear that this was a schismatic act AND (meaning in addition to the crime of schism) it incurs excommunication. Yes much of excommunicatable crimes that pertain to the Ecclesiastical law of the Church are crimes that may alleviate the punishment of excommunication for merely the idea there’s grave necessity and other strenuous circumstances allowed in the same Canon Law. But that only applies to the crime pertaining specifically to Canon Law. Consecration against the explicit will of the Pope without a mandate is a schismatic crime in which no grave necessity or circumstance can circumvent (and of course the penalty of excommunication is a consequence of schism). This is magisterial, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Ad Apostolorum principis (June 29 , 1958), teaches that, as episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate are "serious offenses against the discipline and unity of the Church...We must in conscience warn all that this is completely at variance with the teachings and principles on which rests the right order of the society divinely instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord." We have magisterial backing that this isn’t merely legislation from the Pope that is being violated but rather the very structure of the Church that was instituted by Christ which is much higher than Canon Law in which all of Church history has resulted in clear schism. Lefebvre is not the sudden exception. The Lefebvre consecrations were a schismatic act. Also canonically if it isn’t clear: doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances. (cf CIC, can. 1323) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. (See Canonical examination of Lefebvre excommunications www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1224) Currently the SSPX has faculties granted in order to protect the souls of the faithful that attend there, they operate illicitly and according to the 2009 letter remitting the excommunications from Pope Benedict the ministers do not exercise any legitimate eclessial ministry. (This is basically equivalent to suspension, they continue to abuse the clause of grave danger immensely and yes Deus providet and in this case eclessia supplet) but these are absurd circumstances and the action of allowance does not equate to admitting the actions are proper. I don’t argue saying that Lefebvre’s actions didn’t possibly save the Tridentine form but I will also say I trust that had he been more obedient or taken the personal prelature offered that the Fruits would be 10 or 100 fold and Latin mass would be much more widespread. This final aspect itself isn’t a logical argument but we ought to look at these things. Lefebvre’s actions can’t be separated from the schismatic thought that he was basically the only one who could save the church and he needed to be disobedient and engage in schism to do so. It’s rooted in the sin of singularity and a lack of dependence upon Gods promises which funnily enough he espoused at great length in his letter to confused Catholics how he wouldn’t go forth to engage in such a schism as he later did. I like to believe Lefebvre might’ve died as a sedevacantist to give him more of an excuse. Sorry but cutting from the successors of St. Peter no matter how you draw it up is schismatic in its action. If you’d like I can send you the FSSP study on the consecrations it’s about 40 pages but really dives deep into this topic. Love your content.

[@lorichet]

_"Lefebvre’s actions can’t be separated from the schismatic thought that he was basically the only one who could save the church and he needed to be disobedient and engage in schism to do so. It’s rooted in the sin of singularity and a lack of dependence upon Gods promises..."_ Tell that to St. Athanasius. Often God has used a single man.

[@Nefertum1000]

@JM-kd,, wow, seems like I got some homework. Thanks for sharing this information. Excellent.

[@vaderkurt7848]

​@@lorichetSt athanasius actions=/=Lefevre. Is it possible that he was unfairly condemned? Plausibly but we are not the clergy or God in this manner.

[@JM-740]

@@Nefertum1000 Of course. I didn’t see this message until now! I pray it goes well.

[@butterflybeatles]

Who can, ever, know "what could have happened" but I don't think anybody would agree with you on the following . . . . "had he been more obedient or taken the personal prelature offered that the Fruits would be 10 or 100 fold and Latin mass would be much more widespread".

[@snowy1634]

You read the document saying LeFebvre and the others were excommunicated, and then you say they weren't excommunicated. Must be very hard to live in a world of lies.

[@J-PLeigh8409]

I struggle to understand how Catholics can back schism...were Catholic not Protestants & not Eastern Orthodox. I do notice how many that reject Vat2, or reject the current or past Papacy are zealous practicing Catholics..but that's just it, our faith is mostly set apart by the Papacy to which Christ gave these keys of authority to Saint Peter. "Disliking a Pope or disagreeing w/ a Pope" eventho upmost charity should be given, does not mean disregard the holy see or that it fails to currently continue on, we can not schism in any way in the ancient holy Catholic & Apostolic Church, we should be one as our Lord & our God are One, Pax Vobis

[@imisschristendom5293]

Im going to do a video on why sspx is not in schism soon. Short version: the church has not declared them to be in schism, so to say they are is reserving judgment for ones self in an area one has no competency in. It would be one thing if people would say that in their opinion they are schismatic. But that's not what people say. They make diffenative statements as if it were a fact. When it's just their opinion. As far as v2, the sspx accepts 90% of v2, because its just a restatment of church teaching. But the other 10% is heretical, and since V2 was declared to be non dogmatic and not infallible, as Catholics, we are not bound to accept it, if it can be shown to be wrong.

[@J-PLeigh8409]

@@imisschristendom5293 do you consider the SSPX in full or partial communion w/ Rome? Do they accept the current Pope? Is there not similarities w/ Luther? Is it not schismatic or schisimy lol, to reject even 10% of a Council & or call it heretical? Is it schismatic to reject the Novus Ordo as if it is heretical or invalid? I ask these sincerely, I find this situation & discussion unfortunate but interesting & obviously necessary. I myself would prob love the Latin Mass but not even an option & also completely good w/ the Novus Ordo & our Mass & Irish Priest does a beautiful job, even singing occasionally in Latin if im not mistaken. I personally prefer the participatory aspect but imagine the Latin Mass allows it to a degree. I just returned home to the Catholic Church over a year ago, after attending Protest churches for several yrs, so theres plenty Im still catching up on & trying to conceive. Your channel is helpful & appreciated btw

[@wingedhussar1683]

^ That’s simply not true. Vatican II are part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium which is infallible. Paul VI - “All that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.” From ADDRESS OF POPE PAUL VI DURING THE LAST GENERAL MEETING OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL 7 December 1965 "But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is." “We might say that heaven and earth are united in the holding of the Council — the saints of heaven to protect our work, the faithful of the earth continuing in prayer to the Lord, and you, seconding the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in order that the work of all may correspond to the modern expectations and needs of the various peoples of the world.” Pope John XXIII, Opening Speech at the Second Vatican Council Pope John's Opening Speech at Vatican II “Vatican II established a point of reference in the life of the daily Church, opening it up, under the breeze of the Holy Spirit, a new path.” www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-21_en.html On 23 April 1966 Pope Paul VI addressed the Roman Curia, a body regarded very largely as conservative in the Council: 'Whatever were our opinions about the Council's various doctrines before its conclusions were promulgated, today our adherence to the decisions of the Council must be wholehearted and without reserve.' 'The council was something very new; not all were prepared to understand and accept it. But now the conciliar doctrines must be seen as belonging to the magisterium of the Church and, indeed be attributed to the breath of the Holy Spirit.' (A Concise Guide to the Documents of the Second Vatican Council, Vol. I, Adrian Hastings, Darton Longman & Todd, London, 1968) ^^^ Can't be any clearer than that.

[@lorichet]

@@J-PLeigh8409 Did Luther hold to Tradition? Did Luther believe in the authority of the Papacy in principle? The similarities of Lefebvre are with St. Athanasius, who also disobeyed the Pope in order to follow Tradition.

[@J-PLeigh8409]

@@lorichet wanting to attend or preferring the TLM is one thing but to blatantly go against Rome, being in at least Material Schism, calling the Novus Ordo evil, is another & holds problems as an Apostolic Catholic. Its just a big jump that is just a bit Protestant. The canonical excommunication of the Bishops for their illegal ordinations was revoked but a de facto sacramental excommunication remains for their schism, dissension, rebel, protest or whatever you want to call it. The Church needs to sort it out as its not Catholicism to have any split, its another Church...btw I wouldn't throw Luther in as a defense in any way but yes he was obviously Catholic at a time but obliterated communion w/ heterodox nonsense

[@uriahthehittite1672]

He disobeyed. Anyone can claim necessity. That is what ALL the border crashers claim. One of the criteria was the harm of souls. I knew many Lefebvre followers back then. Their wanting to remain part of the larger church was severely compromised. I consider that harm. Arguments can be made for both points of view. Many of these are rationalizations. I am no fan of Francis and what is attempting to be done to the church but I will always be loyal to it. But you make very good points. I thoroughly enjoy the channel. God will be the ultimate judge of all this and his victory is assured.

[@lorichet]

St. Athanasius also disobeyed the Pope. He was excommunicated & banned from his Diocese, and he was also accused of schism. He disobeyed for the same reason Lefebvre disobeyed -- to save the Church.

[@lorichet]

Also, did you watch the video? Under Canon law, he only had to BELIEVE it was a necessity. It doesn't matter that you don't agree.

[@butterflybeatles]

It is SSP-ten. It sounds better and is correct. (The 'X' is not a letter).

[@wjm4268]

It is in Latin.

[@iniobongudofia6816]

Are you conversant with Roman numerals, it's nomenclature and expression in English?

[@butterflybeatles]

What are you referring to?@@iniobongudofia6816

[@butterflybeatles]

What is in Latin?@@wjm4268

[@paulhudson4254]

Who cares?

[@GabrielRevert]

and who asked ? 😊

[@Mokinono45]

Novus Ordo Watch covered this too. They were clearly excommunicated. The sedevacantist position is the only way out for the SSPX.

[@PatrickInCayman]

Hey I love your videos and certainly can understand your appeal for the SSPX. But their actions and disobedience are schismatic in nature. I dont care of its not "technically " schism or been officially determined to be schism, but it might as well be. These are in the same footsteps of Martin Luther. If we are just going to disregard the Church whenever WE feel we are justified, because we think we got the right form of Catholicism, then why be Catholic. Might as well be a sede or Orthodox

[@imisschristendom5293]

Obviously. Im going to discuss this in a future video. Probably not my next one. You make a very valid point, as I believe most supporters of the sspx would acknowledge. I dont want to get into all that here. Save it for the video. Hopefully, I can bring a better understanding of why a certain level of disobedience is acceptable, maybe even required, in some circumstances. The Pope is not all power. That's actually a new thing. Luther was somewhat justified in the beginning, but he started denying the doctrines that had been well established. It's the other way around with the sspx.

[@gerardducharme2146]

How can you compare Marcel Lefebvre actions with Luthers. You can’t compare the two because they both diametrically opposed Luther created the schism which now has over 40,000 different religious bodies in The SSPX didn’t such thing read more of Luthers writings and compare them with the SSPX‘s ratings. There’s no similarities God bless.

[@PatrickInCayman]

@@gerardducharme2146 I'm not saying Lefebvre did the same thing Luther and comparing that with the outcome Luther did with Protestantism. I am saying tho its in the similar nature and train of thought that they knew "better" how to fix the going-ons of the Church. And we are already seeing cannibalism going on (not to the extent of Luther) with many of the "trads"

[@aloyalcatholic5785]

@@PatrickInCayman It isn't that Mons Lefebvre felt he "knew better", as he still had absolute regard for the papacy. It was a state of confusion without precedent. Rather, he felt the ills of modernism had infiltrated the Church to such an extent over such a long time that he really felt that he had absolutely no choice but to act. This was something that had been brewing since the early 20th C and even earlier by all accounts. It wasn't about him per se or even JP2. It was a strange combination of legitimate authority and error that was troubling the Church, and there was never going to be a completely satisfactory response to the situation whether he was in "full obedience" or carried out the acts that he did. Either way, he'd be in disobedience or error would continue to fester and promulgate. The church was lurching towards a crisis regardless if he acted or not . And he could know this objectively, because we have 19th Centuries of tradition and the deposit of faith work from. What Vatican 2 and new theology and mass promulgate is almost indisputably a break from the Tradition. You might not agree with that assessment but that was I truly believe his underlying motivation. Detractors like Lofton fail to see that just like they don't even completely understand the canonical realities as was well outlined in this video. Regarding Lefebvre as Martin Luther is really wrong and actually a rather vulgar and offensive comparison. Lefebvre loved the Church with all his heart. He wanted to save it, not tear it down.

[@Nefertum1000]

@aloyalcatholic, thanks for stating my thought on the stand Lefebvre took at that time in that particular situation. I agree, big difference between Luther and Lefebvre.

[@anonymousdontbotheraboutit2895]

I'm going to sound like a liberal saying this but my problem with the SSPX isn't that it's schismatic (it's not) but that it has a history of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Though this lines up with my assessment that if the modernist society and Church refuse to heed the warning of reasonable traditionalists, they open the door for radical or bigoted traditionalists to step in.

[@FrantziskoEtxeberria]

That is Bishop Williamson, not the SSPX.

[@edukaeshn]

Calumny is a sin.

[@anonymousdontbotheraboutit2895]

@@FrantziskoEtxeberria The founder of the SSPX was a Nazi sympathizer.

[@anonymousdontbotheraboutit2895]

@@edukaeshn I suppose this is the Trad way of saying "you are fake news."

[@edukaeshn]

No, it's just a fact.@@anonymousdontbotheraboutit2895