http://www.romancatholicism.org

 

 

 

The Nineteen-Fifties-ism of Archbishop Lefebvre

 

Why stop at Vatican II?

 

Marcel Lefebvre is almost an icon of what is sometimes known as nineteen-fifties-ism. He made a tremendous fuss about some of the reforms of Vatican II but like most “traditional Catholics”, he had very little awareness of how far Roman Catholic doctrine and practice had already been “developed” through the centuries. As he saw it, the magisterium had functioned perfectly well until Vatican II and then went completely haywire. It was inconceivable to him that the magisterium should, in principle, afford the corruption of Catholic doctrine and practice, even though he had the stark evidence before his eyes. But, if Vatican II, an ecumenical council, can officially promulgate heresy and error, to be accepted by practically the whole Church, then why should any previous non-infallible documents of the Church be considered beyond suspicion? Why should one not look afresh and with a critical eye at previous decisions of the Church, especially where it is evident that doctrinal “developments” had been made, such as concerning Leonard Feeney or Jansenism?

 

No salvation outside the Church

 

The Holy Office condemned Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center in 1949; SBC had been arguing that the doctrine of “no salvation outside the Church” was being corrupted and the Vatican released a Letter that has since often been cited to maintain that those who die as non-Catholics can be saved. The Jansenists had Jesuits condemned for corrupting the doctrine back in the seventeenth-century but their new theology was gradually popularised by dissident theologians and ecclesiastics and eventually became the new “orthodoxy”. Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the new theology and his complaint was over practical consequences that the Vatican was drawing from it, such as the new pluralism, ecumenism and inter-faith: if people can be saved in any religion, then why not get together with them in brotherly communion here and now? However, ecumenism might have been new to the old archbishop but novelty did not first appear in 1962!

 

“Saved outside the Church”

 

Let us repeat just a couple of quotes from “infallible” definitions regarding salvation and the Church and then we can consider whether Lefebvre had already been hoodwinked long before the council.

 

Pope Innocent III (1216): Ex cathedra: “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)

 

Pope Eugene IV, A.D. (1447): Ex cathedra: “The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those abiding in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has abided in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence, A.D. 1442)

 

It is clearly defined that no one at all is saved outside of the Church, not “pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics”.

 

Let us now see what Lefebvre was wont to say about the matter.

 

“We are Catholics; we affirm our faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we affirm our faith in the divinity of the Holy Catholic Church, we think that Jesus Christ is the sole way, the sole truth, and that one cannot be saved outside Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently outside His Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church. No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church; but those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church, are saved by the Catholic Church, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if they do not know it, even if they are not aware of it . . .” (From a sermon preached in Geneva in 1976 at the First Mass of one of his newly ordained priests.)

 

Lefebvre obviously knew that the Church had taught that no one at all is saved outside of the Church, as he wrote, “one cannot be saved […] outside His Mystical Spouse, the Holy Catholic Church”, but then he immediately went on to contradict and deny this infallibly defined dogma, by saying that “those who are saved, even outside the Catholic Church, are saved by the Catholic Church”.

 

Such is the confusion that nineteen-fifties-ism caused the poor archbishop. It was yet a well-known teaching that no one can be saved outside the Church – and yet the Holy Office had already been giving Catholics to believe that there is and that “pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics” can be saved as they are. Lefebvre obeyed and was found babbling that it is simultaneously possible and impossible to be saved outside of the Church. Let us not suppose that it is virtuous for an archbishop to maintain outright contradiction, to himself and to his listeners, however dear he might be. The saner course would have been to re-examine the course of theology over the last few centuries to see what had gone wrong and who had been responsible.

 

In such circumstances, it might be as well to bear in mind what Vatican I taught about doctrinal “developments”, even those before Vatican II.

 

“Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been defined by holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.”

 

(Note: the proof that Lefebvre cited for salvation outside the Church (“No doubt, the graces of God are distributed outside the Catholic Church”) refers to the non-infallible condemnation of the Jansenist “error” that is cited to maintain that “pagans, Jews, heretics and [schismatics]” all receive “sufficient grace” (as was the Jesuits’ phrase) outside the Church. “Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this kind do not receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ, and so you will rightly infer from this that in them there is a bare and weak will without any sufficient grace. – condemned.” (Denz. 1295, cf. 1379)

 

“Distinctions must be made”

 

Besides self-contradiction, Lefebvre tried the approach of making a switch. He replaced the Church’s teaching that no one can be saved outside (extra in Latin) the Church with another teaching, that no one can be saved without (sine) its influence.

 

“The Church is necessary; the Church is the one ark of salvation; we must state it. That has always been the adage of theology: 'Outside the Church there is no Salvation'... This does not mean that none among other religions may be saved. But none is saved by his erroneous and false religion. If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the Blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps because of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion, since none can be saved by error.” (From an address given at Rennes, France in 1972.)

 

For Lefebvre, one can be saved outside the Church in other religions, just not without the existence of the Church.

 

But the confusion doesn’t end there, because unfortunately for him, Pope Pius IX had already condemned that saying, only a century before – and he knew it.

 

“In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation. – condemned.” (Syllabus of Modern Errors)

 

Now that might seem clear enough, but when the Church said, “outside” (the Church) or “in” (other religions) the old archbishop just couldn’t hear because his whole nineteen-fifties approach to theology wouldn’t let him. To him, it was irrelevant whether pagans, Jews, Buddhists, Protestants or whatever were outside the Church in a false religion.

 

In his book, ironically entitled, Against the Heresies (by which he obviously understood only those of Vatican II), Lefebvre again manifested confusion. While commenting on the condemnation of Pius, he blatantly contradicted him and made out that “certain distinctions” were being made.

 

“Evidently, certain distinctions must be made.  Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.” (p. 216)

 

But, a contradiction is not a distinction. This amounts to a double switch. First, switch the new teaching for the old – and then switch a “distinction” for the resultant contradiction – and who will be any the wiser? Again, it amounts to babbling nonsensically.

 

“This must be preached”

 

Lefebvre also stated more of the same in the same book.

 

“One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions…” (p. 217)

 

“Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus [outside the Church there is no salvation].  This must be preached.” (pp. 217-218)

 

According to fifties-ism of Lefebvre, all this nonsense must be preached.

 

But Pope Gregory XVI (1846) had a different idea about what should be done about the Church’s salvation dogma. He officially taught, like Pius and the other old Popes, that it is not possible to be saved in other religions: and he did not order we should foolishly contradict him and his teaching while pretending to agree with him. Rather he condemned men he considered to be bold “innovators” on the matter and urged that their “slithering errors” should be vigorously eradicated.

 

“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life. […] But the astonishing boldness with which certain innovators have dared to attack one of our most important and obvious dogmas has made so painful an impression upon Us that We could not prevent Ourselves from speaking at some length on this matter.  Strive to eradicate these slithering errors with all your strength.” (Summo Iugiter Studio)

 

Pope Gregory was horrified by the heresy that “even heretics” such as Protestants may be saved – yet Lefebvre did not blush to extend the heresy to Muslims and Buddhists!

 

Such is the nonsense to which Lefebvre felt obligated, in no small part due to the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.

 

 

 

Marcel Lefebvre