On Dec. 8, 1997, Fr. Marshall Roberts of the SSPX made public the fact that the SSPX was secretly granting marriage annulments to Catholics who approached them. Soon afterwards, on Dec. 22, 1997, Fr. Robert Neville also wrote a letter telling people the same thing. These letters came after Bishop Fellay had announced to the priests of the SSPX, unknown to the laypeople, that the SSPX would set up a Canonical Commission for the purpose of granting these secret marriage annulments. This public revelation by these two priests caused a wave of questioning by Catholic supporters of the SSPX, to the point where Bishop Williamson had to write a public letter in defence of the secret SSPX marriage annulments on March 3, 1998.
In his letter, Bishop Williamson admitted that the SSPX had been secretly granting marriage annulments, but stated that because of the case of necessity in the Church, the SSPX could grant marriage annulments if they wanted to, and besides, they were not granting that many annulments for anyone to worry about. The letter by Bishop Williamson did not end the questioning. If there really was nothing wrong with granting the annulments, then why all the secrecy? And if the annulments were wrong, to say that granting only a few annulments was nothing to worry about is like a group gangsters saying not to worry because they were robbing only a few banks. Many priests of the SSPX questioned the annulments. Frs. Roberts and Neville were not the only priests who left the SSPX because of the marriage annulments. And, according to one of the priests who left, many priests who decided to stay in the SSPX were refusing to follow the new rules. The problem became so serious that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was forced to give a conference to SSPX superiors in defence of SSPX marriage annulments at Ecône on August 24, 1998.
As we stated above, Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX, announced to the priests of the SSPX that it would be the official policy of the SSPX to grant marriage annulments. This policy took effect on May 18, 1997. We have since found documented proof by the SSPX priests of Argentina, that as early as January 1996, the SSPX were secretly granting marriage annulments. This was a year and a half before Bishop Fellay "officially" permitted it. And yet, Frs. Roberts and Neville of the USA clearly show in their letters that they first learned about the marriage annulments from Bishop Fellay's anouncement in February 1997. This shows that not only were the leaders of the SSPX keeping the annulments a secret from the people, they were also keeping many of their own priests in the dark too.
As a major part of his defence of the new policy, Bishop Fellay quoted from a letter which he attributed to Archbishop Lefebvre, dated 15 January 1991 and addressed to the Superior General of the time, Fr. Franz Schmidberger. Our study of SSPX marriage annulments would not be complete without a study of this letter. Bishop Fellay made his announcement of the new SSPX policy, and quoted the letter attributed to Archbishop Lefebvre, in the 1997 edition of the SSPX Ordonnances.
The Ordonnances of the SSPX are a collection of faculties (powers of jurisdiction) given to the members of the SSPX (who are the SSPX priests. Laypeople who attend Mass at SSPX churches are not members of the SSPX). When Archbishop Lefebvre gave his official approval to the original version of the SSPX Ordonnances in 1980, he was giving the same powers of jurisdiction to his priests that the Pope had given to all priests who were in religious orders serving as missionaries. In his Preface to the 1997 Ordonnances, Bishop Fellay tells us why it was necessary for a new edition:
"Archbishop Lefebvre, considering the necessities of our apostolate, so similar to those of African missions, gave us, in 1980, a compilation of faculties as they were in use for several decades in mission countries.
Fifteen years later, some circumstances have changed, like the possibility of having a bishop visit more frequently, or, on the other hand, the near impossibility of resorting to Rome in order to get a dispensation or an equitable judgement on marriages. This justifies this modified edition of the Ordonnances."
As we stated above, in the 1997 Ordonnances, Bishop Fellay quoted a letter attributed to Archbishop Lefebvre that seems to defend the new SSPX policy of granting marriage annulments. We quote this letter below:
"As much as the present Roman authorities are imbued with ecumenism and modernism, and as much as all of their decisions and the New Canon Law are influenced by these false principles, it will be necessary to establish some substitute authorities faithfully keeping the Catholic principles of Catholic tradition and of Catholic Law. It's the only way to stay faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the apostles and to the deposit of faith transmitted to their legitimate successors remaining faithful until Vatican II.""As for the problem of the commissions making some measure of substitution for the defection of the Roman Congregations controlled by prelates imbued with the revolutionary principles of the Council, it seems to me that it would be necessary to begin very modestly, following their institution like a service in order to help the priests in their ministry and to solve difficult cases for the nuns, or for the authorizations which lay claim to a supplied Episcopal power."
We will examine the text of this letter in detail later, as well as the whole question of its authorship. But first, we will consider the section of the 1997 Ordonnances where Bishop Fellay quotes this letter.
The fact that the SSPX Bishops would use a letter written (so they tell us) by Archbishop Lefebvre as their primary justification for their marriage annulments, presents some real problems. By using the "word" of Archbishop Lefebvre as a "reason" to "obey", the SSPX Bishops are saying that if Archbishop Lefebvre had said something, then this is good enough to "prove that it is right". Furthermore, the fact that the SSPX Bishops rely so DESPERATELY on the prestige and veneration that many people still have for Archbishop Lefebvre in order to silence any criticism of their marriage annulments, actually encourages an objective observer to question the legitimacy of these marriage annulments.
In the 1997 Ordonnances, we find a section entitled: "Canonical Commission - A Bishop in Charge of Religious". This section is comprised of a two sentence introduction, followed by the letter attributed to Archbishop Lefebvre, with no other commentary. The introduction refers to "two processes", which are firstly the Canonical Commission and secondly having a Bishop in charge of the Traditional Religious Orders. The introduction reads as follows :
"These two processes were created in 1991 in order to continue after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre the office that he filled in these matters in a supplementary way, from 1970 to 1991. It is His Grace who foresaw and specified the role of these processes, by his letter of 15 January 1991 to the Superior General"
This statement by Bishop Fellay in the 1997 Ordonnances contains three grave errors, an error of theology and two errors of fact:
Error #1. An error of fact: "to continue after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre the office that he filled in these matters in a supplementary way, from 1970 to 1991". The Canonical Commission that Bishop Fellay speaks of has as its major functions (and perhaps its only functions) to grant marriage annulments and dispensations to Catholics who ask for them. And yet we know that Archbishop Lefebvre did not grant any marriage annulments, for two reasons. The first is that Archbishop Lefebvre knew, as a religious superior, that he had no jurisdiction over the laypeople, so he simply could not have granted any marriage annulments to anyone. Archbishop Lefebvre had the same jurisdiction that the superiors of all the other religious congregations had, and no more. That means he had jurisdiction over the priests, nuns and brothers in the SSPX, but not over the people who attended Mass at SSPX churches. And no other religious superiors in the Catholic Church ever tried to grant marriage annulments to laypeople for the same reason. The second reason is that in the seminaries of the SSPX, priests taught by Archbishop Lefebvre taught that according to the laws of the Church, the SSPX could not grant marriage annulments. (At least they taught this while Archbishop Lefebvre was still alive). If the priests teaching in SSPX seminaries taught this, it's because this is what Archbishop Lefebvre taught them. If Archbishop Lefebvre taught that he could not grant marriage annulments, then why would he grant them? Therefore, to say that any Canonical Commission that grants marriage annulments is merely continuing the office held by Archbishop Lefebvre, is an error of fact, since Archbishop Lefebvre never held such an office.
Error #2. An error of fact: "It is His Grace who foresaw and specified the role of these processes, by his letter of 15 January 1991 to the Superior General". In the letter of 15 January 1991, (which we've already quoted above) there is a mention of a Canonical Commission, but there is no mention of such a Commission granting marriage annulments, or of how the Commission would work, or just what its precise role would be. Period. Nothing precise, only a general mention of it. Therefore, it is an error of fact to say that this letter specified the role of the Canonical Commission, when it didn't. On the contrary, the role of the Canonical Commission was specified by the SSPX Bishops years after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Error #3. An error of theology: While not explicitly stated in the above text, it is obvious that Bishop Fellay is quoting this letter attributed to Archbishop Lefebvre in order to justify why the Canonical Commission is granting marriage annulments. If Bishop Fellay expects people to blindly follow the word of Archbishop Lefebvre, then his error is to ascribe to Archbishop Lefebvre, as holy as he may have been, an infallibility that the SSPX DOES NOT WANT TO ascribe to the Pope, or to anyone else. The Church does not ascribe such an infallibility to anyone: not to any saint or Doctor of the Church, not even to the Pope himself. It is not Catholic to do this! Even the Pope, who is guaranteed a certain infallibility, has limits on his infallibility, as defined by Vatican Council I. The Catholic attitude is to give a reason for any course of action with proofs and rational argumentation, and not merely to blindly rely on someone's "say-so".
This policy of Bishop Fellay where he uses the "word" of Archbishop Lefebvre as a justification for following a controversial course of action, is also the policy followed by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, during the conference he gave at Ecône on August 24, 1998 in defence of SSPX marriage annulments. Let us now look at an excerpt from this August 24th conference.
In the opening minutes of the August 24th conference at Ecône, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais said:
"Archbishop Lefebvre had foreseen the creation of a Canonical Commission, in particular to resolve marriage cases after a first judgement given by the District Superior. The authority of our founder suffices for us to accept these instances in the same way as we have accepted the episcopal consecrations of 1988."
This statement by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais contains four grave errors, an error of theology and three errors of fact:
Error #1. An error of fact: "Archbishop Lefebvre had foreseen the creation of a Canonical Commission, in particular to resolve marriage cases ". The only place where we are told that Archbishop Lefebvre "authorized" the Canonical Commission was in the letter of Jan. 15, 1991. In fact, the official written notes (in French) from the Aug. 24, 1998 conference of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais cite the letter of Jan. 15, 1991 (found on pp. 8-9 of the 1997 Ordonnances) as "proof" that Archbishop Lefebvre had foreseen the creation of the Canonical Commission. However, in this letter attributed to Archbishop Lefebvre, there is no mention at all of "resolving marriage cases". Therefore it is an error of fact to say that Archbishop Lefebvre had foreseen the creation of a Canonical Commission in particular to resolve marriage cases.
Error #2. An error of fact: "after a first judgement given by the District Superior". Again, we refer to the Jan. 15, 1991 letter attributed to Archbishop Lefebvre, which is the only place where Archbishop Lefebvre is supposed to have "authorized" any Canonical Commission. Nowhere in this letter is there any mention that District Superiors are to be given any authority to make a first judgment of marriage cases. Therefore it is simply not true to say that Archbishop Lefebvre authorized this.
Error #3. An error of theology: "The authority of our founder suffices for us to accept these instances". The error here is the same one made by Bishop Fellay, and it is to ascribe to Archbishop Lefebvre, as holy as he may have been, an infallibility that the SSPX DOES NOT WANT TO ascribe to the Pope, or to anyone else. All the remarks we made above concerning this same error made by Bishop Fellay apply equally well to Bishop Tissier de Mallerais.
Error # 4. An error of fact: "to accept these instances in the same way as we have accepted the episcopal consecrations of 1988." The error here is that the episcopal consecrations of 1988 WERE NOT accepted merely on the authority of Archbishop Lefebvre. The SSPX and their members printed several books, published several magazine articles, wrote several letters to journal editors, quoted several authorities of Canon Law, and gave several interviews, ALL presenting countless arguments in favour of the consecrations, and refutations of arguments against the consecrations. No-one in the SSPX was content to merely "accept" the word of Archbishop Lefebvre: they studied Church Law and Catholic Theology, and they found solid and demonstrable reasons to defend the consecrations. To say that members of the SSPX merely "accepted the episcopal consecrations of 1988" on the authority of Archbishop Lefebvre is historically untrue, and it is an error of fact.
After considering the many errors made by both Bishops Fellay and Tissier de Mallerais, errors which they made in the act of quoting the letter they both claim was written by Archbishop Lefebvre on Jan. 15, 1991, let us now consider the actual text of this letter. As we have shown above, both Bishops Fellay and Tissier de Mallerais use this letter as their primary justification for the SSPX Canonical Commission that grants marriage annulments. All other arguments and rationalizations are secondary to this letter, a letter which was written in 1991, but which somehow does not become public until 1997, just when the Bishops needed it to silence any opposition to SSPX marriage annulments.
We question the authenticity of this letter. We hope by our investigations to show whether or not Archbishop Lefebvre is the author of this letter; and if in fact he wrote any part of it, whether he wanted to authorize the SSPX to grant marriage annulments. Since this letter is the principal justification for SSPX marriage annulments, we will proceed with this understanding: dubious letter, dubious justification for SSPX marriage annulments.
We have underlined certain phrases in the text of the letter below, phrases we will discuss in greater detail later. The letter is quoted from pp. 8-9 of the Ordonnances:
"As much as the present Roman authorities are imbued with ecumenism and modernism, and as much as all of their decisions and the New Canon Law are influenced by these false principles, it will be necessary to establish some substitute authorities faithfully keeping the Catholic principles of Catholic tradition and of Catholic Law. It's the only way to stay faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the apostles and to the deposit of faith transmitted to their legitimate successors remaining faithful until Vatican II.""As for the problem of the commissions making some measure of substitution for the defection of the Roman Congregations controlled by prelates imbued with the revolutionary principles of the Council, it seems to me that it would be necessary to begin very modestly, following their institution like a service in order to help the priests in their ministry and to solve difficult cases for the nuns, or for the authorizations which lay claim to a supplied Episcopal power."
1. The first thing to note is that only two paragraphs are quoted from the letter of Jan. 15, 1991. We don't know if we have the whole letter, and if we don't have all of it, we don't know what else was being discussed elsewhere in this same letter, and how these two paragraphs fit in with the rest of the letter.
2. The way the two paragraphs begin, it is evident that the author is answering another letter, in which he was asked specific questions. In the second paragraph this is most obvious, for it begins: "As for the problem of the commissions..." What problem? What commissions? Nowhere in the first paragraph are any "commissions" mentioned. Where do they come from? They must be mentioned in another letter that the author is answering. Unfortunately, we don't have this letter to know in what context the author was making his remarks. In any event, it is obvious that the author does not think that setting up a Canonical Commission is an urgent need, especially because he says: "it would be necessary to begin very modestly".
1. Virtually all official letters from Archbishop Lefebvre are written by his own hand, and are dated and authenticated by his signature. In the case of this letter, we have none of these things. Nor can we verify to whom the letter was sent. Therefore, we have no real "proof" that the letter as quoted in the Ordonnances was really written by Archbishop Lefebvre. As we will see, there are many reasons to doubt that the letter was really written by Archbishop Lefebvre.
1. In our above quotation of the letter we have underlined all phrases in the two paragraphs that speak of establishing any sort of Canonical Commission or substitute authority to Rome's authority. In our investigations, we removed all of these phrases (which for convenience we call controversial, or "problem" phrases) and then we re-wrote the paragraphs with the phrases removed. We have done this for you below:
"As much as the present Roman authorities are imbued with ecumenism and modernism, and as much as all of their decisions and the New Canon Law are influenced by these false principles, it will be necessary to faithfully keep the Catholic principles of Catholic tradition and of Catholic Law. It's the only way to stay faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the apostles and to the deposit of faith transmitted to their legitimate successors remaining faithful until Vatican II.""As for the problem of the Roman Congregations controlled by prelates imbued with the revolutionary principles of the Council, it seems to me that it would be necessary to begin very modestly a service in order to help the priests in their ministry and to solve difficult cases for the nuns."
It is remarkable how these two paragraphs make complete sense when we read them after removing completely the problem phrases that make any mention of setting up a Canonical Commission. This certainly supports the conclusion that these controversial phrases were added to the letter afterwards. Thus it is entirely possible that these two paragraphs of the letter were written by one person, and then the controversial phrases were added by someone else afterwards. As we will soon see, there is even more evidence to support this conclusion.
2. We also considered the style in which the letter is written. We found that the problem phrases and the rest of the letter are written in different styles. The problem phrases are written using ambiguous words that can be translated in many ways. In contrast, the rest of the letter is written in a style that is simple and straightforward, and whose meaning is easy to translate clearly. It was always the style of Archbishop Lefebvre to use a very simple French, which expressed his ideas clearly without any ambiguity, and which was easily translated and understood by someone who learned French as a second language. We are sure that this was done deliberately, as Archbishop Lefebvre often wrote letters in French to the Pope and to officials in Rome (the Pope's first language was Polish, and for everyone else in Rome it was Italian), and he made official statements in French to people whose first language was not French. The clarity of expression and especially the ease of translation, found in Archbishop Lefebvre's writing style, is something that could only be known by someone who learned French as a second language, and would not be known by a forger who was a native French speaker. This marked difference in the writing style of the problem phrases when compared with the style of the rest of the letter is one more reason to conclude that the two paragraphs of the letter were written by one person, and then the controversial phrases were added by someone else afterwards.
3. As we've already mentioned, the problem phrases in the letter are expressed using ambiguous terms and can be translated in many ways. For example, the controversial phrase from the first paragraph: "instituer des autorités de suppléance" can be translated "establish some substitute authorities", but it can also be translated by: "establish some rules of supplied jurisdiction" or "appoint some assistant authorities". It is difficult to imagine, considering how Archbishop Lefebvre had been accustomed to writing legal documents, and the grave importance that this particular letter would hold for the future of the SSPX after his death, why he would have written these "problem" phrases using language that is ambiguous, when he could have used language that expresses the ideas without any possible misunderstanding. On the other hand, it is easy to imagine that a forger would use ambiguous phrases in a document such as this letter in order to be able to "interpret" these phrases later in favour of a private agenda. It should be noted that the same trick of using ambiguous phrases was also used by the sneaky liberals in the documents of Vatican II, in order for them to set up their secret agendas which they implemented when Vatican II was over. The use of ambiguous terms in the problem phrases is one more reason to conclude that the problem phrases were written by someone else.
4. We also considered the structure of the sentences in the letter. In particular, we looked at the structure of the second paragraph. It is composed of only one sentence. With the problem phrases removed, this sentence is long, but it makes sense. With the problem phrases added in, this sentence becomes very long, and we have to question whether someone would actually write a sentence that is so long, rather than break up the ideas into at least two separate sentences. A forger who was adding phrases into an original sentence would not have thought of separating such a long sentence into two. This is one more reason to conclude that the controversial phrases were added to the letter by someone else afterwards.
5. Perhaps most importantly, nowhere in this letter are marriage annulments mentioned. As we've already seen above, somehow, in his conference of Aug. 24, 1998, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais was able to "remember" that Archbishop Lefebvre had wanted the Canonical Commission to be established for the purpose of studying marriage cases; yet in the only document in which anyone can claim that Archbishop Lefebvre made even the slightest mention of such a Commission, there is no mention at all of any study of marriage cases.
We've presented many arguments against Archbishop Lefebvre being the author of the letter of 15 January 1991 as it was quoted in the SSPX Ordonnances of 1997. These arguments are based strictly on the letter itself. Now we will present even more arguments, these ones based on the decisions and actions of Archbishop Lefebvre prior to the date of this letter.
1. Never in his life did Archbishop Lefebvre want to set up any "authority"
that would "substitute" for Rome's authority.
In all his many sermons, many letters and many books, Archbishop Lefebvre
made no mention of establishing any sort of "substitute authority" which
was intended to replace any authority in Rome. On the contrary, in his
sermon of June 30, 1988, when he consecrated the four bishops, Archbishop
Lefebvre said that "there is no question of submitting ourselves to any
sort of authority foreign to Rome, nor of setting up any sort of parallel
church". Archbishop Lefebvre avoided giving any jurisdiction to the bishops
of the SSPX. They had then and continue to have now no jurisdiction except
what is accorded to them by law, for the administration of the sacraments.
And Archbishop Lefebvre also avoided setting up any sort of authoritative
body that could in any way be perceived as establishing an authority substituting
for Rome's authority. This was the policy followed by Archbishop Lefebvre
during his whole life. Why would he change everything just weeks before
his death?
2. If Archbishop Lefebvre had already been thinking of setting up
a Canonical Commission, why did he wait until weeks before his death to
tell others about it?
Whenever Archbishop Lefebvre was going to do anything important, he
told others about it long before he did it. For example, he told the priests
of the SSPX that he may eventually have to consecrate bishops without the
Pope's permission as early as 1983, when Pope John Paul II promulgated
the new Code of Canon Law. Archbishop Lefebvre also told announced to the
general public his intention to consecrate bishops a year before he did
it. After the Consecration of Bishops on June 30, 1988, 2 1/2 years passed
before Jan. 15, 1991. This would have been plenty of time for Archbishop
Lefebvre to set up a Canonical Commission, if he had wanted one. But he
didn't do it. It is most likely that in January 1991, Archbishop Lefebvre
knew his death was to come soon. His strength had been failing him for
several weeks. Already on Christmas Day, just 3 weeks before Jan. 15, Archbishop
Lefebvre complained that his legs were too weak to support him, and so
he had to go to bed early. Archbishop Lefebvre died on March 25, just 2
months after the date of this letter attributed to him. In view of his
advanced age of 85, and his imminent death, it simply would not have made
sense for Archbishop Lefebvre to begin a new project that would have been
such a radical departure from all that he had ever done.
3. Why would Archbishop Lefebvre ask someone to do a very important
work for him, after his death, something that he never wanted to do himself
while he was alive?
Every important work he ever wanted to accomplish, Archbishop Lefebvre
always did himself. If he wanted a new seminary, he founded it and directed
it himself. He himself was the superior of the religious order he founded.
He taught in his own seminary. It is impossible to believe that Archbishop
Lefebvre, knowing that his health was failing, and also knowing the importance
and serious implications of setting up a substitute authority for the authority
of Rome, would confide the working out of this idea to someone else. Surely
if Archbishop Lefebvre had wanted to set up a Canonical Commission, he
would have done so himself long before his death.
4. Why would Archbishop Lefebvre ask someone else to set up something
as important as a substitute authority for Rome's authority, yet at the
same time give no indication of how it should be set up?
Archbishop Lefebvre never did anything by chance. For example, he thought
about reasons for and against consecrating bishops for several years, and
did it only after much planning and consideration of all the possible outcomes
and the implications in Church Law. When he established the Society of
St. Pius X, when he set up his seminary at Ecône, and when he ordained
priests against the wishes of Pope Paul VI, he did these things after much
deliberation and study of Church Law, and with full attention to all the
details. It is inconceivable that he would have given approval for something
as important as a substitute authority to the authority of Rome, without
giving any indication of how this authority would function, who would direct
it and make its decisions, what process would be followed to arrive at
decisions, how new members of this authoritative body would be chosen,
and other details. Because of the vague and incomplete way in which the
Canonical Commission was "approved", we question whether this Commission
was approved by Archbishop Lefebvre at all.
5. Why would Archbishop Lefebvre ask to set up a permanent institution
whose power is based on a temporary authorization? This is simply illogical.
Both Bishops Fellay and Tissier de Mallerais admit that any authority
possessed by their Canonical Commission is temporary, and exists on a case
by case basis only. It depends for its jurisdiction on a presumed case
of necessity of the faithful, which is said to exist because no-one can
find assistance from any other Church authority, not even from Rome. First
of all, this presumption, that no authority can be found in the Church
to assist the faithful, suggests that the gates of hell have prevailed
over the Church. This is impossible. Secondly, how can a permanent institution
be founded on a jurisdiction that is temporary, and which is given for
an individual case, and is not guaranteed to be given again? It is illogical
to set up something permanent with something temporary as its basis or
foundation. There is simply no way to explain away this contradiction.
We know that Archbishop Lefebvre never attempted to set up such an institution
during his 85 years, and given his knowledge of Church Law, we do not think
that he would have suggested for anyone else set up such an institution
after his death.
Based on all the above analysis of the letter quoted in the SSPX Ordonnances of 1997, and of the statements made by Bishops Fellay and Tissier de Mallerais, and of the many decisions and actions of Archbishop Lefebvre throughout his life, we make the following conclusions:
1. Archbishop Lefebvre did not write the letter as it is quoted in
the SSPX Ordonnances of 1997.
Either Archbishop Lefebvre did not write the letter at all, or he only
wrote part of it. He certainly didn't write it as it is quoted in the Ordonnances.
If he did write part of the letter, the phrases that support the setting
up of a Canonical Commission to grant marriage annulments were inserted
into the letter afterwards and the claim is now made that Archbishop Lefebvre
wrote them. We are confident in saying all this, because the setting up
of an authority substituting for Rome's authority, which is an idea supported
by the controversial phrases in the letter, contradicts every decision
Archbishop Lefebvre made in his life regarding the establishment of
parallel authorities.
2. Even if Archbishop Lefebvre did write the entire letter approving
the Canonical Commission, he is not infallible.
It is simply imprudent and un-Catholic to base one's entire course
of action in a very controversial matter on the advice of someone who is
not infallible, no matter how holy they might be. This is especially true
if the person giving the advice is now saying something that is completely
the opposite to what he or she believed and defended during his or her
entire life.
3. Even if Archbishop Lefebvre did write the entire letter approving
the Canonical Commission, there is no suggestion in the letter of anyone
granting marriage annulments.
If it is true that Archbishop Lefebvre intended for a Canonical Commission
to be set up, whatever he intended it to be is certainly not what it is
today: a parallel judicial authority (effectively acting with the authority
of a parallel church) with the jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments.
As we have already said, it is inconceivable that Archbishop Lefebvre would
have asked for the establishment of a Canonical Commission as a substitute
authority for the authority of Rome. Archbishop Lefebvre wouldn't have
asked for this in the letter of January 15 1991, or in any letter, because
this contradicts every decision Archbishop Lefebvre made in his life
regarding the establishment of parallel authorities.