DOUBTS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE SACRAMENTS AT THE SSPX-"BISHOP LEFEBVRE" KNEW IT!
THE HERESY OF THE PROBABLE SACRAMENTS UTTERED BY "BISHOP FELLAY"
Is Marcel Lefebvre a doubtful bishop ? Words of Wisdom, THE SERAPH, Vol XIX No5, January 1999
1/DOUBTS ABOUT THE CONSECRATION AND ORDINATION OF MARCEL LEFEBVRE BY THE FREEMASON AND LUCIFERIAN ACHILLE LIÉNART: PROOF OF "BISHOP" LEFEBVRE’S SPIRIT OF DISSIMULATION
"Bishop" Lefebvre had known of Liénart's membership in Freemasonry for many years, he knew that his orders would be questioned.
In March 1976, the Italian magazine Chiesa Viva revealed Cardinal Achille Liénart's membership in the highest degrees of Freemasonry. "Bishop" Lefebvre understood that his connection with Liénart would soon become public, prompting him to make the following statement at a conference in Montreal, Canada, in May 1976, feigning surprise at learning of his mentor's membership: "This news has filled me with bitterness". This admission was intended to dispel doubts about the validity of his priestly ordination and episcopal consecration. "Bishop" Lefebvre counted on the ignorance of many priests and laypeople who would readily accept the erroneous notion that the mere outward intention of performing a rite was sufficient for its validity.
"Bishop Lefebvre" used a spirit of dissimulation, clearly showing the doubts he himself had about his own orders. In reality, he hadn't just learned that his orders had been conferred upon him by a Luciferian; he had known it since at least 1970, if not well before. Indeed, in his work "Papal Infallibility," published in 1970, the Marquis de la Franquerie already recounted the young Abbé Liénart's initiation into Freemasonry, culminating in his admission to the 30th degree, which cast doubt on his own episcopal consecration. Now, for this work, "Bishop" Lefebvre had sent his approval to his friend, the Marquis de la Franquerie:
"From His Excellency, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of Synadia: Fribourg, May 14, 1970. Dear Marquis, How can I express my satisfaction upon reading your pamphlet on these crucial topics, which shed light on the crisis from which we are suffering?" For it is evident that the Church is riddled with errors condemned time and again by the Popes. (…) Alas! Anything goes when it comes to persecuting those who remain faithful. I see it every day here and in France. These are very dark days. I fear that punishments are near. Let us unite our prayers for the Church and the salvation of souls. Please accept, dear Marquis, the expression of my respectful and cordial devotion in Our Lord” (“Papal Infallibility,” Marquis de la Franquerie, 1970).
OBJECTIVE DOUBTS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE SACRAMENTS RECEIVED IN THE SSPX
A/Doubts about the episcopal consecration of Father Achille Liénart, a Luciferian Freemason priest in 1928.
↓
B/Doubts about the priestly ordination of Marcel Lefebvre in 1929 by the Luciferian “Bishop Liénart.”
↓
C/If the priestly ordination of Marcel Lefebvre is doubtful in 1929, then his episcopal consecration in 1947 is obviously also doubtful.
On the eve of his death, Achille Liènart revealed the three main objectives of the Vatican Council and the resulting reforms. He had taken the lead of this council from the outset, on October 13, 1962, through what was a revolutionary power grab: - To effect a break with the Mass, rendering it invalid due to the celebrant's lack of intention. - To break the apostolic succession by modifying the ritual of episcopal consecration.(revealing his flawed intention in the very sacraments he administered).
-Corrupting the episcopate, which would find itself deprived of the graces of the Holy Spirit, and therefore with a ministry devoid of sanctifying effects.
"Bishop" Liénart's flawed intention in the sacraments =>catholicapedia.net/…10-25_Max-Barret_Le-Courrier-…
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2/ THE "PRIESTS" OF THE SSPX THEMSELVES HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT MARCEL LEFEBVRE'S ORDERS AND THEY SAY SO FROM THE PULPIT
The episcopal consecration is also questionable even though there were 3 bishops, it is the priestly ordination which is crucial contrary to what the "priests" of the SSPX repeat to their faithful without real theological training.
Indeed, the "priests" of the SSPX are spreading the belief, even teaching from the pulpit, that even if Marcel Lefebvre's ordination in 1929 by the Luciferian Freemason Liénart was invalid, the 1947 consecration would have compensated for the lack of a proper sacrament of priestly ordination. This is a blatant error intended to deceive the faithful, because to be consecrated a bishop, one must first have been validly ordained a priest, and they know this…
3/ HERETIC POSITION OF THE SSPX CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS: THE HERESY OF PROBABLE SACRAMENTS PRONOUNCED BY "BISHOP" FELLAY
"Regarding the priesthood, we have always said, and we maintain, that when a bishop confers the sacrament of the priesthood, even according to the new rite, observing the prescriptions of the rite, especially if it is recited in Latin, the sacrament is a priori valid. And to add to this, we affirm, following Archbishop Lefebvre, that the same applies to episcopal consecration. [...] The faithful, for their part, must proceed a priori on the principle that these priests are validly ordained, since the invalidity of ordination remains an exception. They must therefore consider that an ordination, even a modern one, is valid […] we must emphasize the probability of the validity of an ordination." Donec Ponam website - Interview of 25/03/2007, "Bishop" Bernard Fellay admits the heresy of the SSPX's sacramental probabilism regarding priestly ordinations or episcopal consecrations:
"Bishop" Fellay admits the heresy of sacramental probabilism => Interview with Bishop Fellay - March 25, 2007 - …
"It is not illegal to confer sacraments based on a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, with the more certain opinion being abandoned."(Condemned proposal, Pope Innocent XI).
The safer opinion is tutiorism, from the Latin "tutior" = safer, the only Catholic position when discussing the sacraments.
"Bishop" Fellay claims that he learned his errors from "Bishop Lefebvre." The heresy of sacramental probabilism allows:
- the faithful to accept the SSPX's compromise with the new modernist church: "Abbot" Pagliarani, who leads the SSPX under the influence of "Bishop" Fellay, had the modernist "bishop" Huonder accepted as the probable "bishop," having him celebrate Mass every Sunday in his chapels and even in his seminary. "Bishop" Fellay spreads among the faithful the heresy that a probable "bishop" is thus acceptable for the sacraments, never mentioning the problem of the invalidity of modernist "priests" and "bishops" due to the new rite received:Invalidity of the new ordination rites for "priests" and "bishops" => rore-sanctifica.org/…op_Fellay_December_1995_New_…
-to silence doubts about the sacraments coming from "Bishop" Lefebvre and given by the entire SSPX.
"Bishop" Fellay therefore spreads the heresy of sacramental probabilism because he knows that "Bishop" Lefebvre was a probable "priest" and therefore a probable "bishop," and thus that himself and his colleagues are probable "bishops", and so are the "priests" who come from the SSPX: probable "priests", and therefore in reality "bishops" and "priests" with dubious orders and giving sacraments of dubious validity.
Document for study
4/ IS MGR. LEFEBVRE A BISHOP OR A SIMPLE LAYMAN?
catholicapedia.net/…ang-33_Nummer-11_December-200…
By Eberhard Heller, translated by André Corrihons (EINSICHT, No. 6, Feb 1984)
Since the address given on May 27, 1976, by Archbishop Lefebvre in Montreal, Canada, in which he declared that he, Marcel Lefebvre, had been ordained a priest and then a bishop by the Freemason Achille Liénart, a controversy has arisen and continues both publicly and privately: the question is whether the ordinations conferred by Liénart are valid. It also involves determining whether Liénart himself was a bishop, and whether the episcopal consecration he received was legitimate.
Apart from a few references to the problem thus posed, we have not yet taken a public position, because, in our opinion, the available evidence does not lead to a definitive conclusion: the argument we are developing does not resolve this question of validity one way or the other. Our fight against Lefebvrism is not at all in doubt, as irrefutable arguments demonstrate its necessity: for example, the obligation imposed on members of the "Society" to accept the New World Order as valid and to recognize heretics such as Montini, Luciani, and Wojtyla as legitimate popes—all under penalty of expulsion. This evidence assures us that Archbishop Lefebvre and his organization constitute only a traditionalist dissenting group within the apostate sect, that Lefebvrism has nothing to do with genuine Catholic resistance: on the contrary, it has systematically destroyed it wherever it can. Meanwhile, a number of "priests" have broken with Ecône: these excommunicated individuals exercise their "priesthood" as pastors of various Mass centers. This fact compels us to draw general attention to the problem on which their belonging to the clergy depends. Here is first an excerpt from the address given by Archbishop Lefebvre in Montreal, because these sentences have triggered controversy in all four corners of the world:
« The Holy Father (Montini) was educated in a modernist environment... It is therefore not surprising that this pope reacted in a way that differs from that of Pius IX, Pius X or Leo XIII. Consequently, a spirit reigned over the council that inhibited all resistance to modernism, the grip of which was exerted by a group of cardinals, at the head of whom Cardinal Achille Liénard directed the maneuver with a certain authority... And then, two months ago, the traditionalist magazine CHIESA VIVA published on its back cover—I saw it with my own eyes—a photograph of Cardinal Achille Liénard accompanied by his record as a Freemason, including the date of his initiation, his degree, the date he was raised to the 20th and then the 30th degree, the names of the lodges he had attended, and their corresponding cities. Since then, it has been about two months,To my knowledge, this publication has triggered no reaction, provoked no denial. Unfortunately, I must tell you that Cardinal Achille Liénart was my bishop, that he was the one who ordained me a priest, that he was the one who consecrated me bishop... Fortunately, these ordinations are valid; nevertheless, this news has filled me with bitterness ». (Quotation from the German translation by Dr. Hugues Kellner (*) of Rochester, USA - in his Letter no. 72 of July 1977; details of Achille Liénard's Masonic career can be found in issue no. 51 of the periodical CHIESA VIVA of March 1976, address: CV, Editrice Civiltà, Via Galileo Galilei 121,1 - 2500 Brescia.)
As Dr. Kellner has further demonstrated, Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of AL's affiliation with Freemasonry before May 1970. (*) Mr. Hugues Maria Kellner PhD, 3240 Iroquois Rd., Caledonia, NY 14423 / USA.
Curriculum vitae of Achille Liénard:
1907: Priestly ordination.
1912: Reception into the lodge of "Grand Orient of France" in Cambrai; later affiliation with lodges in Lille, Valenciennes, and Paris.
1919: Appointment: "Visitor" (18th degree).
1924: Elevated to the 30th degree.
1928: Episcopal consecration. To complicate matters further, Achille Liénart attended Black Masses.
Curriculum v. of Marcel Lefebvre. Born November 29, 1905, in Tourcoing, diocese of Lille. Student at the seminary, where Achille Liénart taught as a professor before being elevated to the highest rank of the clergy. Ordained a priest on September 21, 1929, by Achille Liénart, who had become a bishop in the meantime (apparently). Consecrated bishop on September 18, 1947, again by Achille Liénart. Second source relating to membership From Achille Liénart to Freemasonry: André Henri Jean, Marquis de la Franquerie: "Papal Infallibility", 1970, p. 80f. The book can be obtained from: Jean Auguy, publisher of "Pensée française", Chiré-en-Montreuil, 86190 Vouillé.
The author also relates that Achille Liénart was a Luciferian.
The Marquis was the Pope's secret chamberlain and very well aware of Masonic infiltration within the Vatican, particularly the machinations of Rampolla, Secretary of State under Leo XIII, a cardinal and Freemason. Soon after the facts were revealed, doubts arose concerning the validity of the consecrations of Achille Liénart and Marcel Lefebvre. The question quickly focused on whether Achille Liénart, a high-ranking Luciferian Freemason, had the apostolic intent of the Church when he received episcopal consecration in 1928. If the answer is "no," it follows that Liénart's consecration is invalid, that Marcel Lefebvre is merely a layman, and that the "ordinations" he conferred are null and void. From this perspective, the reasoning was as follows: even if Liénart, a simple priest, could not confer the episcopate on Marcel Lefebvre, the two consecrators were certainly capable of doing so. These considerations would be relevant if Marcel Lefebvre had been a priest at that time. This is a necessary condition for the validity of the consecration.
But if Achille Liénart was not a bishop, Marcel Lefebvre was not a priest.
The question of Achille Liénart's true intention when he presented himself for ordination in the first rank was judged in two contradictory ways within Catholic resistance circles.
-Dr. Hugues Marie Kellner (USA) attempted to establish the invalidity by arguing Masonic fraud in the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici; see his Letters nos. 72 and 75 of 1979.
-This argument appeared convincing to Father E. Robin (France) as early as 1979. He subsequently died.
-Father Guérard des Lauries attempted to refute this demonstration. (Letter of June 14, 1979)
- Gloria Riestra, in "Trento," leaned towards validity.
- A. Eisele questioned it at the beginning of 1980. (He is the editor of "SAKA-Informationen" - SAKA is the association of German-speaking Catholic resistance fighters - translator's note.)
- Bishop Vezelis (THE SERAPH, 1983) and the bishops in Mexico seriously questioned its validity.
- Professor B.F. Dryden (EU, circular of April 27, 1983) took a position in favor of validity.
The argument was put forward that Achille Liénart had assumed the intention of going on an apostolic, Catholic, and Roman mission in order to be truly anointed by the Holy Spirit and to be able to harm the Church later when he had genuinely become a bishop. Similarly, in black masses the Luciferian priest consecrates the bread and wine with the intention of renewing transubstantiation in order to be able to hideously profane the Body and Blood destined for Redemption. "This depraved priest surrounds himself with all the precautions necessary for the validity of his Mass." (At least, that's what he believes - translator's note.) We have often discussed this problem here in Munich with Othon Katzer, priest and Doctor of Theology; we examined it thoroughly (for more than eight hours): membership in Freemasonry is not sufficient to prove that the excommunicated recipient does not receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit, signified by ordination—the ordination is simply tainted by irregularity—the Codex Iuris Canonici forbids the use of fraudulently acquired powers in this case. Attending "black masses" is likewise insufficient to determine the invalidity of the sacrament conferred on the Luciferian. The legalization of heresy and the destruction of the Faith undertaken by Liénart during Vatican II, actions acknowledged by Archbishop Lefebvre, do not allow for any conclusion. Regarding the state of mind of Achille Liénart himself, there is no certainty about a genuine lack of intention on his part when he presented himself for the consecration in 1928 (or for the pseudo-consecration). But if we add up all the opposing arguments, and if we take into account Achille Liénart's prominent position within Freemasonry, then the doubts about Liénart's true intentions are well-founded.We can also conclude that he acted with good intentions, aiming to harm the Church, as we wrote above. But there is no longer any way to verify this possibility. Thus, we are led to believe that the question posed cannot be resolved. To do so, we must engage in speculation about the morality and psychology of Achille Liénart, since Liénart is dead and we can no longer question him about his position and disposition in 1928. Even if we could, we would be no further ahead, because:
1. Could Achille Liénart precisely recall his previous state of mind?
2. And in that case, would he want to tell us the truth?
Tutiorism is the rule for the administration of the sacraments: their validity must be ensured.
If this proves doubtful, the Church prescribes that they be administered again under certain conditions; even Bishop Guérard des Lauriers – then a simple religious – advised those of his disciples who had been "ordained" by "Archbishop" Lefebvre, and who had left him due to doctrinal differences, to be ordained conditionally, given the circumstances and the principle: we endorse this recommendation, as it appears to us to be well-founded.