This subject rears its ugly head every once in a while. I'll try to add some clarification with a couple of facts.
First, yes, Archbishop Lefevbre was ordained a priest by Leinart.
Second, even if he were a Freemason, he was made a bishop by not just Leinart, but
TWO CO-CONSECRATORS. When one is made a bishop, they are given the
FULLNESS OF ORDERS. What does this mean?
Let's read the exact words of consecration of a bishop. Hopefully this sinks in.
“
Complete in Thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.”
This not only makes him a priest, it gives him more power than a priest.
It gives him the FULLNESS OF THE PRIESTHOOD,not just
part of it!
Why did the Church require two co-consecrators? Of course, because of a situation such as this.
Father Hector Bolduc (RIP), and Mr. Henry Beemster (RIP), years ago, offered a reward to these nincompoops that carried on this argument. They offered a large reward to anyone who could prove, first, that Leinart was a Freemason, ($25,000 at the time) and then another sum ($25,000 at the time) to prove why it mattered.
No one took them up on this.
Now, I'm going to show you something.
It is said that Archbishop Lefevbre asked for a blessing from Padre Pio, to which Padre Pio replied,
"Me, bless an archbishop, no, no, it is you who should be blessing me!" Surely, the one who charged Father Luigi Villa with exposing ecclesiastical Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, who EXPOSED THAT Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ HAD
"MADE IT INTO THE SHOES OF THE POPE!" (direct quote, by the way, was speaking of Paul the Sick :barf: ) WOULD HAVE WARNED ARCHBISHOP LEFEVBRE THAT HE WAS A PRETENDER PRIEST AND BISHOP!
So, you see,
this absolute MALARKEY about Archbishop Lefevbre being invalidly consecrated, and not a priest, et cetera,
should be thrown in the dustbin FOREVER.