There's a lot of cross reference docuмentation showing Cardinal Lienart was a freemasonic devotee (see one example below)..
+ABL publicly admitted it, cited on this forum in 2016.
If these accusations can be disproved... then good.
But until then, the validity of the +ABL line is still suspect.
A List of Masons in the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church (Under "L") LINK
Wow, just wow.
Even if it could be proven Lienart was a Freemason, how does it follow the episcopal consecrations he performed were invalid?
I suggest you verify any comment I make with your own cross reference search, but Lienart's masonic career promotions rivaled his clerical ascent.
On his deathbed, he revealed his grievous intentions to sabotage the French priesthood.
The precedent here is Pope Leo XIII's Secretary of State, Cardinal Rampolla, who proved that ʝʊdɛօ-masons do have methodical game plans and goals.
+ABL admitted these masonic revelations, but insisted that his ordination was exempt from Lienart's ambush. He never explained how this came to be?
In fact, Bishop Thuc even offered to conditionally ordain +ABL, but it was refused or ignored.
Ask any SSPX priest this spoiled Lienart ordination question... and after they stop choking, listen for a cogent response?
I would also rebut a previous post that only SSPV (+ABL ordained) priests are beating-up on Bishop Thuc.
In recent SSPX priestly gatherings, they gloat that the Thuc ordinations and Consecrations are invalid.
This view is held up the line, all the way to Menzingen.
But notice, no one questions the validity of Bp. Thuc's own ordination or Consecration?
What does it mean? It means the SSPX has no competition. "We are tradition!"
Only they have the paperwork, only they are legit. All the other trad groups are sedes, schismatics or cults.
Of course, we see the massive implications here!
And now Msgr. Fellay is "buddy-buds" with Francis... the papal "destroyer" (St. Francis of Assisi).
But for everything... what is our consolation?
It is, despite the sell-out of the "retail trad Orders" like the SSPX, Christ the King and FSSP, at least there is an underground Church.
Made up of Holy religious and faithful who hold fast and wait for the Triumph of Our Lady's Immaculate Heart.

People can beat-up on this little Vietnamese bishop all they want, but know that, as in the past, Our Lord very likely uses such poor, countryless, "excommunicated" Bishops to confound the proud.
All of this is irrelevant to the question at hand. Are you really questioning Archbishop Lefebvre's own ordination and consecration? Seriously?
Here is what Bishop Williamson said in 1992:
“But again, fourthly, let us assume that Lienart was a Mason and let us assume that he deliberately invalidated the Orders he conferred on Marcel Lefebvre. The Anti-Lefebvrists have still not won their point, because, as Michael Davies quite correctly argues, Marcel Lefebvre would still have become bishop and priest in 1947 at the hands of either or both of the two bishops co-consecrating him then with Cardinal Lienart: he would have become bishop, because out of the three bishops performing the rite of his consecration, one alone needs to have had the correct intention for the sacrament to have been valid, and the odds against all three having secretly withheld their intention are simply astronomical; he would have become a priest because as the greater contains the lesser, so bishopric contains priesthood.”
Pope Pius XII stated:
“In accordance with the most ancient tradition of the Church, a new bishop is always consecrated by THREE other bishops. The Pontificale Romanum refers them as assistentes, but since, as the rubrics prescribe, all three bishops impose hands on the bishop-elect (the matter of the sacrament), and recite the form of consecration, Pope Pius XII (Episcopalis consecrationis, Nov. 30, 1944) insists that they are to be referred to as co-consecrators. Thus, as this was already obvious, all three concur in the consecration (where only one would suffice for validity), and, therefore, even in the unimaginable case where two of the three bishops would lack the necessary intention, the remaining bishop would still validly consecrate the elect.” (Cf. also Pius XII, Allocution to the International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy, Sep. 22, 1956.)
It is, then, ridiculous to argue that the Archbishop was not a valid priest. Again, even if, by some chance, Leinart withheld his intention to ordain Marcel Lefebvre in 1929 – which we cannot prove – then +Lefebvre would still have become a priest in 1947, for Consecration is the “fullness of orders”, and it is valid if only one of three Consecrators has the proper intention.
(Source:
http://cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/the-validity-of-archbishop-lefebvre%E2%80%99s-ordination.2708/)