From The Enemy is Here, first book near the end.
Objection—There seems only one lone authority, though widely quoted, for the fact of Cardinal Lienart’s membership in the Freemasons. It seems highly unlikely that such evidence as his signature on a masonic register would exist. An infiltrator would have been more careful than to leave evidence which could trip him up— destroy his usefulness to the craft.
Reply—I see no reason why a Freemason would not sign a secret register, never intended for the general public. One must allow for arrogance (and even occasional stupidity) among those too proud to serve God. It could be taken as an indication of their care of secrecy that only one man discovered the primary evidence. A fact is not less true because known to only one man. Our daily newspapers thrive on beats and scoops. When a man discovers such a fact he is conscience-bound to publish it. There is no time for corroboration from others, who, if they exist, either fear for their lives or share the plot. This lone authority appears to have been correct in certain other cases, notably Bugnini’s. Lienart, Freemason or not, certainly proved at Vatican II and since that he was not Catholic. With Suenens, Koenig, Lercaro, Dopfner, and many others he worked ceaselessly in the interests of the modernists and Freemasons. Which constitute the greater danger? (possibly to sacraments as well as Church?)
I stated publicly that I believed Lefebvre a properly ordained a priest, but I refused to bet my salvation on this unnecessary belief. Additional information and deeper analysis have convinced me that Lienart never ordained anyone. No Catholic is required to believe in the validity of Lefebvre’s orders. Even were validity possible, his public heresy insures that his conferred orders are not licit. No one is permitted to use illicitly obtained orders (Canon 2372). Laisney, like any priest “ordained” since Lefebvre refused to ordain men who differed from his two theological opinions that the novus ordo missae is not per se invalid and that notorious heretics are or can be popes, is by this refusal proven to have held the same two heresies, as well as to have been responsible, like Lefebvre, for all heresies promulgated by Paul VI and his successors. This applies to any priest who retains membership in Lefebvre’s organization. If Lefebvre ordained priests, they are not Catholic priests—ordained according to Church regulations, at the Church’s orders, to positions in the Church—even should they be both priests and Catholic. All Catholics are bound to shun his “priests”—who are not even excommunicated priests with a proper background to whom we may repair in extremis. They have never been legitimately trained or ordained Catholic priests; they have no status to which they can return.
When a prominent, reputable historian reports a fact which is by its nature difficult for the man in the street to check, you may believe him because of the consequences to himself. High Grand Orient Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is, to say the least, treacherous, devious, and dangerous. Fortunately Lienart’s behavior at and since Vatican II confirms the report, which, in turn, provides all the “reason” behind the behavior.
Could this God-hater have himself intended to receive the fullness of Holy Orders? One may reasonably doubt it. Doubt is not permitted in our sacraments. Even could this “doubt” be resolved, there remain two more, either of which must be avoided: 1) whether an apostate freemason can intend to act in any way for the Church which 2) he certainly tried to destroy subsequently in its unity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity. Why should he neglect holiness, especially Mass and
sacraments, holiest of all? Freemasons often attack the Church in different sectors, but never limit hostilities thereto; their war is total.
One of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ’s best-known policies, that which initially attracts members, is promotion of the brothers, each in his own field. This may very well account for Marcel Lefebvre’s rise to the episcopacy in the first place. He certainly acted and thought like a freemason. But the experience which solidified my own suspicion, being a matter not of action but rather of omission or inertia, is more difficult to demonstrate. It remains possible, and contributes unnecessarily to the huge doubt clouding all Lienart’s “sacramental” activities. But this is all overkill; Lefebvre had every right to be shunned by all over his proven public heresies.
LEFEBVRE ORDAINED(?) BY A HIGH-DEGREE FREEMASON
We thought this legitimate because apparently supported by St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae III, 64, cited by Econe’s Laudenschlager. However good the other arguments pro or con, further pursuit of III, 64 clearly convicts Econe of dishonesty in claiming its approval. St. Thomas presents the Laudenschlager selective citations as opinions—not Church dogma. Fuller quotation of the same III, 64 places St. Thomas in the opposite camp.
“An inanimate instrument has no intention respecting effects. But in intention’s place is the motion by which it is impelled by the principal agent. But an animate instrument, as is a minister, not only is moved, but also moves himself inasmuch as he by his own will moves his limbs to perform the necessary actions. Therefore is required his intention, by which he subjects himself to the principal agent: that he evidently intends to do what Christ and the Church do.”—S.T. III, 64, 8, ad 1
Question (64, 8, 2): “One man cannot know another’s intention. If therefore the minister’s intention is required for completion of a sacrament, the man approaching the sacrament could not know that he has received the sacrament. And so he could not have certitude of salvation, especially since certain sacraments are necessary for salvation, as will be explained below.”
Answer: “About this there are two opinions. For some say mental intention is required in the minister, which if lacking no sacrament is conferred. But in children, who have no intention of approaching the sacrament, Christ Who baptizes interiorly, supplies for this defect. But in adults, because they intend to receive sacraments, their faith and devotion supply this defect.
“Now while this might be said to be adequate so far as the ultimate effect is concerned, namely, justification from sins, still, so far as that effect which is reality and sacrament is concerned, in other words so far as character is concerned, it seems that the defect cannot be made good merely through devotion of him who approaches the sacraments; because the character is never imprinted except through the sacrament.
“Therefore others say better that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is. But in the words which are uttered the Church’s intention is expressed. This suffices for completion of the sacrament unless the contrary be expressed on the part of the minister or the recipient of the sacrament.”
Laudenschlager’s statement that the Church has recognized validity of orders of certain schismatic heretics cannot extend to cover validity of orders conferred by apostates.
“Apostasy from the faith separates a man from God altogether, as we have seen, which is not the case with other sins.”—S.T. II-IIae, 12, ad 3
“One can deviate from the rightness of Christian faith doubly. In one way because he will not assent to Christ Himself: and this has as if an evil will concerning the end itself. And this pertains to the type of infidelity of pagans and Jews. In the other way though he intends to assent to Christ he fails in choosing those things by which he may assent to Christ, because he chooses not what was truly given by Christ but what his own mind suggests to him. Therefore heresy is a type of infidelity pertaining to those who profess the faith of Christ but corrupt His teachings.”—S.T. II—IIae, 11, 1,
reply Laudenschlager by quoting St. Thomas out of context tries to show that a masonic impostor pretending to be Catholic, practising perfect visible-audible valid external intentions, can validly ordain. So he pursues quotation no further:[/b][/b]
“The intention of the minister can be perverted in two ways. One way, with respect to the sacrament itself: for instance when some one does not intend to confer a sacrament but to do something deceptively (delusorie). And such perverseness takes away the truth of a sacrament: especially when he manifests his intention outwardly.”—S.T. III, 64, 10
reply Especially rules out exclusively. Nor does St. Thomas place a time limit on outward manifestation. Probably most of us heard from some nun the unlikely fable of the old black slave at an episcopal consecration. She told the new bishop how proud she was, since it was she who had baptized him. “Oh? And how did you do it?” “Why, you was so cute I couldn’t use plain water—I used milk!” So the new bishop was forced to be baptized properly, to be confirmed, to make his First Communion, to undergo conferral of minor and major orders, to be ordained priest and consecrated bishop. It makes no difference, as this fable was meant to illustrate, however much later the defect is manifested.
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol VIII, page 69d: “The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent. (Sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron (theologians at Trent) that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. The intention need not necessarily be of the sort called actual. That would often be practically impossible. It is enough that it be virtual. Neither habitual nor interpretive intention in the minister will suffice for the validity of the sacrament. The truth is that here and now, when the sacrament is being conferred, neither of these intentions exists and they can therefore exercise no determining influence upon what is done. .....
Whatever may be said speculatively about the opinion of Ambrosius Catharinus who advocated the sufficiency of an external intention in the minister, it may not be followed in practise, because, outside of cases of necessity, no one may follow a probable opinion against one that is safer, when there is question of something required for the validity of a sacrament.”
Overwhelming evidence of Achille Lienart’s apostasy was capped by his behavior at Vatican II, where Paul VI appointed him a Moderator on the strength of his “liberal” record. Joining the freemasons itself constitutes apostasy. It is quite likely that Lienart never in his life validly ordained a priest. All his ordinations lie under a cloud of legitimate doubt, which must attach to Lefebvre’s orders. Lienart made him a priest(?). Lefebvre was, therefore, at best, doubtfully eligible for the episcopacy, for which true priesthood is pre-required. All his own conferred ordinations share the same doubt. Anyone, therefore, who—ignoring Lefebvre’s heresies, to which he obliges his ordinands—attends a Mass(?) celebrated by him or any necessarily heretical priests(?) in good standing with his Fraternity of St. Pius X (or its breakaway Society of St. Peter), if aware of the doubt, unnecessarily risks mortal sin. If unaware of the doubt he runs the risk of idolatry. This applies with greater force to the doubtful priests themselves who dare celebrate Mass(?) or administer sacraments(?) under this cloud.
Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ’S EFFECT ON ORDINATION
Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy (Roman Catholic, June 1982): “Let us then look to discover a historical precedent about a Masonic bishop.” He then devoted three long paragraphs to the biography of Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord, Bishop of Autun, forced into the clerical state by his family, assuming his bought diocese only as his ticket into the Estates General.
“After most of the traditional and loyal bishops fled France, it fell his lot to consecrate (together with the infamous apostate, Bishop Gobel) all the ‘Constitutional Bishops’ that replaced them. ..... He was a bad priest, an apostate bishop, a Freemason, a Christian barred from communion and an individual who for forty-nine years could not receive the sacraments of the Church.” [A Christian? A priest? Whoever can show that he was forced into marriage could in normal times be almost sure of an annulment—a declaration that he had not received the sacrament of matrimony for lack of interior consent, no matter how impressive the ceremony. What are we to believe of Talleyrand’s consent to his enforced ordination?]
“Now the point of all this is that most of the bishops of France derived their Apostolic Succession through Talleyrand and his two associates (also supporters of the Revolution). Not only were all Talleyrand’s episcopal consecrations recognized, but when the Concordat between Napoleon and Pius VII was signed, the exiled bishops who had remained loyal to Pope Pius VI were asked to resign. Rome allowed the bishops of the Constitutional Church, all of whom derived their orders from the Mason Talleyrand, to remain in their positions, as diocesan ordinaries. The fact that Talleyrand was a Mason and a revolutionary made no difference.
(Gibson comments on Cooramaswamy)“To sum up ..... (1) There is no real evidence ..... that Cardinal Lienart was a Freemason. (2) If he had been a Freemason, it would not have invalidated the sacraments he conferred. (3) The case of Talleyrand demonstrates in the practical order that the Church does not regard ordinations performed by Freemasons as invalid.” [Talleyrand consecrated two (2!) bishops in 1791. He was quickly excommunicated, and ceased all ecclesiastical activity.]
Pius VII was not necessarily a free agent in his dealings with Napoleon. Nor did he thereby rule on Talleyrand’s orders; he had two other bishops on whom he could rely for validity and Apostolic Succession, as provided by Church law to overcome one or two of the participating bishops’ ineligibility. “Supporters of the Revolution,” most probably in error, could not lose their sacramental powers through that support. We can cite priests and bishops of almost all political persuasions, including supporters of the masonic American Revolution.
If, despite reams of logical evidence, no one can prove Lienart a Freemason, at least no one can prove he was not. Lefebvre accepted the public disclosure as factual, concerning himself only with the “fact” that an apostate enemy of God can still confer valid orders. Lefebvre himself acts in a most peculiar manner, due possibly to his own masonic entanglement—which obviously I cannot prove. But it is characteristic of the masonic plotters that they set up their own phony opposition, so that they need not deal with genuine opposition. Naturally its leader’s record varies from that of the ordinary apostate. If Lefebvre is not the phony opposition, where is this vital part of the plot? Who else keeps traditionalists out of the real fight? Many try, but he succeeds, despite his blatant “strategic” procrastination and inconsistency. Undeniably, people who should fight follow him instead, and let him conduct the compromises.
St. Gregory nαzιanzen (325-389) in 379 heard the call of the downtrodden Catholics of Constantinople, and there gave five sermons on the Creed of Nicaea, which earned him, alone of all Christian teachers except the Apostle St. John, the special title of Theologus or the Divine. In these discourses Gregory “summed up and closed the controversy of a whole century.” The best evidence of their value and power lies in the fact that for over fourteen centuries they have been a mine whence the greatest theologians of Christendom have drawn treasures of wisdom to illustrate and support their own teaching on the deepest mysteries of the Catholic Faith.
It almost seems that the closer a man is to God, the easier it is to take advantage of him. He refuses to think ill of others. So Gregory lost influence with his fellow bishops through another’s abuse of his hospitality and trust.
St. Gregory received at face value one Maximus the Cynic, and surrounded him with honors. Maximus conspired to supplant Gregory in the see of Constantinople. Having previously won the confidence of Peter, Patriarch of Alexandria, he had seven chosen men who were to guarantee his claims sent from Egypt. He gathered about him a large number of sailors from the Imperial fleet, bribed some intimate acquaintances of Gregory, and, during the latter’s sickness, entered with his followers into the Anastasis church. Some bishops then started to consecrate him bishop. Word spread and the people came running. Maximus and his friends fled to the house of a flute-player and there the ordination continued.
The Council of Constantinople (May-July 381) took up first the question of the see of Constantinople. The scandalous ordination of Maximus the Cynic was pronounced null as contrary to canon law. The first consequence of this decision was a declaration of invalidity of all ordinations performed by him.
“If anyone say ..... that those who have not been rightly ordained by ecclesiastical and canonical power and have not been sent, but come from some other source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, Session XXIII, 15/7/1563
Topic: Mel and Hutton Gibson (Read 8586 times)