"We wish it to be your rule first of all to tear away
the mask from Freemasonry, and to let it be seen as it really is..." -Leo XIII, Humanum
Genus (Encyclical On Freemasonry)
Marcel Lefebvre Was Never A Priest Or Bishop
Invalidity Proven By Summa:
a) "Sacrament of Order." In this sense, Aquinas distinguishes that he means "...as a sacrament... every Order is directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Wherefore since the bishop has not a higher power than the priest, in this respect the episcopate is not an Order." The episcopal elevation does not place any indelible character upon the soul. Thus, the candidate for the episcopacy must already have been validly ordained. This is the point that the SSPX tried to obfuscate in their 1988 Angelus article they released
attempting to defend against the exposure of Liénart's Freemasonry
and his 1947 attempt to elevate Lefebvre. They attributed Lefebvre's validity as having come - not from Liénart - but from the episcopal power of the two valid co-consecrators present with Achilles Liénart in 1947.
SSPX argued hypothetically that even if Lefebvre had never been validly ordained in 1929 by Liénart because Liénart was a Freemason prior to his 1928 episcopal elevation, and
therefore Liénart was never a valid bishop, nevertheless, the episcopal elevation ceremony of 1947 would have automatically made Lefebvre a priest. How? Because, they said, that part of Q. 37 says the previously never-received lesser powers of Orders
are automatically provided by reception of the higher power of Order (ordination). The SSPX author then extended (erroneously) this Q. 37 principle Lefebvre's elevation, thus declaring Lefebvre a valid bishop, even if he had never been a validly
ordained priest from 1929 to 1947.
But I argue that the SSPX had to deliberately withhold the teaching
of Summa Suppl Q. 40 Art. 5 Reply to Obj. 2 which clearly states that the episcopal elevation does not place a character on the soul - it merely provides more grace to assist the bishop in his responsibilities - and that the episcopal
candidate must have a previous valid ordination. And so to counter that fact, the SSPX two years later came up with another article in the Angelus now arguing that one has to accept the elevation of Liénart in
1928 as being valid - even though they do not deny he was a Freemason - on the belief that since no one could know his mind at the time and that he had a proper episcopal elevation ceremony, then we must assume
(*False, not the whole of the teaching. They likely KNOW this. -TCW) he had the minimal proper intent. Mr. Donald Sanborn in Brooksville,
Florida, makes this same argument today.
this inherent defect of 'form' is joined the defect of 'intention' which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so
far as it (intention) is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it." -Leo XIII, Encyclical Apostolicae
Curae (Against the validity of Anglican Orders).
(And) Pope Alexander VIII condemned
In response, I argue that
the continued high-ranking *membership of Liénart in the Freemasonic Religion - including his gleeful, deathbed statement in 1973 (that the "...Catholic Church is dead.") - is
itself a manifestation of his intent, as a **Freemason, i.e., to destroy the Catholic religion, a well documented primary goal of Freemasonry.
*Lefebvre himself (in an act of damage control) acknowledged that Achilles Liénart
was a Freemason in a tape-recorded talk he gave in Montreal, Canada on May 27, 1976. Yet, then, stated that it did not adversely affect the validity of his own Orders. (FALSE!!)
**“[T]hose secret societies of factious men who, completely opposed to God and to princes, are
wholly dedicated to bringing about the fall of the Church, the destruction of kingdoms, and disorder in the whole world…Their law is untruth: their god is the devil and their cult is turpitude… Our predecessors, Clement XII, Benedict
XIV, Pius VII, Leo XII, repeatedly condemned with anathema that kind of secret society…” (Traditi Humilitati - Encyclical of Pope Pius VIII, May 24, 1829)“[S]uch
that they profane and defile the passion of Jesus Christ by certain of their impious ceremonies, that they despise the Sacraments of the Church (for which they seem to substitute other new things invented by themselves through their supreme wickedness)
and despise the very mysteries of the Catholic Religion and that they overthrow this Apostolic See against which, because on it the Sovereignty of the Apostolic Chair has always flourished, (S. Aug. Epist. 43.) they are roused by a certain
unparalleled hate and they devise every dangerous destructive plot.” (Constitution of Pope Pius VII – Ecclesiam a Jesu Christo – 9/13/1821)
b) "Sacrament of Order" In Q. 40 Art 5, Aquinas states: "In another way Order may be considered as an office
in relation to certain sacred actions... has in relation to the mystical body a higher power than the priest, the episcopate is an Order.) The body of Aquinas' reply in Q. 40 Art. 5: " I answer that, Order may be understood in two ways. In
one way as a sacrament, and thus as already stated (Q. 37, AA. 2, 4), every Order is directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Wherefore since the bishop has not a higher power than the priest, in this respect the episcopate is not an Order.
In another way Order may be considered as an office in relation to certain sacred actions: and thus since in hierarchical actions a bishop has in relation to the mystical body a higher power than the priest, the episcopate is an Order. It is in this sense
that the authorities quoted speak. (The authorities to whom Aquinas was referring above in Objection 1 to this Fifth Article in Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite (Eccl. Hier. v.)
Obj. 2. Order considered as a sacrament which imprints a character is specially directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which Christ Himself is contained, because by a character we are made like unto Christ Himself. Hence, although at his promotion
a bishop receives a spiritual power in respect of certain sacraments, this power nevertheless had not the nature of a character. For this reason the episcopate is not an Order, in the sense in which an Order is a sacrament.
"Reply Obj. 3. The episcopal power is one not only of jurisdiction but also of Order, as stated above, taking Order in the sense in which it is generally understood (i.e., it is a Sacrament of Order as an Office "in relation to certain sacred action...in relation
to the mystical body", not a character-imprinting Sacrament of Order.)
The Church’s minimum requirement for accepting the validity of a Sacrament is “moral certainty.” Moral certainty is one “which excludes all prudent fear of error, such that the opposite
is reputed as altogether improbable."
The validity of the Sacrament of Orders for those claiming
to be Catholic bishops or priests requires the minimal standard of moral certitude. Marcel Lefebvre and his progeny fail to meet the minimal standard of moral certitude
and therefore cannot, in practice, be accepted as Catholic bishops.
"His (St. Thomas Aquinas')
writings are without error, and he himself is the most glorious champion of the Catholic faith." -His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII
Examples of NON-priest Lefebvre's Dialectics Against De Fide
TCW's Reply to Question on SSPX Argument about French Mason Talleyrand
(Contains historical record [writings] of Talleyrand
regarding his sacramental intention)
Exposure of Liénart's Freemasonry
Copy of Bp. Thuc's Handwritten Letter to Lefebvre Saying Lefebvre's Consecration by Liénart
(Note: Bp. Thuc's alleged "consecrations" are viewed by the Hierarchy
[in exile] as "doubtful at best".)
Italian Register of Secret Societies List of Freemasonic Infiltrators
Marcel Lefebvre's Freemasonic Activity at SSPX HQ Econe
Liar Lefebvre Signed EVERY V2 Council Document
Lefebvre Associate Dr. Coomeraswamy on Lefebvre's Celebrating the N.O. "Bastard" Rite
Dr. Coomaraswamy Changed His View TO that Leinart WAS Indeed a Freemason
"Every Man for Himself Sacraments Regardless of the Law"
(Excerpts from "Rome To Ecône: Vatican II Disaster" by W.F. Strojie, 1976)
Blessed be St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles!
Papal Restoration Staff
I do not believe a word of this about Bishop LeFebvre, one day he will be canonized, it is because of him that we still have the true mass, the mass of all ages
You don't cite any specifics of the facts posted above... Note: Lefebvre was NEVER a priest or of course a bishop. There were many who saw through his calculated fraud/deception from "the get go". For argument sake only (cont.)
let's hypothetically say Lefebvre was a Catholic bishop with jurisdiction from a pope. Just one intelligent writer from 1977, William F. Strojie, blasts a devastating hole in your "reasoning", when he wrote: "If a bishop ordains OUTSIDE (cont.)
...the Church's jurisdiction and sets up a string of chapels internationally, for dispensing the Sacraments, that quite plain is a schismatic operation, or the word has lost its meaning." Source: https://tinyurl.com/Strojie-Confounds-Lefebvreism
I am attending mass before at SSPX now that I read this articles I am confused what to do.....
You need to: (1.) Fully reject non-Catholic worship such as the Novus Ordo Sect/SSPX & all Pseudo-Traditionalists Sect(s). (2.) Make a Perfect Act of Contrition. (3.) Meet with True Catholic clergy for efficacious Sacraments.
Dear TCW, If SSPX is not of God, then, where does one go for the true Mass and true priests? Thanks for your response.
Hi. Sacraments in order to be efficacious for one's soul, need to be offered under the jurisdiction of the True Hierarchy/Pope. It is like the times of the catacombs, currently. For more info go to: tcwblog.com/183078572
I just found out about this site. I've been with the SSPX for 5 years. Has an invitation gone out to the SSPX "priests" (laymen) to get ordained? Thanks, Anne
Those sspx non-priests would: 1. Need to petition to have their censures removed for ipso facto participating in elementary schism.2. Like any man, pray if they had a vocation.
"CDC considering recommending general public wear face coverings in public"(Source WaPo). Notice they purposely use phrase face "coverings" instead of face MASKS as part of their continued playing with the Truth [with public on obvious efficacy of Masks].
READ: "How to Assist the Dying when a Priest is not Present". (Note: Please disseminate this imperative article above. -PRC Staff)
...baffling, since the pandemic has no regard for people's occupation. (Note: the full article was posted a few hours ago on Fox News website. We wrote on this obvious clumsy disinfo campaign by the Fed Gov, 5 Days ago [scroll down] -ED).
Fox News: "Tucker (Carlson) blasts feds over medical masks, says 'stop lying to us' about why we shouldn't buy them" ... In addition, Carlson said, the claim that the masks only work for health care professionals, but not for healthy civilians is (cont.)