Author Topic: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?  (Read 3301 times)

Offline bigbadtrad

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 568
  • Thanked: 845 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2019, 11:38:38 AM »
He was obviously a free mason. He loved masonry so much he asked for it for free. If the shoe fits...

He might be a communist too because communists like community and the SSPX is a community.

"God has proved his love to us by laying down his life for our sakes; we too must be ready to lay down our lives for the sake of our brethren." 1 John 3:16
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Michael Wilson, St.Justin, martin88nyc

Offline dellery

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2549
  • Thanked: 837 times
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2019, 12:13:09 PM »
Coming from somebody who has thoroughly studied "Revolution and Counter-Revolution" and admires Correa de Olivera, the TIA has no clue what it's doing and is completely ineffectual at the task of Counter-Revolution. There are also plenty of weird accusations that can be leveled against the TFP and de Olivera himself. People who live in glass houses...

Markus, may I recommend to you reading up on Bill Casey, and the work of his think-tank, the Manhattan Institute, if you want to see the nuts and bolts of the Counter-Revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Casey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/

Please elaborate on this. I do know that Tradition Family and Property (TFP) -- a Plinio -worshipping pseudo-Catholic group wrote a letter to the CIA offering their services and also that the TFP was paid by the CIA for gun-running in two South American nations. TFP is "controlled opposition."

In order to get people to listen to the Truth you have to first produce the conditions necessary for a fruitful dialogue. Right now, because of the socio-economic conditions in urban areas it's almost impossible to compete against the Left/Right wing agitators. We need to help insulate the people from disturbance and agitation, the best way to do this is by making it easier to live and raise a family.

Quote
Ambassador Vernon Walters. State Department am-
bassador at large and Henry Kissinger's private liaison to the
Vatican and Catholic community. In May 1982, Walters
gave the commencement address at Christendom College, a
small traditionalist cadre-training center of modem-day Carl-
ists and synarchists located in Front Royal, Virginia. A mem-
ber of the board of directors of Christendom College and aide
to Walters when he was deputy director of the CIA reports
his former boss's enthusiastic support for the college. Wal-
ters states, "This is one of the few organizations that I feel I
ought to lend my name to." The Blue Army is influential at
the school, which is "under the patronage of Our Lady of
Fatima." Thomas Storck, head librarian for the college, is a
sympathizer of TFP. There is a heavy overlap between the
college's board of directors and the Heritage Foundation-
e.g., the case of Onalee McGraw, former educational policy
director for Heritage.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1985/eirv12n05-19850205/eirv12n05-19850205_025-the_security_threat_to_president.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjJu-Wt4uTkAhVHPK0KHbBkAXIQFjAGegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw0xrOqe4qdumuhAFoheJNwj&cshid=1569167542466
« Last Edit: September 22, 2019, 12:17:18 PM by dellery »
The Fisherman's worm.
 

Offline TradGranny

  • Mary Garden
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 885
  • Thanked: 581 times
  • Religion: Traditional Catholic
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #32 on: September 27, 2019, 06:34:26 PM »
Coming from somebody who has thoroughly studied "Revolution and Counter-Revolution" and admires Correa de Olivera, the TIA has no clue what it's doing and is completely ineffectual at the task of Counter-Revolution. There are also plenty of weird accusations that can be leveled against the TFP and de Olivera himself. People who live in glass houses...

Markus, may I recommend to you reading up on Bill Casey, and the work of his think-tank, the Manhattan Institute, if you want to see the nuts and bolts of the Counter-Revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Casey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/

Please elaborate on this. I do know that Tradition Family and Property (TFP) -- a Plinio -worshipping pseudo-Catholic group wrote a letter to the CIA offering their services and also that the TFP was paid by the CIA for gun-running in two South American nations. TFP is "controlled opposition."

Hi Markus,
Facts are facts. You can easily find the letter from TFP to the CIA online, offering their services. And you can also easily find facts regarding TFP (American TFP) acceptance of payment for gun-running for the CIA. Do you not love the truth enough to do so?
Still praying you you
To have courage for whatever comes in life - everything lies in that.
Saint Teresa of Avila
 

Offline Thomas Storck

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2019, 11:50:05 AM »
I was mostly amused to see my name quoted from an old publication connected with the late Lyndon LaRouche. Simply for the record, I want to say that I've never been a "sympathizer of TFP," as charged in the quote. Having looked at Professor Plinio's book, Revolution and Counterrevolution, I was not at all impressed by it, nor by any subsequent chance interactions with TFP.

Thank you for the opportunity to set the record straight.

Thomas Storck
« Last Edit: September 30, 2019, 04:35:32 PM by Thomas Storck »
 
The following users thanked this post: dellery, Lynne, Maximilian, Philip G.

Offline dellery

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2549
  • Thanked: 837 times
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2019, 12:50:32 PM »
I unsuccessfully tried to edit the falsehoods about Mr. Stork out of my previous post but just ended up quoting myself.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2019, 12:53:52 PM by dellery »
The Fisherman's worm.
 

Offline Thomas Storck

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2019, 01:34:40 PM »
Don't worry, it was an understandable error on your part. I recall well the circumstances of the original misstatement (not to use a stronger term) on the part of the Executive Intelligence Review, but I'd rather not reveal it here to the whole world, so to speak.

Peace to you in our Lord and our Lady!

 

Offline james03

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8927
  • Thanked: 3364 times
  • The Brutal Clarity of a Winter Morning
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2019, 03:24:39 PM »
Quote
Hi Markus,
Facts are facts. You can easily find the letter from TFP to the CIA online, offering their services. And you can also easily find facts regarding TFP (American TFP) acceptance of payment for gun-running for the CIA. Do you not love the truth enough to do so?
Still praying you you

My respect for TFP has improved.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."
 
The following users thanked this post: Markus

Offline Hugues de Payns

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • Religion: Christianity
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2020, 06:59:40 AM »
Even if Msgr. Lienhart had been a Freemason, as many allege, that would not constitute grounds for the invalidity of his orders.

"Pope Innocent XI "... it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity." "

"Pope Innocent XI declared that in the conferring and reception of sacraments, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity, and to abandon the safest course. (See: Denzinger, #1151; Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. 3, “The Sacraments, The Use of Probable Opinions,” page 27)"
About the heresy of Christianity of heretics (protestantism and orthodoxy) is here (the correct, enclosed message can be downloaded at the bottom) https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22978.0
 

Offline St.Justin

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2552
  • Thanked: 1110 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2020, 02:15:12 PM »
Even if Msgr. Lienhart had been a Freemason, as many allege, that would not constitute grounds for the invalidity of his orders.

"Pope Innocent XI "... it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity." "

"Pope Innocent XI declared that in the conferring and reception of sacraments, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity, and to abandon the safest course. (See: Denzinger, #1151; Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. 3, “The Sacraments, The Use of Probable Opinions,” page 27)"

Matter, form and intention is all that is required. This is basic catechism 101.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Xavier

Offline bigbadtrad

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 568
  • Thanked: 845 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2020, 08:02:52 PM »
"Pope Innocent XI "... it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity." "

"Pope Innocent XI declared that in the conferring and reception of sacraments, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity, and to abandon the safest course. (See: Denzinger, #1151; Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. 3, “The Sacraments, The Use of Probable Opinions,” page 27)"

The probable aspects to a sacrament is what is known objectively. It's not some laymen screaming "MASON!!!" or if you think because the priest isn't wearing socks there is doubt in the sacrament because of a book you read about the Sockcrusian Heretics.

Next, even if Lienart was a Mason you have to prove the probable nature of the sacrament from the co-consecrators also having a defect to stop such silly debates.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 03:18:23 PM by bigbadtrad »
"God has proved his love to us by laying down his life for our sakes; we too must be ready to lay down our lives for the sake of our brethren." 1 John 3:16
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Michael Wilson, Xavier, St.Justin, martin88nyc

Offline Hugues de Payns

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • Religion: Christianity
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2020, 05:42:11 AM »
Even if Msgr. Lienhart had been a Freemason, as many allege, that would not constitute grounds for the invalidity of his orders.

"Pope Innocent XI "... it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity." "

"Pope Innocent XI declared that in the conferring and reception of sacraments, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity, and to abandon the safest course. (See: Denzinger, #1151; Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. 3, “The Sacraments, The Use of Probable Opinions,” page 27)"

Matter, form and intention is all that is required. This is basic catechism 101.

"Pope Innocent XI "... it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity." "

"Pope Innocent XI declared that in the conferring and reception of sacraments, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity, and to abandon the safest course. (See: Denzinger, #1151; Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. 3, “The Sacraments, The Use of Probable Opinions,” page 27)"

The probable aspects to a sacrament is what is known objectively. It's not some laymen screaming "MASON!!!" or if you think because the priest isn't wearing socks there is doubt in the sacrament because of a book you read about the Sockcrusian Heretics.

Next, even if Lienart was a Mason you have to prove the probably nature of the sacrament from the co-consecrators also having a defect to stop such silly debates.

In this case, the internal intention of the "receiver" (fr. Achille Lienart) of "the Episcopal Sacrament" was at best doubtful, and therefore one hath to recognize it as invalid according to the above quotations regarding Pope Innocent XI.

Potential grant of "the Holy Orders" to mr. Marcel Lefebvre by hypothetically bp. Lienart also had at best the doubtful internal intention of the "grantor", and therefore one hath to recognize it as invalid according to the above quotations regarding Pope Innocent XI.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 06:50:21 AM by Hugues de Payns »
About the heresy of Christianity of heretics (protestantism and orthodoxy) is here (the correct, enclosed message can be downloaded at the bottom) https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22978.0
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7681
  • Thanked: 5802 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2020, 09:16:55 AM »
H.d. P: "the internal intention of the "receiver";the doubtful internal intention of the "grantor".
On the contrary, Leo XIII clearly states that the Church does not judge the mind and intention of the minister:
Quote
33. With 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 is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it.A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.
The Church does not judge the mind and intention of the celebrant as long as they do not manifest a contrary intention to the sacrament. Therefore sacraments performed by non-Catholics are presumed valid.
Also, you ignored completely the fact that in a Catholic rite of Consecration of a bishop, there are three bishops that are co-Consecrators; how do you invalidate the other two? 
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: bigbadtrad, martin88nyc

Offline Gardener

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9174
  • Thanked: 7043 times
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2020, 09:56:01 AM »
H.d. P: "the internal intention of the "receiver";the doubtful internal intention of the "grantor".
On the contrary, Leo XIII clearly states that the Church does not judge the mind and intention of the minister:
Quote
33. With 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 is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it.A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.
The Church does not judge the mind and intention of the celebrant as long as they do not manifest a contrary intention to the sacrament. Therefore sacraments performed by non-Catholics are presumed valid.
Also, you ignored completely the fact that in a Catholic rite of Consecration of a bishop, there are three bishops that are co-Consecrators; how do you invalidate the other two?

Per the bold/underlined/italic: Hand waving and table pounding should suffice. If that doesn't work, then table waving and hand pounding.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Michael Wilson, martin88nyc

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7681
  • Thanked: 5802 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #43 on: January 14, 2020, 12:19:26 PM »
H.D.P. Stated
Quote
"Pope Innocent XI "... it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity." "
"Pope Innocent XI declared that in the conferring and reception of sacraments, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity, and to abandon the safest course. (See: Denzinger, #1151; Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. 3, “The Sacraments, The Use of Probable Opinions,” page 27)"
The above quotes come from Fr. Henry Davis S.J. Moral and Pastoral Theology:
They refer to the use of doubtful "Matter and form", not the interior intention of the minister:
Quote
...The same is true of one who uses a probable opinion in the reception of a Sacrament, in respect of its matter or form, for his action exposes the Sacrament to invalidity.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: bigbadtrad

Offline Hugues de Payns

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • Religion: Christianity
Re: Was Archbishop Lefebvre a Freemason?
« Reply #44 on: January 14, 2020, 01:34:50 PM »
Quote
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 is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it.

That fr. Achille Lienart was a jewmason manifested outside. a jewmason is not the same as a heretic or unbaptized person.

"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, ie, 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!!) -ED

**“[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)

“Such 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)"

Also, you ignored completely the fact that in a Catholic rite of Consecration of a bishop, there are three bishops that are co-Consecrators; how do you invalidate the other two?

It is a lie. I did not write anything about the potential grant of "the Episcopal Sacrament" to mr. Marcel Lefebvre by hypothetically bp. Lienart.

"
“[T]he episcopal power depends on the priestly power, since no one can receive the episcopal power unless he have previously the priestly power. Therefore the episcopate is not an Order.”
(Summa Theologica, Supp. 40, 5)

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.

*"With 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)."
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 01:43:42 PM by Hugues de Payns »
About the heresy of Christianity of heretics (protestantism and orthodoxy) is here (the correct, enclosed message can be downloaded at the bottom) https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22978.0