|
Post by Pacelli on Sept 5, 2017 17:36:20 GMT -5
Cardinal Lienart and the Intention to do What the Church Does? Christopher Conlon, 2014. Linked HEREI post this excellent tract from Mr. Conlon which defends the validity of holy orders of Archbishop Lefebvre who was ordained by the alleged Freemason, Cardinal Lienart. Mr. Conlon's study is worth reading on its own merit, but I post it also as I have posted the work of Mr. Gibson who has consistently and publicly doubted the orders of +Lefebvre based on this flawed reasoning which is debunked in this tract. (Note: I hate to publicly disagree with such a faithful and good Catholic as Mr. Hutton Gibson on this point, as I agree with so much of his assessment about the crisis, including much of his other views on +Lefebvre and the SSPX, but in my opinion his public questioning of +Lefebvre's holy orders in an overreach and not justifiable.)
|
|
|
Post by Uhlan on Jul 23, 2022 9:07:48 GMT -5
The issue with Lienart is not his INTENTION'S but rather his validity as a Bishop after having Excommunicated himself in 1912 by becoming a Freemason. In 1925 he was raised to the 30th Degree, and was Sacrilegiously involved in his alleged Episcopal Consecration several years later with no indication of his having publicly renounced Freemasonry. If one is excommunicated, they are no longer a part of the Church and can receive no spiritual/sacramental charisms or benefits. Lefebvre through no fault of his own was deprived of the Sacrament of Holy Order's due to the lack of Matter, no Valid Bishop, but rather an excommunicated priest. The Church's Repository of Grace's provided Mr. Lefebvre similar but not the same graces, necessary for his salvation as it did to all of those that he ministered to... until he became aware of the defect as he himself publicly stated 1st in Minneapolis on May 11, 1976 and then in Montreal on May 27, 1976 after Fr. Villa's expose in Chiesa Viva and Si, Si, No, No with photos etc. As Leferbvre stated in Montreal:“Two months ago in Rome, the traditionalist periodical Chiesa Viva, published — I have seen it in Rome with my own eyes — on the back side of the cover, the photograph of Cardinal Liénart with all his Masonic paraphernalia, the day of the date of his inscription in Masonry, the grade to which he belonged, then the date at which he rose to the 20th, then to the 30th degree of Masonry, attached to this lodge, to that lodge, at this place, at that place. Meanwhile, about two or three months after this publication was made, I heard nothing about any reaction, or any contradiction. Now, unfortunately, I must say to you that this Cardinal Liénart is my bishop, it is he who ordained me a priest, it is he who consecrated me a bishop. I cannot help it... Fortunately, the orders are valid... But, in spite of it, it was very painful for me to be informed of it.” There was an earlier
|
|
|
Post by Uhlan on Jul 23, 2022 9:23:23 GMT -5
Once someone becomes aware of a defect in a Sacrament... Matter, Form or Intention, one is obliged to have no further contact/participation with that minister under the pain of Sacrilege and Blasphemy. THIS is why all the "Old Trad" priests like Malachi Martin ALWAYS advised Catholics to talk to their priests in the Novus Ordo back in the 70's and 80's and see if they believed in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation. If it was just a "symbol" then you needed to leave and not go back... at that time the Majority of Priests in the N.O. were ordained pre-1969 and their Validity was not so much of an issue. The moment Lefebvre had that evidence he should have had himself conditionally re-ordained and re-consecrated.... but oh what a SCANDAL!!! The former Head of the Holy Ghost father's was NOT Valid? It would have completely pulled the rug out from under the whole Conciliar Church... just as the deathbed confessions of all the Marrano Bishops and Abbots in the late 15th Century in Spain created a need for a Permanent Inquisition in Spain. But to ADMIT this was a No Go...and so Lefebvre continued without the Church's Repository of Graces to protect him and his spiritual children and their fruits became bent and they as an organization fragmented and fractured and Lefebvre promoted and the SSPX created leadership like Bolduc and others who were scandals and 1/3 of their priests melted back into the population because God could not be with them and their mission on an institutional level.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 27, 2022 8:40:08 GMT -5
Sir,
It seems to me that you haven't read the book, linked above, which is what this Resource thread is for. If you had read the book, your second claim, that if Liénart, was a Mason, his orders would be presumed in doubt, is disproven.
But, it is worth noting that your first claim, the premise that leads to the second, is not proven either. I am not convinced that Liénart was a Freemason. I've read on this as well, and I do not have any certainty about it. Archbishop Lefebvre's assertion does not settle it for me, either. I want to see the evidence for myself, the alleged photos of Liénart, wearing the Masonic costume, along with any other evidence to prove the claim.
But, there is another matter here, you rashly address Archbishop Lefebvre as "Mr. Lefebvre," clearly implying that your conclusions are so certain that you know as an absolute fact, prior to the judgment of the Church, that Archbishop Lefebvre's Holy Orders are invalid. Even if you are right, and it's hardly proven, and in my opinion, cannot be proven, the proper course of action prior to publicly calling a cleric of the Catholic Church, most especially a bishop, "Mister" would be to allow Rome to settle this, and until they do, to continue to refer to him with the title given to him by the Church.
You are not an authority, yet you imply from your manner of publicly addressing the Archbishop as "mister," that this is a settled matter, when the Church has not even begun to even consider it.
|
|