Follow by Email

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Just for the information of those who are interested.

This is the claim of Bishop Louis Vezelis and Bishop Giles Butler:

In a talk in Montreal, Canada, Marcel Lefbvre (Known to the public as "Archbishop Lefebvre") publicly acknowledged to the crowd that the man who ordained and consecrated him was "Cardinal" Lienart; and that Lienart was a Freemason.
Forgetting his theology, or perhaps even subscribing to an opinion contradicted by general Catholic teaching, Lefebvre publicly stated that he had actually seen Lienart in all his Masonic paraphernalia. To which statement he added: "Fortunately, my orders are valid." Well, this is what most people accepted as true.                                                                                                                 


Here is the problem with this logic.  

1.  Bishop Louis does not detail the circumstancesof how Lefebvre said he saw Lienart in all his Masonic paraphernalia.  Here is the story:

  A source cited is Archbishop Lefebvre himself. In a talk given in Montreal, Canada on May 27, 1976, he stated:
      “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..., 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.”
      The issue of Chiesa Viva was No. 51, March, 1976. In it there is an article entitled "Il Cardinale Achille Liénart era Massone."
However, the Archbishop's memory was faulty, for the photograph involved was a picture of Cardinal Liénart in ordinary ecclesiastical attire, and below this a drawing which shows a monumental entrance door to a building around which Freemasonic sym­bols are grouped. This second picture carried the designation: "Entrance door to a Freemasonic temple."

Think about it, if such a photo existed, would not Bishop Louis or Bishop Butler have published it in the Seraph?  Would it not be available all over the internet?

All these rumors about Lienart being a Mason are rooted in a book entitled Papal Infallibility (L'lnfaillibilité Pontificale) by the French writer Marquis de la Franquerie..  All of this nonsense is rooted int his mysteriouis author, who bases all of his assertions on an "annyonomus "Mr. B".  

This is all nonsense and as baseless as the claims that Pope Pius XI was a Freemason made in a book by Brother Joseph Mc-Cabe entitled: A History of Freemasonry.  


But, let us assume he was - does this invalidate the ordinations he made?  We know for a fact that the Church recognized ordinations performed by Bishops who were Freemasons in France after the French Revolution.  We KNOW that a heretic, an atheist, even a satanist can validly administer the Sacrament of Baptism - so why would a freemason not be able to validly administer Holy Orders?

Think about the fact that Freemasonry is a SECRET society - how can one KNOW if any Bishop is/was or is/was not a Freemason?

There are those who claim that the Bishop who ordained Vezelis was a Freemason - should we doubt Vezelis' ordination and subsequent Consecration and therefor all the clergy ordained by Vezelis?

How could we ever KNOW if any given Priest was validly ordained, after all, since Freemasonry is secret, the Bishop who ordained this priest or that priest could have been a freemason!

The Church has had enemies since Christ founded it, Arians, Gnostics, Protestants, etc... all of which hated the true Faith and deceived Catholic Clergy members, including Bishops - Freemasonry is no different.

The fact is - there is no evidence Lienart was a freemason - NONE, but even if he was, this in and of itself is not reason for positive doubt and hence no reason to doubt his ordinations anymore than a reason to doubt Vezelis' ordination.  

This nonsense is part of the cult like power play where these men can claim ordinary jurisdiction which can only be granted by a Pope - the Supreme Pontiff.

No comments: