Is Mgr. Lefebvre a validly consecrated bishop?
(transl. by Gladys Resch)
Since the address of Mgr. Lefebvre on May 27th, 1976 in Montreal / Canada, in which he con-firmed that the freemason Achille Liénart had ordained him bishop, the debate, if the administered consecrations were valid, i.e. if he himself is a validly consecrated bishop, does not come to an end, neither publicly nor privately. Apart from occasional indications concerning this problem, we have so far not given any official commentary concerning this subject, as the present information are, in our opinion, insufficient for a conclusive evidence for the validity of the consecrations We think that an evidence can neither be carried on positively or negatively. For our battle against the Lefebvreism sound arguments (for instance the obliging acknowledgement of the invalid 'N.O.M.' for the mem-bers of the Fraternity - commanded by Lefebvre under threat of dismissal -, the obliging acknow-ledgement of the heretics Montini, Luciani and Wojtyla as legitimate Popes) have been sufficient to show that Mgr. Lefebvre with his organization is only a traditional group of rebels, inside the apostate 'Church'-organization, which has definitely nothing to do with the true Catholic resistance, but on the contrary destroy it according to plan, wherever it is possible.
In the meantime quite a number of priests have left the Fraternity and work as clergymen in the different Mass-Centers (or try to do so). This circumstance leads us to point out the problems connected with their ordinations.
Here we bring extracts of a speech, given by Mgr. Lefebvre an May 27th, 1976 in Montreal, which has started the world-wide debate:
"The Holy Father (= Montini) was educated in a modernistic environment ... Therefore it is not surprising that the Pope did not react as St. Pius X would have done, as Pope Pius IX would have reacted or Leo XIII. As a consequence there was such an atmosphere at the Council, that there was no resistance against the modernistic influence, which was mainly supported by a group of cardinals, ordered and to a certain extent directed by cardinal Liénart... Now, I saw it with my own eyes, two months ago, the traditional periodical Chiesa viva published in Rome, at the back of the cover, the photography of cardinal Liénart with all his freemason supplements: The day and date of his initiation into the freemasonry, the grade to which he belonged, then the date of his advancement to the 20th grade and the 30th grade of the freemasonary, his affiliation to such and such a lodge in such and such town. Since this publication became official, two or three months have gone by, and I heard of no repercus-sion and no contradiction. Unfortunately I must tell you now that this cardinal Liénart is my bishop, it is he who has ordained me, it is he who has consecrated me bishop. It's not my fault... Luckily, the consecrations are valid... Nevertheless it was very painful for me to learn about this." (Quoted from the German translation by Mr. Hugo Maria Kellner, Ph.D./ USA., letter No.72 of July 1977; the informations concerning Liénart, membership to the freemasonary are to be found in No.51 of the periodical Chiesa viva, of March 1976; adress: C.V., Editrice Civilta, Via Galileo Galilei 121, I - 25100 Brescia)
As Mr. Kellner was also able to prove, Mgr. Lefebvre knew already before May 1970 of Liénart's membership to the freemasonary.
Regarding the concerned persons:
1912: entry into the freemason lodge at Cambrai; (then association with lodges in Lille, Valenciennes, Paris)
1919: nomination to "Visitor" (18th grade)
1924: promotion to the 30th grade
1928: consecration to a bishop
Besides Liénart assisted at black Masses.
Born on 29th Nov. 1905 in Tourcoing / Diocese of Lille; student at the seminary of Lille, where Liénart taught as professor before his own consecration;
21st Sept. 1929 ordination by Liénart, consecrated in the meantime;
18th Sept. 1947 consecration to a bishop by Liénart
Source for the membership of Liénart to the freemasonry:
Andre Henri Jean Marquis de la Franquerie: "L'infaillibilite pontificale" 1970, pg. 80 f. The book is obtainable at: Jean Auguy, Editeur "Diffusion de la Pensee Francaise, Chire-en-Montreuil, F-86190 Vouille.
The author also proves that Liénart was a satanist. The Marquis was secret camerlingo and had a good knowledge of the freemason-infiltration into the Vatican, mainly the activities of Rampolla, who was under Leo XIII undersecretary of state, cardinal and freemason.
Shortly after these facts had become known, there were doubts concerning the validity of the con-secrations of Liénart und Mgr. Lefebvre. But soon they resumed to the question: had the highgrade freemason and satanist Liénart the intentional disposition in 1928 to receive the episcopal consecra-tion validly? If one would have to answer this question in the negative, the following consequences would arise: If Liénart had not received the episcopal consecration validly, the consecration admi-nistered to Lefebvre would naturally also be invalid, the same applies then to the ordinations admi-nistered by Mgr. Lefebvre.
In this connection the following has been argued: even if the episcopal consecration of Marcel Lefebvre, administered by the priest Liénart should be invalid, the two co-consecrators have admi-nistered the episcopal consecration validly. This argument would be correct, if one would know for certain that Lefebvre was previously validly ordained priest. But as his ordination to the priesthood was also administered by Liénart, whose episcopal consecration is just questionable, one cannot agree to this argument, as on the other hand the administration of a valid ordination to the priesthood can only take place if the episcopal consecration of the administrator is valid.
The question whether Liénart was in 1928 intentionally so disposed as to receive the episcopal consecration validly, was answered in cercles of the Catholic resistance in different ways:
– Mr. Hugo Maria Kellner Ph.D. / U.S.A. tried to furnish proof of the invalidity with reference of possible forgeries in canon law of 1917 (letters No. 72 and 75 from 1979).
– In 1979 the late Abbé E. Robin / France falls in with this argument.
– Father Guérard des Lauriers, then still priest, tried to refute the brought up argu-ments (letter dated 14th June, 1979).
– Ms. Gloria Riestra in Trento also accepted the consecration as valid.
– Doubts on the other hand were mentioned by Mr. A. Eisele, editor of SAKA-Informations at the beginning 1980.
– Bishop Vezelis (The Seraph of 1983) and also the Mexican bishops have strong doubts con-cerning the validity.
– Prof. B.F. Dryden / U.S.A. (circular-letter, dated 27th April, 1983) supports their validity.
To presume that the consecrations were valid one could state the fact that Liénart has definitely received the consecration validly, just because as a bishop he wanted to be detrimental to the Church. (Similarly as hosts are also validly consecrated by fallen-away priests at 'Black Masses', with the intention to desecrate the Body of Christ.
We have discussed this problem in Munich repeatedly and in details (over 8 hours) with the late Rev. Fr. Otto Katzer Ph.D.: the fact of belonging to the freemasonry is not sufficient as such to prove the invalid reception of the consecration. It makes it only irregular. The CIC forbids in this case the practice of the illicitly received powers. The attendance as such at 'Black Masses' is not sufficient indication. Liénart's heresy and the destruction of the faith at the Second Vatican Council, which is also mentioned by Mgr. Lefebvre, give no direct indication of his mentality respectively his inten-tional mental attitude in 1928, at the time of his consecration (respectively 'consecration'). But if one adds all aggravating points and takes into consideration the exposed position of Liénart in the free-masonry, they do raise doubts for a proof of necessary intention for the valid reception. Rev. Fr. Katzer, who first vehemently refused to be concerned with this subject, said shortly before his death, "that things do not stand in favor of Lefebvre." He meant the validity of his consecration; doubtful, because of the uncertain intention of Liénart.
But it could have been possible that purposely, as mentioned before, Liénart had the necessary intention, because he wanted to be detrimental to the Church. This possibility is being accepted - only: it cannot be proved.
In our opinion there is no positive proof either for the validity or the invalidity of the consecrations. Such a risky undertaking must necessarily end in moraltheological, respectively moralpsychological speculations, as it is impossible to ask cardinal Liénart about his attitude at that time - he is dead. If he could give an answer it would be uncertain if he would remember his former intention, and if yes, if he would tell us the truth.
For the administration of the sacraments the principle "tutior" should be applied, i.e. the infallible administration must be chosen. In a case of a proved dubious administration, the Church orders to repeat this sacrament sub conditione.
In this present case we agree with the recommendations, given by Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers OP to his pupils, who had been ordained by Mgr. Lefebvre (or: 'ordained') and had left his organisation due to dogmatic differences. At the time Mgr. Guérard des Lauriers was not yet consecrated Bishop, and said: Considering the circumstance of their doubtful ordinations by Mgr. Lefebvre, to submit to an ordination sub conditione.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR MGR. PIERRE MARTIN NOG-DINHTHUC HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED BY VIETNAMESE PEOPLE IN ORDER FROM VIETNAMESE 'N.O.M.'-BISHOPS, - OTHER INFORMATION WILL FOLLOW NEXT TIME.