Sunday, June 7, 2009

Archbishop Lefebvre’s Bishop Was a Mason

Archbishop Lefebvre’s Bishop Was a Mason

© Copyright, 1992, by Robert Granier, Catholic Research Center, P.O. Box 208, Babson Park, Florida 33827

In March, 1976, the Italian Catholic traditionalist periodical, Chiesa Viva #51, published information exposing the long-time secret Masonic membership of Cardinal Achille Liénart, the prelate who had helped train Marcel Lefebvre in the seminary, ordained him to the Catholic priesthood and later consecrated him as bishop. During speeches he delivered to Minneapolis and Montreal traditionalists in 1976, Lefebvre himself, publicly acknowledged Liénart as his ordaining bishop, and that he knew he had been a Freemason. Liénart, who was once referred to by Lefebvre as his “spiritual father” had maintained a high-profile as a liberal leader at the Masonic-inspired Vatican Council II, and was identified by a former fellow Freemason as a devil-worshiper and Luciferian. At the time of his death in the 1970s, the apparently unrepentant Liénart is reported to have boasted: “Humanly speaking, the Catholic Church is dead!”

Presented below is a chronological list of significant events in the life of Achille Liénart, reproduced from Newsletter #72 of the late Hugo Maria Kellner, Ph.D., 9 Iroquois Road, Caledonia, NY, issued July 1977:

Born in Lille, France . . . 2 - 7 -1884
Ordained . . . 6 - 29 - 1907
Entered Masonic Lodge at Cambrai . . . 1912
Became “Visitor” in Masonry at 18th degree . . . 1919
Arrived at 30th degree . . . 1924
Consecrated as bishop . . . 12 - 8 - 1928
Ordained Marcel Lefebvre to the priesthood . . . 9 - 21 -1929
Created a cardinal by Pope Pius XI . . . 6 - 30 - 1930
Consecrated Marcel Lefebvre bishop . . . 9 -18 - 1947

Please note that for 16 years before Liénart was consecrated a bishop, he had been a member of the Masonic Lodge, and 4 years earlier he had achieved the rank of 30th degree, the first level at which initiates are to be informed of the true ends of Freemasonry, according to Albert Pike, who admitted:

“To the crowd we must say: we worship a God, but it is the God one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors, we say this, that you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: all of us initiates of the high degrees should maintain the Masonic religion in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. If, Lucifer were not God, would Adonay, the God of the Christians, whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, his barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests calumniate him? Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also God. Religious philosophy in its purity and truth consists in the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay.” (Albert Pike, as quoted in A. C. de la Rive: La Femme et l’Enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, page 588.)

The above quote represents no idle speculation, but is the testimony of a Masonic insider of unquestioned credentials. Albert Pike (1809-1891) was the American high priest of Freemasonry without parallel. In 1859, Pike was elected as Sovereign Grand Commander of the Southern Supreme Council, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, and later became Provincial Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Royal Order of Scotland in the United States and was an honorary member of almost every Supreme Council in the world. In 1871, he published his infamous Morals and Dogma, a compendium of Masonic philosophy, terminology, procedures, rituals, symbolism and history.

In light of Pike's admission, we can well believe that Liénart was a conscious Luciferian four years before his consecration as bishop. In fact, even more specific revelations regarding Liénart’s sinister background were published in 1970 by the Marquis de la Franquerie, in his book, L’Infallibilite Pontificale, which was first brought to the attention of English speaking Catholics by the previously mentioned Hugo M. Kellner. We now quote from the segment of the Marquis’ book that was presented in Dr. Kellner’s Newsletter #72, and the doctor’s introductory commentary:

“The full name of the author is André Henri Jean Marquis de la Franquerie. The Marquis is a papal Secret Chamberlain who lives in Luçon, Vendée, France, and is a recognized, learned historian with special knowledge in the field of the penetration of the Catholic Hierarchy by Freemasonry in France and of the Freemasonic activities of Cardinal Rampolla, as his above-mentioned book proves. The book discloses the ‘traditionalist’ attitude of the author.

“The Marquis discusses, as is correctly stated in Chiesa viva, Cardinal Liénart on pages 80 and 81 of his book . . . He says on page 80 that Liénart was a Satanist who attended ‘black Masses.’ After his description of the well-known role supporting Modernism which he played at the opening of Vatican II and of which the author says that he (the author) had obtained, at that time, exact information that it took place on orders of the ‘Occult Power,’ he writes . . . :

“‘This attitude of the Cardinal could not surprise those who knew his membership in the Freemasonic and Luciferian lodges. This was the reason why the author of this study always has refused to accompany Cardinal Liénart in the official ceremonies as Secret Chamberlain.

“‘The Cardinal had been initiated in a lodge in Cambrai whose Venerable was Brother Debierre. He frequented a lodge in Cambrai, three at Lille, one in Valenciennes, and two in Paris of which one was in a special way composed of parliamentarians. In the year of 1919, he was designated as ‘Visiteur’ (18th degree), then, in 1924, as 30th degree. The future Cardinal met in the lodges Brother Debierre and Roger Solengro. Debierre was one of the informers of Cardinal Gasparri who had been initiated in America, and of Cardinal Hartmann, Archbishop of Cologne, a Rosecrucian.

“‘It was given to us to meet in Lourdes a former Freemason who, on July 19, 1932, had been miraculously cured of a wound suppurating on his left foot for fourteen years—a cure recognized by the Verification Bureau. This miraculously healed gentleman, Mr. B . . . , told us that, at the time when he frequented a Luciferian lodge, he met there the cardinal [Liénart] whom he recognized, and was dumbfounded.’”

Liénart would have quite naturally fallen into an ever-deepening apostasy from the faith in the twelve years since the day when he first embraced the oath and obligations of Freemasonry in 1912. In addition, he would have necessarily been dedicated to the overthrow of the Church, at least from the time of his acceptance of the 30th degree in 1924, which was four years before his own “consecration” as bishop. In view of the above, it seems most reasonable to doubt the intentions of Achille Liénart to receive valid episcopal orders at the time of his consecration.

It is, of course, impossible to overstate the importance of proper intention for valid reception of the sacrament of Holy Orders, for a contrary intention renders the sacrament null. In this regard, the Church teaches:

“Any baptized male capable of intending to receive the sacrament [of priestly or episcopal orders] may do so validly.” (William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, 1885, page 627.)

Some have theorized that Liénart could have wished to receive episcopal orders for an evil purpose, and thus become a valid bishop. But even if this were true, his conferring of Holy Orders upon Lefebvre would have required an intention to do what the Church intends, the very Church which, by the obligations of his high Masonic office of 30th degree, he was sworn to overthrow. Moreover, one of the principal means, by which the Lodge has ever sought to destroy the Church, has been by invalidating her Sacraments. This fact was conclusively established in the classic work, The Mystical Body Of Christ and the Reorganization of Society (1943), by Fr. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., who was one of the foremost authorities on Freemasonry during the 20th Century. Therefore, the ordination of Lefebvre may be considered dubious on two counts: Liénart’s own episcopal orders and his intention to confect the Church’s sacraments. Hence, would not the orders of all the clergy, ordained and consecrated by Lefebvre, also be doubly suspect?

Others counter that whatever may have been lacking in Lefebvre’s ordination was eventually supplied at the time of his consecration, because there were two co-consecrating bishops present together with Liénart when Lefebvre was to have received episcopal orders in 1947. However, if Lefebvre was not already a priest, he could not have been made a bishop. The very essence of episcopal consecration is expressed by the sacramental words, which confer “the fullness of the priesthood.” Thus, it has been affirmed by an overwhelming majority of theological opinion and long-standing custom in the Church that possession of valid priestly orders is a necessary prerequisite for elevation to the office of bishop. Therefore, would it not be proper to doubt the episcopal orders of Lefebvre, just as it is correct to be distrustful of any uncertain sacrament, as in the case of the so-called “New Mass”?

This question is perhaps too much to contemplate for those who have pinned all their hopes on Marcel Lefebvre and his “society” of “priests” who have come on the scene with great fanfare as the saviors of the remnant faithful, amid a cleverly orchestrated media campaign, prepared by the Church’s adversaries. If such a grim scenario seems too horrible to be allowed by God, consider this: Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican Orders invalid because of defective intention, 350 years after introduction by the Church of England. Millions of souls over many generations were adversely affected before Rome rendered a definitive judgment in the matter. Likewise, priestly ordinations which have been attempted with the counter-church’s “reformed” ordination rite, (a near carbon-copy of the Anglican rite) in use today, will surely come under a sweeping declaration of nullity by the true Catholic Church in a future, saner day. But in the meantime, the Lefebvre “Society” continues to recognize the priestly orders of the counterfeit “Catholic” church, even to the point of incorporating into some of its chapels, “priests” ordained in the Novus Ordo rite, without even going through the motions of “correcting” these ordinations.

Lefebvre’s apologists contend that because the Church has always accepted the orders conferred by the Freemason Talleyrand, then those of Liénart must also be acknowledged. But this is false, as can be easily demonstrated. Talleyrand, was consecrated bishop of Autun, France, in 1789, the same year as the French Revolution. He initially opposed the revolt because it had “dismembered France,” but two years later, he capitulated to the democratic movement, and publicly endorsed the revolutionary civil constitution of the clergy, which led to the forfeiture of his see in 1791, and excommunication by Rome, later lifted because of his deathbed contrition.

Talleyrand, who is also alleged to have entered the lower echelons of Freemasony, had consecrated several bishops, which nevertheless were recognized by the Vatican. Neither before nor after his own consecration, was there evidence that Talleyrand sought to carry out a masquerade in episcopal robes while plotting the overthrow of the Church, as his actions were out in the open and were motivated by mere expediency. Rather than a dedicated covert agent for the Church’s enemies, Talleyrand was a consummate opportunist who changed hats as it suited his political ambitions, only to recant his errors on his deathbed. His tenure as a functioning bishop lasted just two years, allowing time only for an apprentice’s introduction to Freemasonry, before he consecrated any bishops. Thus the bishops consecrated by Talleyrand and his co-consecrators (who were not Freemasons), were rightly presumed valid, and legitimately ordained as priests years before, since no outward appearances of priestly deficiencies were ever attributed to them that would suggest otherwise.

On the other hand, among an ever-widening circle of Catholics, the possible invalidity of the clergy of the “Society of St. Pius X” is being considered as the best explanation for the instability of these “priests” and the high drop-out rate from their own group (as in the new “church”). Scandals involving divisive infighting, womanizing, destructive lawsuits over property, slander and alienation of good families, contentious factions, irregular procedures, and Jansenistic tendencies have been characteristic of this body of “priests” from nearly the very start of the society’s missionary activity, which began in the mid-1970s. These attendant ills are invariably passed off as the effects of “youth” or “poor training,” but it is now plainly evident that there is something far deeper that is flawed and profoundly wrong with the society clergy.

This is most probably not a “fluke” or “accident,” but is likely a masterstroke of the enemy, who, in the political arena, has always intrigued to set up his own phony opposition; a similar ruse in the ecclesiastical realm would only make sense. There could be no more effective means of neutralizing the traditional Catholic movement than by the establishment of a near monopoly on the Tridentine “Mass,” by a “society” of bogus priests and bishops. Centers of Catholic resistance manned by invalid priests would soon self-destruct. The intellects, and perhaps the souls, of those they serve would eventually be darkened. The faithful would be “set-up” for a takeover by a cult, while the conciliar church could continue its ruination of souls unimpeded.

In the process, good but older priests, whose sound training and experience predates the dreaded council, are often passed over by naive and desperate lay people, for the soothing reassurances (of a continuity of priests and sacraments) by a society, which may only have been created to “pull the rug out from under” the remnant Catholic Church at an opportune moment in the future, when most all the valid clergy will be dead, and further resistance seems hopeless.

What must Catholics do during this frightful crisis? First, avoid anything that is questionable regarding the sacraments. 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) Secondly, receive sacraments only from the remaining older priests who offer the True Mass, and whose orders are unquestionably valid. Thirdly, have faith in Almighty God, Who knows all things and will protect His Church from oblivion in His own way and in His own time. Finally, pray to Heaven unceasingly, that for the sake of the elect, these days will be shortened, and the “Church of Darkness” will leave Rome.