The Novus Ordo Sect's SSPX

Why Marcel Lefebvre Was Never A Priest Or Bishop

(Thomistic Principles Invalidate SSPX "Orders" From Lefebvre)

"Strong Reason Conquers Weak Emotion"

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).

(And) Pope Alexander VIII condemned the following:

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, i.e., 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)

“[S]uch 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)

St. Thomas Aquinas

b) "Sacrament of Order" In Q. 40 Art 5, Aquinas states: "In another way Order may be considered as an office in relation to certain sacred actions... has in relation to the mystical body a higher power than the priest, the episcopate is an Order.) The body of Aquinas' reply in Q. 40 Art. 5: " I answer that, Order may be understood in two ways. In one way as a sacrament, and thus as already stated (Q. 37, AA. 2, 4), 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. In another way Order may be considered as an office in relation to certain sacred actions: and thus since in hierarchical actions a bishop has in relation to the mystical body a higher power than the priest, the episcopate is an Order. It is in this sense that the authorities quoted speak. (The authorities to whom Aquinas was referring above in Objection 1 to this Fifth Article in Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite (Eccl. Hier. v.)

"Reply Obj. 2. Order considered as a sacrament which imprints a character is specially directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which Christ Himself is contained, because by a character we are made like unto Christ Himself. Hence, although at his promotion a bishop receives a spiritual power in respect of certain sacraments, this power nevertheless had not the nature of a character. For this reason the episcopate is not an Order, in the sense in which an Order is a sacrament. "Reply Obj. 3. The episcopal power is one not only of jurisdiction but also of Order, as stated above, taking Order in the sense in which it is generally understood (i.e., it is a Sacrament of Order as an Office "in relation to certain sacred action...in relation to the mystical body", not a character-imprinting Sacrament of Order.)

Conclusion  

The Church’s minimum requirement for accepting the validity of a Sacrament is “moral certainty.” Moral certainty is one “which excludes all prudent fear of error, such that the opposite is reputed as altogether improbable."

The validity of the Sacrament of Orders for those claiming to be Catholic bishops or priests requires the minimal standard of moral certitude. Marcel Lefebvre and his progeny fail to meet the minimal standard of moral certitude and therefore cannot, in practice, be accepted as Catholic bishops.

"His (St. Thomas Aquinas') writings are without error, and he himself is the
most glorious champion of the Catholic faith." -His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII

Related Articles:

Examples of NON-priest Lefebvre's Dialectics Against De Fide

TCW's Reply to Question on SSPX Argument about French Mason Talleyrand

(Contains historical record [writings] of Talleyrand regarding his sacramental intention)

Exposure of Liénart's Freemasonry

Copy of Bp. Thuc's Handwritten Letter to Lefebvre Saying Lefebvre's Consecration by Liénart Null

(Note: Bp. Thuc's alleged "consecrations" are viewed by the Hierarchy [in exile] as "doubtful at best".)

1976 Italian Register of Secret Societies List of Freemasonic Infiltrators

Marcel Lefebvre's Freemasonic Activity at SSPX HQ Econe

Liar Lefebvre Signed EVERY V2 Council Document

Long-time Lefebvre Associate Dr. Coomeraswamy on Lefebvre's Celebrating the N.O. "Bastard" Rite

Dr. Coomaraswamy Changed His View TO that Leinart WAS Indeed a Freemason

"Every Man for Himself Sacraments Regardless of the Law" 

(Excerpts from "Rome To Ecône: Vatican II Disaster" by W.F. Strojie, 1976)

Blessed be St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles!

The Papal Restoration Staff

Rene LaForte 20.10.2019 15:44

I do not believe a word of this about Bishop LeFebvre, one day he will be canonized, it is because of him that we still have the true mass, the mass of all ages

Renato C. dela Torre 05.08.2019 10:27

I am attending mass before at SSPX now that I read this articles I am confused what to do.....

Penelope 03.05.2018 13:23

Dear TCW, If SSPX is not of God, then, where does one go for the true Mass and true priests? Thanks for your response.

Ciaran 16.08.2015 20:38

Regarding your article, "Lefebvre Giving Communion to Unclad Woman" ... that's what all the "trads" bark about Wojtyla ("pope" JP2) doing ... yet total silence when it's their Master caught in the same blasphemous action.

PAPAL RESTORATION STAFF MEMBER 25.06.2015 18:15

Four more articles were linked to the NON-priest Lefebvre page.

Papal restoration Staff Member 11.03.2015 15:18

The inside word from "those in the know" is that Lefebvre lived "high off the hog" in Africa. He was known as "lord of the Bush" there. Eyewitness reports are his luxurious lifestyle continued at his ANTI-traditional sect's HQ's in Écône, Switzerland too.

Piere R. 25.01.2015 16:49

Perhaps that is where the pagan, antipope JP2, learned it? Shocking!