More than one writer has claimed that the bishop who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest, and who later consecrated him a bishop, was a freemason. Because of this, it is further claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre was never a priest, and never a bishop, and therefore, none of the priests and bishops of the SSPX are really priests or bishops. Therefore, everything the SSPX does is "play acting" and "theatre", since none of them have the power to confer any of the sacraments or give blessings. A second accusation is that since Archbishop Lefebvre was ordained and consecrated by a freemason, therefore Archbishop Lefebvre was also a freemason.
There are therefore two accusations against Archbishop Lefebvre:
These are most serious accusations. In his letter to Friends and Benefactors of Sept. 12, 1992, Bishop Williamson answers the first accusation most convincingly, drawing on the comments by Michael Davies in "Approaches" #71, November 1, 1980.
Since that time, various visitors to this website have raised further objections and asked further questions on this subject, that were not answered in Bishop Williamson's letter. And so, we will expand on Bishop Williamson's comments, as we hope to show that Archbishop Lefebvre really was a priest and bishop, and therefore, all priests ordained and bishops consecrated by him are validly ordained and consecrated. We further hope to show that there is not sufficient evidence to declare that Archbishop Lefebvre was a freemason.
The dates that Cardinal Liénart became a freemason and a member of the Rosicrucians are doubtful, as we have no documents to prove them. Therefore, we will consider every possibility, that Liénart was a freemason before he became a bishop, and that he became a freemason after he was already a bishop.
Accusation #1: Archbishop Lefebvre was never a validly ordained priest or validly consecrated bishop
Arguments against:
These arguments can be framed in terms of questions we can look at, which are:
Accusation #2: Archbishop Lefebvre was a freemason
Arguments against:
These arguments can be framed in terms of questions we can look at, which are:
We will begin by considering the question of whether Cardinal Liénart was a freemason, then we will examine the second accusation, that Archbishop Lefebvre was a freemason.
There are a few information sources that suggest that Cardinal Liénart was a freemason. They are:
1. The website http://www.aculink.net/~catholic/masonlst.htm, which quotes from the newsletter: Bulletin de l'Occident Chrétien Nr.12, July, 1976, (Directeur Pierre Fautrad a Fye - 72490 Bourg Le Roi, France.) This source gives the list which exposes many high ranking Church officials as being freemasons, which is the same list that many say led to the sudden death of Pope John Paul I. On this list, it is merely stated that Cardinal Liénart was a freemason, but there is no date given for his initiation. According to this source:
"Lienart, Achille. Cardinal. Grand Master top Mason. Bishop of Lille, France. Recruits Masons. Was leader of progressive forces at Vatican II Council."
This list supposedly originated in a disagreement between the #1 man and #2 man in the Italian Freemasonic Lodge, where the #2 man threatened to expose the list of freemasons in the Church if he didn't get his way.
2. A statement made by someone writing to this website. According to this source:
On the other hand, another source claims that there is no real evidence to prove that Cardinal Liénart was a freemason, saying:
"Some years ago, the Angelus offered a considerable sum of money as a reward to anyone who could provide evidence (for example membership rolls of a Masonic lodge, photographs of the Cardinal with other Masons inside the lodge, or wearing distinctive Masonic garments, etc.) that the Cardinal who consecrated Marcel Lefebvre had been a Mason. The reward was never claimed, for the reason that no such evidence exists. That the Cardinal was probably quite sympathetic, or even friendly towards Masons and Masonry, or even their confederate or stooge, is quite probable, owing to the liberal, anti-Catholic actions of his later life. But as to the claim that he was a formal member, that is definitely not true." ( http://www.the-pope.com/append02.html#anslienmas )
And so, regarding whether Cardinal Liénart was a freemason, there is some evidence for, and some against. For the purposes of this present discussion, we will assume that Cardinal Liénart was a freemason.
Regardless of when Cardinal Liénart became a freemason, he would have been automatically excommunicated.
If Cardinal Liénart became a freemason before the 1917 Code of Canon Law came onto effect, he would have been automatically excommunicated by the penalty foreseen by the Holy Office in 1884:
"Lest there be any place for error when decision will have to made as to what the opinions of these pernicious sects are, which are under such prohibition, it is especially certain that Freemasonry and other sects of this kind which plot against the Church and lawful powers, whether they do this secretly or openly, whether or not they exact from their followers an oath to preserve secrecy, are condemned by automatic excommunication." (Instruction of the Holy Office, May 10, 1884)
If Cardinal Liénart became a freemason after the 1917 Code of Canon Law came onto effect (May 19, 1918), he would have been automatically excommunicated by the law:
"Those who give their name to (who are members of) the Masonic sect, or other societies of the same nature, that scheme against the Church or lawful civil authority, ipso facto (automatically) contract excommunication [the absolution from which is] reserved to the Holy See." (Canon 2335, 1917 Code of Canon Law)
There is no proof that Archbishop Lefebvre ever became a freemason. The only "evidence" is his association with Cardinal Liénart. We will now proceed to show that this association does not prove that Archbishop Lefebvre became a freemason.
What is the association between Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Liénart?
Was Archbishop Lefebvre a freemason because Cardinal Liénart accepted him into the seminary?
Cardinal Liénart would have accepted hundreds of men into his seminary. A freemason bishop like Cardinal Liénart would have been obliged to accept every worthy candidate into his seminary, so that he could keep his membership as a freemason secret. There is no way that Cardinal Liénart could have come up with justifiable reasons to refuse to accept hundreds of men just because they were not freemasons. And so, the vast majority of men that Cardinal Liénart accepted into the seminary were NOT freemasons.
Cardinal Liénart was not the great motivator behind Marcel Lefebvre's decision to become a priest. The Lefebvre family was itself the great motivator. Since 1738, almost 50 members of the Lefebvre family had become priests, religious, a few bishops and even a cardinal. Marcel Lefebvre's older brother René had already joined the Holy Ghost missionaries, and eventually three of his sisters entered religious life.
Was Archbishop Lefebvre a freemason because Cardinal Liénart ordained him a priest?
Cardinal Liénart would have ordained hundreds of men. Those men deemed worthy to be ordained were put forward by the Rectors of various seminaries. Just as he had to accept non-freemason candidates into his seminary, there is no way that a freemason bishop like Cardinal Liénart could have refused to ordain worthy candidates just because they were not freemasons. And so, being ordained a priest by Cardinal Liénart was no proof that you were a freemason.
Was Archbishop Lefebvre a freemason because Cardinal Liénart consecrated him a bishop?
Father Marcel Lefebvre had worked many years in Africa as a Holy Ghost Father, and it was the success of his work, and his obvious talents, that led his superiors within the Holy Ghost Congregation to promote him to the ranks of bishop. And so, Cardinal Liénart had very little say in whether or not Marcel Lefebvre became a bishop. The Vatican ultimately decided who was worthy to be consecrated a bishop, not Cardinal Liénart. Cardinal Liénart presided over Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration ceremony, because the decision was made to hold the ceremony in Archbishop Lefebvre's home town, which was Cardinal Liénart's jurisdiction..
And so, there is no evidence or justification to say that Archbishop Lefebvre was a freemason, simply because Cardinal Liénart, who accepted him into the seminary, ordained him a priest and consecrated him a bishop, was a freemason.
We have already seen that there is evidence for and against the claim that Cardinal Liénart was a freemason, and so for the purposes of this present discussion, we will assume that Cardinal Liénart was a freemason.
It would be so much easier for all of us if there was a document where a theologian or Pope had pronounced on the question of the validity of ordinations by a freemason bishop, however this has not happened. But, Popes and theologians have made various pronouncements on questions relating to the sacraments, and by looking at these pronouncements and comparing them to our own question, we can arrive at an answer.
There are two possible reasons why a freemason could not become a priest or bishop:
Being excommunicated does not prevent a man from becoming a priest or bishop, and receiving the power to confer the sacraments, like ordaining priests. It would be gravely illicit, but not invalid, just as Greek Orthodox bishops have validly ordained priests and consecrated bishops while being excommunicated for more than 900 years.
So let us consider whether not believing in the priesthood could affect being ordained or being consecrated a bishop.
In the Middle Ages, many bishops were powerful land owners, and were appointing their relatives to be priests. Sometimes, these relatives didn't want to become priests because they couldn't accept celibacy. (Many of them kept concubines, and so they took care of the problem that way). But the people began to question whether these men who didn't want to become priests would become priests if they were forcibly ordained. We have to remember that some medieval bishops were quite worldly, and had armies and were not above kidnapping, etc.
The Church decided that no-one could be ordained against their will, just as no-one can be married against their will. (St. Thomas Aquinas summarizes this in his Summa Theologica, Suppl 45.4). But what about the case of someone who willingly put himself forward to become a priest (or a bishop), but who did not believe that he would receive any special powers from his ordination?
Certainly, the Church teaches that one must intend to receive a sacrament in order to receive it. (St. Thomas Aquinas summarizes this in his Summa Theologica , Suppl 8.4, 45.4). St. Thomas also writes that the only exception to this would be the case where someone had an intention contrary to receiving the sacrament. How can we know if someone has a contrary intention?
Common sense dictates that if someone freely presents themselves to receive something, like a sacrament, they have the intention to receive it. But how likely is it that a freemason would deliberately have an intention contrary to receiving a sacrament, while merely pretending to receive it?
In the case of a freemason, an intention contrary to receiving a sacrament is unlikely. Why? Because a freemason doesn't believe in the power of the sacraments anyway.
If (as a freemason believes) the sacraments have no power, then why would he have an intention contrary to receiving them? Why would he mentally intend NOT to receive consecration or ordination, when he doesn't believe anyone can do these things anyway? Why would anyone have a deliberate intention against something they don't believe exists?
And so a freemason would not have an intention contrary to receiving the sacrament of Holy Orders.
For all the above reasons, a freemason who presents himself to be ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop, validly receives the sacrament of Holy Orders. And so if he becomes a bishop, he receives the power to ordain priests. And so Cardinal Liénart, although a freemason, would have had the power to ordain Archbishop Lefebvre a priest, and consecrate him a bishop.
As we have seen above, excommunication does not prevent a man from becoming a priest or a bishop, nor does it take away the powers he received from the sacrament of Holy Orders. As St. Thomas Aquinas says in his Summa Theologica:
"the Power of Orders is not forfeited on account of heresy or the like. Neither therefore is the power to ordain." (S.T. Suppl. 38.2)
Decree of Pope Paul IV
Many say that the 1559 Bull of Pope Paul IV "Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio" (written almost 300 years after St. Thomas Aquinas) proves that a someone, like a freemason, who has deviated from the Catholic Faith, cannot use his power to confer any sacraments, or doesn't even receive any such power:
"We declare that if ever a Bishop, Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate, a Cardinal or a Legate, or even a Sovereign Pope, had, before their elevation to the Cardinalcy or Pontificate, deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, the promotion or elevation - even if it had taken place with the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals - is invalid and null, without value and one cannot say that it is valid because the person concerned accepts the Office, receives the Consecration and then enters into possession of the government and administration [of the Office], or by the homage rendered to him by all; one cannot accept him as legitimate, and none of his acts of power or administration may be deemed valid whether Bishops, Cardinals or Sovereign Popes. All their words, deeds and actions, their administration and all that proceeds from them - all these are without value and have no authority or command over anyone. These men, so promoted and elevated, will be by the same fact deprived of all dignity, place, honor, title and power." ("Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio", February 15, 1559.)
There are actually two separate questions we must bear in mind: One is the validity of Orders received, and the other is having jurisdiction to exercise the powers of an office in the Church.
In other words, it is one thing to say that a man is validly ordained a priest or consecrated a bishop, and it is another to say that he may hold a legitimate office in the Church. A man could be validly ordained or consecrated, but be barred from holding office.
It is like a doctor, or lawyer, or engineer. A man could be a "valid" doctor, but not have a license to practice medicine; a man could be a "valid" lawyer, but not have a license to practice law; a man could be a "valid" engineer, but not have a license to practice engineering.
The same thing is true of a priest or bishop.
What Pope Paul IV is talking about in this Bull is the ability of a man to hold an office in the Church, and not the validity of his ordinations.
The key phrase of the document is:
"enters into possession of the government and administration [of the Office]... none of his acts of power or administration may be deemed valid"
Power and administration refers to the Power of Jurisdiction, which a man receives when he takes office. A man who deviates from the Catholic Faith could not receive the Power of Jurisdiction to administer an office in the Church, like running a diocese.
But being a heretic or a schismatic does not stop your sacraments from being valid, either sacraments received or given. The Greek Orthodox are schismatics, but they are also heretics, since they deny the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption which are infallibly defined as dogmas. And yet, their ordinations are still valid, and their bishops are still validly consecrated.
Some also point to the phrase "one cannot accept him as legitimate". Being legitimate is not the same as being valid.
In the case of Cardinal Liénart, falling into heresy might affect his juridical acts as diocesan bishop, like dispensations, marriage annulments and appointments of parish priests. But any ordinations he performed would still be valid, just as the ordinations performed by the schismatic and heretical Greek Orthodox are still valid.
Canon Law
The Code of Canon Law of 1917 dealt with the question of excommunication and ecclesiastical offices, and when the Code came into effect, it superceded the Bull of Pope Paul IV. Under canon 2264 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (and canon 1331 of the 1983 code), excommunication prevents a person from:
However, there is no statement in the law that the sacraments performed by an excommunicated person against the law would be invalid. Hence we say that such sacraments are illicit, but still valid.
Secondly, if it is a case of an automatic excommunication, and an excommunicated person takes possession of an office against the Law, acts performed while he is in office are still valid.
Therefore, according to Church Law, Cardinal Liénart, even though automatically excommunicated, would have validly exercised the office of Bishop of his diocese, and his sacraments, including any ordinations he performed, would have been valid.
Some say that even if Cardinal Liénart was a validly consecrated bishop, he could not validly ordain a priest or consecrate a bishop, because he could not have a proper intention to perform a valid ordination.
Intention with respect to the sacraments is very precise. It is often counter to our general idea of intention, which is very imprecise, because we often confuse belief and intention.
Belief and intention are two different things. Consider the following three similar cases:
|
|
|
|
| Has been given certain powers by the State. | Has been given certain powers by the State. | Has been given certain powers by the Church. |
| If he is a communist infiltrator trying to destroy the State, he will not believe that the State has any legitimate authority. And so he will not believe that the State has any legitimate power to give to him. | If he is a communist infiltrator trying to destroy the State, he will not believe that the State has any legitimate authority. And so he will not believe that the State has any legitimate power to give to him. | If he is a communist (or freemasonic) infiltrator trying to destroy the Church, he will not believe that the Church has any legitimate authority. And so he will not believe that the Church has any legitimate power to give to him. |
| If he says the words "You're under arrest" then the person
is under arrest, because:
a) he has been given the authority to arrest people b) he has said the words he needs to say to place someone under arrest. |
If he says the words "I find you guilty" then the person
is guilty, because:
a) he has been given the authority to pronounce sentence in a court of law b) he has said the words he needs to say to pronounce sentence. |
If he says the words necessary to confer a sacrament, then
the sacrament is conferred, because:
a) he has been given the authority to confer sacraments b) he has said the words he needs to say to confer a sacrament. |
| The efficacy of his arrests does not depend on his belief in his job or in the state, but it simply comes from the authority vested in him, and by his saying the necessary words. | The efficacy of his judgements does not depend on his belief in his job or in the state, but it simply comes from the authority vested in him, and by his saying the necessary words. | The efficacy of his sacraments does not depend on his belief in his job or in the state, but it simply comes from the authority vested in him, and by his saying the necessary words. |
The question of sacramental intention was a very real one in the Middle Ages, when many bishops appointed family members as priests, especially when it was a case of appointments to big and wealthy parishes. Many of these priests did not believe in transubstantiation, the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. So people began to worry that Masses would be invalid, because priests did not believe in what they were doing.
The Church at that time defined precisely what kind of intention is needed for a valid sacrament. One of the things decided was that a priest did not need to believe in what he was doing to have a valid intention. This teaching on the intention required for the validity of a sacrament was summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica (III.64.8-10). As St. Thomas says:
"an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament, provided that the other essentials be there." (S.T. III.64.9)
St. Thomas further says that when you perform an action, there are two
kinds of intention:
a) the intention to perform the action as it should be performed
b) the intention to achieve the results that should be achieved by
performing the action.
These two kinds of intention are not the same. The Church decided that only the first kind of intention is necessary for a valid Consecration (transubstantiation) at Mass. St. Thomas considers the case of a priest who consecrates a host for the purposes of using it for sorcery (satanic black mass), and he says that as long as the priest intends to perform the Consecration of the Mass as it should be performed, this intention is all that is necessary for a valid Consecration. What you intend to do afterwards does not affect what you intend to do now. As long as you intend to perform the sacrament as it should be performed, believing in what you are doing is not necessary for validity.
This teaching regarding the validity of the Consecration at Mass can be extended to the other sacraments.
Just as it is not necessary for a priest to believe in transubstantiation in order to validly consecrate at Mass, so too it is not necessary for a bishop to believe in the power of the priesthood in order to validly ordain a priest or consecrate a bishop.
And so, even if Cardinal Liénart was a freemason, all he needed was the intention to perform the sacrament as it should be performed, in order for his ordinations and consecrations to be valid. And so Archbishop Lefebvre's ordination as a priest and consecration as a bishop by Cardinal Liénart were valid.
There is one exception to this rule, and that is the case of someone who has a contrary intention.
But we have already seen above that it is virtually impossible for a freemason to have a deliberate intention contrary to receiving a sacrament, because he doesn't believe in the power of the sacraments. For the same reason, it is virtually impossible for a freemason to have a deliberate intention contrary to using his power to ordain a priest or consecrate a bishop, specifically because a freemason doesn't believe in the power of the priesthood anyway.
And so, for all these reasons, Cardinal Liénart would have validly ordained and consecrated Archbishop Lefebvre.
Even if everything we have said above is false, and Cardinal Liénart did not validly ordain Archbishop Lefebvre as a priest, Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration as a bishop was still certainly valid. This is because the Church always requires three bishops to co-consecrate a new bishop, just in case one of them has a defective intention, or were invalidly consecrated themselves.
Thus, when Archbishop Lefebvre was consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Liénart, two other bishops co-consecrated with him. There is no evidence that either of these co-consecrators (Bishop Alfred Ancel of Lyon, France and Bishop Jean-Baptiste Fauret of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost) were freemasons. Certainly, their names do not appear on the "list" of freemasons in the Church, where we find Cardinal Liénart's name.
And it doesn't matter whether Archbishop Lefebvre's priestly ordination was valid, because the validity of an ordination does not depend on receiving a lower order. As St. Thomas Aquinas says:
"If one receives a subsequent order, without receiving a preceding order, he is not reordained, but he receives what is lacking... Therefore the preceding order is not necessary for the following." (S.T. Suppl. 35.5)
Therefore, whether or not Archbishop Lefebvre was a validly ordained priest, he was certainly a validly consecrated bishop.
We hope we have convincingly shown that Archbishop Lefebvre was a validly
consecrated bishop, and not a freemason, and that therefore, all priests
he ordained and bishops he consecrated were validly ordained and consecrated.