It is currently Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:02 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
 Source for Cardinal Lineart 
Author Message

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Source for Cardinal Lineart
The accusation is that Cardinal Lienart was a freemason. The below list of references was taken from a paper published online to cause doubt to Bishop Lefebvre and Bishop Thuc's orders. I total disagree with the article and only am using this to examine the references to the "fact" Cardinal Lienart was a freemason. I have cross referenced the "sources" but am using this one for convenience as it list them all in one document.

Traditional Catholics -
Do Your Clergy Possess Valid Orders?

"Liénart the Mason

Liénart was first exposed as being a high-ranking, 30 degree Freemason in a book titled L’Infaillibilité Pontificale (Papal Infallibility), which was written by a Chamberlain of Pope Pius XII, Marquis de la Franquerie, an experienced and accomplished Catholic author4 as well as a personal friend of Marcel Lefebvre. In fact, the second edition of L’Infaillibilité Pontificale contains a commendation from Lefebvre in which he expresses his appreciation to his “dear Marquis” for publishing the book.5

This book revealed that Liénart was “a Luciferian who frequented black masses”6 and whose role at Vatican Council II was dictated to him from his Masonic superiors. In a footnote to the above quoted text, the Marquis explains:

“This attitude of the Cardinal could not surprise those who knew of his membership in Masonic and Luciferian Lodges. That was why the author of this study had consistently refused to accompany Cardinal Liénart in official ceremonies, as Secret Chamberlain.”

“The Cardinal had been initiated in 1912 in a Lodge in Cambrai, whose Venerable was Brother Debierre. He attended one Lodge in Cambrai, three in Lille, one in Valenciennes and two in Paris, including one lodge especially composed of parliamentarians. In 1919, he was indicated as a Visitor (18th degree) and then in 1924 as a 30th degree. The future Cardinal met in the lodges Brother Debierre and Roger Salengro. Debierre was one of the informants of Cardinal Gasparri, who had been initiated in America, and Cardinal Hartmann, Archbishop of Cologne, a Rosicrucian of Germany.”7

[The witness in the book is a Monsieur B... I could hardly call this a credible accusation. What court of law would condemn someone as a murder based on evidence submitted by the same Monsieur B? If anyone finds one please let me know as I wish to avoid that country :) ]

In addition to this book, there have also been several publications exposing Liénart as a Mason. One of these is a French periodical called Le Courrier Tychique, published by Max Barret, friend and former chauffeur of Marcel Lefebvre. This publication carried the story in its October 25, 2009 edition of Liénart’s deathbed confession to a traditionalist priest by the name of Canon Descornets. It said that Liénart not only confessed his Masonic membership, but that he further requested the Canon to make the fact of it public, and in order to facilite this, he released Canon Descornets from the seal of the confessional. The Canon complied with his request, but fearing reprecusions (he was still operating under his Vatican II bishop), he did so only to private audiences. It was from a first-hand witness at one of these audiences that Max Barret obtained the information that he published in his article. [Bold added]

[Again, another anonymous source. Again who would be convicted of a crime based on the evidence of someone who is afraid to put their name behind the accusation. And this is someone who heard from someone who heard from someone, so how many times are we removed from the actual "witness". I can not take this to be hard evidence. When someone is a witness in a murder case, it is the actual person to the event. It is not someone who heard it from someone who heard it from the witness. Does this sound ridiculous to anyone else?]

In March, 2013, Einsicht, a conservative German publication often quoted in attempting to prove the validity of the Thuc lineage, treated of the fact of Liénart's masonic membership and stated that Lefebvre acquaintance and ex-SSPX professor, Father Gerard des Lauriers, advised those who had beened ordained by Marcel Lefebrve to get themselves conditionally ordained again due to concerns about validity.

Where was the information for this article which proved the "fact" of Lienart's masonic membership? Probably from the above "reliable" sources :!:

Father Luigi Villa provides yet more evidence. He was said to have been commissioned by Cardinal Ottaviani to obtain documentation about high ranking Church officials suspected of being Masons. This task one day found Father Villa in Paris, waiting near a Masonic lodge for someone to provide him with documentary evidence confirming Liénart's Masonic membership [Bold add], when he was assaulted and beat into unconsciousness. While pounding him, his assailent shouted: “There is a devil on this earth!” (Who is Father Luigi Villa? by Dr. Franco Adessa)

[Someone might have brought proof of Lienart's masonic membership. More hard proof :?: :?: :?: of what might be :?: :?: :?: Sound evidence to me. Lets hang the man :!: ]

(Another source of Liénart's masonic ties arose when an internal conflict within a Freemasonic Lodge in Italy, between Mino Pecorelli and his former Grand Master, Licio Gelli, spilled out into the public forum. As a result of this conflict, Pecorelli leaked out a membership list in July, 1976. So many credible publications have since reprinted this list that its authenticity is beyond all reasonable doubt. It should be noted, however, that Liénart's name was not found on the original list put out by Pecorelli, but made its way into the list at a later date [Bold added], in which it stated: “Liénart, Achille, Cardinal. Grand Master top Mason. Bishop of Lille, France. Recruits Masons. Was leader of progressive forces at Vatican II Council.”8 Whether his name was added by Pecorelli himself or by someone else is unknown, which is why this is being given parathentically.)"

[The article I traced to a 1976 issue of the journal Borghese. I have no reference to the author of the article and was wondering if anyone knew the origin? Of course does it matter as Lienart's name was inserted later by not even Mr. B but a Mr. Unknown :?: More hard evidence.]

I was wondering if anyone had any real credible information on Cardinal Lienart being a freemason or could correct me if I am being blind to any of the above sources? As far as I can tell, to say Cardinal Lienart is a freemason is calumny and to claim such is, I believe, to be considered a sin against the Eighth Commandment.


Mon Sep 29, 2014 11:42 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Source for Cardinal Lineart
I'm with you, James. He was a Modernist and one of the key figures at V2, but there's no proof at all that he was a member of a lodge.

There's a genre of literature which shirks the hard work of proving things from available evidence, and especially avoids the onerous task of developing sound and defensible judgements about key figures in history. One sees this in much "conspiracy" literature and unfortunately it has been true of a large amount of traditionalist work also. The alleged Masonic connection of Lienart is actually utterly irrelevant unless and until proved, and even then only adds further proof that the man had a perverted intellect. The fact that he was no good is manifest anyway. He promoted liberalism and Modernism and fought the conservatives at the Council. This is all a matter of record, and in reality that much is not controversial at all. If we stick with that kind of observation and comment we are safe, yet too many regard it as unconvincing, as too reliant on others being able to form good judgements, so they seek the short-cut of actual Masonic membership.

There's a whole discussion of epistemology in this. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" furphy, the problem of people looking for mathematical or metaphysical proofs of matters which properly belong to the moral order. As I've written before:

Quote:
Certitude may be of various kinds – metaphysical, physical, or moral. Matters in which men's wills are essential are matters of the moral order. Hence the kind of certitude we may achieve in such matters is moral certainty.

The three kinds of certitude are all truly certitude. The difference between them is not that only metaphysical certitude is certain – no, all are truly certain. The difference is rooted in the subject matter to which they relate. That is, the difference in the kind of certitude is rooted in the difference in the truth which is seen.

St. Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles, “Because not every truth admits of the same mode of manifestation, and 'a well-educated man will expect exactness in every class of subject, according as the nature of the thing admits,' as is very well remarked by the Philosopher (Eth. Nicom. I, 1094b), we must first show what mode of proof is possible for the truth that we have now before us.“ Of God and His Creatures - Translation (With some Abridgement) of the Summa Contra Gentiles of Saint Thomas Aquinas by Joseph Rickaby, S.J. (London: Burns and Oates, 1905).

Aristotle, in the place referred to by St. Thomas, Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, Ch. 3, "Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. … In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs."

One might remark that it is the mark of an uneducated man to insist on metaphysical proofs in matters of the moral order.


And of course, even if it were proven that Lienart was an actual member of a lodge, that would not constitute proof that he had left the Church by heresy. To depart from the Church by heresy the delict must be "public" according to the definition given in the Code. Secret membership of a condemned organisation would not suffice. On the other hand, open opposition to dogma and the promotion by every means of theories which are incompatible with dogma is clear proof of heresy in the intellect and the concomitant perversity of will which together constitute the crime of heresy by which one openly departs from the Church.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:44 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Source for Cardinal Lineart
Well what is important to note is whether his principles were freemasonic or not. This is what is more important then even proof that he belonged to a Lodge, because for some people it will never suffice. How do we know absolutely that someone did not fabricate this to destroy Msgr. Lefebvre's reputation etc... In times of confusion you never let something doubtful determine your future moral actions.

I agree to spread it as fact, or even presume it is true is a SERIOUS calumny. We do not have enough evidence to really prove that he was definitely a mason, but we do know he was a modernist. As always we need to rely on objective evidence, and you really see some people go over and above to try to smear, some of them are home-aloners.

Would it have been better if he would have been consecrated by the Pope? No doubt, but it doesn't take away his validity and as several have already pointed out, very little is necessary to have a valid intention. The person would have to mentally withdraw their intent in order to really invalidate it. However, we really can't prove a claim like that. This is why the Church relies solely on methods of the external objective evidence. We would have to time travel and MIND read in order to prove that he "was certainly validly ordained." Some of these traditional Catholics that buy that stuff, they are pretty deluded and need to get educated as to how the faith actually works/functions in the real world. I sometimes worry too many of our own are deeply entrenched in the methodology of the J*w*sh T*lmud*sts, they lack any common sense. This is a sign that the mind of that Catholic, is not being led by Thomist principles, stick to sound and safe philosophy. Ask yourself, is this Thomist, anti-modernist and anti liberal? If you are truly drinking from the fount of St. Thomas as Aeterni Patris suggest, then it will be ipso facto anti-modernist and anti-thomist. The reason I added the other two, some might claim that Dr. Peter Kreeft and others like him are "Thomist", and this a lie. Sure they have read, St. Thomas and understand him, but they do not follow him. No different then the Anglican Divines who memorized by heart the Fathers of the Church. Ergo, a real Thomist follows his theological principles and CONCLUSIONS. Amen.

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:32 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: Source for Cardinal Lineart
Thanks John and Jorge for your responses. I agree with your observations.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but if Cardinal Lienart was Proven to be a member of the Freemasons, while this is not heresy, he still would be excommunicated automatically by Canon 2335. However, despite the claim by many, this would not be an excommunication Vitandi as there is only one law, Canon 2343/1, which ipso facto excommunicates someone Vitandi (Canon 2343/1 is the laying of violent hands on a bishop). All other excommunications according to Woywod and Smith, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 486 need to fulfill three requirements before they become Vitandi.
1.). Excommunicated by name by the Apostolic See
2.). Excommunication must be publicly proclaimed
3.). The sentence must expressly state the person excommunicated must be avoided.

Now all other ipso facto excommunications not fulfilling the three requirements besides Canon 2343/1 would then be Toleratus. Now it is my understanding that excommunicated Toleratus are still members of the Church (According to Father Berry and others), but they are deprived of all spiritual benefits of that membership. Hence, even belonging to the Freemasons does not automatically mean one is adhering to a non-Catholic sect because a person who became a member of a non-Catholic sect would become a heretic or schismatic, not excommunicated Toleratus, and he would be referred to as a non-Catholic.

And since Canon 2261/2 allows Catholics in time of need to seek the sacraments from those excommunicated Toleratus, the Code negatively infers sacraments conferred by clerics who are Freemasons are valid, for the code could never allow the Church's members to receive sacraments of known doubtful validity. Freemasons and clerics who were Freemasons was also quite prevelant at the time of the writting of the code and given there is a Canon refering directly with them, I think it is reasonable to assume, if sacraments administered by them were doubtful, the code would have dealt with it. Therefore, even if there was Proof of Cardinal Lienart being a Freemason, the worst it would mean is he was a excommunicated Toleratus and if this was a notorious fact, one could only approach him for sacraments if their were no other lawful ministers i.e. he was the only parish priest in your French village. To conclude, given all sources for this "notorious fact" are given After the ordination and consecration of Archbishop Lefebvre, Archbishop Lefebvre, even if this were true, would have been under no obligation at the time of his ordination to find another bishop having demonstrated this accusation was not a "notorious fact" at that time.

In regards to Cardinal Lienart being a heretic, I agree with you John, he would lose membership in the Church by this fact. However, although I have read amply evidence to point him out as a modernist and a leading liberal at the Varican II council, I have yet to see anyone assemble proof of deviation of faith by him Before the council. A public departure of faith, if his conciliar activities were sufficient to prove a public defection, would then have been subsequent to the ordination and consecration of Archbishop Lefebvre and irrelevant to the validity of the sacraments conferred. Any public defection of faith accused by particularly homes aloners before this time would have to be proven by the same party before it can be more than a negative doubt, for the burden of proof falls on the accuser (Canon 1748) (and even if this were done, I contest this would automatically invalidate any sacrament conferred by Cardinal Lienart). A person is presumed innocent or in this case, once one has seriously received Baptism and made a public profession of faith (like you have said before John), a person is presumed Catholic until the contrary is proven. If my conclusions are correct, I hope this post will shed some light for other newbies like me on this issue and some guiding principles I believe to be important.


Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:26 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Source for Cardinal Lineart
According to this commentary regarding the marriage impediment (prohibiting) of mixed religion, Freemasons are not to be classified as heretics.

'A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law.' Book III, Vol.V, by Rev. P. Chas. Augustine, O.S.B., D.D (1920); pp.144-145 (Marriage Can.1060 'Mixed Religion') wrote:
.…as Christian denonminations are now scattered broadcast everywhere, it would be a difficult matter to set up a diriment impediment, or as it were, an insurmountable barrier between Catholics and Protestants. But a Catholic may not on that account licitly marry a member of a heretical or schismatic sect.

Who are heretics? A declaration of the Holy Office [S. O., April 6, 1859 (coll., n. 1174)] with regard to mixed marriages in Holland may help us to understand the term better. It says that all those are called heretics who, though baptized by Catholics, were educated in heresy before they were seven years of age; also all those educated by heretics, although not thoroughly imbued with heretical doctrines; likewise those who have fallen into the hands of heretics and adhere to their tenets; those who have apostatized from the Catholic faith and joined a heretical sect; and those born of and baptized by heretics who have grown up without making formal profession of heresy or without any religion at all. However it must not be overlooked that our text says: “sectae haereticae adscripta,” i.e., the non-Catholic party must be a member of a heretical sect, or at least must have adhered to a sect some time previously to the marriage. The Holy Office has expressly declared that those can not be regarded as heretics who have rejected the Catholic faith but have not joined a false religion or heretical sect [S. O., Jan. 30, 1867 (Coll., n. 1300)], and that Freemasons who belong to a condemned sect are not to be classified as heretics.


Here are a couple more points.

1. Even if Cardinal Lienart was a public heretic before VII, him being a heretic (even if he were declared to be vitandi) wouldn’t have any effect on the validity of any of the sacraments he administered, with the exception of Penance. A public departure from the faith for Lienart would be irrelevant, not only because, as James said, it would have been subsequent to his ordination and consecration of Archbishop Lefebvre; but also because being a heretic, or excommunicate, in and of itself, is irrelevant to validly ordaining or consecrating, or administering any other sacraments, with the exception of Penance.

2. Some have asserted that the Lefebvre line would be a “valid, but illicit line” if Cardinal Lienart had been a Freemason. The thought here is that he would have been excommunicated, therefore making the ordinations and consecrations of Lefebvre illicit. This is when I think the notions of public or declared become significant. Though it might be illicit for a minister under an excommunication to administer sacraments; when that minister is publicly in good-standing with the Church, those receiving sacraments from them wouldn’t be receiving them illicitly. They wouldn't have received "illicit Holy Orders", as if their Holy Orders were tainted in some way. When you think about it, it’s silly to think that a line of priests would be an “illicit line” due to an ordination or consecration that was done with full approval of the Church and always acknowledged by the Church as licit.

Claims against the validity of Lienart’s ordination and consecration of Lefebvre generally whittle down to arguments regarding Lienart’s intention. People tend to have very loose notions of sacramental intention. As Jorge said, very little is necessary to have a valid intention. There is a new paper out there regarding this issue (pro-validity), which I think is pretty good. It has a lot of interesting sources and is more extensive than other papers I’ve seen on the topic of Cardinal Lienart and sacramental intention. I’ll find a link for it to post to the Bellarmine Forums at some time.


Tue Sep 30, 2014 4:46 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 4:53 pm
Posts: 100
New post Re: Source for Cardinal Lineart
Thanks Joe for your very informative comment, and I agree 100% with your observations. Particularly that quote from Augustine is most helpful. I hadn't come upon any ruling by the Holy Office on how exactly to classify Freemasons given they do have membership in a society. It was difficult to know whether to classify the freemason society as a religious society or not. I discerned from the Code no, but had no official ruling to verify my logic. This answers my question thoroughly. Thanks.


Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:02 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Source for Cardinal Lineart
I posted a link to that paper I was referring to in the Bellarmine Forums Texts:
Cardinal Lienart and the Intention to Do What the Church Does


Fri Oct 03, 2014 3:30 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.