This defense was proposed by one of his followers under the title THE VALIDITY OF HOLY ORDERS.

The most practical approach in pointing out the errors contained in the defense of Marcel Lefebvre would be to comment on the statements made in that defense.

It is our position, in line with that of the Church, that where there is the slightest positive doubt concerning the validity of some Sacraments, these must be repeated. Among such Sacraments are Baptism and Holy Orders.

The author of the defense states: "Recently, it was revealed that Cardinal Lienart was apparently a Freemason."

The author does not mention the fact that it was Marcel Lefebvre who himself made this revelation in a talk in Montreal, Canada.. Now, either Lefebvre knew what he was saying, or he did not. If he said: "I saw him in his Masonic paraphernalia. It is sad because he ordained me. Fortunately, my ordination was valid" one must believe him.

It is the words of Lefebvre himself that first led to the further investigation of his ordination and subsequent consecration.

Now when the author makes the statement that "it was revealed that Cardinal Lienart was apparently a Freemason" the statement itself requires analysis. A "revelation" of something indicates the intellectual truth of the thing. Furthermore, to say that "Cardinal Lienart was apparently a Freemason" is tantamount to saying that he was not a Freemason. The reason is because that which is apparent is not real, and that which is real is not something that is apparent. As the statement stands, it actually reads as follows: "Recently, it was revealed that Cardinal Lienart was not a Freemason."

But, obviously, this is what is know as "begging the question." It indicates that the author is forcing his intellect to opt for a position that has not been proven at all. Petitio principii (begging the question) is an argumentation in which the very conclusion (question) to be proved is, in some form or other, assumed to be true.

The next logical fallacy is "arguing beside the point" and here takes the erroneous form of "an appeal to the individual" (argumentum ad hominem).

This fallacy attempts to show that the character or the previous views of the opponent are such that he is not the proper person to uphold the statements he is making.

This fallacy is shown in the author's statement: "Certain naïve persons with only the vaguest grasp of theological principles and with an obvious desire to interpret everything so as to confirm their own obsessive personal theories on the present crisis in the Church, have imagined that sacramental acts performed by the Cardinal were invalid, that, therefore the ordination and consecration of Marcel Lefebvre were invalid since `a Freemason could not have the intention to do what the Church does,' which intention they rightly declare necessary for the validity of a Sacrament."

The error lies in the fact that those who question the validity of Marcel Lefebvre's ordination and consecration are "naïve," possess "only the vaguest grasp of theological principles," have "an obvious desire to interpret everything so as to confirm their own obsessive personal theories" etc.

Each of these judgments is an attack upon the person and says nothing about the question. This fallacy usually takes the form as expressed by the author above: He attempts to heap scorn, abuse and ridicule upon his opponent instead of meeting his arguments with counter-arguments.

If a child of eight spoke a truth and a Pope spoke a falsehood, whom would you believe? We all know the story of the emperor's new clothes. While all the adults expressed admiration for the emperor's new clothes paraded before his subjects, it was an innocent child who exclaimed to his mother: "But, mommy, the emperor is naked!"

Such insults to the opponent's intelligence and motives are not a proof that the opponent is as described, rather they are a proof that Lefebvre's "defender" knows his own arguments are weak.. Besides this, the author has an personal interest in convincing others that Lefebvre's orders were valid: He himself was "ordained" by Lefebvre.

Perhaps a note on the "teaching of the Church" which the author ascribes to himself would be in order.

The author would have us believe that he is speaking in the name of the Church while attacking the ones who do have the authority to speak in the name of the Church.

First of all, he is not a valid bishop in whom resides the authority of the Apostles who are the only legitimate teachers in the Roman Catholic Church. The author is not a member of any Religious institute recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. On the contrary, he belongs (or did belong) to the bogus "Society of St.Pius X" _ an organization that has no juridical nor practical standing in the Roman Catholic Church.

The author begins his defense by posing the question in a way that is deceptive and not at all what his opponents are saying. He states: "The question is NOT whether or not Cardinal Lienart, as a Freemason, could validly administer a Sacrament, but whether he did in this case."

The first point to clarify, then, is the scope of the question. The scope of the question goes beyond Lienart and Lefebvre. It affects every case where the Minister of the Sacrament or the recipient of the Sacrament was a Freemason.

The question, then, has been arbitrarily posed by Lefebvre's defender. When, therefore, the author states that "First of all, what the question is NOT…..The question, therefore, is NOT whether or not Cardinal Lienart, as a Freemason could validly administer a Sacrament at all…" he has already falsified the question and is left to argue with the wind, because that is the question: WHETHER OR NOT A FREEMASON COULD VALIDLY ADMINISTER A SACRAMENT AT ALL?

And the response is in the negative: A Freemason is deemed unable to have the necessary minimum intention of doing what the Church does.

This is the thesis. And the arguments presented will either confirm it or repudiate it. This is the way the Church proceeds with every question. A thesis is only as strong as the arguments that support it.

Therefore, let it be known to all sincere and honest people that there is no bias against individuals, but only the genuine concern for the supernatural life of the Roman Catholic Church. Error, falsehood and disobedience must be unmasked and denounced. The innocent victims of such falsehoods and deceptions are consoled and warned.

For those who question Lefebvre's validity, it is not the man himself that is in question. He may be an innocent victim of unscrupulous individuals. Then, again, perhaps he is not; perhaps he is secretly part of the established Apostate Church whom he appeared to oppose. These are questions that do not pertain to our present concern.

　

NO ONE CAN BE A FREEMASON AND A CATHOLIC AT THE SAME TIME.

Conclusion:

Just as in the case of Anglican Orders, when after a lengthy explanation and a multitude of evidence and an appeal to reasonable men, the Anglicans still ignore the truth of their invalid Orders, there is no reason that the preceding explanation rejecting Lefebvrist ordinations and consecrations will be accepted by unreasonable men.

Taking into consideration the fact that this matter which sincere men would never have difficulty in comprehending once the facts are presented will not satisfy those whose interests are not in accord with the teaching and discipline of the Church, and knowing that there will still be many who will continue in this dangerous error of the Lefebvrists, thinking themselves to find the Sacrament of Order and its fruits where in fact they do not exit, it is my duty as a Roman Catholic Bishop to declare to all faithful Roman Catholics that the ordinations performed by Marcel Lefebvre are at best dubious and that, therefore, following the doctrine of the Church concerning the Sacraments, the ordinations and consecrations in the Lefebvrite Sect must be considered doubtful and therefore must be treated in practice as invalid.