II.
That is how backbiting does its diabolical work. It changes costume so slickly, we can hardly recognize it. Malice is ingenious: It spots a beam where there is only a wisp of straw, an elephant where there is only a fly, a mountain high as the Alps where there is only a molehill. It turns dream into reality and taints the virtues of others so skilfully with its own colors that we mistake them for vices.

Look at the backbiter as he prepares to blacken someone's reputation. He begins by looking severe and modest, lowering his gaze, heaving sighs and speaking in a slow, serious voice. He takes a host of curves and detours to conceal his deadly art. He goes the long way round before shooting his poison. "It grieves me that a man of his caliber should degrade himself to that point," he says. "It's not me who would have revealed his hidden crimes, but since everyone Some people spew detraction carelessly and bluntly, just as it comes to their mouth. Others try to conceal the malice they cannot hold in, beneath an appearance of lying modesty. They begin by heaving sad sighs, speaking slowly and gravely, knitting their brows. Detraction slips out with a plaintive air and as though despite themselves, in contrite and grieving tones: 'I'm really at a loss with him. I don't hate him, but all my words have been unable to correct him.' Or else they say, 'I knew all that perfectly well; I never mentioned it, but since others have, I can't hide the truth. I admit it with deep sorrow, it is all too true.'"

When Esdras was pondering worriedly on how God governed the world, an Angel appeared to him and asked him three questions. Here is the first: "How do you think someone might be able to weigh fire? Attempt to do it Clever the man who can." (5)
(5) Esdr 4:5

Now, every page of Holy Scripture depicts backbiting as a burning fire: "What chastisement will be inflicted on you, O treacherous tongue? Sharp arrows of a warrior with fiery coals of brushwood." (6) "The tongue is a fire," (7) says Saint James. Solomon says about the godless man, "A scoundrel is a furnace of evil, and on his lips there is a scorching fire." (8) Indeed, compare the power and speed of fire to the power and speed of the tongue: there is a strong resemblance. When fire breaks its bounds and strikes out, it spreads desolation everywhere. So it is with the tongue: when it escapes from its prison and flies free, it does not return without having wreaked dreadful havoc.
(6) Ps 119:3
(7) Jas 3:6
(8) Prov 16:27
Therefore, the tongue is a fire, and it takes great wisdom to weigh it on an accurate scale. The wiser and more prudent a man is in everything, the more careful he is in measuring his words. "The words of the prudent are carefully weighed," (9) says the son of Sirach. The wise man's lips are like the two platters of a scale on which he weighs that fire. But how hard it is to weigh even sparks and wisps of straw! I call sparks the infinity of evils that spring from a single word of detraction. For backbiting harms not only one person, but many: the servants, children and friends of the person it denigrates.
(9) Sir 21:28.
A word spoken thoughtlessly or maliciously is often deadly not only to the one it strikes, but also to his wife, children and entire family. A single spark burns them all and puts them at a disadvantage. Who can say he weighs all his words properly? In the story of Tobias we read that Asmodeus, the prince of sensuality, thought he could weigh the flames of impurity. But where is the hand so refined that it can weigh all the sparks that escape from the backbiter's mouth?
Then what is a wise man to do? He listens and holds words in his mouth when they try to fly out. As long as he keeps them in his throat, he can subject them to reason and good sense; but once they slip out, there is no way to make them return: they run, they fly, they go on an endless journey. "Fools' thoughts are in their mouths, wise men's words are in their hearts," (10) says the Holy Spirit. A prudent man passes all he wants to say in his heart and he weighs it all before speaking it. This counsel of prudence was religiously observed by the Mother of the Saviour. As the Gospel tells us, "Mary kept in mind all these things, pondering them in Her heart." (11)
(10) Sir 21:29
(11) Lk 2:51

SINS OF THE TONGUE: The Backbiting Tongue By Father Belet, of the Diocese of Basle Translated from the French, 1870 ed.
Table of Contents:
1. The nature of backbiting. Its various species. Its gravity.
2. The terrible evils that backbiting breeds. Reparation of the damage it causes.
3. Appropriate names for backbiters. Usual chastisements to which they expose themselves.
4. Listening to backbiters is a great sin.

1. The nature of backbiting. Its various species. Its gravity.

In 1617 someone published a volume entitled, The Horseman's Book: The Art of Riding, treating the use of bridles, whips, guides, and so on. Such a title is of a nature to give rise to sad thoughts. We have learned how to make bits, bridles, halters and pincers, and how to adapt them to a horse's head or mouth; we have learned the art of directing these animals at will by means of a small bit. But we possess a tongue so ill-tempered that no bridle can curb it: this raging beast resists bits, halters and pincers alike, knocking down every obstacle in its path. It wants to be as free as a horse in the wild. Let us see what Saint James has to say on the subject: "We put bits into horses' mouths that they may obey us, and we control their whole body also. But no man can tame the tongue." (1)
(1) Jas. 3:3-8
Without a doubt, the most poisonous tongue of all is the backbiter's. It spits its deadly venom to the four winds. It is an evil known throughout the earth. One can never stigmatize and deplore it enough.
Therefore, we shall now study the nature of this evil, its various species, and the gravity of the evils it breeds.
I.
Therefore, what is backbiting or detraction?
Here is the definition given by Saint Thomas Aquinas: "Backbiting is denigration of a neighbor's reputation by means of secret words." (2) Indeed, a person may wound someone by word in two ways: openly and to his face (that is, by insulting him); and secretly, when he is absent -- and that is backbiting.
(2) St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theoligica, Part II, Section II, Quest. 73, Art. I.
Palladius relates that someone once asked Saint Anthony, "What is backbiting?" and he replied, "It is every sort of wicked word we dare not speak in front of the person about whom we are talking."
This is truly the nature of backbiters. They cannot do physical harm to those who are absent, so they strike at them with their tongue. Saint Thomas Aquinas says, "Destroying a person's reputation is a very serious wrong." (3) And Saint Bernard declares, "Backbiting is a great vice, a great sin, a great crime." (4)
(3) Ibid. Part II, Section II, Question 83, Article 2.
(4) Saint Bernard, De modo bene vivendi, Chapter 33.
There are eight specific ways in which a man can backbite his neighbor:
1. When he gets carried away by vanity and imputes things against his neighbor that never happened, or when he adds to the truth imaginary circumstances that constitute either a lie or detraction.

2. When he brings a hidden or unknown fault to light. What he says is true, but he should not say it. He backbites, not by saying something untrue, but by wounding his neighbor's reputation. This is a very common sin among us.

Now you might object, "Do you mean to say I can't tell the truth ?" No, my friend. It is not permitted, unless you can do so without harming your neighbor. What you say is true, I admit, but it is hidden. The sinner has wounded his conscience in God's sight, but he has not lost his reputation before men; therefore, you may not weaken or destroy it with your tongue. And even if the sin you reveal is not altogether secret but known only to a few, as long as it is not public knowledge, you are backbiting if you reveal it to someone who was unaware of it And thus you are harming your neighbor.

3. When he exaggerates a crime, be it true, or false. This is a danger to which we readily expose ourselves when we talk about the vices of others.

4. When he relates something about another person that is not evil in any way, but speaks as though his neighbor had done it for evil reasons and adds various explanations such as, "Yes, he did that, but not with God in mind... He's not so pious as all that; he seeks to please men, he wants to stand out… You should know him, he's a hypocrite."

5. When a backbiter declares nothing but is happy to say, "I've heard it said that…" or, "There's a rumor going around..." or when he relates something as if it were doubtful: "So-and-so might not be exactly what you think, I don't think he is deserving of confidence. His neighbors never heard anything about his holiness, except that only since yesterday has he been rated among the devout." Or again, when he praises with coldness and reticence. Aulu-Gelle says, "It is more shameful to be coldly and reservedly praised than harshly and bitterly accused." All these ways of acting must be avoided with the greatest care, for people always seek evil more than good.

6. Backbiting is so subtle that anyone can defame another person with a simple gesture. He hears someone being praised for his integrity, piety or generosity, and he says, "Oh. you don't know that fellow? I see right through him. Ask me anything about him, I know him inside out." Or he raises an eyebrow and remains silent; he shakes his head; he turns his eyes so as to have it understood that the person being praised does not deserve it Sometimes a backbiter may keep his mouth shut and just turn his hand two or three times to indicate that the person in question is lightheaded and changes from hour to hour.

7. He can backbite not only with body language but also with silence. He may wickedly say nothing about the integrity or morals of his neighbor, especially when he is questioned about them or when his neighbor is accused of some crime.

8. Finally, a person is guilty of backbiting if he is publicly blamed for something he did, and he denies his guilt, thereby making his accuser pass for a liar. It is surely not an obligation to publicly admit a fault committed in secret. However, one should justify himself in some other way, saying, for instance, "Those are only words, they don't prove anything. Whoever heard them may have been mistaken. Don't believe everything you hear." This way of speaking is far more acceptable than the first.

 

Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [11] Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: [12] Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.   Matthew 5:10-12

Conclusion:

The "Society of St.Pius X" is not a legitimately approved religious institute in the Roman Catholic Church.

It has become an heretical and schismatic sect smacking of Jansenism.

Roman Catholics may not associate with this sect in any way, whether by attending their bogus religious services or supporting them in any material manner. Those who do must know that they do so in disobedience to the Church and at the peril of their salvation.

For the sake of those who would desire to know the Church's discipline in similar matters, the pertinent laws are presented here.

The Foundation and Suppression of a Religious institute (cc.492-493)

Art.1 Bishops only (exclusive of the Vicar Capitular and the Vicar General) have the power to found religious congregations. They may not, however, found or allow such congregations to be founded without consulting the Holy See. In the case of tertiaries living in common, aggregation to the first order by act of the superior general is likewise required (c.492,§ 1).

A congregation founded by a Bishop is and remains a diocesan congregation even though in the course of time it be extended to other dioceses, and it remains subject to the Ordinaries in whose dioceses it exists, according to the prescriptions of the law, until such time as it receives pontifical approbation, or at least the decree of praise (c.492,§ 2).

Although there are more laws regarding the establishment of a Religious congregation, the above should suffice to serve as a guide to understanding the mind of the Church in such matters.

Thus, all those who claim to be founders of some kind of Religious community among the "Traditionalists" are, in reality, disobedient to the Church. And, disobedience to the Church is the same as being disobedient to the Holy Ghost.

All those claiming to be some kind of Religious institute and are not subject to a legitimate Bishop are schismatic sects regardless of their origin. Even those priests who are members of long-established Religious congregations or orders may not administer Sacraments or preach to the faithful unless they are approved by the Bishop in whose territory they are located.

Those are to be strongly condemned who through a secret attitude of disobedience promote a similar spirit of disobedience in the people. The blame for the chaos, anarchy and anxiety of the general faithful is to be placed at the feet of recalcitrant, renegade clergymen whose disordered pride has led them and those who would foolishly follow them into heresy and schism.

And, heading the long list of such disloyal individuals is to be placed the bogus "Society of St.Pius X" and its spin-off, the "Society of St. Pius V."

What of the so-called "Thuc-line bishops" _ are they truly Bishops and are they truly Catholic? Generally speaking, those who have received valid consecration in the line originating from Msgr. Ngo Dinh Thuc are real Bishops. But, this does not prove that they are genuine Roman Catholic Bishops. Most of them, at least to the knowledge of this writer, have not been called to this office but have "stolen" it by some artifice or other. One must look at the intention of Msgr. Ngo in order to justly evaluate his actions.

It was already anticipated that after his death many would come in his name in order to seek some kind of legality for their dishonorable ambitions. Neither Msgr. Ngo nor the bishop who has remained faithful to his intentions and the duties of a Bishop can control the actions of others.

There are those who have not heeded the words of the Apostle and have "laid hands" upon some too lightly. And this to the detriment of souls seeking genuine spiritual guidance.

To be sure, Satan has not abandoned those who have had the courage to separate themselves from the apostate Church of Vatican II. On the contrary, all the devils of hell seem to have conspired against the small number of remaining Catholics who escaped the great apostasy.

The turbulence and turmoil existing among those who sought security for their faith by leaving the Modernist-occupied church buildings has been misunderstood. Certainly, Satan is the great master of deceit. By sowing his seeds of pride in the hearts of otherwise good people and priests, he has reaped a bountiful harvest of souls.

It may seem odd and perhaps even presumptuous to suggest that despite all the trouble and turmoil, God's purposes are being realized. While the faith of many is lost, the faith of the few is energized to heroic degrees. While our Lord gave the example of treachery in high places by choosing as an Apostle one who would betray Him, it appears that the divine providence that rules the world and the Church has seen fit to preserve Her by one faithful successor of the Apostles among the many unfaithful ones.

But, it may be asked: How can we know which of all these claimants is the true Bishop? Yes, it is true, the discernment is not all that easy because the devil will give us no rest. One need only read the life of St. Bernadette to understand the similar circumstances in which we find ourselves.

It was Bernadette alone who had received the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin. But, the devil began to inspire many others to pretend to have the same apparitions. Soon, the people no longer knew whom to believe. This, according to St. Bernadette, became her greatest cross: Because of the many false visionaries, she who had received the messages of God through the Blessed Virgin would not be believed.

It would be false humility to deny the truth. It is the truth that will make us free _ free of doubt and free of self-deception.

The Church will remain forever, even though Her numbers will be very small. One need only remember the wisdom of the saints and seek consolation in the words of our Lord. One drop of holiness is more precious in the eyes of God than an ocean of mediocrity. It is mediocrity that God vomited out of His mouth. While most people seek the superficial solace of an ocean of tepidity, the select few find it in the grace received in the true Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

Because God is a God of right order, and because it is vital that there be visible clarity to avoid confusion and the many false christs and false prophets, the writer, Bishop Louis Vezelis, OFM, has been forced by these considerations to reject all those who have been either ordained or consecrated after his own consecration on August 24, 1982.

The practical reason for this course of action is motivated by the needs of the faithful. Since the first ones in the Church who should be a sign of solidarity for all the other are the Bishops, it is also the Bishops who gather and seek out candidates for the office of bishop. No one takes this dignity upon himself but he who has been called. Too many have taken this dignity upon themselves and were never called to it by the grace of God.

There were those who, after their own efforts to be consecrated failed, publicly expressed their rejection of the very bishops whom they had at first accepted with the pharisaical excuse: "Show me a mandate from the Pope or a first class miracle and then I will accept you as my bishop" _ were the words of Rev. Vida Elmer (now deceased). This man tried every way possible to get himself consecrated. He was rejected by the Bishops in the United States. By the way, he had already rejected John Paul II as a legitimate Pope. How, then, one might ask, did he expect a papal mandate from Rome?

The same is true of Rev. Fidelis McKenna, OP. Failing to achieve his goal of becoming a Bishop, he eventually got himself consecrated in France by an aging fellow-Dominican who had been consecrated by Msgr. Ngo. Whereupon he, who had voted for the consecration of Rev. Vida Elmer and had then retracted his decision eventually consecrated Rev. Vida Elmer. And on and on it went _ and still goes on.

Among the duties of a Bishop is that of upholding the laws of the Church _ not ignoring them.

The difference between Marcel Lefebvre and Msgr. Ngo Dinh Thuc is essentially this: Lefebvre (whose ordination and consecration are in doubt) provided the Church with doubtful priests and doubtful bishops; was concerned with the external pomp and ceremony that dazzled the masses and befuddled the ignorant. Msgr. Ngo, on the other hand, went to the very essence of the matter, ignored all the external pomp and ceremony and provided the Roman Catholic Church with that one external mark of the true Church which was dangerously on the verge of extinction: Apostolic succession.

The true Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. While many other Churches are able to claim with some reasonable accuracy some of the other marks of the true Church, none can provide the fourth mark _ Apostolicity _ except the true Church.

One true and orthodox Bishop remained in the entire Roman Catholic Church: Msgr. Ngo Dinh Thuc. Abandoned and forsaken by most, he lived in humble obscurity in Toulon, France. His love for the Church and good will were abused by those who sought to deceive him. Nevertheless, he had the courage to do what he certainly knew was a high risk action: He sought to provide for the Roman Catholic Church that essential mark which he clearly perceived endangered: Msgr. Ngo Dinh Thuc gave the Church genuine Roman Catholic Bishops as successors of the Apostles!

Despite the fact that many have come in his name but have not been called, does not change the fact that at least he would not be disappointed in one of them; that the office of the Bishop in the true traditions of the Church would continue.

It is a truly painful thing to see so many waste their lives chasing after illusions. These illusions were born either of the weakness of human nature or of the master of deceit, Satan. Whatever the cause, the effect is still the same: Loss of souls and victory for Lucifer.

As a final note and to assure our kind readers of our intentions and motives, let it be known that we do not recognize as legitimate Roman Catholic Bishops anyone who has been consecrated after August 24,1982; we do not recognize as a legitimate Religious institute of whatever kind any that has not existed at least from the time of Pope Pius XII; we do not recognize as Roman Catholic even those communities established by genuine Religious of whatever Order or Congregation that are not in union with the Bishop and from whom they must receive faculties to administer the Sacraments. This is the right order of the Roman Catholic Church.

And, as we read in the Athanasian Creed: "Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all else must hold the Catholic faith: which whoever does not observe wholly and inviolate, without a doubt shall perish for all eternity."

The Creed ends with these terrifying words: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless one shall believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

An integral, inviolate doctrine of the Catholic faith is that Christ established a visible hierarchy to teach, sanctify and govern His Mystical Body. Those who do not believe this in their minds and express it in their actions cannot be said to "faithfully and firmly" believe in the Catholic faith and are not, therefore, Catholics.

Heaven and earth will surely pass away, but the words of our Lord will not pass away:

"Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father in heaven shall enter the kingdom of heaven.

"Many will say to me in that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and work many miracles in thy name?' And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you. Depart from me you workers of iniquity!'"

(Matt.4, 21-22).

Marcel Lefebvre has been excommunicated by the anti-pope John-Paul II. Now, Marcel Lefebvre merely laughed at this excommunication counting it as nothing. But, he publicly claimed to recognize John-Paul II as a legitimate Pope. Therefore, he was bound to obey his pope. By his disobedience and gross ignoring of all authority, Lefebvre spawned an equally disobedient and arrogant sect that ignores all authority.

It has been accurately said that Lefebvre's sect was conceived in lies, was born of lies and can only continue in existence in a world of religious indifference by its lies. The apple does not fall far from the tree. 

Every genuine movement in the Church has this sign of its genuineness: It is inspired by the Holy Ghost and is approved by the divinely instituted visible authority of the Church.

Has the "Society of St. Pius X" received the necessary canonical approval that would assure its recognition as a Roman Catholic society?

The answer is in the negative.

First of all, a local bishop does not have the authority to establish an "international" anything. The deception presented to the Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Friburg was a kind of boarding house for students preparing for the priesthood and studying at the local university. Lefebvre received permission from the local Bishop to establish a kind of hospice for such students. This is the reason why Mgr. Charriere gave authorization for a Pious Union. A "pious union" is not the same as a religious society or seminary. 

Noteworthy, also, is that the Mgr. Charriere bases his authorization on the fact that Lefebvre intended a spiritual formation according to the decrees of Vatican II and not according to the traditional formation of priests according to the Council of Trent.

The first approval of August 18, 1970 says nothing about establishing a seminary. It states: "By these presents, We, Francis Charriere, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Friburg, confirm the authorization which We have accorded to His Excellency Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre, in the audience of June 1969, namely: to open at Friburg a house of international character destined to receive aspirants to the Priesthood who follow courses at the University.

We implore for these future priests and those who watch over their formation the blessings of God.

Given at our episcopal house in Friburg on 18 August 1970."

There then follows the signature and seal of Msgr. Francis Charriere. 

The organization spawned by Marcel Lefebvre (whose own validity is under a cloud) is not unlike that started by the layman Schuckart and foisted on the public under the pious-sounding name "Congregation of Mary Immaculate" _ or some such "Marian" title.

Using the same Talmudic technique as Lefebvre, this man Schuckart started his own "Religious" community. As will be noted, every one of these illegitimate organizations have this particular characteristic in common: They all begin in the darkness of deception and can only exist by continuous deception. And when a legitimate authority in the Church challenges them, they show who their real Father is: the Father of Lies.

Here, then, is an organization which, on the surface appears so "Catholic" in its outward appearances, but is devoid of life-giving supernatural grace. And this is the essential point that so many fail to comprehend.

Yet, all one ever heard was their hue and cry that they were canonically established and that Rome had no right to close them down. It is all very scary when such flagrant disobedience seeks to pass itself off as being the work of the Holy Ghost.

Without going into any detailed study of the eighteenth century and why the Jesuits were suppressed by Pope Clement XIV ( a Franciscan), the fact remains that they were suppressed by the highest authority in the Church.

But, even in this case, the Society of Jesus was a legitimately erected Religious organization working with the approval of the Pope and all the local Bishops in whose dioceses they were located.

The Jesuits were _ and still are _ a "Society" even though they are no longer in the Roman Catholic Church. They never were a Religious Order. And this is something most people do not know or understand.

Nevertheless, this legitimately erected Religious Society was likewise legitimately suppressed by a legitimate Pope. Despite the discontent of many powerful laymen and Churchmen, the Brief of Suppression was valid and effective.

As far as I know, the Jesuits themselves humbly accepted this painful decree even though in some parts of the world such as Russia and Poland, the public authorities would not allow the papal Brief to be executed.

However, despite the fact that Lefebvre's young men are, for the most part, talented young men, the lamentable fact remains: They are not members of any genuine Roman Catholic organization; their very ordinations are under a cloud and therefore, they cannot be accepted anywhere in the Roman Catholic Church as valid priests (much less as "bishops").

Their situation becomes more and more complex as they arrogantly and haughtily defy any and all authority. If one were to choose among the many "saviors" of the Church one group that most closely resembles those whom Jesus warned Christians to beware as false christs and false prophets, one would be forced to choose those who call themselves the "Society of St. Pius X."

Because it is a loosely-ordered group, they have no deep roots in any kind of tradition such as the genuine Religious communities of the Church. Certainly, they find "like-minded" persons who will support them in their proud deceptions.

But, the elect of Christ _ those who humbly persevere in the true faith _ will not be deceived. Not all that glitters is gold.

After gaining Msgr. Charriere's "authorization" for a Pious Union, Lefebvre almost immediately set about establishing a seminary. To the ordinary layman, this may not mean much. But, in the mind of the Church and in the good order that must be preserved, these distinctions are very important.

Then, it was not long before Lefebvre himself began to "ordain" these poorly-trained young men who, ignorant of much of Church tradition and law, eagerly embraced the ambitious vision of being the "saviors" of the Church.

Then the recruits to Lefebvre's "pious union" began to promote themselves as a Religious community. We also see Marcel Lefebvre traveling around the world and wherever he went, he never visited the local bishop. Instead, he pontificated independently of all those whose authority he publicly claimed to recognize. In effect, then, he made himself a "pope" and his followers certainly "divinized" him.

Something few people know is that when a bishop presides in his own diocese, he has the crosier turned outwards; and when he is in a visiting diocese, the crosier's crook is turned inside towards him.

It did not take long before their heretical and schismatic mentality began to reveal itself. Some members denied all the Popes from Pope Pius X onward. This would mean that they denied the dogmatic decrees of those Popes who followed after Pope Pius X.

Despite the efforts of his disciples, Lefebvre was not well-versed in philosophy or theology. Canon Law did not seem very important to him either. Yet, anyone who had the courage to unmask their religious charade was met not with valid logical arguments, but with ridicule. But, that is the tactic of the Talmudist and Freemason.

Much like the Finno-Turkish mongols who invaded Palestine and are actually squatters, the "Society of St. Pius X" amounts to the same thing in the religious arena. They are religious squatters who shout for rights which they never had.

For example, when they came to Rochester, NY, a television reporter asked about the necessity of having the local Ordinary's permission to function in his diocese, their leader, Mr. Clarence Kelly answered that they did not need the local Ordinary's permission because they were an Order like the Franciscans and the Jesuits. This, of course, was a bald, brazen lie. No one can function in any diocese without the permission of the local Ordinary, i.e., bishop. And, furthermore, as a Pious Union their only superior could be Msgr. Charriere of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg.

One can understand the ruthless and obnoxious conduct of this man whose "training" is overshadowed by his apparent dedication to the Communist front organization known as the "John Birch Society." When one knows the tactics and ideology of subversive political groups such as this Society established by Freemasons in 1958, it is not difficult to detect the same mentality in those who simply elevate the pride and ambition of a political organization to the religious level.

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.

　

　

 

Unfortunately but not unexpectedly, there has been some question lately  about the validity of the consecrations that have taken place by those that are under the Lefebvre group.  So I went to the smartest man I've ever met - the writings of our dear Bishop Louis (RIP)  to get the real answer.  I'm so sure he is correct that I would bet my salvation on it.  Here is a cut and paste from several  articles in the Seraph.  Hopefully those that are under this deception will read it and realize their mistake. I am posting this in three  parts due to the length: 


  

Contrary to what the majority of renegade clergymen tell you, there are three things necessary for the validity of a Sacrament: matter, form and intention.

Although each of the three needs explanation, the question of intention is dealt with here for the simple reason that among the heretics and schismatics of the right, most arguments are directed against the need for the right intention.

Without doubt, the right intention is essential to the validity of a Sacrament. As is already taken for granted, the use of the adjective `right' implies that there are other intentions which are not sufficient for the validity of a Sacrament.

Following the traditional teaching of the Church as represented in reputable textbooks on dogmatic theology, use will be made of one that is familiar to almost every priest and knowledgeable layman.

What was once very clear to every seminarian and priest has now become a resurrected dead issue. This was caused by the fact that the late "Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre" made notorious for his seeming resistance against the Apostate Church occupying the facilities of the Vatican, was ordained and later consecrated by a French Freemason operating within the Church. That man was Cardinal Lienart, Lefebvre's professor in the seminary and mentor.

To be sure, all those deriving their presumed "ordination" from Marcel Lefebvre are quick to attack anyone who would dare to challenge their validity. This kind of conduct painfully resembles the fanatic shouts of "Crucify him! Crucify him!" of the first Christian century and the equally irrational shouts of those who cry "Anti-Semitism! Anti-Semitism!" whenever historical "facts" presented for general consumption are shown to be false.

In a talk in Montreal, Canada, Marcel Lefbvre (Known to the public as "Archbishop Lefebvre") publicly acknowledged to the crowd that the man who ordained and consecrated him was "Cardinal" Lienart; and that Lienart was a Freemason.

Forgetting his theology, or perhaps even subscribing to an opinion contradicted by general Catholic teaching, Lefebvre publicly stated that he had actually seen Lienart in all his Masonic paraphernalia. To which statement he added: "Fortunately, my orders are valid." Well, this is what most people accepted as true. But, Were Marcel Lefebvre's orders valid beyond reasonable doubt?

While Lefebvre's organization was growing leaps and bounds, steam-rolling over anyone who got in their way, and calling into doubt anyone whom they could not reduce to their regime of feudalistic servitude, their own validity not only as validly ordained priests but also as a validly establish `society' in the Church were seriously questioned. The greatest legacy Marcel Lefebvre left the Church which he helped to destroy was a legacy of disobedience and deception.

It is ironic that the organization attributed to Marcel Lefebvre would merit the same denunciation hurled at the Modernist heretics by the `patron' of their society: St. Pope Pius X!

In his Encyclical Letter `Pascendi,' Pope Pius X wrote: "Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action."

The question of Masonic infiltration into the Catholic Church has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Consider the term `reasonable doubt.' It means that anyone who is using his right reason and is not influenced by prejudice can no longer doubt the fact. Anyone who doubts the fact is rightly suspected of bad will.

The question before us, then, is this: Was the ordination of Marcel Lefebvre by the Freemason Achille Lienart, later "Cardinal" Lienart valid? Was Marcel Lefebvre's later consecration by this same Lienart valid?

An answer taken out of the sky is no answer at all. For an answer to be of any value, it must take into consideration actual circumstances. What were the important circumstances in the case of Marcel Lefebvre? First of all, Lienart was a professor in the seminary attended by Lefebvre. There was, then, a greater or lesser bond created between student and teacher. This is normal. Already a Freemason, Lienart ordains Lefebvre. Some years later, Lienart _ now a `Cardinal' with not a little influence in Rome _ consecrates his former pupil and collaborator (Lefebvre worked for Lienart as a diocesan priest for a number of years in a secretarial position) who had since entered the foreign mission society of the Holy Ghost Fathers.

The question of Marcel Lefebvre's ordination and subsequent consecration are very important. That the external ceremony of ordination and consecration were performed is not in question. The essential question here concerns the intention.

Could a Freemason have the requisite internal intention for the valid administration of a Sacrament? In this case, of course, the Sacrament is Holy Orders.

To answer this question objectively and without prejudice, it is necessary to know what Freemasonry represents. Even the Conciliar Church (Church of Vatican II) has issued statements concerning Freemasonry.

In a declaration of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the following was stated:

"…the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic associations remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion." (Declaration on Masonic Associations, Joseph card.Ratzinger _prefect).

The plural is used in this declaration because there are other Masonic `front organizations' such as Rotary Club, Lions Club, etc. No Catholic may be a member of these associations because they promote the naturalism of Freemasonry among their members.

Freemasonry is the front organization for Zionism. Which is the "Church of the Antichrist". In fact, Freemasons hold Lucifer as their source of "light". For this reason, namely, that Freemasonry necessarily denies the possibility of the supernatural, it is essentially opposed to all that the Catholic Church represents.

Freemasonry is, as one of its high ranking members declared, the `enemy of the Catholic Church.' Its purpose is the destruction of the Catholic Church and replacing it with the worship of Lucifer who is, actually, the invisible Antichrist.

Therefore, since Freemasonry has vowed and actively works to undermine and destroy the Catholic Church, it is inconceivable that a Freemason could have the minimum intention of doing what the Church does in administering a Sacrament. To pretend that this is possible is to betray an ignorance of basic psychology. The two are completely irreconcilable.

For this reason: That Freemasonry is dedicated to the promotion of Naturalism (which denies the Supernatural) and the Church is dedicated to the promotion of the Supernatural, the administration of any Sacrament by a Freemason must be deemed null and void.

It must have come to the attention of Marcel Lefebvre that his background had been investigated and his connection with Freemason Lienart was soon to become public that may have prompted him to make the public declaration before anyone else. His statement to his audience in Montreal, Canada, regarding his having seen Achille Lienart in his Masonic regalia could only have been intended to brush aside any serious connection with his own validity. Marcel Lefebvre was gambling on the ignorance of many priests and laymen who would readily accept the erroneous notion that the mere external intention to perform a rite was sufficient for its validity.

This, as we have seen, is not true. Consequently, based on the clear teachings of the Church regarding the Sacraments, and the further practice of the Church concerning doubtful validity, every Catholic is bound in conscience to avoid those who present themselves as priests or bishops claiming their ordination or consecration from Marcel Lefebvre.

It is the practice of the Church that such doubtful reception of Holy Orders requires that the Sacrament be reiterated. To ignore this would result in the reception of Sacraments that are not Sacraments, both invalid and fruitless. This is the practice of the Church. Those who deliberately disregard this doctrine of the Church cannot be considered Catholic. These, then, make up part of that group called "Heretics of the Right".

Our point of departure will be the publicly declared defense of Marcel Lefebvre's ability to ordain priests and consecrate bishops.