Achille Lienart’s Deathbed Confession
These two reports culled from the Internet seem more than likely to arouse the ire of the Freemasons—some for exposure of a plot to infiltrate and control the Catholic Church, though the Freemasons themselves publicized this while invading the Papal states in the mid-nineteenth century—others for impugning the Freemasons’ efficiency and the completeness of their victory. They have not and never will win, but they are rather sure that they have won.
ELEISON COMMENTS CXXI (Oct 31, 2009) VALID BISHOPS?
Confirmation of the Society of St. Pius X’s position on the validity of Newchurch sacraments appeared last week in the bulletin, Courrier de Tychique. From a “reliable source” it appears that Freemasonry, ancient enemy of the Church, planned for the Conciliar Revolution to invalidate Catholic sacraments, not by alteration of their Form, rendering them automatically invalid, but by an ambiguity of their rite as a whole, gradually undermining the minister’s necessary sacramental intention.
[They did, however, alter or replace their Forms, rendering them invalid!]
The “reliable source” is a Frenchman who heard directly from a venerable priest some of what Cardinal Lienart on his deathbed confessed to the priest. No doubt fearing Hell, the Cardinal begged the priest to reveal it to the world, and thus released him from the Confessional seal. The priest was thenceforth discreet in public, but in private he was more forthcoming as to what the Cardinal revealed of Freemasonry’s three-point plan for destruction of the Church. Whether or not he entered Freemasonry at age seventeen [If he confessed that, why doubt it? Or why believe the rest?], the Cardinal rendered it supreme service when only two days after Vatican II opened he wrenched the Council off course by his demand that the carefully prepared documents be rejected.
According to the Cardinal, Freemasonry’s first objective at Vatican II was to break the Mass by so altering the rite as gradually to undermine the celebrants’ intention to do what the Church intends. [The intention was so utterly removed from the rite that the celebrant’s intention can have no effect; the entire ceremony is invalid regardless of the celebrant’s intention.] Gradually the Rite was to induce priests and laymen alike to take the Mass rather for a “memorial” or “sacred meal” than for a propitiatory sacrifice. [Largely this happened.]
The second objective was to break the Apostolic Succession by a new rite [which could not confer the episcopacy] that would undermine the bishops’ power of Orders, both by a new Form not automatically invalidating but ambiguous enough to sow doubt, and above all, by a new Rite which would eventually dissolve the consecrating bishops’ sacramental Intention. This would break the Apostolic Succession so gently that no one would notice. [Unless some one listened to the new “bishops.”] Is this not exactly what many believing Catholics now fear? [I believe so, but we need not fear what was immediately accomplished by the changes.]
However “reliable” the “source,” Newchurch Rites of “Mass” and Episcopal “Ordination” exactly fit the Masonic plan as unveiled by the Cardinal. Ever since these new Rites were introduced (late sixties, early seventies) many serious Catholics have [correctly] refused to believe in their validity. Alas, they are not automatically invalid [You could have fooled me!] (how much simpler if they were!). They are worse! Their sacramental Form is Catholic enough to persuade many a celebrant that they can be validly used, but they are designed as a whole to be so ambiguous and so suggestive of a non-Catholic interpretation [a rather good definition of invalid] as to invalidate the sacrament over time by corrupting the Intention of any celebrant either too “obedient” or insufficiently watching or praying [especially the pedophiles].
Rites thus valid enough to be accepted by nearly all Catholics in the short term, [Has the author checked how many millions stopped going to church when the innovations came? We lost a hundred thousand priests, not all of whom were chasing women.] but ambiguous enough to invalidate the sacraments in the long term, constitute a trap satanically subtle. To avoid it one must shun all contact with these Rites, [He sees the light!] but they must not discredit their sound Catholic instincts [which keep them subject to Lienart’s fellow plotters] by exaggerated [!] theological [but logical] accusations [Some one must have done this; it could not have happened by mistake or accident.] which depart [How?] from sound Catholic doctrine. Not always an easy balance to keep.
Kyrie eleison.
London, England
[Lack of intention can invalidate a sacrament but proper intention cannot validate a man-made sacramental replacement — a new “sacrament” not instituted by Jesus Christ. I rather suspect that the above interpretation of the facts originated with Richard Williamson, if for no other reason than that he hopes in vain that he is a valid bishop.]
Achille Lienart, Cardinal of Lille, France, admitted on his deathbed that he was a Freemason and had been a leader of the Freemasonic plot at Vatican II.
To invalidate the traditional mass and priesthood
Hannibal Bugnini, another Freemason, executed the plot after the council in the imposition of the invalid new Ordinal of 1968 and the novus ordo service of 1969.
Readers of these Daily Commentaries of the TRADITIO Fathers may not be aware that shortly after the Conciliar-Bugnini Novus Ordo was imposed in 1969, a prominent cardinal admitted on his deathbed that he was involved in what he called a Freemasonic plot to use the Vatican II Council (1962-1965) to invalidate the Catholic Sacraments by depriving the Mass of its certain validity in the traditional form by invalidating the celebrant’s necessary valid Sacramental intention. [This approximates the ridiculous argument that a validly ordained Catholic priest can transubstantiate in the Anglican service.]
Achille Cardinal Lienart, the bishop of Lille, France, confessed on his deathbed in early 1973, his complicity in the plot. This was exactly the method by which the Anglicans after Henry VIII invalidated the Anglican “Mass,” which was officially declared invalid by Pope Leo XIII in 1896. Thus, the papal decree of invalidation applies equally to the Novus Ordo service. The Vatican II cardinal permitted and, further, instructed his confessor to reveal to the world his deathbed confession, that as a Freemason, he participated in Freemasonry’s plot for the destruction of the Catholic Church at the Council:
to invalidate the Mass by so altering the rite as to undermine the celebrant’s necessary valid intention, in converting the Mass to a “Sunday dinner” rather than a sacrifice;
to break the Apostolic Succession by invalidating the rite of episcopal consecration and invalidating Novus Ordo bishops’ intention to ordain priests, instead installing Protestantized ministers “to preside over the assembly.”
Lienart confessed that the Freemasonic plot was so subtly structured as to lure Catholics into accepting the Novus Ordo in the short term as valid, but in fact to invalid[ate] the Mass and priestly ordinations. Although Lienart executed the Freemasonic plot at Vatican II to invalidate the Sacraments, it was another Freemason, Hannibal Bugnini, who implemented that plot in the Novus Ordo Ordinal of 1968 and Novus Ordo service of 1969 from his position as Secretary of the Council for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy.
Actually, Bugnini admitted that his work to impose the Novus Ordo had been first implemented in the “Mass of 1962,” calling it in the February 1972 issue of the Roman liturgical periodical Notitiae, “essentially a bridge between the old and the new, and if you will, an arrow indicating the direction taken by the current restoration [the Novus Ordo].” By his own admission the “Mass of 1962” was intended to introduce Novus Ordo principles and soften up clueless Catholics to accept the full-blown Novus Ordo service as valid. This Freemasonic and Modernistic foundation is why Traditional Roman Catholics reject the “Mass of 1962,” now known as the “Motu” Mess or the “Extraordinary Rite.” For his work, Bugnini received a letter of commendation from the Masonic Worshipful Master of Rome.
* * * * * *
On October 26, 2009, the SSPX’s senior bishop, Richard Williamson, was fined almost 200,000 U.S. dollars by a German court for his statement “inciting racial hatred” during a Swedish Public Television interview on a disputed issue of secular history. A Jewish official associated with Benedict-Ratzinger stated on October 27, 2009, that he would be “very surprised” if the Society of St. Pius X were admitted to Newchurch, as it harbored “holocaust-deniers,” a fact that has upset Jewish radical groups. Rabbi David Rosen, Director of the American Jewish Committee’s Department for Religious Affairs and recently Chairman of the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations, is closely plugged into Benedict-Ratzinger’s “ecumenical” efforts.
Rosen stated: “Now they [the SSPX bishops and members] are truly under the magnifying glass. In the past they may have been able to slip under the ‘door,’ but after his [Williamson’s] comments, it won’t be so easy to slip in.” The American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants also issued a public statement, calling on Benedict-Ratzinger to exhibit great caution in the Vatican discussions with Society of Saint Pius X, so as not to touch on the dignity of the Jewish people or to trivialize the memory of the victims of the Shoah.
The SSPX’s superior general, Bernie Fellay, who has gone out of his way to vilify his senior bishop, silenced him, and placed him under virtual house arrest, has not announced whether the SSPX will pay Williamson’s fine and will disavow the “anti-Semitic” statements by its bishops and members that are spread throughout its web sites and publications. The SSPX has condemned Vatican II’s outreach to Jews and to non-Catholic Christians. Absent a complete recantation by Fellay of the SSPX’s founding principles, no “negotiations” will overcome Benedict-Ratzinger’s Prime Directive of Vatican II “ecumenism.”
[This should clarify Ratzinger’s attitude toward the Catholic Church to which he pretends to adhere. It may even clarify Fellay’s.]
Defending the Faith of Our Fathers,
Hutton Gibson
Previous Article | Next Article | Back to Main Page
04/07/2014 From a web archive; gpl
