The importance of the validity and fruitfulness of the Sacraments is so essential to a person's salvation that only the foolhardy would take the matter lightly. This includes those who attempt to defend the validity of their idol, Marcel Lefebvre. If anyone has anything to gain in upholding the validity of Marcel Lefebvre's priestly ordination and later episcopal consecration it would be the alleged clerical members of the bogus "Society of St.Pius X" and its spin-offs such as the "Society of St.Pius V." We do not even mention the many who have since left either of these organizations to function as "independent" liturgists. They are "liturgists" because they cannot be pastors of souls, being independent of a legitimate Roman Catholic bishop.

No human being can claim a person's loyalty to the point of risking eternity.

The greatest council of the Church, the Council of Trent, has declared the Catholic doctrine concerning the Sacraments. And, the Canon Law of the Church re-enforces the doctrinal decrees of that Council.

What the Church does is the most accurate teacher of the Church's understanding of the Sacraments.

Those for whom the Sacraments are of no importance, there is no need to even to speak of the Sacraments at all.

Those, for example, for whom "Latin is lovely," and doctrine has no relevancy, no amount of evidence or sound reason will ever suffice. It will not suffice because in such cases there is no longer a question of correct doctrinal but rather other motives.

Although this question has already been amply treated in past issues of The Seraph, it appears that the obstinacy of the schismatic sect of Lefebvrites adamantly refuses to accept the teachings of the Church.

They refuse to hear the Church. More, they have elevated themselves to such a height of arrogance and pride that they can no longer face the truth.

A similar situation existed (and still exists!) concerning the Roman Catholic Church's declaration on Anglican Orders.

The difference between the question of validity of Anglican Orders and Lefebvrite Orders lies in the fact that the Anglicans were frank about their shift in doctrine while the case with Lefebvre is more insidiously subtle.

What is "intention"?

Intention is the tendency of the will to obtain a definite end through appropriate means.

Obviously, if intention is a tendency of the will, it must be something that is caused by the will. The intention flows from the free will.

There are two main classes of human acts. Human acts are those acts which proceed from the deliberate free will as from their cause.

Here we are concerned with the second class of human acts: These are called "commanded acts".

These acts begin in the will, but are completed through the medium of other powers or faculties under the command and control of the will.

The free will is the main cause of the action, but it uses other powers as one would use an instrument in order to bring the action to completion.

Among these powers, some are internal and some are external. The "internal" powers are intellect, memory, imagination; while others are "external" such as bodily movements.

An example should clarify this. I "intend" to give a sermon. This intention is an elicited act. It is, as yet, entirely internal. Now, to carry out this intention, my will influences the intellect, memory and imagination to collect and prepare the material of the sermon. Then, I deliver the sermon by means of speech and gestures. Both the internal and external powers of my organism acted under the command and control of my deliberate free will as their main cause of action.

In every series of actions of this nature, when executed externally, a number of elicited and commanded acts are involved. These form a set.

In such a series it is comparatively easy to distinguish between "internal" and "external" commanded acts. Beyond this, no reasonable classification of commanded acts is possible because they are too many and diverse.

Let us begin with the elicited acts of such a series. Here there is a consistent sequence so that they constitute what may be called the psychological structure of the will-act.

First in this order is the wish or liking. Love is the basic tendency of the will. It underlies all the activities of the will. Once the intellect has approved something as being "good" to the will, the will experiences an inclination toward that good as something suitable and desirable.

We understand by "wish" and "liking" this simple "inclination toward" a perceived good. Very often the will does not go beyond this simple stage. For example: when we say to ourselves: "I wish the rain would stop."

Intention holds the second place in this series. The intention implies more than a mere wish. Besides the mere "love of" and "inclination toward" a perceived good, the will does something about putting this perceived good within its possession by means of the intention.

The wish now becomes an active striving (a tending towards) of the will for the attainment of this particular good.

The difference between "wish" and "intention" can be seen by comparing the following statement: "I wish I were in Florida for the winter" and "I intend to go to Florida for the winter."

The latter statement implies an active and effective desire to make the wish become a reality.

Third in the series is consent. Once the intention is present, the will proceeds to consent. By "consent" is meant the decision of the will to use the means necessary for bringing the intention into execution.

If a variety of means are available, "consent" implies that the will must be ready to use one or the other of the possible means which will produce the intended result. If someone consents to go on a trip, he must also will to travel by plane, train, car, boat or some other suitable means for that purpose. The reason is evident: He who wills an end, must also will the means to this end. If a Freemason wills the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church, he must also will the means to that end. If someone wills to promote a profitable lie, he must will the means to achieve this purpose.

Fourth in the series and after consent is choice. What means are available or not available is a matter of knowledge. Now this is knowledge pertains to the intellect. Thus, the will must consult the intellect concerning the proper means to carry the intention into effect.

The intellect responds by making a comparison of the different means which might possibly be used and then "advises" the will as to what means are available.

Thereupon the will makes its "choice" of the means. If the intellect informs the will that there is only a single means to bring about the intended result, then "consent" and "choice" are one and the same. If, however, two or more possibilities are open, so that the intended result can be effected by more than a single means, then it is left to the "choice" of the will to elect one of the different means.

Thus, if it is perceived that the only way to take and occupy another nation's land and all the natural wealth in the land is by brute force, the greedy person (or persons) will choose war. War is a necessity for such persons because the reason is clear: he who wills a definite end, must also choose a definite means to attain that end.

Fifthly, once the choice is made, the will proceeds to the use of the chosen means. Since the will cannot achieve the end except through the means suitable for that purpose, it is obvious that the will must command and direct whatever powers of mind and body and whatever else in order to bring about the desired result.

The "use" of the means is nothing more than the practical execution of the "choice" of the means. If, for example, someone wished to harm the Church in Her very essence, such a person could withhold the necessary intention in the ordination or priests or consecration of bishops. It would be a simple matter of attrition before all the true priests and true bishops were eliminated by death and then there would no longer be any "Roman Catholic Church" with supernatural powers. The churches would become nothing more than museums of religious antiquities for tourists to gawk at.

The last in this series of elicited acts is delight or enjoyment. The attainment of the end means the possession of the good intended from the beginning, and the possession of the good aimed at and striven for naturally produces in the will delight and enjoyment. The will has now realized its intention and comes to rest. When the goal or end is reached, the activity ceases and one enjoys the end result.

Thus, if a Freemason's goal is to deprive the Church of true priests or true bishops is reached, he rejoices in the success of his goal.

Of the six elicited acts, wish, intention and fruition pertain to the good which is the object of the will; consent, choice and use pertain to the means used in the attainment of the good.

The will has a marvelous control over the intellect. The will is far from being just a "blind" faculty. The will can command the intellect to turn its attention to a certain object or to refrain from thinking about it.

The will cannot command the intellect to see something as false which the intellect recognizes as true.

Nevertheless, where full certitude is not had, the will can induce the intellect to give greater consideration to the opposing arguments and in this way influence it indirectly.

And where there is doubt, the will is able to influence the intellect to form an "opinion" in favor of one side of the question rather than another.

The classic example of this is found in the fact that passions and prejudices employed by the will can and do influence intellectual judgments.

This thought was well-expressed by Shakespeare when he said that "the wish is father to the thought."

Bias has a disproportionate influence upon judgments of the intellect, particularly in matters of industrial, political and religious matters. Even scientist who often rigorously defend objective judgment may become so involved and trapped by their desire and fervor to prove a pet hypothesis that they not infrequently overlook facts and fail to draw conclusions unfavorable to their pet hypothesis.

It should be clear, then, that the intellect is to a greater or lesser degree under the control of the will.

In order to avoid false conclusions, it is necessary to keep in mind the distinction between "acts of man" and "human acts." This distinction is important to the study of conduct because conduct is only ethical under the aspect of "human acts."

Actions are morally good or morally evil only for the reason that they are elicited by the free will and as such are imputable to the will. Bearing this distinction in mind makes it easy to pass a correct judgment on the voluntariness of human acts.

Having spent so much time on analyzing the structure of a human act, we are now better prepared to deal with the question of intention or lack of intention in the administration of a Sacrament.

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

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.

The second point on which the author of Lefebvre's defense errs is in his confused understanding of "intention."

There is no such thing as an "external" intention. An intention is always internal because it is a deliberate determination of the will which is a spiritual entity and cannot be seen unless visibly expressed in word or deed. The external acts are merely instrumental causes used in order to bring the action to completion. The main cause, however, is the free will that has commanded these acts.

In an effort to "formulate more precisely the question of the REQUIRED INTENTION" the author begins with a distinction that does not exist. He hopes to establish an "intention" that is external (?) and separate from the will. His own definition of this "external intention" is as follows: "the external intention (by which the minister wishes to accomplish properly the external ceremonies and rites of the Sacrament, but inwardly wishes not to confect the Sacrament.)" This is not an "intention" other than an internal intention to deceive. The ceremonies and rites are merely the external instruments or means by which the deception is carried out. If the minister wished to perform the external ceremonies are only "acts of man" in that man is able to read and speak. Reading and performing gestures correctly is not, strictly speaking, an "act of man" but merely a "human act."

Then, the author speaks of the "internal intention" and defines it as that "by which the minister truly and interiorly wishes to do what the Church does). Then, he states: "The question is, does the external intention suffice? That is, will a Sacrament be valid if the minister properly performs all the necessary external rites and ceremonies (with the proper matter and form), if within himself he wishes not to confect the Sacrament?"

For the "proof' of his argumentation, the author appeals to the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent states: "If anyone saith that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema." (Session VII, canon XI).

This is correct. However, the author has created a definition out of thin air to justify his position and attempts to invoke the Council of Trent to prove his error. He quotes from the Council of Trent alright, but he imposes his creation of an "external intention." He says: "Therefore, at least the external intention of doing what the Church does, and thus of accomplishing the ceremony is required.

Once again, the author is going in circles, departing from the rigorous logical consequences he seems intent on ignoring.

Once again there is a confusion of "acts of man" and "human acts." Either this author has projected his own limitations on anyone who disagrees with him, or he is deliberately seeking to deceive.

The distinct impression one gets from carefully reading the author's defense of Marcel Lefebvre is that he does not understand what he is talking about; he merely throws out otherwise true statements and then forces conclusions that are not there.

After saying (erroneously) that the Council of Trent agrees with him, he retreats to yet another position which contradicts him although he does not recognize the fact. He speaks of the "seeming" present day teaching of the Church and theologians regarding the necessity of a real, internal intention of doing what the Church does .

Here again we encounter confusion of terms. By saying "at least implicitly" with regard to the internal intention, what has been added to the requirement? "Implicit" means "internal."

A moment ago, the author states that the "external intention" (which is no intention) is sufficient; now, the internal intention of doing what the Church does is sufficient. But this is contradictory.

Even quoting from Pope Leo XIII's encyclical on Anglican Orders fails to prove the author's contention. The reason is that Pope Leo XIII is speaking of those situations where there is present the intention of doing what the Church does. Heretics and non-Catholics are not the same as Freemasons.

The key to the problem is not what the Church taught or did not teach in the past. The key is understanding what Freemasonry is. Furthermore, all that the Church has authoritatively declared and taught is precisely what the defender of Marcel Lefebvre fails to accept despite all his quotations.

With regard to the declaration of Pope Leo XIII on Anglican Orders, the arguments for declaring Anglican Orders invalid are based not only on the form, but also on the lack of sufficient intention.

In a letter to the Bishop of Norwich, England, the Papal Legate informed him that Anglican ordinations were invalid because they did not observe the Church's form and intention.

We must conclude, therefore, that not only the form is essential for validity but also the intention.

Lefebvre's defender appeals to St.Thomas Aquinas. Apart from the fact that St.Thomas may be considered "the Prince of Theologians" there are those who are not so narrow-mindedly enthusiastic. St.Thomas was a saint because he practiced heroic virtue and not because most of his writings were truly inspiring. If one were to accept everything that St. Thomas said, one would have to agree with the abortionists who often refer to St.Thomas to justify their deeds.

Perhaps more attention should be given to other brilliant theologians such as Blessed John Duns Scotus who disagreed with St.Thomas' views on many points. It was St.Thomas' unhappy conclusion that the rational soul became present in the human being only some time after birth that gave the abortionists sufficient ammunition to kill unborn infants.

But, even here, St.Thomas is quoted improperly. As far as the words of St.Thomas are concerned they are correct. What is incorrect is the author's misunderstanding of them

On the contrary, rather than apply them, the author seeks to conclude that even though he had emphasized the words of St.Thomas, i.e,. EXCEPT THE CONTRARY BE EXPRESSED EXTERIORLY on the part of the minister."

One wonders why the author failed to quote from St.Thomas correctly. The words of the author in his defense of Lefebvre are:

"Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of Theologians, says the same thing (III, 64, 8 ad 2): `In the words uttered by (the minister), the intention of the Church is expressed; and this suffices for the validity of the Sacrament, EXCEPT THE CONTRARY BE EXPRESSED EXTERIORLY on the part of the minister."

However, this quotation is incorrect. Here is what St.Thomas really said:

"….others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part of the minister or of the recipient."

St.Thomas does not say "expressed exteriorly." This must have been added by Lefebvre's defender to lend credibility and force to his argument.

The obvious conclusion of Lefebvre's defender is expected: He narrows the conclusion to fit his need. He states:

"Therefore, the conferral of the Sacrament of Holy Orders (or any other ) as long as the ordaining bishop, be he Catholic or apostate, observes externally the rite prescribed for the Sacrament, MUST be presumed to have the right intention, and the Sacrament MUST be accepted as valid."

He has just denied the need for the internal intention because he fails to provide the well-known contrary evidence that the external rite has been used while the minister or recipient of the Sacrament withheld his intention to accept what the Church does.

There are more tragic cases than one would wish to know where Jews feigned conversion, entered seminaries, were ostensibly ordained, functioned in the role of pastors only to admit later on that they never had the internal intention of either receiving any sacrament nor much less administering any.

One such marrano Jew admitted that he "functioned" as a "priest" and at no time did he have the intention to consecrate bread and wine, nor did he ever have the intention of absolving anyone in Confession.

What is lost sight of here is the correct understanding of what a Freemason represents. It is only in knowing what a Freemason really is: his ideology, his anti-Christ religion of worshipping Lucifer, etc. that a reasonable conclusion be expected.

All that has been written so far is basically unnecessary for a loyal Roman Catholic. There is no need for "wild shots" that miss the target and only make a lot of noise.

The essence of the matter is understanding the psychology _ mind and will _ of a Freemason to conclude that such an individual cannot possibly work for the good of the Church.

The kind of heretics and schismatics that Pope Leo XIII envisaged were what may be called the "run of the mill heretic or schismatic." So, too, St.Thomas. But, even in their care and caution, they admitted the possibility that a Sacrament could be invalid for lack of intention.

What is a "Freemason"? Without going into too much detail that would extend this study unduly, it should be enough to understand that the Freemason belongs to a Satanic cult whose goal is to destroy the Roman Catholic Church and impose itself in Her place. Freemasonry is the Church of the Antichrist.

Here is a very illuminating statement made by a true expert on Freemasonry: "PAPACY AND FREEMASONY, those are the two powers active throughout the world each is seeking to dominate it. The solution of the struggle taking place between them is, at the present moment of the utmost importance; for we are face to face not only with the crossroads of history, but also with a radical transformation of humanity itself. EITHER ROMAN CATHOLICISM WILL LIFT US UP AGAIN TO THE LEVEL OF CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION OR ELSE JUDEO-MASONRY WILL DRAG US DOWN THE PATH OF BARBARISM AND DECANDANT PAGANISM. The whole world oscillates between the two: CHRISTIANISM and PAGANISM. On December 8^th, 1892, Pope Leo XIII wrote to the Italian Episcopal Hierarchy:

"It is necessary to fight Freemasonry with those weapons of divine faith which in past ages vanquished paganism."

Moreover, the Papacy and Judeo-Freemasonry are both so fully conscious of the diametrically opposed parts that they are playing that they assume that from it must issue the political, economic, intellectual and religious future of individuals as well as of nations. It is a fact and the better proof of it is their irreducible antagonism toward each other.

What is, indeed, Judeo-Freemasonry today if not the concentration and mobilization of all evil forces? This Sect with its threefold claim of being COUNTER CHURCH (against the CHURCH), COUNTER STATE (against the State), and COUNTER MORALITY (against traditional morality) takes pride in being above all and for all times the enemy of the Catholic Church; one of its rallying calls is that of Tigrotto, one of the Alta Vendita chiefs who, in 1822, proclaimed:

"CATHOLICISM MUST BE DESTROYED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."

With Tigrotto also the anti-Catholic plan is expressed thus:

"LET US CONSPIRE ONLY AGAINST ROME."

Monseigneur Gay, having been assigned by the Council of the Vatican the duty of writing "A MEMORANDUM ON SECRET SOCIETIES," gave the following striking definition of Freemasonry:

"It is evident that in a general way, this doctrine of Freemasonry is not only a heresy, nor even the totality of all heresies, which find in it a haven; it is a fact that Masonry goes beyond the limits of what constitutes what is generally ascribed to the word `heresy,' for it allows full play to the commission of outrageous perversion. Freemasonry is indeed the abyss of all errors, the well of perdition."

This accursed Sect, as Msgr.Gay calls it, was stigmatized by Pope Pius IX when he named it: "THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN."

It is also Pope Leo XIII who stated: "Let us remember that Christianism and Freemasonry are essentially incompatible, to such an extent that to become united with one means being divorced from the other. Let us, therefore, expose Freemasonry as the enemy of God, of the Church and of our Motherland." (Letter to the Italian people, Dec.8, 1892).

Much more can be written concerning the evil plots of Judeo-Freemasonry. Even the present undeclared "war" initiated by the Jews and Freemason of the world against the Arab States is an indication of the lengths these individuals will go to further their Satanic kingdom.

Let the intelligent but misled people meditate on the words of Pope Leo XIII: "….to become united with one means being divorced from the other."

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

And if anyone were asked: What is the best way to destroy the Roman Catholic Church? The answer would be simple: Destroy the supernatural life of the Church by destroying the Sacraments and the Sacrifice of the Mass from whence flow all the redemptive graces of Calvary.

How can such a coup against the Church be realized? Answer: All that is necessary is to feign the ordination and consecration of priests and bishops.

How can this be done in practice? Answer: Have a Freemason infiltrate the Church and the hierarchy, then, once in position, this infiltrator would perform external ceremonies devoid of any spiritual effect. And, voila! There you have it.

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.

Return to Contents

Return to Homepage.