fox files

1) listing several leading “Objections” of the time.. Often these are themselves seemingly brilliant and apparently cogent arguments.  And often they contain correct quotes from St. Augustine or other Fathers, Doctors, or theologians which can be misunderstood on complex theological issues;

2) then St. Thomas Aquinas has a paragraph or sentence entitled “On the contrary“ wherein he usually will quote an Apostle or Father of the true Catholic Church;

3) Next St. Thomas gives his own response, usually starting the paragraph with “But I say…”  This is the meat of his reasoning that mostly shows the errors in the objections, although sometimes he agrees but with a modifying, brilliant clarification;

4) lastly, he replies to objections individually and more specifically. Do not skip over any reply because many will contain brilliant theological arguments not found in his main body statement in section 3 immediately above, nor in the rest of the Summa.

Here is an example of finding in the Summa “replies” section valuable information to defeat today’s lying deceivers presenting themselves as valid “Traditional Catholic Bishops & Priests.”

In the early 1990s, I refuted a fallacious argument espoused by the invalid Society of St. Pius X  (SSPX) founded 1970 by Marcel Lefebvre in Econe , Switzerland.   The March 1976 issue of “Chiesa Viva” (“Church Life”, published in Italy) magazine featured a report & showed on its cover a photo of “Cardinal” Achilles Lienart dressed in Freemasonic habiliments.  This became the major embarrassment to the SSPX since “Archbishop” Marcel Lefebvre’s (Lille, France) had been “ordained” a “priest” by this crypto-Freemason Achille Lienart in 1929.   Achilles Lienart (also of Lille, France), had himself been ordained a priest in 1907, and became an highly advancing member of the Freemasons from 1912 up until his death in 1973. Not knowing this, the Church would attempt to promote Lienart to the episcopacy in 1928 and elevate him to the level of Cardinal in 1930..

Therefore, Achilles Lienart had never been a valid bishop nor a valid Cardinal. His attempt to ordained Lefebvre in 1929 was, therefore, invalid. Crypto-Freemason Lienart’s voting at the October 1958 Papal Conclave would be worthless. And it was crypto-Freemason “Cardinal” Lienart who was the most outspoken among all the “Modernists”  at Vatican II.

Modernism is defined as the syncretism of all heresies to ever attack the Catholic Church throughout its entire history, said Pope St. Pius X. 

So the SSPX lied. They said that in Summa Supplement Q. 37 Art. 1 Reply to Obj. 2 it states that when a man receives Holy Orders he automatically receives all lesser Orders if he hadn’t already received them. Therefore, they said, when a candidate is promoted to bishop he automatically receives the priesthood if he hadn’t already been validly ordained.They quote Summa Supplement Q. 37 Art. 1 ,”Reply to Obj. 2. “The division of Order is not that of an integral whole into its parts, nor of a universal whole, but of a potential whole, the nature of which is that the notion of the whole is found to be complete in one part, but in the others by some participation thereof. Thus it is here: for the entire fulness of the sacrament is in one Order, namely the priesthood, while in the other sacraments there is a participation of Order.”  (emphasis mine)  The SSPX then illicitly extended that idea to mean that the consecration of a man to the episcopacy would also included making him a priest if he hadn’t already been ordained to the priesthood.  The SSPX would have their readers erroneously believe if Marcel Lefebvre had not been a validly ordained priest from the years 1929 (at the hands of Freemason invalid “Bishop” Lienart, a fact the Sspx no longer denies) until his consecration in 1947, that ceremony of the ’47 episcopal consecration would have automatically also made him an ordained priest.

That is a blatant lie that relies upon the ignorance, laziness, and emotional indifference of the SSPX readers and members to check it out.  They are happy with the external drapings of gong with their families to seemingly “Traditional Catholic Churches” that offer the (defective, QUO PRIMUM-condemned ) “1962 Latin Tridentine Mass.”

Quo Primum was issued in 1570 by Pope St. Pius V to prevent the true Latin Mass from ever being changed in all perpetuity. The penalty for attending or participating in such condemned mass liturgies is automatic excommunication and incurring the wrath of Almighty God and the Apostles Peter and Paul. This Quo Prium is what removed the almost entire membership in April from the true Catholic faith even before the start of the illicit Second Vatican Council in October later that same year.

The SSPX would never state the truth: that the Summa Supplement Q. 37 article 1, Reply to Obj. 2 only applies to a man being ordained a priest who may not have previously received any of the lesser order of deacon or sub-deacon – which constitute the three levels of Holy Orders (i.e., subdeacon, deacon, and priesthood.)

The SSPX magazine article on this issue deceivingly omitted to show in that very same Summa Supplement Q. 37 Art. 2, in the main body is stated the following:   “I answer that…For it is written (1 Corinthians 12:4): There are distributions [Douay: ‘diversities’] of graces.” Moreover the episcopate [Cf. Supplement:40:5] and the office of psalmist are included, which are not Orders. ” (emphasis mine)  Promotion to the episcopacy is not a Sacrament of Holy Orders, but rather is an advancement in authority in office…as though one is promoted to the desired corner office with a nice window view. It is the authorization to use all seven powers a man received when ordained as a priest ( i.e. to ordain and confirm).  That is why missionary priests were commonly delegated the authority by their Bishop to Confirm at the same time they were Baptizing souls in foreign lands with limited – if any – access to the Catholic bishops. (An analogy, perhaps, is to legally own a gun but not be permitted to use it as a private detective or until granted permission or deputization by a proper state authority.)

That was SSPX’s deceiving attempt to assuage people who might become knowledgeable about Lienart ‘s Freemasonry membership, and to know that fact precluded him from ever having been himself validly promoted to the episcopacy in 1928,  per the Papal Bull “Cum Ex Appstolatus Officio” a/k/a Papal Bull of Paul IV [1559] which declares the promotion to the episcopacy NULL and INVALID.

In my refutation of the SSPX’s deliberate misapplication and Machiavellian manipulation of this Summa Supplement Q. 37 Art. 1, Reply to Obj. 2 stated above,  I additionally quoted further clarification found in Summa Supplement  Q. 40 Art. 5, Reply to Obj. 2 which states as follows:

“Article 5. Whether the episcopate is an Order?

“Objection 1. It would seem that the episcopate is an Order. First of all, because Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) assigns these three orders to the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the bishop, the priest, and the minister. In the text also (Sent. iv, D, 24) it is stated that the episcopal Order is fourfold.

“Objection 2. Further, Order is nothing else but a degree of power in the dispensing of spiritual things. Now bishops can dispense certain sacraments which priests cannot dispense, namely Confirmation and Order. Therefore the episcopate is an Order.

“Objection 3. Further, in the Church there is no spiritual power other than of Order or jurisdiction. But things pertaining to the episcopal power are not matters of jurisdiction, else they might be committed to one who is not a bishop, which is false. Therefore they belong to the power of Order. Therefore the bishop has an Order which a simple priest has not; and thus the episcopate is an Order.

“On the contrary, One Order does not depend on a preceding order as regards the validity of the sacrament. But the episcopal power depends on the priestly power, since no one can receive the episcopal power unless he have previously the priestly power. Therefore the episcopate is not an Order. 

“Further, the greater Orders are not conferred except on Saturdays [The four Ember Saturdays]. But the episcopal power is bestowed on Sundays [Dist. lxxv, can. Ordinationes]. Ordeit is not an Order.

“I answer that, Order may be understood in two ways. In one way as a sacrament, and thus, as already stated (Supplement:37:4), every Order is directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Wherefore since the bishop has not a higher power than the priest, in this respect the episcopate is not an Order. In another way Order may be considered as an office in relation to certain sacred actions: and thus since in hierarchical actions a bishop has in relation to the mystical body a higher power than the priest, the episcopate is an Order. It is in this sense that the authorities quoted speak.

Hence the Reply to the First Objection is clear.

Reply to Objection 2. Order considered as a sacrament which imprints a character is specially directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which Christ Himself is contained, because by a character we are made like to Christ Himself [Cf. III:63:3]. Hence although at his promotion a bishop receives a spiritual power in respect of certain sacraments, this power nevertheless has not the nature of a character. For this reason the episcopate is not an Order, in the sense in which an Order is a sacrament.

Reply to Objection 3. The episcopal power is one not only of jurisdiction but also of Order, as stated above, taking Order in the sense in which it is generally understood.

Source: http://newadvent.org/summa/5040.htm

Once the men having “ordinations” from the invalid Lienart/Lefebvre line realized they could not use the Summa to hoodwink those educated in its true teachings, they then concocted another damage-control ruse.  They say they don’t deny Achilles Lienart was a member of the Freemasonry Religion.  What they now claim that Catholic church law states that since no one can know what is in a person’s mind – only the person and God knows that – that it is impossible to know what Lienart’s intent when he was being promoted to the episcopacy, and that since the ceremony was reportedly all correct, therefore, Church law requires us to assume Lienart had the minimal intention as the Church would require of him.

(“We, the higher initiates of the Freemasonry Religion, must maintain it in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine” wrote Albert Pike [1809 – 1891] in his book “Morals and Dogma” [1871. p. 814]  Pike, born and raised a Jew in Boston, was from 1859 until his death Supreme Pontiff & Universal Grand Commander Scottish Rite Freemasonry Worldwide based in Charleston SC. i)at the time he was being promoted to the episcopacy in 1928.  Although a notorious hater of Blacks, he was tried and convicted for treason in 1865 for having been a Confederate General in the Civil War who allowed Oklahoma Indians to scalp Union troops alive.  He states in Morals and Dogma that Freemasonry is the Jewish Kabbalah Ancient Mystery Religion of the Old Testament.  By act of Congress,  a larger-then-life bronze statue of him holding a copy of Morals and Dogma stands in front of the 33rd Degree Supreme Council building in Wash., D.C.)

But these invalid Lienart/Lefebvre line “ordained” men such as Anthony Cekada and Donald Sanborn : both available on Youtube.com) using that damage-control defense do not mention the balance of that Church teaching which states “unless there be evidence to the contrary.”  Another fact is that it only applies in normal times which have not exists since the early 1962 worldwide within once-Catholic churches.

1. And, of course, when intent is the issue in a court of Canonical or Civil law, it is determined by the record of behavior and statement of the accused.  It is the end goal of a person’s motivation that determines the good or evilness of his intent.  The goal of Talmudic Judaic-founded Freemasonry Religion is the annihilation of Christianity and the establishment of Totalitarian World Government controlled by Israel “Jews” as stated in their Talmud and other publications.
2. That Lienart fully knew that he had been automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church in his act of apostasy for joining the Freemasonry Religion in 1912, and that
3. he advanced to a high degree within it throughout the entire balance of his life, and that
4. he illicitly participated in the usurpation of the Chair of Peter during the October 26, 1958 Papal Conclave, installing Freemason/Rosicrucian Angello Roncalli as (Antiope) John XXIII on October 28, 1958, and that
5. he was the foremost Modernist soldier leading the destruction of Catholic Dogma, Doctrine, and Sacraments at the illicit Second Vatican Council from Fall 1962 through December 8, 1965, and that
6. the distinguished, devout, and extremely knowledgeable Papal Chamberlain to Pope Pius XII (reigned 1939 – Oct., 9, 1958), the Marquis de Franquerie, published his book in France in 1970 in which he divulged that a Catholic-born, former Freemason from Lille, France, testified in private to the Marquis because this man feared murderous retaliation by French Freemasons, the Marquis only identifies him in the book as “Mr. B.”  (This is totally acceptable to protect his identity and life in Canon Law.)  This Mr. B. had been a Lodge Brother with “Cardinal” Lienart when both attended Freemason Lodge meeting in Lille and Paris.  Mr. B. suffered for over a decade with n incurable disease, but upon a visit to Lourdes in Southern France, nd using the miraculous spring water, he was cured of his incurable affliction.  The Marquis verified that M. B. is on record at Lourdes as being a recipient of this miracle.  That miracle caused Mr. B. in gratitude to come forth, at risk of his life, to the Marquis to warn him of “Cardinal” Achilles Lienart’s Masonic membership.  Since it requires by Canon law two pieces of such evidence from respectable sources, the Marquis, for lack of a second viable source at the time, could not effect exposing and getting a Prince of the Church (Lienart) removed from the Church.  So the Marquis states from that time forward he would leave any room in the Vatican into which Lienart was entering.
7. When the Marquis sent a copy of this book in 1970 to his friend, Marce Lefebvre, Lefebvre wrote back thanking his for it.  But when Lienart’s Freemasonry was exposed in March 1976 by Chiesa Viva magazine, Lefebvre would get into the pulpit and saying he is shocked to learn this about Lienart being a Freemason, the man who both “ordained’ him (1929) and “promoted” to the episcopacy (1947). Then Lefebvre would say, “But , nevertheless, my Orders are valid.” LEFEBVRE WAS AGAIN LYING, as he did frequently to suit his situation; and
8. on his deathbed in 1973, Lienart reportedly proudly made a statement to the effect that,  for all intents and purposes, the Catholic Church was dead