Achille Cardinal
Lienart
Retractions: Was Achille Lienart A Freemason?
A Notice For The General Public
The idea of 'retractions' was popularized by St. Augustine, and it is a concept that cannot be quarreled with.
It often becomes evident to the Christian that some position, or opinion, that he held, was as a matter of fact, erroneous, by the light of latter knowledge, and so, it is our duty to repudiate that error and to correct ourselves.
In the case of the allegation that Achille Lienart was a Freemason, this allegation was the pet belief of a Ms. Teresa Louise Stanfill-Benns, who had a strong influence on the Papacy, and who imposed many weird, even un-Catholic, beliefs on the Papacy.
In fact, Ms. Stanfill-Benns claimed to have a piece of evidence, which she never produced.
Eventually, Ms. Stanfill-Benns, finding that she could not get the Pope to fall down and worship her, seceded into apostasy. That was a great kindness.
One weird suggestion from Ms. Stanfill-Benns, was that the Pope should submit to the Greek schismatics in order to obtain Holy Orders – ordination and consecration. This suggestion was rejected by the Holy Father, with the result that the conceited and headstrong Ms. Stanfill-Benns found it another reason to be alienated from the Pope.
The first to advance the Masonic connection was a Dr. Hugo Maria Kellner, now deceased. It is quite possible that everyone is working from one article, which was misreported even by Lefebvre in Montreal in 1976. It should be noted that Dr. Kllner was respected in Catholic circles, having been published in Homiletic and Pastoral Review.
Ms. Stanfill-Benns sought to impose her 'infallible belief' that Lienart was a Freemason, and that Lefebvre's orders were invalid, and to pressurize the Holy Father into a Declaration that orders of Lefebvrist priests and bishops are invalid.
This was never the personal belief of the Holy Father. Although he had suspicions, he never published the Lienart information until long after the election. He does suspect Lienart, because of circumstantial evidence, but at best the evidence is circumstantial.
The Holy Father's aim was always to indicate the illegitimacy, not the invalidity, of Lefebvrist and Thucite orders; Invalidity requires strong proof, not just a mere doubt based upon insufficient information, especially when that information is itself now found in the light of new evidence to be doubtful.
The Holy Father now takes this opportunity to totally and unconditionally repudiate this pretension, as being without any serious supporting evidence.
A man going under the name "Timothy Daniel Zapp-Ellis" has sought to correspond with us (and with Ms. Stanfill-Benns) on this subject, objecting to the allegation that Achille Lienart was a Freemason at any time, and certainly prior to his consecration of Marcel Lefebvre, and seeking proof of this allegation, and asserting that this pretension (which originated with Ms. Stanfill-Benns) is slanderous.
Zapp-Ellis has also forwarded us copies of his emails addressed to Ms. Stanfill-Benns on the same subject. From these forwarded emails, we believe that Ms. Stanfill-Benns has chosen not to respond to Mr. Zapp-Ellis.
We do not know the reason why Ms. Stanfill-Benns, who is passed off as "the greatest theologian of our times," both by herself and her fawning fellow-apostates, the Mildenhalls and the Hunts, has so chosen not to respond to Mr. Zapp-Ellis, which is uncharacteristic of her, although we suspect that having exposed herself as profoundly unorthodox in her thinking in her emails to David Hobson, copies of which were forwarded us, she would not be anxious to open her mouth and expose herself to more self-initiated ridicule.
Another important consideration is that, while Lienart may have been a Freemason, he was one of three bishops who consecrated Lefebvre, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the other two men were Freemasons, thus they would have supplied for any lack due to Lienart. This would be on the principle of 'per saltum.'
It was our intention to reply to Mr. Zapp-Ellis' original email but before we could, he began to slander and calumniate the Holy Father as an 'Antipope' without producing any proof for this vile slander.
Given that fact, we do not see any reason to favor Mr. Zapp-Ellis with any courtesies.
Zapp-Ellis has not chosen to give reasons why he considers the Holy Father an Antipope, and we see no reason to ask him. It is our belief that this is purely due to Zapp-Ellis' own malicious, anti-Christian attitude. He pretends to be offended at the alleged slander against Lienart, but does not cavil to slander the very Vicar of Christ Himself.
Of course, a Pope can be wrong on a particular issue which does not involve his prerogative of Infallibility, and while such an opinion (such as Pope Paul IV's strong belief that Cardinals Moroni and Reginald de la Pole were secret Protestants, while latter popes even used Moroni to preside over sessions of the Council of Trent) can be slanderous, it can never be an excuse to slander the Pope himself, as Zapp-Ellis does here.
This matter can rest here.
Given this 19th Day of December 2008 Anno Domini
By Lucio Mascarenhas, Secretary for Correspondence to His Holiness, Michael I, by the Grace of God, Pope
By Authority and Approval of the Holy Father
Welcome
