Saturday, April 21, 2018


Γραμμῆς δὲ πέρατα σημεῖα ("the ends of a line are points"). Euclid

If you follow PL on a regular basis, you know how often the lineage of Tradistani "bishops" pops up, both in posts and in comments. That's understandable because THE central issue of traditional Catholicism is — and has been for several decades — validity of holy orders. On it hangs everything. Without validity, any claim to offer the true sacraments —no matter how earnest — is empty.  Safer to stay home alone than sacrilegiously adore bread or trust your confession to a malformed layman.


Better than most, the Tradistanis have grasped the P.R. value of pretending to have cornered the market on valid "clergy." Throughout their decades-long misinformation campaigns, they've impugned not only the validity of Novus-Ordo clergy but also that of their rivals in tradition. We got a fresh example of the tactic last week in the comments section: A pesthouse timeserver was reported to have alleged the orders of a priest at a competing Florida chapel were "'hugely' doubtful" (see first comment at 4/14, 8:14 PM here).

Often, when the tables are turned, in defense against a counter charge of invalidity, one of the "clerical" cult apologists will trot out the kingpin's episcopal lineage to silence the skeptical.  When that ploy fails, in a move either to get even or get control, sectarian "clergy" front ill-educated lay partisans to stir up "validity trouble" among their competitors (e.g., 2015 in Tampa). The whole point is to cast doubt upon others so as to keep their own cultlings from jumping ship.

In the good old days, Catholics could rely on the face value of an episcopal lineage. Under the Church's constitution, they could be confident that each successor in an episcopal line (1) had been a validly ordained priest before his elevation and (2) actually met the canonical requirements.  Their confidence was further boosted by the assurance that, in almost all cases, there were co-consecrators to warrant conferral of the episcopacy in the then-less-probable event of the principal consecrator's invalidity.

Unfortunately, the institutional memory passed down from saner times has wrapped today's trads in a false security blanket. They believe a valid bishop at the head of a line alone is enough to underwrite validity throughout. But the misled creatures are very mistaken, for in barren Tradistan the old safety nets are either missing or perilously compromised. Take, for example, the question of being a valid priest before reception of episcopal orders. While consecration per saltum ("by a leap") may be, as Pohle-Preuss says, "a point in dispute," we must still bear in mind what J. Tixeront wrote in his 1925  L' Ordre et Les Ordinations ("Holy Orders and Ordination"):
Theologians and canonists hold ex communi sententia that episcopal consecration is not valid if it has not been preceded by priestly ordination. This is notably the opinion of St. Thomas. [Our literal translation.]*

That being the case, if a valid "bishop" confers episcopal orders upon a man whose "priesthood" is dubious, the "consecration" is probably null and void. The result is the end of the line with that individual. Hence, all that man's "ordinations" and "consecrations" must be judged null and void. Try as the sedes will, at this time, there's no getting past the old theological maxim, succinctly expressed by Hallier centuries ago: Episcopalis ordinatio nulla est quam non presbyteralis praecesserit (lit. "there is no episcopal ordination which a priestly [ordination] shall not have preceded"). A glance at the two Tradistani Thục sublineages will illustrate.
Assuming Thục was in possession of all his mental faculties and performed the rite decorously with the intention to do as the Church does, then both Carmona and des Lauriers were valid. We may with due caution then state that Pivvy and McKenna were validly "consecrated" by Carmona and des Lauriers respectively. However, sublineage breakdown occurs (1) doubly with Dannie, whom Liénart-tainted Lefebvre ordained with one hand and (2) singly with Big Don, whose priestly orders are hugely doubtful by reason of his Liénart liability. 
Observe that in the Thục  Carmona ➤ Pivarunas Dávila sub-line in Mexico there is no such break because Dávila was "ordained a priest" by Carmona and "consecrated" by the Pivmeister. Note, too, that Junior's recent "consecration" was saved from invalidity because (1) McKenna had "ordained" him a "priest" and (2) Geert Stuyver, one of his "co-consecrators," had been "ordained a priest" and "consecrated a bishop" by McKenna.
PL cannot emphasize enough that there is no straight line of descent from Thục. To speak of "the Thục line," as many trads do, is deceptive. Each man Thục directly "consecrated" established a sub-line, e.g., Thục  des Lauriers or Thục  Carmona.  Thereafter each succeeding individual also founds a separate sub-line, e.g., Thục ➤ CarmonaPivarunas Dolan (the end point of the sub-line, resulting in hugely doubtful "priests" and "deacons" ) and ThụcCarmonaPivarunas Dávila (continuing sub-line, resulting in putatively valid "priests" and "deacons"). It's therefore easy to conclude that an avouchment of Thục ancestry must be carefully evaluated on its own internal merits before Catholics may tentatively accept a claimant as valid.

That process can get frighteningly complex as more and more "consecrations" occur down a sub-line, virtually guaranteeing the likelihood of lineage corruption.  For instance, let's look at two successors of the Thục ➤ des Lauriers ➤ McKenna lineage. The Jellyfish, who years ago got rid of his Liénart liability, is OK, but Sinburn is not. Thus laypeople piously adhering to the pars tutior rule would be advised to reject as hugely doubtful any "priest" ordained from the deeply suspect Thục ➤ des Lauriers  ➤  McKenna  ➤ Sanborn sub-line.

Now the Thục ➤ des Lauriers ➤ McKenna ➤ Sanborn ➤ Selway sub-line, by contrast, ought to be rejected at face value; however, since co-consecrator Stuyver is a presumably valid "bishop" (supposing Thục's sanity, that is), then effectively Junior belongs to an ostensibly valid Thục ➤ des Lauriers ➤ McKenna Stuyver sub-line. Fortunately or unfortunately, that fact may never be made known to laity in the future, since the custom is to cite the principal consecrator in a sub-line, not a co-consecrator. (N.B. Most Tradistani "consecrations" have only one consecrator. The Kid lucked out ...  big time. Well, maybe it wasn't sheer happenstance: Papa's in charge down in the swamp. Let's see if Junior leverages his advantage in the future.)


Add to this chaotic mix of crossed lines the horror stories of "bishops" who can't understand Latin, suffer from eyesight or other health problems, don't use an official edition of the Pontificale Romanum, lack able assistants, have no adequate formation, and/or struggle with educational deficits: You've then got the current powder-keg validity crisis upon which TradWorld uneasily sits.  It doesn't matter how elaborate a succession tree is, or how nice-'n'-neat it may appear on paper: without punctilious due diligence, you can never really trust a sede line once you go beyond the last bishop who officially belonged to the institutional Catholic Church.

In our consultancy practice, we've evaluated a number of lineages, many with attached certificates of consecration. Some of the packages look impressive if you only leaf through them, specifically when someone has bought snazzy software to generate his line of succession.  But when you drill down deep and discover amateur documentation with bad Latin and/or questionable formation, you begin to doubt whether the parties involved in the "consecration" knew enough to assure validity.

For instance, take the cases of des Lauriers and Carmona. We may assume with some certainty that the Dominican's' solid knowledge of theology and Latin ensured no serious defects occurred during his consecration. But can we say the same for Carmona? ** And if such a question can surface about Carmona, what do we say about the dozens of others who had no formal training in a Church-approved institution of higher learning?

The well-informed trad is all too aware that the current state of affairs is an unholy mess, the author of which is the Prince of this World. Wherever the beleaguered Catholic turns in today's endlessly proliferating alphabet-soup religious wasteland — NO, ICRSS, SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, $GG, MHT (= R¢I),  even CMRI, if we heed Thục's critics old and new — the threat of invalidity casts its dark, sinister shadow.


Behind the chaos lie questions that are either political or supernatural in their dimensions: Why doesn't the Masonic Vatican Establishment do more to suppress all organizations not attached directly to the Novus Ordo? Why did they allow their own FSSP to celebrate the old rite of Holy Week this year? Aren't all these groups sheep stealing? Don't those outside the FSSP or ICRSS rob the Establishment of money and numbers? Aren't the insurgents responsible for a lot of the bad press worldwide and the turmoil in Rome?

An active, aggressive campaign to drive them out, to discredit them all, would seem to be the smart, Realpolitik move. Plenty of ammunition is available; the Vatican insiders have their well-thumbed dossiers like any other high-stakes power players. What's more, they have solid connections in government and the media.

So, yes, suppression would be the expected move, if it were exclusively a matter of hardball politics. But PL doesn't think it is, at least not at the higher echelons of power. If Rome is truly in the grips of committed Freemasons, and if their goal is the destruction of the Church through the obliteration of the sacraments, as many trads say, then those calling the shots don't care how much cash these splinter groups siphon off or how many souls they attract.

Look at it this way: If the sacraments administered by the rebels are invalid, then the overarching Masonic aim will still be achieved. Consequently, why waste time and legal fees hounding the dissidents, when they're already cooperating in the fulfillment of international Freemasonry's larger objective? Permitting the sede recusants to agitate with impunity is the equivalent of locating a theater's single fire exit at the edge of a cliff. Besides, apart from the SSPX, the many trad groups outside the Vatican Establishment, like $GG, are small fry not worth bothering about.


The angelic intellect masterminding this diabolical scheme counts on — and perhaps inflames — the pride and stubbornness of the sede "clergy" so they reject the only way out of the mess — re-ordination and re-consecration. If Lefebvre could ignore Thục's plea (click here), why should anyone expect the lesser vessels that sail in his wake to behave differently?

The doubts about sede successions have cut a deep, distinct line in the sand of the Tradistani desert. On one side are hugely dubious sacraments. On the other, the bright promise of valid sacraments, provided the "clergy" humble themselves by accepting conditional orders from undoubtedly valid bishops of the Eastern rites or from "bishops" with multiple lineages. (Preferably the latters' lines should be validated by an Eastern-rite bishop).

For those prudent enough to seek conditional orders, they need to act quickly. A strong gust of wind can quickly erase a line in the desert sand.

*Les théologiens et canonistes tiennent ex communi sententia que la consécration épiscopale n'est pas valide si elle n'a été précédée de l'ordination presbytérale. C'est notamment l'opinion de saint Thomas (p. 233).

** From "Two Bishops in Every Garage" by You-Know-Who, we offer the following two exhibits in support of our contention:
(1) Father Carmona writes that [his "consecration"] was performed "without witnesses, but two illustrious doctors." He does not say whether these two "illustrious doctors" know the ins and outs of the fearfully complex Rite of Episcopal Consecration found in the Roman Pontifical, and whether they can attest that Mgr. Ngo did not substantially alter the rite. The question is a disturbing one — further research would be needed to ascertain what theologians and canonists consider sufficient evidence for validity in such a case. Under such rather extraordinary circumstances, however, it seems that the burden of proof for the validity of the consecrations must be placed upon those directly involved (p. 299 in Kelly's Sacred and the Profane).
(2) On April 1, 1982, Father Carmona signed an 85-word Latin document attesting that he performed the Rite of Episcopal Consecration for Father George Musey. A friend of ours who holds a doctorate in classical languages claims it contains at least a dozen grammatical errors (p. 301 in Kelly's Sacred and the Profane). 


  1. Thank you. Agree. Thank goodness, there are others. I would like to repost what Ask the Fathers wrote to me when I asked about Jurisdiction and Apostolic Success but has a stipulation that responses are personal and not for publication. Have just written asking for permission.

    1. Be sure to preface the response with a note that you received permission to post.

  2. It's stuff like what you have posted that have led many former sedes back to the mainline Church through the auspices of the FSSP and the ICR. Validity is the 400 lb gorilla in the sede world.

    There is one man who is intellectually honest enough to stop pretending. One of the bishops consecrated by Francis Schuckhardt shortly before his death studied the situation and decided (I'm paraphrasing here). "What I apply to others I must also apply to myself so I've decided to stop functoning as a bishop because I have doubts about my own validity."

    Good for him. He's being honest about his situation. May others follow.

    1. There is an alternative to throwing in the towel. The stubborn Tradistanis are simply too high and mighty to take advantage of it.

      That's a good thing because when people wise up, — and they are wising up — then the money-mad cult masters will be forced to stop functioning.

    2. How can FSSP and the Novus Ordo not be tainted w/masonry? Wasn't Leinart a bishop of the N.O.? Isn't FSSP ordained by N.O.? You all are now so doubled up on yourselves that you are speaking as much gobbledy gook as anyone in Tradistan (or the N.O.).

  3. The Reader April 21, 2018 at 9:03 PM

    In your opinion what is the alternative to throwing in the towel?

    1. As we wrote in the post, by accepting conditional orders from undoubtedly valid bishops of the Eastern rites or from "bishops" with multiple lineages. (Preferably the latters' lines should be validated by an Eastern-rite bishop).

  4. From the blogpost above: “We may assume with some certainty that the Dominican's' (Guerard des Lauriers) solid knowledge of theology and Latin ensured no serious defects occurred during his consecration. ”

    That’s a big assumption. I would urge you to read page 12 of the book, “The Sacred and the Profane,” During a tape recorded interview in 1988, Fr. Sanborn questioned Dr. Kurt Heller, the witness to Fr. des Lauriers consecration by Thuc, and asked him if Archbishop Thuc placed his hands on Fr. Des Lauriers head. He refused to answer the question and even became angry.

    In 1990, the priests of the SSPV made a resolution on the matter of des Lauriers, starting in part “...the Society of St. Pius V considers the consecration of Guerard des Lauriers to be doubtful because the proof necessary to establish its certitude is lacking.” (The Sacred and the Profane, pg. 19)

    1. You'll note our hedges "with some certainty" and “assuming Thục ... performed the rite decorously."

      We're aware of those passages in S & P, and they have given us pause. While the legal maxim qui tacet consentire videtur ("he who is silent seems to agree") may be invoked here, we should also recall its proviso ubi loqui debuit ac potuit ("where he should and was able to speak"). It is always possible Heller was angered into silence because he was embarrassed that as an eyewitness he had not noticed. (We agree with "Peregrinus" that with these witnesses, there is no assurance they knew at a granular level the details of the rite of episcopal consecration.)

      In any event, Sanborn's own doubts must have been overcome since he was "consecrated" in the des Lauriers sub-line. As an aside, one of our colleagues asked McKenna about this very same topic, and he replied that des Lauriers had confirmed the hands touched his head. McKenna also added that DL's deep theological knowledge was sufficient to assume he made sure the matter of the sacrament was correct. Of course, that's not certitude, but it is a plausible argument.

      Whatever the case, your observation underscores our principal contention that all the sedes need re-ordination and re-consecration.

  5. I have a somewhat unique view to this situation.
    Personally,I see the
    Lefevbre &
    Mendez lines as valid.

    The Duarte-Costa line is just as valid if the clerics have complete succession back to
    Bp.Duarte-Costa or the first 2 Bishops who were ordained in the Catholic Church and subsequently consecrated by Duarte-Costa.(they have consistently used traditional rites.)
    To this day the Brazilian Church uses traditional pre-July 1968 Rites.
    Only problem they have is at least one of their Bishops was ordained in Anglican rite yet consecrated in traditional rite by a valid bishop.
    Unfortunately,he didn't receive conditional traditional rite ordination before his consecration.

    Once the FSSP/ICKSP receive a valid Bishop ordained/consecrated in traditional rite by valid bishops,(pre July 68)I will recognize their orders.
    Via internet grapevine,the first FSSP superior,
    Fr.Bisig,who was ordained in SSPX,was replaced because he kept insisting on having a valid pre-July 1968 bishop for Holy Orders.

    For the record I assist at a
    Thuc line chapel who has orders from both Carmona & Des Lauriers lines.

    Validity via the Thuc lines from Palmar De Troya are valid before 1978.

    August 1978 sees Palmar creating their invalid new rite of Holy Orders.
    2 or 3 of the original BISHOPS consecrated January 1976 were valid Catholic priests who were ordained decades before 1976 in Catholic dioceses.

    1. As 8:52 PM wrote: "Validity is the 400 lb gorilla in the sede world." We concur with most of your comment; one exception, however, is that we cannot overcome very serious concerns about Lefebvre's Liénart liability. Unless Kelly got fixed before his consecration, the Méndez > Kelly sub-line is doubtful.

    2. Yet, you cite his book like he is THE authority...

      I brought this up a few weeks ago and you still haven't figured out Kelly yet?

  6. You have two hurdles to clear before you can even begin to talk about doubting validity.

    1) Where is the masonic document that states that Liénart was a freemason, and at what level?

    2) If so, and a high degree, how would Liénart differ substantially from the masonic Talleyrand ordinations that the Church did not doubt?

    1. In 1976, the journal Il Borghese published the names of members found on the Italian Registry of Secret Societies. His initiation date was October 15, 1912.

      If Liénart had been a thoroughly radicalized Freemason, one who was committed to the destruction of the Mass and Apostolic Succession, then it is possible, even probable, that he resolved not to do as the Church wishes during ordinations/consecrations. He was a leading liberal at V2, and he objected to the Roman Curia's conservative nominees' serving as members of the Council's commissions.

      Whether in fact he formed such an intention we cannot know. But since his life-long ultra-liberalism, his activist rôle in V2, and the many stories of his deathbed confession suggest he might have done so, we think the safer way is to doubt his line's ordinations/consecrations and seek conditional orders.

  7. Give us a link that doesn't just allege this, but gives this proof. And also answer the second hurdle about how it differs substantially from the masonic Talleyrand lineages that were not doubted by the Church.

    1. We don't have a link to electronic back issues of Il Borghese.

      We did answer the second hurdle.

    2. You were not asked for the issue but a web link with a quote. Did you just hear a rumor and run with it? Why would a post-V2 1976 communist-friendly publication be proof anyway? Like the another person said, you don't have positive doubt. You are expressing negative doubt, which the Church forbids us to do in regard to the Sacraments.

    3. Absolutely wrong. Our doubt was positive, as we explained in sufficient detail.

  8. Regarding the Lefebvre ordination, I still am not seeing grounds for a positive doubt, only negative doubts.

    Have you ever read John Daly’s study on this? it’s airtight.

    1. 2:21

      We can see how some might suspend judgment owing to insufficiency of reasons to adhere to one proposition or the other and therefore think their fear of error rests on slight reasons. In our case, there is no suspension of judgment, so editorially we choose the pars tutior, for the fear of error is based on a grave reason, viz. the invalidity of the sacraments. Note that some of us have a partial conviction, based on Liénart's psychological profile as a radicalized "true believer," that early on he must have formed and periodically renewed a secret intention contrary to the substantial nature of the sacrament of orders. One of us believes, based on reports of his Masonic activities as a very young man, it is possible that he withheld his consent to be ordained.

      Nothing is airtight in TradWorld. Things may be persuasive to varying degrees, but never airtight.

      The bottom line , however, is that these guys should get themselves fixed and end all debate.

  9. I still think you should read Daly’s study, which was published in his book on Michael Davies. He provides air tight answers to this matter. No one has ever refuted his analysis. It is chapter 9A and the book is available online:

    This is a very serious matter, and if Mr. Daly is wrong on this, he should he refuted in a scholarly way. Where is he wrong? Why is he wrong?

    Link to free PDF of book:

    1. We have no wish or inclination to refute Mr. Daly, whom we greatly admire as a thoughtful and learned traditional Catholic, far superior to any of the malformed "clergy." That said, why would we want to attack him anyway? He vigorously supports our position that you have to be a priest first before you can be validly consecrated a bishop. Besides, we have no beef if he concluded there is no Liénart liability. We're not sick sedes who can't abide by a difference of opinion.

      We intend to keep on message: Get out of the cults today and starve the beast. There's enough doubt about Tradistani orders to scare the daylights out of any pious soul.

    2. Downloaded the pdf. Section A of Chapter 9 begins at page 316. Both Mr. Davies and Mr. Daly reached the same conclusion that Marcel Lefebvre's orders are valid. Mr. Daly critiques Mr. Davies' work until p. 350.

      Pp. 350-54 Mr. Daly presents his own proof of validity, without positive proof of counter intent validity is present. Mr. Daly gives examples from the past of both positive and no proven counter intent.

  10. Reader - I discount everything you say, and with good reason it seems. You've not a scrap of solid evidence to back up your claims.

    1. Each to his own. In our book, we've got plenty.

  11. I’m a bit more than confused by all the possible “what ifs”, but what I do know is this: “By their fruits, you shall know them.” I’ve seen this groups fruits, and they are rotten to the core. I’ll stick to ones who have good fruits.

  12. Reader,

    You often bring up Eastern Rite. Can a Roman rite priest be conditionally ordained by eastern rite? If ordained eastern rite wouldn’t he then have to be eastern rite? Can a Catholic go to any rite or switch back and forth between them?

    1. Our understanding is that there is a validation process for dubious orders. Naturally one must locate a bishop willing to do it, notably if the "ordination" was illicit in the first place. Nonetheless, there must be a few bishops willing risk the Vatican's ire. Perhaps more will be forthcoming if Bergie continues his destructive policies.

      Roman-rite priests licitly ordained within the Church apparently are not re-ordained if they transfer to an Eastern rite. In fact, there are N.O. "Roman-rite" priests who are "bi-ritual." That is part of the problem, as you may realize from reading the comments section: the Eastern rites in union with N.O. Rome would have to accept the orders of the N.O. Latin rite.

      This Reader does not know the ins and outs of the modern process for a Catholic to move to an Eastern rite. In the past, one had to convert to an Eastern rite from the Roman rite, and it was not all that easy. The Reader who may have the answer is not available, so perhaps someone else can supply the information or add to what was said above.

    2. Anon 10:52 AM: unless there is an eastern rite bishop flying below the radar who is willing to do this, then I don’t think they will do it.

      The eastern rite bishops are in the same trap as the SSPX. When you state a certain man is Pope, that has implications, namely, that all of the disciplinary laws of promulgated by that “Pope” are valid and good.

      How could a bishop of an eastern rite bishop logically say that a Roman rite priest is possibly invalid based on the defect in the rite itself, without first saying that the man who promulgated that rite was a doubtful Pope?

      This is why with the eastern rites, you have to do your homework, there are some Novus Ordo priests that have moved over there, and some that are bi-ritual, saying both the Novus Ordo and “helping out” at an eastern rite parish.

      These problems are not common, so we can be happy at least about that, but they are there. Always use due diligence when going to any eastern rite Church or SSPX for that matter. Find out the ordination information of the priest. For many this will take just minutes through a Google search, for others it might mean asking the priest directly.

      I can tell you that, for myself, I have been going to eastern rite parishes for decades, many different rites, in different states, and I have yet to run into a Novus Ordo ordained man at any place I have ever been, so it’s not a regular occurrence to find this.

    3. Surely,there must be at least 1 Bishop consecrated before June.18 1968 who would/could willingly conditionally ordain/consecrate just 1 lone traditional Bishop using traditional Rites?!?!
      Maybe not as I have zero experience within the hierarchy of valid Novus Ordo Bishops.
      If someone could locate this possible Bishop,pics and certificates could be kept secret until he passes away.
      If just one traditional bishop went through conditional traditional ordination/consecration via this possible valid Bishop,he could subsequently confer orders on other Bishops.
      This issue is the only one I and Pistrina agree upon.
      Having received orders outside Papal Mandate,conditional conferral of orders is not repudiating Apostolic Succession nor is it scandal.
      In our unique unfortunate era,playing it safe is for the good of Souls.

  13. Reader - If you've got "plenty," surely , for the sake of "truth," you can conclusively refute Mr. John Daly? This is not about "attacking" Mr. Daly or having a "beef" with him --- it's about whether your argument holds water. Whether people should listen to your spiel about "liability" and "invalidity" of traditional clergy. It's clear that the clergy in question all agree with Mr. Daly, so why should they need to "fix" themselves? Why should they be called "stubborn"? Show us that you're men of integrity: either refute Mr. Daly or drop this line of attack against all of the Lefebvre clergy (SSPX et alii). Thank you.

    1. First of all, Mr. Daly supports at a level of detail impossible in a blog post our chief argument that an episcopal consecration is invalid if the candidate was not first a priest. Indeed, we hope many people read what Mr. Daly has to say on the per saltum issue.

      Second, no "refutation" of his defense of Lefebvre's validity is called for. We agree, in fact, with everything he says, and we can see how he reached his conclusion. Many of his arguments support statements we've made to about the conditions that overthrow presumption of validity.

      Mr. Daly's and PL's positions are not so much opposed to each other as they are products of different emphases. Ours is aimed at warning Catholics of a danger that can easily be corrected here and now.

      Therefore, we will continue to maintain and promote our position that Liénart's deeply committed "true-believer" psychological profile argues forcefully that he had the intention not to do as the Church does, and thus following the pars tutior is the best way out of the validity mess.

  14. Reader - "Therefore, we will continue to maintain and promote our position that Liénart's deeply committed "true-believer" psychological profile argues forcefully that he had the intention not to do as the Church does, and thus following the pars tutior is the best way out of the validity mess."

    1. There is no "validity mess" other than the one you are contriving.

    2. If you agree with Daly, you agree that Sanborn, SSPX etc. have zero "Lienart taint."

    3. What "true believer" profile? First you need to prove that Lienart was actually a Freemason. This you've failed to do so far.

    Bottom line: All of the Lefebvre clergy are valid, and souls need not be concerned in the slightest.

    1. Wrong. There IS a validity mess and we do not have to deny the Liénart liability. As for Liénart's Freemasonry, most people now accept it as a fact. Coomaraswamy did. And while it's been a very long time since we read Daly's chapter, to our recollection he did not categorically deny Liénart's Masonic membership. We seem to recall that he was more concerned with the question of a Freemason's ability to consecrate validly unless it was certain he had an intention contrary to the substantial nature of the sacrament of orders.

      Since we believe Liénart's record shows that he was a virulent liberal and, in all likelihood, a radicalized, "true-believing" Mason, all the Lefebvrist "clergy" and the souls they pretend to serve should be scared stiff.

  15. Reader - Wrong. There is NO validity mess.

    1. Read Mr. Daly's article. There is NO reason to fear the Lienart-Lefebvre connection.

    2. "Most people" accepting something as a fact is NOT evidence that it's true.

    3. Mr. Daly does not rely on Lienart not being a Mason, but as it stands there is NO solid evidence he actually was.

    So, we're back to waiting for your comprehensive refutation of Mr. Daly's contentions, which you can append elsewhere on this site. If there is any substance to your claims, please show us by refuting Mr. John Daly. Thank you.

    1. Again we assert, there indeed exists a gargantuan validity mess in Tradistan, starting with Dannie's one-handed ordination. You've got your head buried in the sand.

      We like to think that we've introduced something new to the discussion, something others have not considered before, viz. the notion that a fanatical, deeply committed "true believer" of considerable intelligence and training would as a matter of course harbor an intention contrary to the substantial nature of holy orders. It is the perfect means to fly under the radar and still achieve the end of destroying the Mass and breaking Apostolic Succession.

      In recent years, there's been serious clinical research into the psychology of a "true believer," which trads need to take into account when they evaluate their "clergy." At the top end of the spectrum, these types are not low-functioning "nut cases." They are disciplined, resolved, unemotional, adaptive, and highly focused on achieving the ends they have embraced.

      Accordingly, as we've said to you before, there is nothing at odds with Mr. Daly's contentions, and hence it would is unnecessary to offer a refutation where one is not needed to make our point.

      In the future, we will be posting more notes on the psychological profile of this type of personality so that others can better appreciate the new dimension we have added to this all-important discussion and at the very least move from negative to positive doubt.

      BTW, we conclude this thread with this reply.