Reply to Todd the Trad re: Mason query

Note that I specified European Masons. By that adjective I exclude the typical American, "next-door-neighbor" Mason (BTW a vanishing breed nowadays) who goes to the lodge for fellowship and a night away from the wife and kids. A very different beast is European Masonry, such as that practiced at the infamous Italian P2 (Propaganda Massonica Due) lodge, "the state within a state," which was involved in the collapse of the Banco Ambrosiano, the murders of a journalist and banker, and numerous scandals. (Worthy of note is the fact that after WWII the U.S. government encouraged the resurgence of Masonry, which Mussolini had outlawed.)

The real and hidden leaders of European Masonry are far from harmless free-thinking modernists who dismiss all religion as emotionally charged superstition.  As agents and earthly deputies of the Great Adversary, these leaders know--not just believe--that Catholic holy orders are real, and that without them salvation is very difficult and perhaps impossible for much of mankind.

While some of the rank-in-file may not necessarily hold to or even realize the diabolical nature undergirding international Masonry, the real leaders use them as tools to further their the movement's singular satanic end, which is the obliteration of the Catholic Church and the harvesting of lost souls to further populate hell.


 

Even according to Fr. Hunter, and Pope Leo XIII, the validity is morally certain.

I disagree.  I hold that it's certain with a much higher degree of certainty, and or else its validity is only one of presumption.  So one can never receive the Sacraments without the nagging doubt.  Actually the Lienart case falls somewhere in between a purely negative doubt and a truly positive doubt.  There is some evidence, not just mere speculation, that Lienart was a Mason.  Consequently, there's some positive evidence for it.  If he were an evil infiltrator, then it's highly likely that he would have a contrary intention.

I call hogwash.  He intended in his capacity as a minister of the Church to do what the Church does.  He does not have to intend the EFFECT of the Sacrament.  He merely has to intend to do WHAT the Church DOES.  That is precisely why atheists and all manner of heretic can validly baptize.  If someone is a heretic, he does not intend the Sacrament effect, not even believing in it.

Again, consider the metaphor.  I intend to hold a gun up to someone's head and pull the trigger while in my mind thinking, " I do not intend for him to die."  Did that person intend the death?  Of course he did, his contrary intention notwithstanding.  In intending the cause, you intend the effect, and the Church's intention regarding the outcome of that Rite give it its efficacy.  You have to internally intend only the cause, not necessarily the effect.  That's the missing distinction here in the internal vs. external intention controversy.  It's actually the incorrect distinction.  Of course the intention has to be internal, otherwise it would not be a human act.  But if you internally intend the cause, then you internally intend the effect.

Sean @ reply #90 sounds as if believes negative or positive doubt is objective. Neither is. Doubt is a state of mind, and hence subjective. Moreover, the Liénart case does elicit positive doubt from many thoughtful Catholics: the affirmative argument from the teaching of Leo XIII's presumption and the opposing argument from a profound understanding of the psychological profile of a supernaturally controlled true-believing bad actor seem to many to be of equal value, for there are grave reasons to fear error. Perhaps not for Sean; his fear of error may rest on slight reasons. But then doubt is subjective, isn't it? Positive or negative doubt is based on the intensity of the fears one has of erring. Perhaps if Sean had deeper insight into the psyche of a genuine Mason he might form a positive doubt regarding the orders of men ordained or consecrated by Liénart.

Liénart's docuмented Masonic membership and his public record furnish the subjective evidence -- the certitude-- for traditional Catholics to avoid all clergy in his line as the safer course.

Liénart's docuмented Masonic membership and his public record furnish the subjective evidence -- the certitude-- for traditional Catholics to avoid all clergy in his line as the safer course.

Well it makes sense that when the freemasons and jews took over the Church that they would try to make sure that the resistance that came about was by clergy with invalid orders.