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.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"Doubt is either positive or negative. In the former case, the evidence for and against is so equally balanced as to render decision impossible;
in the latter, the doubt arises from the absence of sufficient evidence on either side."https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm The Lienart theory clearly matches the latter definition of negative doubt.
Here's another definition of "negative doubt" by Prummer:
"A negative doubt is to be despised. This axiom is accepted by all moral theologians. A negative doubt is a doubt that is not based upon any reason. It is the question “what if” that we frequently ask for no reason at all. Such a doubt cannot weaken moral certitude and is not reasonable. (Cf. Prummer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, I, §328.)"
"What if" is clearly all the case you have built for the Leinart theory rests upon.
Nothing you have posted thus far even remotely approached positive doubt.
Its all imagination, extraneous conjecture, and "what if."
Topic: Found out priest was ordained in New Rite (Read 24609 times)