Canon 378 §1 requires that a candidate for the episcopacy should be:

1.  outstanding in solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence, and human virtues, and endowed with other qualities which make him suitable to fulfill the office in question;

2.  of good reputation;

3.  at least thirty-five years old;

4.  ordained to the presbyterate for at least five years;

5.  in possession of a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred scripture, theology, or canon law from an institute of higher studies approved by the Apostolic See, or at least truly expert in the same disciplines.

1.            S. Woywood, Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (New York: Wagner 1952), 1905. “A sacred order is presumed valid until its invalidity is established by proof to the effect that it was received with want of intention on the part of the petitioner. He must show that something essential was lacking when the sacrament was conferred.”

2.            P. Gasparri, Tractatus de Sacra Ordinatione (Paris: Delhomme 1893), 1:970. “Canonist Gasparri (later a Cardinal and compiler of the 1917 Code of Canon Law) offers a general principle: “…an act, especially one as solemn as an ordination, must be regarded as valid, as long as invalidity would not be clearly demonstrated.”…tum quia actus, praesertim adeo solemnis qualis est ordinatio, habendus est ut validus, donec invaliditas non evincatur.”

3.            A priest or Bishop who confers a sacrament doesn’t have to “prove” that he intends to do what the Church does. He is automatically presumed to intend what the rite means. This is certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church. And to deny it is “theologically rash” B. Leeming, Principles of Sacramental Theology (Westminster md: Newman 1956), 482. “This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be theologically rash… the minister is presumed to intend what the rite means..”

4.            Pope Leo XIII specifically confirmed the principle with regard to Holy Orders when he said that someone who seriously and correctly uses the matter and form “is for that very reason deemed to have intended to do what the Church does”, Bull Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896. “Iamvero quum quis ad sacramentum conficiendum et conferendum materiam formamque debitam serio ac rite adhibuit, eo ipso censetur id nimirum facere intendisse quod facit Ecclesia.”

5.            A Bishop who confers Holy Orders is never presumed to have the intention of not ordaining someone as long as the contrary is not proved. For no one should be presumed to be evil, he adds, unless he is proven as such -Tractatus de Sacra Ordinatione, 1:970. “Proinde numquam praesumitur ministrum talem intentionem non ordinandi habuisse in ordinatione peragenda, donec contrarium non probetur; tum quia nemo praesumitur malus, nisi probetur…” His emphasis.

6.            Theologian Coronata, “is certainly present in someone who regularly performs sacramental actions.” The mere act of putting on vestments and going to the altar is considered sufficient evidence for virtual intention. Conte a Coronata, De Sacramentis: Tractatus Canonicus (Turin: Marietti 1943) 1:56. “Virtualis enim intentio, ut iam vidimus, est intentio ipsa actualis quae cuм distractione operatur. Talis intentio certe habetur in eo qui de more ponit actiones sacramentales.

7.            Recipient of the sacrament for challenges, his diocesan ordinary, and the ordinary of the diocese where the sacrament was conferred. See Canon 1994.1. “Validitatem sacrae ordinationis accusare valet clericus peraeque ac Ordinarius cui clericus subsit vel in cuius diocesi ordinatus sit.” All other person lack the right to accuse, See Cappello 4:683. “Aliae personae extraneae procul dubio jure accusandi carent.”

8.            A consecration without any assistants and without obtaining a pontifical dispensation, it would still be valid. S. Many, Praelectiones de Sacra Ordinatione (Paris: Letouzey 1905), 519. “Alexander VII, brevi Onerosa, 4 Feb. 1664, concessit ut aliqua episcopalis ordinatio, apud Sinas, fieret ab uno tantum episcopo, cuм assistentia duorum presbyterorum, et etiam, si opus esset, sine illorum assistentia.”

9.            Pope Alexander VII, Brief Alias, 27 February 1660. “Quantum spectat ad sacramentum et impressionem characteris fuisse validam.” Pope Clement XI and Pope Benedict XIV declared that consecrations performed without such a dispensation are valid De Synodo Diocesana 13.13.9-10. “…consecrationem hujusmodi validam, licet illicitam, esse censuerunt… ratam firmamque, sed illicitam Consecrationem pronuntiavit.” Pope Benedict’s emphasis, quoting Pope Clement’s decree of 26 November 1718.

10.          The Catholic faith that the valid administration of a sacrament does not depend on a priests or Bishops probity. Cappello, 1:36. “In ministro non requiritur nec status gratiae, nec vitae probitas, imo nec ipsa fides, ad validam sacramentorum confectionem vel administrationem. Haec est veritas catholica de fide.”

11.          Pope Leo XIII answers clearly and with solemn authority: Concerning the mind or intention, in as much as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but in so far as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it. Now, if in order to effect and confer a Sacrament a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. It is on this principle that the doctrine is solidly founded which holds as a true Sacrament that which is conferred by the ministry of a heretic or of a non-baptized person, as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite.  

12.          St. Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of Theologians, says the same thing (III, Q. 64, A. 8 ad 2): In the words uttered by (the minister), the intention of the Church is expressed; and this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, EXCEPT THE CONTRARY BE EXPRESSED EXTERIORLY on the part of the minister [emphasis given by author]. Therefore, in the conferral of the sacrament of holy orders (or of any other) as long as the ordaining Bishop, be he Catholic or apostate, observes externally the rite prescribed for the sacrament, he MUST be presumed to have the right intention, and the sacrament MUST be accepted as valid. Let us recall one more time that there is not the least question of the possibility of receiving valid ordinations from a Bishop who has abandoned the faith. In fact, such ordinations received from heretics or others are normally valid.

13.          In defining this truth of faith, Pope Paschal II does not add the least qualification, not even an implicit reference to cases where such ordinations might not be valid: therefore, instructed by the examples of our Fathers, who at diverse times have received Novatians, Donatists, and other heretics in their orders [i.e., acknowledging the validity of the orders which they had received in their heretical sects]: We receive in the episcopal office [i.e., as valid Bishops] the Bishops of the aforesaid kingdom, who were ordained in schism... October 22, 1106.  

14.          Let us consider momentarily a few more points on the intention required in the minister of a sacrament. We shall distinguish the intention of doing what the Church does, and the intention of doing what the Church intends. The Church does (performs) a sacred rite instituted by Christ, and by this rite she intends to confer grace —and in some sacraments, the character. The minister does not at all need to intend to confer grace by the rite which he performs. It suffices that he intend to perform a sacred rite. (So teach all theologians.) Indeed, he does not even have to believe that the rite which he is performing is sacred. It suffices that he intends to perform seriously a rite which Christians hold as sacred. Thus, for example, a Jєω can validly baptize a Christian child, even though he believes that baptism is a completely meaningless ceremony, if he intends to perform a rite which Christians hold to be sacred. Thus, also a priest who has lost the faith in the Sacraments can still confect them validly as long as he has the intention of performing seriously the rites which the faithful ask of him and which they consider sacred.

15.          St. Thomas teaches the same thing (in IV Sent., dist. 6, Q. 1 A. 3, sol 2, ad 1): Sometimes he [the minister] intends to do what the Church does, although he considers it to be nothing. The minimum intention required in the minister of a sacrament is, then, this: That he intends to perform a rite which the Church considers sacred and to accomplish seriously all the prescribed externals. Indeed, who could possibly lack this minimal intention in administering a sacrament? We have seen that the Church considers the presence of the required intention the normal case as regards sacraments administered by heretics, schismatics, etc. It is almost impossible for a sacerdotal (Priestly) ordination to be invalid, an invalid episcopal consecration would be even more impossible for this reason: In accordance with the most ancient tradition of the Church, a new Bishop is always consecrated by THREE other Bishops. The Pontificale Romanum refers them as assistentes, but since, as the rubrics prescribe, all three Bishops impose hands on the Bishop-elect (the matter of the sacrament), and recite the form of consecration.

16.          Pope Pius XII (Episcopalis consecrationis, Nov. 30, 1944) insists that they are to be referred to as co-consecrators. Thus, as this was already obvious, all three concur in the consecration (where only one would suffice for validity), and, therefore, even in the unimaginable case where two of the three Bishops would lack the necessary intention, the remaining Bishop would still validly consecrate the elect (Cf. also Pius XII, Allocution to the International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy, Sep. 22, 1956).

17.          Consecrations without Papal Mandate: leads us to consider the precedent found in ecclesiastical history for the consecration of Bishops during the time of interregnum (the vacancy of the Apostolic See). On November 29, 1268, Pope Clement IV died, and there began one of the longest periods of interregnum or vacancy of the papal office in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. The Cardinals at that time were to assemble in conclave in the city of Viterbo, but through the intrigues of Carlo d’Anglio, King of Naples, discord was sown among the members of the Sacred College and the prospect of any election grew more and more remote. After almost three years, the Mayor of Viterbo enclosed the Cardinals in a palace, allowing them only strict living rations, until a decision would be made which would give to the Church its visible Head. At last, on September 1, 1271, Pope Gregory X was elected to the Chair of St Peter. During this long period of vacancy of the Apostolic See, vacancies also occurred in many dioceses throughout the world. In order that the priests and faithful might not be left without shepherds, Bishops were elected and consecrated to fill the vacant Sees. There were accomplished during this time twenty-one known elections and consecrations in various countries. The most important aspect of this historical precedent is that all of these consecrations of Bishops were ratified by Pope Gregory X, who consequently affirmed the lawfulness of such consecrations.” There is on 9 separate other occasions that a Pope did not sit on the Chair of St Peter’s throne for a record between 2 to 4 years. However consecrations of hundreds of Bishops took place. Yet there was no Papal Mandate issued for their consecrations. (Information taken from Vatican Archives) And yet their consecrations remain valid and licit.

18.          Pope Leo XIII answers clearly and with solemn authority: concerning the mind or intention, inasmuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but in so far as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it. Now, if in order to effect and confer a Sacrament a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. It is on this principle that the doctrine is solidly founded which holds as a true Sacrament that which is conferred by the ministry of a heretic or of a non-baptized person, as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite.

19.          St. Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of Theologians, says the same thing (III, Q. 64, A. 8 ad 2): In the words uttered by (the minister), the intention of the Church is expressed; and this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, EXCEPT THE CONTRARY BE EXPRESSED EXTERIORLY on the part of the minister [emphasis given by author]. Therefore, in the conferral of the sacrament of holy orders (or of any other) as long as the ordaining bishop, be he Catholic or apostate, observes externally the rite prescribed for the sacrament, he MUST be presumed to have the right intention, and the sacrament MUST be accepted as valid. Let us recall one more time that there is not the least question of the possibility of receiving valid ordinations from a bishop who has abandoned the faith. In fact, such ordinations received from heretics or others are normally valid.

20.          In defining this truth of faith, Pope Paschal II does not add the least qualification, not even an implicit reference to cases where such ordinations might not be valid: Therefore, instructed by the examples of our Fathers, who at diverse times have received Novatians, Donatists, and other heretics in their orders [i.e., acknowledging the validity of the orders which they had received in their heretical sects]: We receive in the episcopal office [i.e., as valid bishops] the bishops of the aforesaid kingdom, who were ordained in schism... October 22, 1106.

21.          Let us consider momentarily a few more points on the intention required in the minister of a sacrament. We shall distinguish the intention of doing what the Church does, and the intention of doing what the Church intends. The Church does (performs) a sacred rite instituted by Christ, and by this rite she intends to confer grace —and in some sacraments, the character. The minister does not at all need to intend to confer grace by the rite which he performs. It suffices that he intends to perform a sacred rite. (So teach all theologians.)  Indeed, he does not even have to believe that the rite which he is performing is sacred. It suffices that he intends to perform seriously a rite which Christians hold as sacred. Thus, for example, a Jєω can validly baptize a Christian child, even though he believes that baptism is a completely meaningless ceremony, if he intends to perform a rite which Christians hold to be sacred. Thus, also a priest who has lost the faith in the Sacraments can still confect them validly as long as he has the intention of performing seriously the rites which the faithful ask of him and which they consider sacred.  

22.          St. Thomas teaches the same thing (in IV Sent., dist. 6, Q. 1 A. 3, sol 2, ad 1): Sometimes he [the minister] intends to do what the Church does, although he considers it to be nothing. The minimum intention required in the minister of a sacrament is, then, this: That he intends to perform a rite which the Church considers sacred and to accomplish seriously all the prescribed externals. Indeed, who could possibly lack this minimal intention in administering a sacrament? We have seen that the Church considers the presence of the required intention the normal case as regards sacraments administered by heretics, schismatics, etc.

23.          It is almost impossible for a sacerdotal (Priestly) ordination to be invalid, an invalid episcopal consecration would be even more impossible for this reason: In accordance with the most ancient tradition of the Church, a new bishop is always consecrated by THREE other bishops.

The Pontificale Romanum refers them as assistentes, but since, as the rubrics prescribe, all three bishops impose hands on the bishop-elect (the matter of the sacrament), and recite the form of consecration, Pope Pius XII (Episcopalis consecrationis, Nov. 30, 1944) insists that they are to be referred to as co-consecrators. Thus, as this was already obvious, all three concur in the consecration (where only one would suffice for validity), and, therefore, even in the unimaginable case where two of the three bishops would lack the necessary intention, the remaining bishop would still validly consecrate the elect. (Cf. also Pius XII, Allocution to the International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy, Sep. 22, 1956.)

Pope Leo XIII answers clearly and with solemn authority: "Concerning the mind or intention, inasmuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but in so far as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it. Now, if in order to effect and confer a Sacrament a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. It is on this principle that the doctrine is solidly founded which holds as a true Sacrament that which is conferred by the ministry of a heretic or of a non-baptized person, as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite."

Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of Theologians, says the same thing: "In the words uttered by the minister, the intention of the Church is expressed; and this suffices for the validity of the Sacrament, EXCEPT THE CONTRARY BE EXPRESSED EXTERIORLY on the part of the minister"  Therefore, in the conferral of the Sacrament of Holy Orders or of any other as long as the ordaining bishop, be he Catholic or apostate, observes externally the rite prescribed for the Sacrament, he MUST be presumed to have the right intention, and the Sacrament MUST be accepted as valid. Let us recall one more time that there is not the least question of the possibility of receiving valid ordinations from a bishop who has abandoned the faith. In fact, such ordinations received from heretics or others are normally valid. In defining this truth of faith, "

Pope Paschal II does not add the least qualification, not even an implicit reference to cases where such ordinations might not be valid: Therefore, instructed by the examples of our Fathers, who at diverse times have received Novatians, Donatists, and other heretics in their orders [i.e., acknowledging the validity of the orders which they had received in their heretical sects]: We receive in the Episcopal office [i.e., as valid bishops] the bishops of the aforesaid kingdom, who were ordained in schism ..." October 22, 1106.  

Let us consider momentarily a few more points on the intention required in the minister of a Sacrament. We shall distinguish the intention of doing what the Church does, and the intention of doing what the Church intends. The Church does (performs) a sacred rite instituted by Christ, and by this rite she intends to confer grace —and in some Sacraments, the character. The minister does not at all need to intend to confer grace by the rite which he performs. It suffices that he intends to perform a sacred rite. (So teach all theologians.) Indeed, he does not even have to believe that the rite which he is performing is sacred. It suffices that he intends to perform seriously a rite which Christians hold as sacred. Thus, for example, a Jєω can validly baptize a Christian child, even though he believes that Baptism is a completely meaningless ceremony, if he intends to perform a rite which Christians hold to be sacred. Thus, also a priest who has lost the faith in the Sacraments can still confect them validly as long as he has the intention of performing seriously the rites which the faithful ask of him and which they consider sacred.

Saint Thomas teaches the same: "Sometimes the minister intends to do what the Church does, although he considers it to be nothing."The minimum intention required in the minister of a Sacrament is, then, this: That he intends to perform a rite which the Church considers sacred and to accomplish seriously all the prescribed externals. Indeed, who could possibly lack this minimal intention in administering a Sacrament? We have seen that the Church considers the presence of the required intention the normal case as regards Sacraments administered by heretics, schismatic’s, etc.

According to the solemn teaching of the Church, therefore, and the conclusions of sound theology, there is ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION for any doubts on the validity of the Holy Orders of the Most Reverend Dom. Carlos Duarte Costa and the Most Reverend Dom. Castillo Mendez. In our case as valid Catholic Bishops consecrated by the Most Reverend Dom. Castillo Mendez who in turn consecrate fellow Bishops. Upon Examination of Canon Laws:  

St. Thomas Aquinas states; laws are ordinances of right reason made for the common good promulgated by one who has authority in society. A fundamental principle of law is that “Law ceases automatically:

1. if through changed conditions, it has become harmful, impossible or irrational;

2. if its very purpose has ceased to be verified for the whole community” (Moral Theology, Ff. Henry Davis, 1958).

Due to the false teachings of Bishop Meini. His Eminence, Archbishop David Bell has found it necessary to Decree the Bishop an Anathema as permitted by the Sacred Council of Trent:

DECRETO di Anathema contro il Vescovo Mario Meini

E 'con grande dolore che scriviamo presente decreto di anatema, ma dopo aver molto pensato e pregato, e aver riflettuto di essere un vescovo cattolico di pietà, prudenza e umiltà e agli insegnamenti dei nostri antenati e l'antica chiesa è ad oggi la lettura di una dichiarazione alla stampa dell vescovo Mario Meini, Vescovo di Feisole, Italia del 18 maggio 2012, con la sua dichiarazione rilasciata dichiarando la mia vocazione e della mia Ordinαzιone, non essere valida. Siamo con il presente decreto secondo il Consiglio Sacra di Trento nella sessione ventitreesima. Canoni e Decreti del Consiglio di essere la settima sotto il Sommo Pontefice Pio IV., Ha celebrato il quindicesimo giorno del mese di luglio, 1563. Decretiamo Anatema, che Dio perdoni i sui errori.

Canon I. Se uno deve dire, che non c'è nel Nuovo Testamento un sacerdozio visibile ed esterno: o che non vi è alcun potere di consacrare e di offrire il vero corpo e sangue del Signore, e del remittente e peccati di sostegno, ma solo un ufficio e il ministero nudo di predicare il Vangelo, o che coloro che non predicano non sono sacerdoti a tutti; sia anatema.

Canon II. Se uno deve dire, che, oltre il sacerdozio, non ci sono gli ordini religiosi cattolici in altra chiesa, sia maggiore o minore, con il quale, come per certi passi, prima è stato fatto per il sacerdozio, sia anatema.

Canon III. Se uno deve dire, che gli ordini, o la sacra ordinαzιone, non è veramente e propriamente un sacramento istituito da Cristo Signore, oppure che si tratta di una finzione certa umana  ideato da uomini inesperti in materia ecclesiastica, oppure, che è solo un certo tipo per la scelta di ministri della parola di Dio e dei sacramenti, sia anatema.

Canon IV. Se uno deve dire che, dalla sacra ordinαzιone lo Spirito Santo non viene dato, e che i vescovi lo dicono dunque invano, "Ricevete lo Spirito Santo", oppure che un personaggio non viene quindi impressa, oppure che chi ha tempo stato un sacerdote, può tornare ad essere un laico, sia anatema.

Canon V. Se uno deve dire, che la sacra unzione che la Chiesa si avvale nell'ordinαzιone sacra, non solo non è necessaria, ma deve essere disprezzata ed è perniciosa, come anche le altre cerimonie dell'Ordine, lascia che sia un anatema.

Canon VII. Se uno deve dire, che i vescovi non sono superiori ai sacerdoti, oppure, che non hanno il potere di confermare e di ordinare, o, che tale potere di cui godono è comune ad esse con i sacerdoti, oppure, che gli ordini, conferito dal loro, senza il consenso o vocazione del popolo, o del potere secolare, non sono validi, oppure, che coloro che non hanno né stato giustamente ordinato, né ha inviato, dal potere ecclesiastico e canonico, ma provengono da altrove, sono ministri legittimi del parola e dei sacramenti, sia anatema.

Supposing a man was under the mistaken assumption that he had valid Holy Orders and was faithfull in fulfilling all his priestly duties believing in good conscience that that he was truly a priest.  My question regards the impact this would have on the very salvation of souls that have been entrusted to his care.  We all know that he would never be able to confect the Holy Eucharist but what about the other sacraments (excluding baptism)?

 I'm thinking specifically about the sacrament of confession.  If a penitent was sincere and made a good confession would God in this case supply the required absolution since neither the penitent nor the pretend priest has any clue that no true sacrament was effected?  I note that in sacred scripture Jesus would often say to a sinner, your faith has saved you, go and sin no more.  I imagine that in this instance God in His great mercy would without question forgive the sinner since this unfortunate circuмstance is beyond the control of both parties.  Does anyone know if the Church has an official teaching on this topic?

Quote from: RowsofVoices

Supposing a man was under the mistaken assumption that he had valid Holy Orders and was faithfull in fulfilling all his priestly duties believing in good conscience that that he was truly a priest.  My question regards the impact this would have on the very salvation of souls that have been entrusted to his care.  We all know that he would never be able to confect the Holy Eucharist but what about the other sacraments (excluding baptism)?

 I'm thinking specifically about the sacrament of confession.  If a penitent was sincere and made a good confession would God in this case supply the required absolution since neither the penitent nor the pretend priest has any clue that no true sacrament was effected?  I note that in sacred scripture Jesus would often say to a sinner, your faith has saved you, go and sin no more.  I imagine that in this instance God in His great mercy would without question forgive the sinner since this unfortunate circuмstance is beyond the control of both parties.  Does anyone know if the Church has an official teaching on this topic?

No, in such a hypothetical case, the layman who is thought to be a priest would be entirely unable to forgive sins, just as unable to consecrate the Eucharist, for both are priestly powers, anymore than a Protestant minister who desired to would be able to.

However, if the penitent has perfect contrition and given that, by the very fact of going to confession he has intended to confess his sins, he would be restored to grace. Ordinarily, because of the work of the sacrament, attrition suffices during confession, and absolution is received by the words of the priest and is efficacious by the blood of Christ but since here there is no sacrament, perfect contrition would be absolutely necessary, and the layman ministering to the penitent would make no contribution.

  Hopefully, if this has ever happened, the penitent had recourse to a validly ordained priest for confession afterwards so that all the sins previously confessed would be absolved.

I see you've fallen off the wagon again.

Quote from: SJB

I see you've fallen off the wagon again.

Report me to the SSPV