Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Centroamerica on March 06, 2018, 10:34:05 PM
-
This popped into my feed somehow. Familiar with the subject and interested to hear the opinion expressed, I have to say that those guys were fair and balanced. They've been known to go out in left field a time or two (or ten). I think they even subscribe to the Siri theory and offer compelling evidence that something is there to uncover, but here they really just left it plainly out there and offer a few interesting facts for those that are not familiar with the case raised against the validity of Lefebvre or Thuc line bishops. Both valid- end of story. No positive doubt ever existed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf5XIabwQmU
-
Even if Lienart was a freemason, the ordination was valid. Lienart followed the rite of the church in conferring the ordination.
-
This popped into my feed somehow. Familiar with the subject and interested to hear the opinion expressed, I have to say that those guys were fair and balanced. They've been known to go out in left field a time or two (or ten). I think they even subscribe to the Siri theory and offer compelling evidence that something is there to uncover, but here they really just left it plainly out there and offer a few interesting facts for those that are not familiar with the case raised against the validity of Lefebvre or Thuc line bishops. Both valid- end of story. No positive doubt ever existed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf5XIabwQmU
This may help to explain it to you:
https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-sacramental-intention-which-is-needed-for-valid-sacraments.html
-
OK, I know that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information but I was able to learn the names of Abp. Lefebvre's two co-consecrators: Alfred-Jean-Félix Ancel, Jean-Baptiste Victor Fauret. So, even if Card. Liénart withed his intention, he still performed the correct form and matter and most likely one of the two co-consecrators had the right intention. In my opinion, Apb. Lefebvre always was a true Catholic priest and a true Catholic Bishop. May his soul rest in peace.
-
OK, I know that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information but I was able to learn the names of Abp. Lefebvre's two co-consecrators: Alfred-Jean-Félix Ancel, Jean-Baptiste Victor Fauret. So, even if Card. Liénart withed his intention, he still performed the correct form and matter and most likely one of the two co-consecrators had the right intention. In my opinion, Apb. Lefebvre always was a true Catholic priest and a true Catholic Bishop. May his soul rest in peace.
Yes, but Lienart ordained +Lefebvre to the priesthood on his own, and if +Lefebvre wasn't a valid priest, it's doubtful that he could be validly consecrated a bishop.
Nevertheless, there's no doubt whatsoever about his validity.
-
OK, I know that Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information but I was able to learn the names of Abp. Lefebvre's two co-consecrators: Alfred-Jean-Félix Ancel, Jean-Baptiste Victor Fauret. So, even if Card. Liénart withed his intention, he still performed the correct form and matter and most likely one of the two co-consecrators had the right intention. In my opinion, Apb. Lefebvre always was a true Catholic priest and a true Catholic Bishop. May his soul rest in peace.
Read this:
https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-sacramental-intention-which-is-needed-for-valid-sacraments.html
-
Yes, but Lienart ordained +Lefebvre to the priesthood on his own, and if +Lefebvre wasn't a valid priest, it's doubtful that he could be validly consecrated a bishop.
Nevertheless, there's no doubt whatsoever about his validity.
Matter, form, and intent are all that are needed.
As long as the matter and form are done correctly, the Church assumes proper intent on both the bishop and ordinand unless one or the other makes a clear pronouncement otherwise.
-
Matter, form, and intent are all that are needed.
As long as the matter and form are done correctly, the Church assumes proper intent on both the bishop and ordinand unless one or the other makes a clear pronouncement otherwise.
I understand. I was responding to a comment about the co-consecrators ... that it is not relevant to the question of validity.
Even IF the consecrator later revealed a withholding of intention, that would still not render the Sacrament invalid ... since he intended to DO what the Church does in performing the rite.
-
Thank you for pointing out the ordination fact, Ladislaus. I learned something today.
-
Thank you for pointing out the ordination fact, Ladislaus. I learned something today.
Some people say that a man could be consecrated a bishop without being a priest first, but this is considered objectively doubtful.
-
This may help to explain it to you:
https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-sacramental-intention-which-is-needed-for-valid-sacraments.html
Probably the lack of question marks in my post is a good sign that I’m not asking you to explain anything to me. I’ve looked into the matter quite a bit and came to the same conclusion as Ladislaus years ago.
-
Is it a known fact or maybe a rather contested one as to when Card. Lienart might have started to sympathize with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?
-
Some people say that a man could be consecrated a bishop without being a priest first, but this is considered objectively doubtful.
Seen in this linked article: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/francis-appointed-cardinal-pope-could-name-a-woman-cardinal (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/francis-appointed-cardinal-pope-could-name-a-woman-cardinal)
Cardinal Tobin’s Case for Women Cardinals
When asked by the NYT, “So will we see women cardinals soon?” Cardinal Tobin delivered perhaps his biggest stunner, “I don’t believe that there’s a compelling theological reason why the pope couldn’t name a woman cardinal.”
************************************************************************
Ha, ain't no surprise who made Tobin a cardinal!
-
Seen in this linked article: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/francis-appointed-cardinal-pope-could-name-a-woman-cardinal (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/francis-appointed-cardinal-pope-could-name-a-woman-cardinal)
Cardinal Tobin’s Case for Women Cardinals
When asked by the NYT, “So will we see women cardinals soon?” Cardinal Tobin delivered perhaps his biggest stunner, “I don’t believe that there’s a compelling theological reason why the pope couldn’t name a woman cardinal.”
************************************************************************
Ha, ain't no surprise who made Tobin a cardinal!
Now, it is true that Cardinals could be (and have been) laymen ... and don't have to be bishops or priests or clerics. But women? And I don't think that lay Cardinals can vote in conclaves.
-
Now, it is true that Cardinals could be (and have been) laymen ... and don't have to be bishops or priests or clerics. But women? And I don't think that lay Cardinals can vote in conclaves.
I recall a lay cardinal being elected pope. If such lay cardinal can be elected, it seems reasonable to think that such a lay cardinal can vote.
-
Now, it is true that Cardinals could be (and have been) laymen ... and don't have to be bishops or priests or clerics. But women? And I don't think that lay Cardinals can vote in conclaves.
That's not true. In order to hold any ecclesiastical office, you have to be a cleric. That means you have received tonsure and have entered into the clerical state and thus have become a member of the Church's hierarchy.
-
I recall a lay cardinal being elected pope. If such lay cardinal can be elected, it seems reasonable to think that such a lay cardinal can vote.
There is no such thing as a lay cardinal. You have to be a cleric to hold an ecclesiastical office. You could have a cardinal who isn't ordained but that doesn't mean he is a layman.
-
The events of interest in Card. Lienart's life:
Born, 1884
Ordained, 1907
Became mason, 1912 (supposedly)
Promoted to the 30th degree, 1924 (supposedly)
Became Bishop, 1928
Ordained Archbishop Lefebvre, 1929
Became Cardinal, 1930
-
The events of interest in Card. Lienart's life:
Born, 1884
Ordained, 1907
Became mason, 1912 (supposedly)
Promoted to the 30th degree, 1924 (supposedly)
Became Bishop, 1928
Ordained Archbishop Lefebvre, 1929
Became Cardinal, 1930
Fast-tracking
-
An interesting analysis by Dr. Coomaraswamy.
-
That's not true. In order to hold any ecclesiastical office, you have to be a cleric. That means you have received tonsure and have entered into the clerical state and thus have become a member of the Church's hierarchy.
If a laymen were appointed Cardinal, he would indeed be tonsured, but not even the minor orders were required. But clerics are not per se members of the "hierarchy". 1917 Code of Canon Law required that Cardinals must be at least priests. But even being a cleric is not required by divine law, since the Candinalate is not of divine institution.
-
If a laymen were appointed Cardinal, he would indeed be tonsured, but not even the minor orders were required. But clerics are not per se members of the "hierarchy". 1917 Code of Canon Law required that Cardinals must be at least priests. But even being a cleric is not required by divine law, since the Candinalate is not of divine institution.
"Hierarchy" is not a univocal term. It can mean jurisdictional hierarchy or ecclesiastical hierarchy depending on context. In the absence of context it should be assumed that the more general term, ecclesiastical hierarchy is the intended meaning. The ecclesiastical hierarchy consists of all Catholic clerics, regardless of orders. The jurisdictional hierarchy is more specific and consists of all those clerics possessing an ecclesiastical office with ordinary jurisdiction attached to it. I don't know how relevant to the discussion this information is but I brought it up because I think a misunderstanding of the definition of hierarchy is a contributing cause of the current crisis. SVs are getting hit with the accusation that the theory would mean the destruction of the hierarchy. The jurisdictional hierarchy is indeed greatly diminished if not completely destroyed. But the ecclesiastical hierarchy remains. And the ecclesiastical hierarchy can restore the jurisdictional hierarchy if they put their minds to it.
-
In either case, is it somehow incompatible with Divine Law to have a lay Cardinal? I don't necessarily see that.
-
In either case, is it somehow incompatible with Divine Law to have a lay Cardinal? I don't necessarily see that.
If by "lay Cardinal" you mean a man appointed to a Cardinalate who is not yet ordained, yes, it has happened. It even happened for the papacy. But the man cannot receive the office until he has received tonsure. After which he can immediately exercise the jurisdiction attached to the office (even before he is ordained). But to call that a "lay Cardinal" is an abuse of terms. He is just a Cardinal and all Cardinals are clerics. You can make a distinction between a Cardinal who has no orders and one who does have orders. But neither one is a layman.
-
But the man cannot receive the office until he has received tonsure.
But is this of divine institution?
-
But is this of divine institution?
I think it would be more proper to say that it is by definition of the hierarchy that all of the members are clerics. And the hierarchy is certainly a divine institution. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm
-
Even if Lienart was a freemason, the ordination was valid. Lienart followed the rite of the church in conferring the ordination.
If there was a problem with Lienart would not have Popes Pius XI and Pius XII come to know about it and take action? Nobody talks about Rampolla's ordinations and consecrations.
This case is interesting:
https://cubacatolica.wordpress.com/linajes-episcopales/linaje-de-mons-dinhthuc-1897-1984/mons-datessen-1934/
1.3.3.2 Jules Edouardo Aonzo (19xx-)
[PHOTO]
Ordained priest in the 1980s by Bishop Lefebvre. Consecrated bishop on December 27, 1992 by Bishop López-Gastón. In 1997 he suspended his duties as priest and bishop due to his doubts about the validity of his priestly ordination, since he maintains that Cardinal Liénart (who was a Mason) did not validly consecrate bishops for the Catholic Church, and therefore Bishop Lefebvre, consecrated for him, he was not a valid bishop, resulting in the fact that Aonzo himself was not supposedly validly ordained as a priest, nor had he received the episcopate. He currently resides in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
-
Ordained priest in the 1980s by Bishop Lefebvre. Consecrated bishop on December 27, 1992 by Bishop López-Gastón. In 1997 he suspended his duties as priest and bishop due to his doubts about the validity of his priestly ordination ...
So, what woman is he living with now?
:laugh1:
-
So, what woman is he living with now?
:laugh1:
My comment is a reference to a story about Archbishop Curley (of Baltimore then also Washington).
At one point a priest came to him questioning the validity of his ordination because the ordaining bishop had been rather senile. Archbishop Curley (imagine an older Irishman) just cut to the chase: "So what's her name?"
-
Yes, but Lienart ordained +Lefebvre to the priesthood on his own, and if +Lefebvre wasn't a valid priest, it's doubtful that he could be validly consecrated a bishop.
Nevertheless, there's no doubt whatsoever about his validity.
Bishops were created first by Our Lord at last Supper. All twelve Apostles were laymen and were ordained Bishops straight away. It is only later on, as the number of converts increased, that the Apostles instituted "lower" Orders of the Sacrament, which would receive delegated powers to perform some of the duties of the Bishops. These were the Diaconate and the Priesthood. So, in theory, a bishop could consecrate a layman bishop straight away, and it would be valid. In other words, there is only ONE sacrament of Holy Orders instituted by Our Lord, and that is the Episcopacy. The lower orders came later by the institution of the Church.