Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: de Lugo on February 15, 2023, 06:14:30 AM

Title: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 15, 2023, 06:14:30 AM

The Catholic - 1982
https://web.archive.org/web/20190920163412/http://catholicendtimetruths.com/masonic-bishops-holy-orders/27/04/2013  

Was Abp. Lefebvre invalidly ordained by a Mason?
Some months ago I read an article in a mimeographed publication which “proved” that Archbishop Lefebvre was — of all things — an Arian. The “evidence” for this charge was the claim that he refused to read the Last Gospel. The poor soul who wrote the article, however, seemed unaware that a bishop at Pontifical High Mass does not read the Last Gospel at the altar, but rather recites it to himself on the way out — as prescribed by the rubrics.

Now, while one can ignore such attacks on the Archbishop’s integrity, there is one which strikes at the heart of the Society of Saint Pius X and every traditional Catholic — for it is claimed by some lay “popes” (pardon the quotation marks) that Arch­bishop Lefebvre is himself not validly ordained and consecrated. If such is true — they say — then all the priests he has ordained are also incapable of providing the sacraments, and the Society itself is without func­tion or purpose.

It would be impossible to respond to every possible criticism and calumny, based as they are on insinuations, distortions and half-truths. But an attack on the validity of His Excellency’s ordination and consecration warrants a clear and unequivocal response.

The latter is based on the story that Achille Cardinal Liénart, the man who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest and consecrated him a bishop, was a Freemason of high rank. In respon­ding to this, we must answer three questions;

(1) What is the evidence that Cardinal Liénart was a Freemason, and how much confidence can we place in this evidence?

(2) If Cardinal Liénart had been a Freemason, would this have invalidated the ordination and consecration of Archbishop Lefebvre?

(3) What was the Church’s practice in the past in the case of Holy Orders conferred by a prelate who unquestionably was a Mason?


1. Was Cardinal Liénart a Mason?
Obviously, this is a critical issue. If Cardinal Liénart was not a Freemason, then there would be no basis for impugning the validity of the Arch­bishop’s orders. What then is the evidence for the assertion?

The most specific source is a book entitled Papal Infallibility (L’lnfaillibilité Pontificale) by the French writer Marquis de la Franquerie. This individual is said to be “a papal Secret Chamberlain who lives in Lucon, Vendée, France,” and “a learned historian with special knowledge in the field of penetration of the Catholic hierarchy by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in France.” He is said to be a traditionalist, and a friend of Archbishop Lefebevre.

On page 80 of his book, during the course of a discussion of the modernist maneuverings in prepraration for Vatican II, the Marquis mentions, almost in passing, that Cardinal Liénart was a “luciferian” who attended “black Masses.” Toward the end of a lengthy footnote on another topic that continues onto the following page, the Marquis adds:
“This attitude of the Cardinal could not sur­prise those who knew his membership in the Freemasonic and Luciferian lodges. This was the reason why the author of this study [i.e., the Marquis de la Franquerie] always had refused to accompany Cardinal Liénart in the official ceremonies as Secret Chamberlain.

“The Cardinal had been initiated in a lodge in Cambrai whose Venerable was Brother Debierre. He frequented a lodge in Cambrai, three at Lille, one in Valenciennes, and two in Paris, of which one was in a special way com­posed of parliamentarians. In the year 1919, he is designated as ‘Visitor’ (18th Degree), then, in 1924, as 30th degree. The future Car­dinal met in the lodges Brother Debierre and Roger Solengro. Debierre was one of the in­formers of Cardinal Gasparri who had been initiated in America, and of Cardinal Hartmann. Archbishop of Cologne, a Rosicrucian.

“The Cardinal belonged to the International League against Anti-Semitism, where he met up again with Marc Sangnier and Father Violet.

“It was given to us to meet in Lourdes a former Freemason who, on July 19, 1932, had been miraculously cured of a wound suppurating on his left foot for fourteen years — a cure recognized by the Verification Bureau on July 18, 1933. This miraculously-healed gentleman, Mr. B…, told us that, at the time when he frequented a Luciferian lodge, he met there the cardinal whom he recognized and was dumbfounded.”

Another source cited is Archbishop Lefebvre himself. In a talk given in Montreal, Canada on May 27, 1976, he stated:

“Two months ago in Rome, the traditionalist periodical Chiesa Viva, published — I have seen it in Rome with my own eyes — on the back side of the cover, the photograph of Cardinal Liénart with all his Masonic paraphernalia, the day of the date of his in­scription in Masonry…, then the date at which he rose to the 20th, then to the 30th degree of Masonry, attached to this lodge, to that lodge, at this place, at that place. Mean­while, about two or three months after this publication was made, I heard nothing about any reaction, or any contradiction. Now, un­fortunately, I must say to you that this Cardinal Liénart is my bishop, it is he who or­dained me a priest, it is he who consecrated me a bishop. I cannot help it… Fortunately, the orders are valid… But, in spite of it, it was very painful for me to be informed of it.”

The issue of Chiesa Viva was No. 51, March, 1976. In it there is an article entitled “Il Cardinale Achille Liénart era Massone.”

However, the Archbishop’s memory was faulty, for the photograph involved was a picture of Cardinal Liénart in ordinary ecclesiastical attire, and below this a drawing which shows a monumental entrance door to a building around which Freemasonic sym­bols are grouped. This second picture carried the designation: “Entrance door to a Freemasonic temple.”

The article, whose author is not named, says that the source of his information is pages 80 and 81 of Papal Infalibility, the book quoted above.

Another Italian journal, Si Si, No, No, also informs us that Cardinal Liénart was a Freemason. Its source, however, also turns out to be the Marquis de la Franquerie’s Papal Infalibility.

Now, gentle reader, this is the sum total of the “evidence” brought forth for Cardinal Liénart be­ing a Freemason! And it all goes back to the asser­tions of the Marquis de la Franquerie.

It may interest the reader to learn that accor­ding to a paper called The Sword of Truth: “From an irrefutable source, [Is there any other kind?], we learned recently that John XXIII was initiated into the Knights Templar Order of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in 1935. Now we know why he took the name of the anti-Pope John XXIII…”

And for those who would prefer a pre-ConciIiar Masonic Pontiff, we have it on the authority of a Brother Joseph Mc-Cabe (A History of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ) that Pius IX was also a Freemason. According to this source Pius, “the most vitriolic critic of the Masons before Leo XIII, had himself been a Mason; and at one time the French put into circulation a portrait of him in full Masonic regalia… Dudley Wright gives in his Roman Catholicism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ the official proof that the charge is true. Pius was admitted to the Elerna Catena lodge at Palermo in 1839, when he was already a 46-year-old priest; and other docuмents show that as a Papal emissary in South America he was received in the lodges of Monte Video.”

Of course, in the first case, the “irrefutable source” remains unidentified. How convenient! In the second case, we are told that “a portrait was circulated.” Lost now, perhaps? And “docuмents show” Pius was received as a Mason. And where are these docuмents? Did they go down with the Titanic?

The Marquis provides a similar paucity of evidence — a “Mr. B…” who knew of this matter in 1932, but, despite his gratitude to the Blessed Virgin for a miraculous cure, and despite the fact that he knew Achille Liénart was teaching in the Seminary of Lille, ordaining priests and con­secrating bishops, decided not to share his precious secret. Nothing like an “irrefutable anonymous source”!

Was “Mr. B…” afraid the Freemasons would do away with him? But then, why share it at a later date when he had no greater immunity?

I have been told — unfortunately, not by an irrefutable source — that the docuмents showing the Cardinal’s signatures at these various lodges can be produced. Now I ask you, if one were a churchman obviously on the rise in the hierarchy and within a secret and diabolical organization, would one casually pop into the local lodge and place one’s signature on the guest book? I rather doubt it. One should have far too much respect for the Freemasonic organization than to believe that a real “agent provocateur” would be even seen in a lodge. As for “docuмentation,” in this day and age it can be easily produced by a variety of technical methods.

What are the sources for the Marquis’ asser­tions, you may ask? Other than the anonymous “Mr. B…,” he does not give any. For his other factual claims about Masonic infiltration, the Marquis provides references in his book that can be verified; for the accusation against Cardinal Liénart, he gives no docuмentary sources at all. He just asserts something — he does not offer proof or solid evidence.

Finally, the author, the Marquis de la Franquerie, informs us that he knew about this all for decades, and as a result would not accompany Car­dinal Liénart “in the official ceremonies as Secret Chamberlain.”

Now, I find it extremely strange that the Marquis, who received this high papal honor of being named a Secret Chamberlain, did nothing to expose this terrible situation when he had access to Church authorities prior to Vatican II. Why did he also wait until the mid-seventies to provide the world with this informa­tion?

It seems, then, that we cannot really take any of the evidence seriously. It is sensationalist tittle-tattle that proves nothing.

We are therefore morally obliged to find the “defendant,” Cardinal Liénart, not guilty of the charge.


 2. What If Liénart Had Been a Mason?
But purely for the sake of argument, let assume the claim is true.

The question then would be: Would this affect the validity of ordinations performed by Cardinal Liénart?

Those who have attacked the Archbishop claim it would, and they make much of the chronology of the alleged sequence of events. The sequence they give is the following:
Cardinal Liénart: Born, 1884; ordained, 1907; became Mason, 1912; promoted to 30th degree, 1924; became bishop 1928; ordained Archbishop Lefebvre, 1929; became Car­dinal, 1930.

Now, the question of the validity of the or­dination depends upon the usual criteria for the validity of any sacrament. The essential re­quirements are “intention, matter, form, minister, and disposition of the recipient.”

We can presume that matter and form fulfilled the necessary re­quirements of the Church, for in such solemn and public ceremonies an error in this regard would not have escaped unnoticed.

With regard to the minister, it is a teaching of the Church that neither faith nor the state of grace is required. Sinful, heretical, schismatic and apostate priests or bishops can still validly (though sinfully and illicit­ly) confect the sacraments, provided that they use the proper matter and form and have the necessary intention.

The question (if Bishop Liénart had been a Mason) would NOT be whether he could have validly administered a sacrament at all, but whether in fact he did so. In other words, did he either withhold his intention, or have an in­tention contrary to that which is considered necessary?

The obvious answer is that we do not know and cannot know — because we cannot look back into his heart in 1929. The requirement established, or rather defined, at the Council of Trent is that the minister must “intend to do what the Church does.” (Sess. 7, Can. 11)

Is it possible for a Freemason to intend to do what the Church does? The answer is yes. It is also possible for him to withhold this intention and to have a contrary in­tention — but, then, it is possible for any priest or bishop to do the same with any sacrament.

To backtrack a little, intention can be characterized as “external” and “internal.” Exter­nal intention is reflected in performing the rites correctly, but it does not suffice. If the minister does not have the correct internal intention, he would be acting in his own name or by his own power, rather than in Christ’s name and with Christ’s power. He would be performing a purely natural act — and not a supernatural one.

The crux of the issue is how can we know and recognize this “internal intention” on the part of the minister?

Pope Leo XIII spoke to this issue when discussing Anglican orders:

“Concerning the mind or intention, insomuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but insofar 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 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 a non-baptized person [as in Baptism] as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite.” (Em­phasis supplied.)

Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the Church cannot pass judgment purely on inter­nal intentions for the simple reason that she cannot ever really know them.

Thus, those who claim that Cardinal Liénart was a Mason and for this reason did not validly confer priestly ordination arrogate to themselves the right to do something even the Church has no power to do — pass judgment on the unexpressed intentions of the ministers of a sacra­ment.

All this is not to say that the correct perfor­mance of the external rites, absent any intention at all, suffices for validity — indeed, this opinion was condemned by the Church.
In the absence of external evidence which clearly shows that the intention was withheld, the Church always presumes that the minister did in fact have the intention of doing what the Church does.

And thus we find St. Thomas Aquinas teaching that “the minister of the sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament.” (Summa, Part III, Question 64, 8 and 2).

Now, it is not necessary for the minister of a sacrament to be either morally pure or orthodox. Augustine teaches that “the evil lives of wicked men are not prejudicial to God’s sacraments, by rendering them either invalid or less holy.” St. Thomas in discussing this states that “the ministers of the Church work instrumentally in the sacraments… Now an instrument acts not by reason of its own form, but by the power of one who moves it… The ministers of the Church do not by their own power cleanse from sin those who approach the sacraments, nor do they confer grace on them: it is Christ Who does this by His own power while He employs them [the ministers] as in­struments.” (Ibid., 6, ad 1).
Putting this somewhat differently, the minister acts as a conduit for Christ’s grace, providing he in no way obstructs Christ and the Church’s intent by using his free will to intend a contrary purpose.

We have also said that the minister need not be orthodox. As St. Thomas teaches:

“Since the minister works instrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his own, but by God’s power. Now, just as charity belongs to a man’s own power, so also does faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does not require that the minister should have charity, and even sinners can confer the sacraments, so neither is it necessary that he should have faith, and even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament, providing that the other essentials be there… Even if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believes that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Church intends to confer a sacra­ment by thai which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices…” (Ibid., 64,9)

While we are on St. Thomas, let us also note that illicit administering of the sacraments in no way invalidates them. He states that “if a man be suspended from the Church, or excommunicated or degraded, he does not lose the power of conferr­ing sacraments, but the permission to use this power. Wherefore he does indeed confer the sacra­ment, but he sins in so doing.” (Ibid., 64; 10 and 3)

The recipient would of course sin in knowingly receiving the sacrament from such an individual “unless ignorance excuses him.” And thus, as Pope Paschal II states, “instructed by the examples of our Fathers, who at diverse times have received Novatians, Donatists, and other heretics into their order [i.e., acknowledged the validity of the orders received in their heretical sects]: we receive in the episcopal office [i.e., as true bishops] the bishops of the aforesaid kingdom who were ordained in schism. . .”

The Church, of course, presumes the normal intention on even the part of heretics — that is, the intention to do what the Church does.

And finally it should be noted that none of the lay “popes” who have spread the Masonry allegations have ever been able to cite even one Catholic theologian — still less, a real pope — who taught that Holy Orders conferred by a Mason must be presumed invalid on grounds of lack of proper intention.


 3. A Historical Precedent: Bishop Talleyrand
Obviously, if the Church did not presume in the absence of contrary evidence that the minister always intends to do what the Church does, we would be in a serious state. We would always have to question the minister as to his intent, and still have co have faith in his word. How would any of us ever know the reality of any of the sacraments? Indeed, how would we even know if we were Chris­tian? Perhaps the baptizing minister was a secret Freemason who withheld his intention!

Let us look then to discover a historical precedent about a Masonic bishop. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord was born of good paren­tage in 1754, and owing to an accident that rendered him lame, was forced by his parents into the priesthood. “He went to St. Suplice and, against his inclination became an abbé [priest]. He then read the ‘most revolutionary books,’ and at length, giving up his priestly life, plunged in the licentiousness of the period…”

Despite this, he was given several wealthy benefices, including that of St. Denis, and continued to rise in the Church as well as in the government. Finally, through the in­sistence of his father (to whom the king was greatly indebted) he obtained the episcopal see of Autun and was consecrated Bishop on January 16, 1789. He continued to live his profligate life in Paris, and only went to Autun when he saw this as a means of being elected member of the États-Generaux — the French National Assembly which would eventually foment the Revolution.

According to Talleyrand’s biographer, Louis Madelin of the Academie Française (New York: Roy 1948), “He belonged to all the great masonic lodges, from the Philalatheans, whence sprang the Jacobin Club, to the Re-united Friends, where the great ringleaders of the future were already prepar­ing the Revolution.” He also had close ties to the Duc d’Orléans, the future Philippe Egalité, and one of the principal leaders of the French Revolu­tion. As a member of the Constitutional Commit­tee, he took part in the “Declaration of the Rights of Man.” He was one of the most influential members of the Assembly, and was the individual most directly responsible for the confiscation of Church property; the taking over of education by the state, and the establishment of the “Constitu­tional Church,” a schismatic body set up by the Masons to serve the ends of the state.

Talleyrand publicly said sacrilegious Masses. After most of the tradi­tional and loyal bishops fled France, it fell his lot to consecrate (together with the infamous apostate, Bishop Gobel) all the “Constitutional Bishops” that replaced them. After this act, he took off his ecclesiastical attire and never wore it again. His own priests, the Cathedral Chapter of Autun, described him as deserving “infamy in this world and damnation in the next.”

One must not imagine that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was an unknown entity in those days. Popes Clement XII (1730-1740), Benedict XIV (1740-1758) and Clemenr XIII (1758-1769) had already clearly con­demned it.

Talleyrand was excommunicated by a pontifical brief in April, 1791. This excommunica­tion was later lifted, on condition that he lived a life of celibacy. He promptly married, then exiled his wife to England and formed a series of “alliances” from which several illegitimate off­spring resulted. He was a bad priest, an apostate bishop, a Freemason, a Christian barred from communion and an individual who for forty-nine years could not receive the sacraments of the Church.

Now, the point of all this is that most of the bishops of France derived their Apostolic Succes­sion through Talleyrand and his two associates (also supporters of the Revolution). Not only were all Talleyrand’s episcopal consecrations recogniz­ed, but when the Concordat between Napoleon and Pope Pius VII was signed, the exiled bishops who had remained loyal to Pope Pius VI were asked to resign.

Rome allowed the bishops of the Constitu­tional Church, all of whom derived their orders from the Mason Talleyrand, to remain in their positions, as diocesan ordinaries. The fact that Talleyrand was a Mason and a revolutionary made no difference.
* * * * *
To sum up what we have said:
(1) There is no credible evidence which shows that Cardinal Liénart was a Freemason.
(2) If Cardinal Liénart had been a Freemason, it would not have invalidated the sacraments he conferred.
(3) The case of Talleyrand demonstrates in the practical order that the Church does not regard or­dinations performed by Freemasons as invalid.
So much then, for tall tales of Masonry!
(The Roman Catholic, June 1982)

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 15, 2023, 08:48:44 AM

Was Lienart a Mason?  Possibly.  Probably?

Would this effect the validity of his ordinations/consecrations?  No.

When Lienart performed the Catholic Rite of Ordination / Consecration, he was intending to DO what the Church DOES.

Unfortunately, because SSPX have played the game for some years about doing conditional ordinations due to possible issues with "intention," they've had to exaggerate the role of intention in the validity of Sacraments into an internal forum consideration.

I make this analogy.  I hold a loaded gun up to someone's head and pull the trigger.  But in my mind I'm saying, "I do not wish that he die.  I do not wish that he die."  Did I intend to kill the individual?  Of course I did, this internal mental gymnastics notwithstanding. I intended to DO what would cause the death of the individual.

So a hypothetical Mason Lienart could sit there the entire time thinking, "I do not wish to ordain.  I do not wish to ordain."  But if he performs the Rite he intends to do the ordination, and therefore to ordain.

Nor is this contrary to the notion of "internal" intention.  Intending to DO something also must be internal, and it is because the ordaining bishop has to think of what he's doing and intend to do it, i.e. to impose the hands, say the words, etc.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 15, 2023, 08:51:55 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 15, 2023, 06:14:30 AM

* * * * *
To sum up what we have said:
(1) There is no credible evidence which shows that Cardinal Liénart was a Freemason.
(2) If Cardinal Liénart had been a Freemason, it would not have invalidated the sacraments he conferred.
(3) The case of Talleyrand demonstrates in the practical order that the Church does not regard or­dinations performed by Freemasons as invalid.
So much then, for tall tales of Masonry!
(The Roman Catholic, June 1982)

See, I think that article should have ignored point #1 entirely.  By spending a lot of time on it, it's giving the impression that it's important, and leaving it open to later having more weight than it should ... if some evidence later came out proving that he had been a Mason.

#2 is the most important point, and the question of whether Lienart was or was not a Mason should have been given little or no consideration.

Quote

1. Was Cardinal Liénart a Mason?

Obviously, this is a critical issue.

No, it's NOT a critical issue.  Why do they say it's a "critical issue" after demonstrating point #2 above?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 15, 2023, 09:54:10 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 15, 2023, 08:48:44 AM

So a hypothetical Mason Lienart could sit there the entire time thinking, "I do not wish to ordain.  I do not wish to ordain."  But if he performs the Rite he intends to do the ordination, and therefore to ordain.

This is condemned:

“A Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes every external rite and form of baptizing, but within in his heart, resolves to himself not to intend what the Church does.” - CONDEMNED,  (Pope Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy Office, December 7, 1690, Errors of the Jansenists, Denz., 1318).

Despite this condemnation, Catholics should not be troubled, because as l' Abbe Hunter explains in his manual:

"It is objected to this doctrine that it makes the validity of every Sacrament depend upon a purely internal fact, namely, the intention of the minister who may perform the outward acts with the interior intention of not acting as deputy of Christ. We admit the consequence, but deny that there is anything in it out of harmony with other parts of revealed doctrine; it is perfectly true that, without special revelation, no one can have absolute certainty that he has received a Sacrament or that he is in the state of grace (n. 639): but his assurance on the subject may approach so nearly to this absolute certainty as to make any misgiving on the subject foolish and vain; and it must always be remembered that God, who has bound Himself to give grace when the Sacraments are duly received, has nowhere limited His power, disabling Himself from giving grace apart from these holy rites. One, therefore, who acts in good faith may hope that no disaster will befall himself or those dear to him through the deceit of a wicked minister. (See n. 696.)"

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on February 15, 2023, 12:44:47 PM

Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ tells us how they are going corrupt the church.  The damage has been done. 

We can’t dwell on the negative past.  That is of evil.  We need to focus on saving souls especially ours.   

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 15, 2023, 05:02:59 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 15, 2023, 09:54:10 AM

This is condemned:

“A Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes every external rite and form of baptizing, but within in his heart, resolves to himself not to intend what the Church does.” - CONDEMNED,  (Pope Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy Office, December 7, 1690, Errors of the Jansenists, Denz., 1318).

No, it's not condemned.  Read it again.  Intend what the Church DOES, not intend what the Church intends.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 15, 2023, 05:10:49 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 15, 2023, 09:54:10 AM

Despite this condemnation, Catholics should not be troubled, because as l' Abbe Hunter explains in his manual:

Garbage.  If interpreted the way you interpret it, Catholics absolutely SHOULD be troubled, since they have no idea at all whether +Lefebvre and all the SSPX priests and Trad priests who descend from him are valid, none whatsoever.  Church was absolutely infested with Communist agents and Masons in the 1960s and the odds are extremely high that many of them tried this stunt.  And there are simply too many details regarding +Lienart to dismiss out of hand.  This was no generic accusation, but the names and numbers of lodges he was associated with are cited.

Intention must be internal, but it is to do what the Church does, not to intend what the Church intends.  There could be a priest up there who doesn't believe in the Real Presence and doesn't intend what the Church intends.  But he shows up in church, as assigned, and performs the Rite of Mass as prescribed by the Church.  He intends to perform said Rite.  HIs Mass is valid.  Where internal intention is lacking would be in situations where 1) a priest is not of sound mind, 2) a priest doing something in jest, 3) a priest doing something to practice / rehearse the Rite ... all of which can be discerned from the external forum.  But if a priest shows up for the 8:00 AM Mass scheduled at a Catholic church and peforms the Rite that's intended to be the Mass, he could sit there with all his might, gritting his teeth "intending" to do the exact opposite of what the Church does, but it would make no difference, and his Mass would be valid.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: JoeZ on February 15, 2023, 06:55:03 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 15, 2023, 05:10:49 PM

Garbage.  If interpreted the way you interpret it, Catholics absolutely SHOULD be troubled, since they have no idea at all whether +Lefebvre and all the SSPX priests and Trad priests who descend from him are valid, none whatsoever.  Church was absolutely infested with Communist agents and Masons in the 1960s and the odds are extremely high that many of them tried this stunt.  And there are simply too many details regarding +Lienart to dismiss out of hand.  This was no generic accusation, but the names and numbers of lodges he was associated with are cited.

Intention must be internal, but it is to do what the Church does, not to intend what the Church intends.  There could be a priest up there who doesn't believe in the Real Presence and doesn't intend what the Church intends.  But he shows up in church, as assigned, and performs the Rite of Mass as prescribed by the Church.  He intends to perform said Rite.  HIs Mass is valid.  Where internal intention is lacking would be in situations where 1) a priest is not of sound mind, 2) a priest doing something in jest, 3) a priest doing something to practice / rehearse the Rite ... all of which can be discerned from the external forum.  But if a priest shows up for the 8:00 AM Mass scheduled at a Catholic church and peforms the Rite that's intended to be the Mass, he could sit there with all his might, gritting his teeth "intending" to do the exact opposite of what the Church does, but it would make no difference, and his Mass would be valid.

Alright, a clarification is needed here for me to understand.

When Pope Alexander says "Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and form of baptizing" we see that the minister intended to do as the Church does because he in fact did as the Church does and performed the rite with proper form, but then something in the minister's interior forum blocks the sacrament "but within his heart resolves, I do not intend what the Church does" (and of course we know the sacrament was blocked because believing the validity of it is of course condemned).

So, does performing the externals of the rite prove the proper intention to do as the Church does? It would seem not because in his heart the minister blocks the sacrament. Maybe the English in the Denzinger isn't giving the correct sense to what is truly written.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 16, 2023, 05:13:02 AM

I find this teaching of St Robert Bellarmine on secret infidels, in De Ecclesia, very interesting: Ultimately we cannot be absolutely certain of the orders of almost any bishop:

"Two things can be considered on Bishops: Firstly, that they hold the place of Christ so for that reason we owe obedience to them... Secondly, that they might have the power of Order and Jurisdiction. If it is considered in the first mode, we are certain with an infallible certitude that these, whom we see, are our true Bishops and Pastors. For this, neither faith, nor the character of order, nor even legitimate election is required, but only that they be held for such by the Church... Now if this is considered in the second manner, we do not have any but a moral certitude that these will truly be Bishops, although it is certain with infallible certitude that at least some are true, otherwise God will have deserted the Church..."

But surely, we should not be unduly troubled about these things. The Good Lord desires our salvation infinitely more than we do ourselves and He will not laugh in our face on the day of Judgement because we confessed to an invalid priest, for example... unless such was clearly obvious and we should have known better. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 05:13:39 AM

Quote from: JoeZ on February 15, 2023, 06:55:03 PM

So, does performing the externals of the rite prove the proper intention to do as the Church does?

No.

It suffices for the presumption of a proper intention, but does not heal an invalidating covert contrary intention.

Were this not the case, intention need not be a criterion for a valid sacrament.

L' Abbe Hunter explains:

"The reply just given to the difficulty about the uncertainty of the Sacraments seems perfectly sufficient; but there have been theologians who, not being content with it, maintain the possibility of having absolute certainty that a Sacrament has been validly administered; and thus making some approach to the Lutheran assurance of the presence of habitual grace in the soul. This doctrine attracted attention at the time of the Council of Trent, being put forward by the Italian theologian, Ambrose Catharinus, who avowed that he was influenced by a desire to secure peace of mind to the faithful but one who feels a wish that a doctrine should be true may be suspected of not being a fair judge of the arguments bearing on it. The decree of the Council left the question open, and it is still debated, although the followers of Catharinus grow fewer in number and authority as time goes on.

“In the view of Catharinus, no other intention is required in the minister of a Sacrament than that he should deliberately go through the outward acts required by the rite; and this is held to be sufficient, though the minister have no interior intention of doing what the Church does, and even if he interiorly form an explicit act of not intending so to do. But this theory fails to secure the absolute certainty that the Sacrament is valid, for it is easy for the minister to change the words of the form (n. 680) in an essential particular without this fraud being detected.

“The theory, therefore, does not possess that advantage which was its chief recommendation, and it is open to grievous theological difficulties. The man who does not at least implicitly intend to act as agent for Christ cannot do so, for the character of his action depends on his intention; the words of the Council are most naturally applicable to the internal intention, and it is certain that this suffices; for if the matter and form of Baptism be duly applied to a child by one who interiorly intends to perform the Christian rite, the Baptism is valid, even though the minister pretend exteriorly that he went through the ceremony in mockery : and lastly, if the priest saying Mass intends to consecrate ten Hosts and no more, but has eleven before him, then not one is validly consecrated, as is declared in the rubrics of the Missal. (De Defectu Intentionis.) For these and other similar reasons, most modern theologians reject the doctrine that the exterior intention is sufficient, but they confess that it has not been condemned by the authority of the Church."

L' Abbe Hunter then proceeds to cite the same quotation of Pope Alexander VIII which I supplied above.

Essentially, M. Ladislaus has rejected the need of interior intention, and espoused the views of Catharinus, apparently from a psychological need for infallible certitude in the matter of sacramental validity (which is imposssible to ascertain).

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 16, 2023, 05:33:24 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 05:13:39 AM

No.

It suffices for the presumption of a proper intention, but does not heal an invalidating covert contrary intention.

Were this not the case, intention need not be a criterion for a valid sacrament.

L' Abbe Hunter explains:

"The reply just given to the difficulty about the uncertainty of the Sacraments seems perfectly sufficient; but there have been theologians who, not being content with it, maintain the possibility of having absolute certainty that a Sacrament has been validly administered; and thus making some approach to the Lutheran assurance of the presence of habitual grace in the soul. This doctrine attracted attention at the time of the Council of Trent, being put forward by the Italian theologian, Ambrose Catharinus, who avowed that he was influenced by a desire to secure peace of mind to the faithful but one who feels a wish that a doctrine should be true may be suspected of not being a fair judge of the arguments bearing on it. The decree of the Council left the question open, and it is still debated, although the followers of Catharinus grow fewer in number and authority as time goes on.

“In the view of Catharinus, no other intention is required in the minister of a Sacrament than that he should deliberately go through the outward acts required by the rite; and this is held to be sufficient, though the minister have no interior intention of doing what the Church does, and even if he interiorly form an explicit act of not intending so to do. But this theory fails to secure the absolute certainty that the Sacrament is valid, for it is easy for the minister to change the words of the form (n. 680) in an essential particular without this fraud being detected.

“The theory, therefore, does not possess that advantage which was its chief recommendation, and it is open to grievous theological difficulties. The man who does not at least implicitly intend to act as agent for Christ cannot do so, for the character of his action depends on his intention; the words of the Council are most naturally applicable to the internal intention, and it is certain that this suffices; for if the matter and form of Baptism be duly applied to a child by one who interiorly intends to perform the Christian rite, the Baptism is valid, even though the minister pretend exteriorly that he went through the ceremony in mockery : and lastly, if the priest saying Mass intends to consecrate ten Hosts and no more, but has eleven before him, then not one is validly consecrated, as is declared in the rubrics of the Missal. (De Defectu Intentionis.) For these and other similar reasons, most modern theologians reject the doctrine that the exterior intention is sufficient, but they confess that it has not been condemned by the authority of the Church."

L' Abbe Hunter then proceeds to cite the same quotation of Pope Alexander VIII which I supplied above.

Essentially, M. Ladislaus has rejected the need of interior intention, and espoused the views of Catharinus, apparently from a psychological need for infallible certitude in the matter of sacramental validity (which is imposssible to ascertain).

Thanks de Lugo, that is very interesting.
I must confess, I had the same understanding as Ladislaus on this issue.
Theology is complicated... or rather, not always clearly defined by the Church.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 16, 2023, 05:38:41 AM

Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 16, 2023, 05:13:02 AM

But surely, we should not be unduly troubled about these things. The Good Lord desires our salvation infinitely more than we do ourselves and He will not laugh in our face on the day of Judgement because we confessed to an invalid priest, for example... unless such was clearly obvious and we should have known better.

Didn't mean to give scandal, had better clarify that:
Unless there is clear doubt, for example many if not most new rite ordinations, Fr Pfeiffer ordinations, etc... you know what I mean...

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 16, 2023, 06:00:58 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 05:13:39 AM

No.

It suffices for the presumption of a proper intention, but does not heal an invalidating covert contrary intention.

False.  Defect of intention that would validate is discernable in the external forum.  If the priest intends to do what the Church does, then the Church's intention for the action supplies the necessary intention for the end of the action.

Again, the minister has to internally intend to do what the Church does, and not intend what the Church intends.  This is why atheists can validly confect the Sacraments.  And there's no difference between "contrary intention" and "lack of intention".  I've given counter examples of when lack of internal intention invalidates ... such as if someone were performing the rite in jest, or someone who's practicing, or someone who's insane and doesn't know what they're doing.  If some atheists started mocking the Sacrament of Baptism and were saying the words and pouring water on each other, that would not be valid, because they're not intending to DO what the Church DOES, but are simply mocking the Sacrament.  But if some atheist was asked by a dying catechumen to baptize him, and the atheist did it with the internal intention of, "I'm going to do this thing Catholics do to console this guy, but it's a bunch of garbage, and there's no way that I intend to put this man's non-existent soul into a state of grace like they claim." ... that would still valid on account of that part of the intention where he says, "I'm going to do this thing that Catholics do ..." period.  By intending to DO what the Church DOES, the Church intention for what is being DONE validates the Sacrament, even the atheist is blasphemously deriding the Sacrament even while pronouncing the words.  Same holds of a hypothetical +Lienart ordination.  This is similar to the analogy I presented earlier, where you hold a loaded gun up to someone's head and pull the trigger, while internally saying, "I do not wish/intend for this person to die."  You most certainly intended it since you intended and willed the cause, and therefore you intended the effect.  +Lienart's intention of "I'm going to perform this Catholic ordination Rite" trumps anything else in his mind along the lines of "I don't intend to ordain.  I don't intend to ordain."  Maybe you don't, but you intend to do what the Church does by performing the Rite the Church has as prescribed by the books, and that intention suffices and trumps any other contrary mental intention you have.

What's meant by the fact of simply DOing the ritual doesn't suffice (as per the one Holy Office thing you cited) is scenarios like I cited earlier where the atheists are mocking the Sacrament.  They externally intend to perform the rites, i.e. pour water on each other's heads and say the words, "I baptize you ..."  but internally they're clearly not intending to DO what the Church does, but are intending to mock what the Church does.  But that kind of thing can be discerned in the external forum.

Father Hunter is completely wrong and mis-analyzes what is being said by the Holy Office.  This is all in line with the increasing trend to subjectivize everything and make it part of the internal forum.  Sacraments and their validity are not determined in the internal forum but the external forum.

Stop posturing as an expert and spreading nonsense when you recently demonstrated that you don't even know that infertility does not invalidate marriage.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 16, 2023, 06:26:14 AM

Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 16, 2023, 05:33:24 AM

Thanks de Lugo, that is very interesting.
I must confess, I had the same understanding as Ladislaus on this issue.
Theology is complicated... or rather, not always clearly defined by the Church.

Your prior understanding is in fact the correct one.  What's meant by invalidating internal intention are scenarios like I presented where atheists are pouring water on each other saying the words, "I baptize thee ...".  While outwardly they appear to be performing the ritual, the externals, internally they are clearly NOT intending to DO what the Church DOES.  That's a classic examples of invalidating internal intention while performing the external Rite.  When +Lienart puts on his vestments, goes to the Church, pulls out the book that says, "Catholic Ritual to Ordain Priests," and then goes through the 3-hour ceremony as prescribed ... he's clearly intending to DO precisely what the Church does, even if internally he has no intention to ordain or the contrary intention ("I do not wish to ordain.")  BTW, there's no difference between no intention and contrary intention.  Both constitute a lack of necessary intention.  This would render it impossible for atheists to baptized, but it's known that atheists can baptized.  If an atheist nurse at a hospital is asked to baptize, and she does it only to make the person feel better, but inside is thinking "What a bunch of hogwash.  This doesn't do anything." (which is inevitable for an atheist), according to the distorted view presented by De Lugo, it would be impossible for an atheist to validly baptize.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 16, 2023, 06:31:40 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 05:13:39 AM

Essentially, M. Ladislaus has rejected the need of interior intention, and espoused the views of Catharinus, apparently from a psychological need for infallible certitude in the matter of sacramental validity (which is imposssible to ascertain).

Essentially you don't know what you're talking about ... the same guy who thought infertility invalidated marriage.  Nobody's saying there's infallible or absolute certitude regarding the Sacraments.  It can only be moral certitude.  For all I know, the priest who baptized me botched the words of Baptism.  Maybe he was half asleep and accidentally spit out the words, "Ego te absolvo ..." instead of "Ego te baptizo ..." (because the former has become automatic, as he hears dozens of confessions each week.  In that case, it was not God's will that I be validly baptized.  Similarly, He could have willed that I be born in the jungle of African to animists and had never been baptized.

So you need to stop slanderously imputing motives in the internal forum such as "a psychological need for infallible certitude".  I'm not as simple-minded as you claim, nor am I motivated by emotional considerations, but by principles.  Whenever I go to Mass and can't hear the priest saying the words of consecration, I don't have absolute certitude that he didn't mess them up.  What's at issue here is that the Sacraments and their validity are knowable in the external forum and don't rely upon some unknowable secret intention.  What I object to is this growing trend ... since about the "Renaissance" toward subjectivizing everything into the internal forum, the ultimate culmination of which can be seen in Jorge's Amoris Laetitia, where the internal forum trumps the external and can render non-sinful actions that are objectively sinful.

Otherwise, you're just spreading FUD without justification.  It's not impossible, and seems probable, that +Lienart was in fact a Mason.  Church was absolutely bursting at the seems with infiltrator Communists and Masons by the 1950s.  And if he had been some infiltrator Mason, it's likely that he had an interior contrary intention when ordaining.  After all, that's the very reason they infiltrated in the first place, to destroy the Church.  And then even if +Lienart wasn't one, then in any given diocese around the world, there were likely such Masons and Communists who ordained priests for decades, and so there would have been dioceses where there were no valid Sacraments (outside those that didn't require a validly-ordained priest for validity).  After centuries of such activity, according to your principles, it would be highly likely that most episcopal lines are currently vitiated and "secretly invalid".  Yes, episcopal consecrations generally involve two co-consecrators, but there would remain the problem of whether they had been valid priests in the first place, and the Roman Rite of episcopal consecration is not valid is performed on a man who isn't a priest.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 16, 2023, 06:49:05 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 05:13:39 AM

Essentially, M. Ladislaus has rejected the need of interior intention, and espoused the views of Catharinus, apparently from a psychological need for infallible certitude in the matter of sacramental validity (which is imposssible to ascertain).

Yet you somehow missed this from the very texts you cited from Father Hunter:

Quote

For these and other similar reasons, most modern theologians reject the doctrine that the exterior intention is sufficient, but they confess that it has not been condemned by the authority of the Church.

Nor am I promoting the theory of Catharinus that MERELY exterior intention suffices.  Catharinus went too far, and for him even the Sacramental Rite performed out of mockery or jest would be valid.  According to his thesis, two atheists baptizing each other as a joke would validly baptize.  That is not the case, since while performing the external rites they had the internal intention of NOT doing what the Church does, but of doing a mockery of what the Church does.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 08:11:00 AM

As an Americain friend of mine somewhat crudely says, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliamce, baffle them with your bullshit."

So far, you have managed to dismiss Alexander VIII, and call the manual of l' Abbe Hunter erroneous.

Soon, I will post Msgr. Gasparri against you, and you will sidestep that as well.

But here is another thread in which others are calling you out for making the same errors (beginning on p.3):

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/are-novus-ordo-baptisms-valid-57051/msg708251/#msg708251

I think the best word to describe you, therefore, is "incorrigible," which I find in the dictionary as defined thusly:


Incorrigible:

• Incapable of being corrected or reformed.
• Firmly rooted; ineradicable.
• Difficult or impossible to control or manage.

The difficulty here, of couse, is that when you combine incorrigibility (itself bred from narcissism, pride, and lack of humility) with delusion (e.g., the wrold is flat; the Church has taught error in her catechisms for 500 years because nobody could properly interpret "voto/votum;" Msgr. Siri was the last pope; etc.), both of which evince a tremendous lack of eboulia (i.e., discernment and judgment), we are confronted with the worst possible deficiencies in a theological commentator.

As an inventer, you are well endowed, but all would be much better off is you traded posting for prayer.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 16, 2023, 10:08:51 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 15, 2023, 06:14:30 AM

(1) What is the evidence that Cardinal Liénart was a Freemason, and how much confidence can we place in this evidence?

I haven't read the entire article, so maybe this has been pointed out already, but the Archbishop himself once said that in order to judge that a member of the hierarchy (such as a Pope) is a freemason, his name would need to appear on a freemasonic role somewhere. In other words, there would have to be verifiable proof. This makes sense. Hearsay isn't proof.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 16, 2023, 10:18:37 AM

Regarding the ordination of +ABL to be valid despite the supposed freemasonic membership of Leinart (which has not been proven), well, I'm sure we all recall the story of when St. Athanasius was a boy, where a bishop observed the boy Athanasius pretending to baptize another boy, using the proper matter and form. St. Athanasius, as a young boy, was just playing, and had no intention of baptizing the other boy, and yet the observing bishop believed it was valid, and warned the boy Athanasius to not ever do that again. Thus of course the bishop encouraged St. Athanasius in a vocation. 

Why was St Athanasius' mock baptism of his friends while playing in the sea considered valid by Bishop Alexander? : Catholicism (reddit.com) (https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/ra691g/why_was_st_athanasius_mock_baptism_of_his_friends/)

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 16, 2023, 10:26:40 AM

Oops....deleted. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 11:01:40 AM

Quote from: Meg on February 16, 2023, 10:18:37 AM

Regarding the ordination of +ABL to be valid despite the supposed freemasonic membership of Leinart (which has not been proven), well, I'm sure we all recall the story of when St. Athanasius was a boy, where a bishop observed the boy Athanasius pretending to baptize another boy, using the proper matter and form. St. Athanasius, as a young boy, was just playing, and had no intention of baptizing the other boy, and yet the observing bishop believed it was valid, and warned the boy Athanasius to not ever do that again. Thus of course the bishop encouraged St. Athanasius in a vocation.

Why was St Athanasius' mock baptism of his friends while playing in the sea considered valid by Bishop Alexander? : Catholicism (reddit.com) (https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/ra691g/why_was_st_athanasius_mock_baptism_of_his_friends/)

Acording to Pohle/Preuss, this is most likely a fable, and even if it were true, would be a liberal error.

See here at p.180: https://archive.org/details/sacraments01pohluoft/page/n189/mode/2up 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 16, 2023, 11:09:37 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 11:01:40 AM

Acording to Pohle/Preuss, this is most likely a fable, and even if it were true, would be a liberal error.

See here at p.180: https://archive.org/details/sacraments01pohluoft/page/n189/mode/2up

What part of it is an error? I didn't view your link. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 11:15:09 AM

Quote from: Meg on February 16, 2023, 11:09:37 AM

What part of it is an error? I didn't view your link.

If you can't be troubled to click on a link to discover the reason for yourself, I can't be troubled to manually type it all out for you.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 16, 2023, 11:17:51 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 11:15:09 AM

If you can't be troubled to click on a link to discover the reason for yourself, I can't be troubled to manually type it all out for you.

Sounds fine to me. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 11:18:23 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 16, 2023, 06:49:05 AM

Yet you somehow missed this from the very texts you cited from Father Hunter:
Quote:

"For these and other similar reasons, most modern theologians reject the doctrine that the exterior intention is sufficient, but they confess that it has not been condemned by the authority of the Church.

No, he merely states it leads to absurd theological conclusions.

Pohle/Preuss, on the other hand, state that it stands condemned, in the wake of Alexander VIII's decree.

See here at p.186: https://archive.org/details/sacraments01pohluoft/page/n195/mode/2up 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 16, 2023, 12:58:40 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 11:18:23 AM

No, he merely states it leads to absurd theological conclusions.

Some proper Church teachings can lead to absurd theological conclusions, given the propensity of humans to draw stupid conclusions. That doesn't necessarily mean that the teaching is wrong. Just look at what the prots did.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 01:04:19 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 16, 2023, 12:58:40 PM

Some proper Church teachings can lead to absurd theological conclusions, given the propensity of humans to draw stupid conclusions. That doesn't necessarily mean that the teaching is wrong. Just look at what the prots did.

:facepalm:

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 16, 2023, 03:20:28 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 11:18:23 AM

No, he merely states it leads to absurd theological conclusions.

Pohle/Preuss, on the other hand, state that it stands condemned, in the wake of Alexander VIII's decree.

See here at p.186: https://archive.org/details/sacraments01pohluoft/page/n195/mode/2up

You don't know what you're talking about and are misconstruing the nature of internal intention, trying to conflate it with the intending to do what the Church INTENDS, rather than intending to do what the Church DOES.

I've never said there needn't be internal intention, just disputing the nature of said intention.  You falsely claim that I hold that Catharinus opinion, which I do not, and then claim to know my motives for holding my position ... which is the correct one.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 16, 2023, 03:31:08 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 08:11:00 AM

As an Americain friend of mine somewhat crudely says, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliamce, baffle them with your bullshit."

So far, you have managed to dismiss Alexander VIII, and call the manual of l' Abbe Hunter erroneous.

Apart from your obvious exaggeration (with the decree being from the Holy Office and not a teaching of Alexander VIII directly), you also lie by claiming that I dismiss that ruling from the Holy Office.

Read every ruling by the Church, it all has to do with intending to DO what the Church DOES, and not to intend what the Church INTENDS by doing it.  In fact, theologians hold that someone could even make derisive comments while performing the Rite and it would still invalidate as long as the context is doing what the Church intends.  If you had an atheist doing a Baptism, who while doing the Rite as requested, would make derisive comments about it, the intention to DO the Church's action would still be there.

You try to baffle with stupidity, and you've lost all credibility after being ignorant of the fact that infertility does not invalidate marriage, and then you posture as an expert on here while misreading and misinterpreting various sources ... and also lying.  You claim that you know my "psychological" motives and then lie about my having dismissed the ruling of the Holy Office, when I didn't dismiss it but content with your interpretation of "internal intention".  Your error is in equating internal intention to do what the Church does with the internal intention to intend what the Church intends, with the former being required, the latter unnecesary.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 03:40:56 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 16, 2023, 03:20:28 PM

You don't know what you're talking about and are misconstruing the nature of internal intention, trying to conflate it with the intending to do what the Church INTENDS, rather than intending to do what the Church DOES.

I've never said there needn't be internal intention, just disputing the nature of said intention.  You falsely claim that I hold that Catharinus opinion, which I do not, and then claim to know my motives for holding my position ... which is the correct one.

My Poor Man-

I will try to simplify this for you, in the hopes you can understand:

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 03:46:40 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 16, 2023, 03:31:08 PM

You claim that you know my "psychological" motives and then lie about my having dismissed the ruling of the Holy Office, when I didn't dismiss it but content with your interpretation of "internal intention".  Your error is in equating internal intention to do what the Church does with the internal intention to intend what the Church intends, with the former being required, the latter unnecesary.

I will try to simplify this for you, in the hopes you can understand:

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 16, 2023, 08:16:34 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 16, 2023, 03:46:40 PM

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

"According to the almost general opinion of modern theologians", no, you would not have, at least as presented by Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

However, let's keep in mind that we do seem to be in the realm of theological opinion, not dogma.

Ott initially presents what is de fide:
          a) For the valid dispensing of the Sacraments it is necessary that the minister accomplish the Sacramental Sign in the proper manner. (De fide.) This involves the obligation of using the essential matter and the essential form and of unifying them in a unitary sacramental sign. D. 695
          b) The minister must further have the intention at least of doing what the Church does. (De fide.) Ott explains "The expression 'To do what the Church does' (intendere facere quod facit Ecclesia) has been current since the beginning of the 13th Century".

Ott then discusses the necessity of the intention, and then the nature of the intention, and a mere external intention:

Quote

Nature of the Intention required in the Administration of the Sacraments.
Subjectively regarded, an actual intention is that disposition of the will which is present before and during the whole action, but such a disposition is not indispensable. A virtual intention, that is that disposition of the will, which is conceived before the action and which continues virtually during the action (called by St Thomas intentio habitualis), also suffices. An habitual intention, that is, that disposition of the will which was conceived before the action and which was not withdrawn, but which during the action is neither actually nor virtually present, and thus does not affect the action, is not sufficient.

Inadequacy of an intentio "mere externa".
According to the almost general opinion of modern theologians, an inner intention (intentio interna) is necessary for the valid administration of the Sacraments. By intentio interna is meant an intention which is directed, not merely to the external execution of the sacramental rite, but also to its inner signification. The mere external intention (intentio mere externa) which was regarded by many theologians of early Scholasticism, later by Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P. (+1553) and many theologains of the 17th and 18th Centuries, as adequate, and which is directed towards merely performing the external action whith earnestness and in the proper circuмstances, while the inner religious significance is not taken into consideration, is insufficient. The mere external intention is not compatible with the concept of doing what the Church intends, or with the status of the minister as a servant of Christ, or with the religious determination of the sacramental sign, which is of itself capable of many interpretations, or with the declarations of the Church. Cf D 424; fidelis intentio. Pope Alexander VIII in 1690 rejected the following proposition (...previously cited...) D 1318. Cf D 672, 695, 902. 

The necessary inner intention can be an intentio specialis et reflexa or an intentio generalis at directa, according to whether the inner religious significance of the sacramental action is intended in particular or only in general, whether with or without reflexion on the purpose and effects of the Sacrament.

So, the more common opinion of theologians on this matter of the intention required by the minister for valid administration of a sacrament seems to have changed from the older opinion, well-articulated by Ladislaus, of merely external intention sufficing, "doing what the Church does", to that more generally held now which requires an inner intention on the part of the minister, which adds "doing what the Church intends".

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 16, 2023, 08:37:11 PM

Canon George Smith seems to confirm the above explanation in "The Teaching of The Catholic Church":

Quote

"However, just what sort of intention must the minister have? He must have "the intention of doing what the Church does". The Council of Trent, while defining that intention was necessary, did not settle whether a purely external intention of doing the rite properly sufficed, or whether some deeper kind of intention was needed too. It is at least certain that the minister need not personally believe that the Church's doctrine is true: provided he intends to do what the Church does, whatever that may be, he does do it. Of course, if the minister intends, positively, to do something different from what the Church does, he has not the requisite intention..."

In this sense, "doing what the Church does" means really wanting to do what the Church does by administering this sacrament (even if the effects of the sacrament are unknown to the minister who may not have the faith), not just performing the external rite as the Church prescribes. Can we all agree on that now?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 05:48:26 AM

Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 16, 2023, 08:16:34 PM

"According to the almost general opinion of modern theologians", no, you would not have, at least as presented by Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

However, let's keep in mind that we do seem to be in the realm of theological opinion, not dogma.



So, the more common opinion of theologians on this matter of the intention required by the minister for valid administration of a sacrament seems to have changed from the older opinion, well-articulated by Ladislaus, of merely external intention sufficing, "doing what the Church does", to that more generally held now which requires an inner intention on the part of the minister, which adds "doing what the Church intends".

Plenus Venter-

A few points:

1) I agree with your response: A covert contrary intention invalidates the sacrament;

2) If it is true that this matter regarding covert contrary intention is not directly a matter of dogma (agreed), neither is it mere theological opinion (i.e., a debate among theologians regarding a subject upon which the Church has not ruled).  Pope Alexander VIII has ruled on the matter, according to the citation I have posted;

3) The position between older and more modern theologians has not changed.  The citations provided only state that there were more who shared Catharinus's position then than there are today, not that it was ever the prevailing opinion.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 05:54:29 AM

How would anyone know what a person's "inner intention" is?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 05:57:49 AM

Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 16, 2023, 08:37:11 PM

Canon George Smith seems to confirm the above explanation in "The Teaching of The Catholic Church":




In this sense, "doing what the Church does" means really wanting to do what the Church does by administering this sacrament (even if the effects of the sacrament are unknown to the minister who may not have the faith), not just performing the external rite as the Church prescribes. Can we all agree on that now?

Plenus Venter-

We are not discussing the efffects of the sacrament, but whether a valid sacrament is confected when the celebrant forms a covert contrary intention not to do what the Church does.

My contention (backed by Alexander VIII, l' Abbe Sylvester Hunter, and Msgr. Pohle so far) is that while the mere performance of the rite suffices for a presumption of validity, it does not supply for the requisite intention to do what the Church does. 

M. Ladislaus denies this, and while paying lip service to the need of interior intention, in the same breath says that so long as the rite has been performed, the sacrament has been confected.  Here is an example of him endorsing this opinion (See response #42 here):

"Yep.  In performing the ceremony, he was intending to DO what the Church DOES, and therefore validly confected the Sacrament."
https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=64616.30

My response to Meg above (from the manual of Msgr. Pohle) showed that while l' Abbe Hunter said this position was merely absurd in its theological consequences, Msgr. Pohle says that in the wake of Alexander VIII, this position is condemned. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 05:58:09 AM

Quote from: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 05:54:29 AM

How would anyone know what a person's "inner intention" is?

They don't.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 06:00:03 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 16, 2023, 03:20:28 PM

I've never said there needn't be internal intention, just disputing the nature of said intention.  You falsely claim that I hold that Catharinus opinion, which I do not, and then claim to know my motives for holding my position ... which is the correct one.

Au contraire.

See your response at post #42 here: https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=64616.30 

"Yep.  In performing the ceremony, he was intending to DO what the Church DOES, and therefore validly confected the Sacrament."

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 06:02:31 AM

I repeat my question to M. Ladislaus:


If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 06:05:36 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 05:58:09 AM

They don't.

If no one can determine a minister's inner intention, then how can it be used to determine whether his sacrament is valid?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 06:11:51 AM

Quote from: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 06:05:36 AM

If no one can determine a minister's inner intention, then how can it be used to determine whether his sacrament is valid?

It isn't.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 06:22:20 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 05:48:26 AM

Plenus Venter-

3) The position between older and more modern theologians has not changed.  The citations provided only state that there were more who shared Catharinus's position then than there are today, not that it was ever the prevailing opinion.

Actually, Msgr. Pohle speaks of a "tendency" in the primitive Church to hold every sacrament performed according to the prescribed rite as valid, without inquiring into the intention of the minister, which was always presumed to be right.  There then follows a list of theologians who rejected this doctrine, chiefly the Thomists, with it finally being overthrown at the Council of Trent.

See here, beginning at p.181: https://archive.org/details/sacraments01pohluoft/page/n189/mode/2up

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on February 17, 2023, 06:23:53 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 06:02:31 AM

I repeat my question to M. Ladislaus:


If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

It must be *considered* valid by all observers. In *actuality* it would be invalid. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 06:24:51 AM

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 17, 2023, 06:23:53 AM

It must be *considered* valid by all observers. In *actuality* it would be invalid.

Precisely.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 06:28:13 AM

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 17, 2023, 06:23:53 AM

It must be *considered* valid by all observers. In *actuality* it would be invalid.

But no one would know it.  So, it seems this whole exercise is moot.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 17, 2023, 06:33:09 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 05:48:26 AM

Plenus Venter-

A few points:

1) I agree with your response: A covert contrary intention invalidates the sacrament;

2) If it is true that this matter regarding covert contrary intention is not directly a matter of dogma (agreed), neither is it mere theological opinion (i.e., a debate among theologians regarding a subject upon which the Church has not ruled).  Pope Alexander VIII has ruled on the matter, according to the citation I have posted;

3) The position between older and more modern theologians has not changed.  The citations provided only state that there were more who shared Catharinus's position then than there are today, not that it was ever the prevailing opinion.

Yes, dL, I agree.
It intrigues me that Ladislaus continually calls us, who submit to every word of Vatican I, "Old Catholics", because we do not agree with his exaggerated notion of Papal Infallibility. Yet he sees this condemnation "anathema sit" of Alexander VIII but argues against it. I am at a loss to understand that. Ladislaus?...

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 06:33:58 AM

Quote from: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 06:28:13 AM

But no one would know it.  So, it seems this whole exercise is moot.

Au contraire: All theologians today hold that the performance off the prescribed rite render the presumption of validity morally certain.

Moral certitude is all you have ever had in the sacraments.

For example, you have always known that it was possible the priest at Mass feigned the sacrament (e.g., by deliberately omitting the essential form of the rite), but this has not disturbed you.  Nobody would take such a fear seriously, even though, technically, it remains possible.

Same thing with intention.

See final sentence of this chapter by Msge. Pohle on this subject (p.187): https://archive.org/details/sacraments01pohluoft/page/n195/mode/2up 

See also the quotes of l' Abbe Hunter at the beginning of this thread.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 06:40:47 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 06:33:58 AM

Au contraire: All theologians today hold that the performance off the prescribed rite render the presumption of validity morally certain.

Moral certitude is all you have ever had in the sacraments.

For example, you have always known that it was possible the priest at Mass feigned the sacrament (e.g., by deliberately omitting the essential form of the rite), but this has not disturbed you.  Nobody would take such a fear seriously, even though, technically, it remains possible.

Same thing with intention.

The point is:  the sacrament is considered valid.  Because intent is internal, we cannot know that a sacrament is not valid for certain. Your example that QvD responded to tells us that you deliberately had the wrong intention. Ie, you made it explicitly known.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 17, 2023, 06:42:38 AM

Quote from: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 06:28:13 AM

But no one would know it.  So, it seems this whole exercise is moot.

We can only have moral certainty, not absolute certainty. 
It's a bit like knowing whether or not we are in the state of grace, and the perfect answer given by St Joan of Arc "if I am not, may God put me there, and if I am, I pray that He keep me there".

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 07:01:30 AM

Quote from: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 06:40:47 AM

Your example that QvD responded to tells us that you deliberately had the wrong intention. Ie, you made it explicitly known.

No.  We're speaking of a covert contrary intention (i.e., The defect is not exteriorly known).

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 17, 2023, 07:02:15 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 05:57:49 AM

M. Ladislaus denies this, and while paying lip service to the need of interior intention, in the same breath says that so long as the rite has been performed, the sacrament has been confected.  Here is an example of him endorsing this opinion (See response #42 here):

You are right, de Lugo, but in fairness to Ladislaus let the following quote from Ott be noted:

"The mere external intention (intentio mere externa) which was regarded by many theologians of early Scholasticism (for example Robertus Pullus, Roland), later by Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P. (+1553) and many theologians of the 17th and 18th Centuries, as adequate, and which is directed towards merely performing the external action with earnestness and in the proper circuмstances, while the inner religious significance is not taken into consideration, is insufficient." 

Many theologians once held this view that Ladislaus articulates, but it is difficult to see how it can be held today...

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 07:07:18 AM

Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 17, 2023, 07:02:15 AM

You are right, de Lugo, but in fairness to Ladislaus let the following quote from Ott be noted:

"The mere external intention (intentio mere externa) which was regarded by many theologians of early Scholasticism (for example Robertus Pullus, Roland), later by Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P. (+1553) and many theologians of the 17th and 18th Centuries, as adequate, and which is directed towards merely performing the external action with earnestness and in the proper circuмstances, while the inner religious significance is not taken into consideration, is insufficient."

Many theologians once held this view that Ladislaus articulates, but it is difficult to see how it can be held today...

Yes, I concede that M. Ladislaus shares the same condemned error.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on February 17, 2023, 07:21:45 AM

Quote from: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 06:28:13 AM

But no one would know it.  So, it seems this whole exercise is moot.

Not really. People will still receive other graces that accompany the invalid sacrament. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 07:29:35 AM

I see M. Ladislaus has made a brief appearance to down thumb all the posts he can (he shows as being online right now, at the same time the down-thumbs appeared), but as yet seems unable to answer a simple question.

No problem: We have already provided a link above to one of his previous posts, in which he embraces the condemned position of Catharinus.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 17, 2023, 07:32:52 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 07:29:35 AM

I see M. Ladislaus has made a brief appearance to down thumb all the posts he can (he shows as being online right now, at the same time the down-thumbs appeared), but as yet seems unable to answer a simple question.

Yet another lie to add to your others.  I haven't checked this thread for about, oh, 12-15 hours.  I had stuff to do last night and am checking in on it again just now.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 07:33:18 AM

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 17, 2023, 07:21:45 AM

Not really. People will still receive other graces that accompany the invalid sacrament.

Agreed.

And according to l' Abbe Hunter:

"It is objected to this doctrine that it makes the validity of every Sacrament depend upon a purely internal fact, namely, the intention of the minister who may perform the outward acts with the interior intention of not acting as deputy of Christ. We admit the consequence, but deny that there is anything in it out of harmony with other parts of revealed doctrine; it is perfectly true that, without special revelation, no one can have absolute certainty that he has received a Sacrament or that he is in the state of grace (n. 639): but his assurance on the subject may approach so nearly to this absolute certainty as to make any misgiving on the subject foolish and vain; and it must always be remembered that God, who has bound Himself to give grace when the Sacraments are duly received, has nowhere limited His power, disabling Himself from giving grace apart from these holy rites. One, therefore, who acts in good faith may hope that no disaster will befall himself or those dear to him through the deceit of a wicked minister. (See n. 696.)"

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 07:33:48 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 17, 2023, 07:32:52 AM

Yet another lie to add to your others.  I haven't checked this thread for about, oh, 12-15 hours.  I had stuff to do last night and am checking in on it again just now.

If you say so.

PS: Someone else who is not M. Ladislaus just down-thumbed this post (:laugh2:).  When you have no argument, it is the last resort.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 07:39:09 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 07:33:48 AM

If you say so.

PS: Someone else who is not M. Ladislaus just down-thumbed this post (:laugh2:).

I'm the guilty one. Not Ladislaus. Your posts deserve downvotes. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 07:40:28 AM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 07:39:09 AM

I'm the guilty one. Not Ladislaus. Your posts deserve downvotes.

When you have no argument, it is the last resort.

You are more or less upset that you discovered Santa Claus does not exist, and lashing out at your parents for it, by having a public temper tantrum?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 07:42:31 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 07:01:30 AM

No.  We're speaking of a covert contrary intention (i.e., The defect is not exteriorly known).

Don't we all agree that these sacraments are valid?  That we cannot know that they are invalid? And if we cannot know they are invalid, why bother going on and on about it? 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 17, 2023, 07:43:53 AM

That story of the young Athanasius, whether apocryphal or not, illutrates the difference that deLugo is incapable of comprehending.  If the story occurred, the bishop was incorrect, that the young Athanasius play-baptizing someone would have validly baptized.  There's no need to dismiss the story as apocryphal simply because a bishop may have had a wrong opinion.  St. Cyprian had an opinion about re-baptism that was later declared heretical.  Just because this was some bishop from the time of the Fathers doesn't make his opinion correct.

So according to the external intention opinion, the play-baptism of young Athanasius would have been a valid Baptism.

But, while performing the rite exteriorly, he had no intention to actually DO what the Church DOES, i.e. to perform the Rite of Baptism.

On the ther extreme, promoted by the ignorant and mendacious De Lugo, you have to internally INTEND what the Church INTENDS.  That's preposterous.  Otherwise, that classic example of an atheist being able to baptize would be absurd.

What has to happen is that someone needs to internally intend to DO what the Church DOES, i.e. to perform the Catholic Rite of Ordination / Consecration / Mass / Baptism, etc. ... vs. jesting about it, vs. mocking it, vs. being insane or half-asleep, etc. and going through the motions.

There's no difference whatseover between LACKING the internal intention vs. having a contrary internal intention.  In both cases, the necessary intention to perform the Sacrament is lacking.

This hypotehtical Mason +Lienart could have wished all he wanted in his head that the Sacrament not be valid, but when he put on his vestments and followed the Catholic Ritual in public during a public celebration of the Rite, he intended internally to DO what the Church DOES, and the Church imposes upon that action the intention that the Church has in having these ministers do it.

But the feeble mind of De Lugo is incapable of comprehending these distinctions.  De Lugo confounds internal intention with the internal intention to intend what the Church intends, whereas there must be internal intention to DO what the Church does, thus explaining why an atheist can validly baptize.

It's very straightforward, but has been distorted by the subjectivists.  This trend toward subjectivism and relativism has been growing for the past 500 years or so, culminating in the doctrinal relativism of Wojtyla and the moral relativism of Bergoglio.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 07:44:12 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 07:40:28 AM

When you have no argument, it is the last resort.

You are more or less upset that you discovered Santa Claus does not exist, and lashing out at your parents for it?

And here was I thinking that unlike Sean Johnson, you have no sense of humor! Guess I was wrong. 
;)

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 07:46:50 AM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 07:44:12 AM

And here was I thinking that unlike Sean Johnson, you have no sense of humor! Guess I was wrong.
;)

I enjoy his sense of humor very much (he would surely note the hypocrisy of being condemned by one for guessing at the identity of a down-voter, who in the next post herself guesses at the identity behind a pseudonym).


;)

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 07:51:32 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 17, 2023, 07:43:53 AM

That story of the young Athanasius, whether apocryphal or not, illutrates the difference that deLugo is incapable of comprehending.  If the story occurred, the bishop was incorrect, that the young Athanasius play-baptizing someone would have validly baptized.  There's no need to dismiss the story as apocryphal simply because a bishop may have had a wrong opinion.  St. Cyprian had an opinion about re-baptism that was later declared heretical.  Just because this was some bishop from the time of the Fathers doesn't make his opinion correct.

So according to the external intention opinion, the play-baptism of young Athanasius would have been a valid Baptism.

But, while performing the rite exteriorly, he had no intention to actually DO what the Church DOES, i.e. to perform the Rite of Baptism.

On the ther extreme, promoted by the ignorant and mendacious De Lugo, you have to internally INTEND what the Church INTENDS.  That's preposterous.  Otherwise, that classic example of an atheist being able to baptize would be absurd.

What has to happen is that someone needs to internally intend to DO what the Church DOES, i.e. to perform the Catholic Rite of Ordination / Consecration / Mass / Baptism, etc. ... vs. jesting about it, vs. mocking it, vs. being insane or half-asleep, etc. and going through the motions.

There's no difference whatseover between LACKING the internal intention vs. having a contrary internal intention.  In both cases, the necessary intention to perform the Sacrament is lacking.

This hypotehtical Mason +Lienart could have wished all he wanted in his head that the Sacrament not be valid, but when he put on his vestments and followed the Catholic Ritual in public during a public celebration of the Rite, he intended internally to DO what the Church DOES, and the Church imposes upon that action the intention that the Church has in having these ministers do it.

But the feeble mind of De Lugo is incapable of comprehending these distinctions.  De Lugo confounds internal intention with the internal intention to intend what the Church intends, whereas there must be internal intention to DO what the Church does, thus explaining why an atheist can validly baptize.

It's very straightforward, but has been distorted by the subjectivists.  This trend toward subjectivism and relativism has been growing for the past 500 years or so, culminating in the doctrinal relativism of Wojtyla and the moral relativism of Bergoglio.

My Poor Man-

Please quit evading, and answer this question:

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 17, 2023, 07:55:32 AM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 07:44:12 AM

And here was I thinking that unlike Sean Johnson, you have no sense of humor! Guess I was wrong.
;)

That's not humor.  It's yet another lie, claiming that I have no argument.  My argument has been explained several times, but De Lugo (who believed not long ago that infertility invalidates marriage) is either incapable of grasping it or filtering it out out because he doesn't want to address it.

He's lied multiple times already as well --

1) claiming that I'm motivated by a psychological need for absolute certainty regarding the validity of the Sacraments.

As if De Lugo could read my mind.  Sacramental validity can only be known with moral certainty.  It's possible that my own baptism was invalid if the priest botched the form somehow.  It's possible that the priest has botched the words of consecration at any given Mass I assist at where I can't hear the words.

2) claiming that I hold the "external intention" opinion and reject the Holy Office ruling

This comes from De Lugo's inability to grasp the difference between internal intention to DO what the Church DOES and internal intention to intend what the Church does.  Those are two separate things, the distinction being essential to explain why an atheist can baptize.

3) claiming that I refused to answer some question and then went on a downthumb spree ... when in fact I have not been on this thread since earlier last evening and had not caught up with the thread to even see said question.  Nor have I ever engaged in downthumb campaigns.

This is all rather pathetic, De Lugo.

When a valid Catholic bishop shows up for an Ordination ceremony, puts on his vestments, and performs the Rite as prescribed by the Church, he's intending to perform the Catholic ordination Rite.  He intends to do what the Church does with regad to ordinations.  Whether or not he intends the Sacramental effect is absolutely irrelevant.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 07:56:48 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 17, 2023, 07:55:32 AM

That's not humor.  It's yet another lie, claiming that I have no argument.  My argument has been explained several times, but De Lugo (who believed not long ago that infertility invalidates marriage) is either incapable of grasping it or filtering it out out because he doesn't want to address it.

He's lied multiple times already as well --

1) claiming that I'm motivated by a psychological need for absolute certainty regarding the validity of the Sacraments.

As if De Lugo could read my mind.  Sacramental validity can only be known with moral certainty.  It's possible that my own baptism was invalid if the priest botched the form somehow.  It's possible that the priest has botched the words of consecration at any given Mass I assist at where I can't hear the words.

2) claiming that I hold the "external intention" opinion and rejected the Holy Office ruling

This comes from De Lugo's inability to graps the difference between internal intention to DO what the Church DOES and internal intention to intend what the Church does.  Those are two separate things, the distinction being essential to explain why an atheist can baptize.

3) claiming that I refused to answer some question and then went on a downthumb spree ... when in fact I have not been on this thread since earlier last evening and had not caught up with the thread to even see said question.  Nor have I ever engaged in downthumb campaigns.

This is all rather pathetic, De Lugo.

More evasion.

I ask you for the 5th time:

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 08:22:37 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 07:56:48 AM

More evasion.

I ask you for the 5th time:

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

Who would have thought the ever-loquacious M. Ladislaus would struggle so mightily to produce a one-word response?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 08:24:26 AM

Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 17, 2023, 06:33:09 AM

Yes, dL, I agree.
It intrigues me that Ladislaus continually calls us, who submit to every word of Vatican I, "Old Catholics", because we do not agree with his exaggerated notion of Papal Infallibility. Yet he sees this condemnation "anathema sit" of Alexander VIII but argues against it. I am at a loss to understand that. Ladislaus?...

A conversation for another thread, but could it be that the author of the pope sifting article against the R&R position is himself a pope sifter?

Meanwhile, M. Ladislaus, I ask you for the 6th time:

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

NB: I note that M. Ladislaus is currently active on the forum, posting minutes ago in this very thread, and posting even more recently in other threads.  What could explain his fear of answering?

Answer: What is more terrifying and humiliating for a narcissist, than recanting an erroneous position and admitting error?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 08:54:31 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 08:24:26 AM

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

Why not reference Trent:
"CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema."

Can we not say that a heretic is against the whole idea, likely does not even agree with it, and does not even know why he is baptizing, yet he baptizes using the proper matter and form - which is to say what he intended to do and actually did, is what the Church doth. In doing what the Church doth, according to Trent, the sacrament was valid, to saith otherwise is a sin (anathema) - according to Trent.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 09:06:43 AM

Quote from: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 08:54:31 AM

Why not reference Trent:
"CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema."

Can we not say that a heretic is against the whole idea, likely does not even agree with it, and does not even know why he is baptizing, yet he baptizes using the proper matter and form - which is to say what he intended to do and actually did, is what the Church doth. In doing what the Church doth, according to Trent, the sacrament was valid, to saith otherwise is a sin (anathema) - according to Trent.

Trent stipulates "with the intention of doing what the Church does" (as highlighted in your quote above).

The question you are responding to, and which M. Ladislaus is avoiding, stipulates with a contrary covert intention of NOT doing what the Church does.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 09:27:49 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 09:06:43 AM

Trent stipulates "with the intention of doing what the Church does" (as highlighted in your quote above).

The question you are responding to, and which M. Ladislaus is avoiding, stipulates with a contrary covert intention of NOT doing what the Church does.

But the heretic did what the Church doth = valid sacrament. Per Trent you have to agree with this.

+Lienart ("the heretic?") actually did what the Church doth = valid sacrament.
If he purposely intended in his own mind to administer the sacrament invalidly, but still did what he Church doth = valid sacrament.

As 2V said, if his intention was to invalidate the sacrament we could not know, but per Trent, all he needed to do was use proper matter, form and intend to do (and he actually did) what the Church doth.

By that measure, if his intention was to purposely administer in an invalid sacrament, he failed.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 09:35:28 AM

Quote from: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 09:27:49 AM

But the heretic did what the Church doth = valid sacrament. Per Trent you have to agree with this.

+Lienart ("the heretic?") actually did what the Church doth = valid sacrament.
If he purposely intended in his own mind to administer the sacrament invalidly, but still did what he Church doth = valid sacrament.

As 2V said, if his intention was to invalidate the sacrament we could not know, but per Trent, all he needed to do was use proper matter, form and intend to do (and he actually did) what the Church doth.

By that measure, if his intention was to purposely administer in an invalid sacrament, he failed.

We are not discussing ministers (Catholic or otherwise) intending to do what the Church does.

Nobody disputes the validity of such sacraments.

We are dicussing ministers forming a contrary covert intention NOT to do what the Church does.

As regards Lienart, we presume he intended to do what the Church does, and may be morally certain that because he performed the rite it was valid, but we can never know in actuality.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 09:43:42 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 09:35:28 AM

We are not discussing ministers (Catholic or otherwise) intending to do what the Church does.

Nobody disputes the validity of such sacraments.

We are dicussing ministers forming a contrary covert intention NOT to do what the Church does.

As regards Lienart, we presume he intended to do what the Church does, and may be morally certain that because he performed the rite it was valid, but we can never know in actuality.

Yes, that's what we are discussing, and per Trent "forming a contrary covert intention NOT to do what the Church does" does not affect the validity of the sacrament provided everything else was done as the Church doth.

This is what Lad was saying and he's right. Whatever was going on inside the mind of +Lienhart is altogether irrelevant.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 09:49:27 AM

Quote from: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 09:43:42 AM

Yes, that's what we are discussing, and per Trent "forming a contrary covert intention NOT to do what the Church does" does not affect the validity of the sacrament provided everything else was done as the Church doth.

This is what Lad was saying and he's right. Whatever was going on inside the mind of +Lienhart is altogether irrelevant.

What? 

Not having the intention Trent required means the sacrament is valid?

What kind of nonsense is this?

This was anathematized at Trent (See here, p.178): https://archive.org/details/sacraments01pohluoft/page/n187/mode/2up 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 17, 2023, 10:05:48 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 09:35:28 AM

We are not discussing ministers (Catholic or otherwise) intending to do what the Church does.

Nobody disputes the validity of such sacraments.

We are dicussing ministers forming a contrary covert intention NOT to do what the Church does.

As regards Lienart, we presume he intended to do what the Church does, and may be morally certain that because he performed the rite it was valid, but we can never know in actuality.

It's not a mere "presumption", but a moral certainty.

Issue is not with internal intention but the nature of internal intention.

Internal intention to do WHAT the Church DOES.  When +Lienart put his vestments on, showed up at church, performed the Rite of Ordination ... unless he was insane (there was no indication of this) or botched the form (and no one there noticed) ... that means he was intending to do WHAT the Church does, i.e. to perform the Church's ordination rite (that's intended by the Church to make the man designated a priest).

He didn't have to intend the Sacramental effect for it to be valid.

Invalidating internal intentions include things like doing it for the sake of practice, or playing (story of young Athanasius), or mockery.  Also, external mockery doesn't necessarily invalidate the intention to do what the Church does.  It has to do with the reason one is performing the ceremony.  You could have an atheist who's performing a Baptism by request, and he could make derrogatory comments about it while performing the rite and make faces, etc., but it would still be valid because the reason he's doing it is to do this thing that Catholics / Christians do.  But if he were just doing it on some atheist buddy of his to mock the ceremony, that would not be intending to do what the Church does.  It has to do with why the ceremony is being performed.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 10:07:37 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 17, 2023, 10:05:48 AM

It's not a mere "presumption", but a moral certainty.

Issue is not with internal intention but the nature of internal intention.

Internal intention to do WHAT the Church DOES.  When +Lienart put his vestments on, showed up at church, performed the Rite of Ordination ... unless he was insane (there was no indication of this) or botched the form (and no one there noticed) ... that means he was intending to do WHAT the Church does, i.e. to perform the Church's ordination rite (that's intended by the Church to make the man designated a priest).

He didn't have to intend the Sacramental effect for it to be valid.

Invalidating internal intentions include things like doing it for the sake of practice, or playing (story of young Athanasius), or mockery.  Also, external mockery doesn't necessarily invalidate the intention to do what the Church does.  It has to do with the reason one is performing the ceremony.  You could have an atheist who's performing a Baptism by request, and he could make derrogatory comments about it while performing the rite and make faces, etc., but it would still be valid because the reason he's doing it is to do this thing that Catholics / Christians do.  But if he were just doing it on some atheist buddy of his to mock the ceremony, that would not be intending to do what the Church does.  It has to do with why the ceremony is being performed.

Hello M. Ladislaus-

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 10:17:19 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 10:07:37 AM

Hello M. Ladislaus-

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

If you were to perform a sacramental rite with the proper form and matter, how is anyone to know that you do not have the proper interior intention, unless you tell them that you haven't the proper interior intention? 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 10:19:09 AM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 10:17:19 AM

If you were to perform a sacramental rite with the proper form and matter, how is anyone to know that you do not have the proper interior intention, unless you tell them that you haven't the proper interior intention?

They can't.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 10:20:02 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 10:19:09 AM

They can't.

Which is why your question doesn't have a clear answer. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 10:22:12 AM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 10:20:02 AM

Which is why your question doesn't have a clear answer.

The answer is crystal clear: There is no sacrament (you just can't know it).

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 10:23:41 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 10:22:12 AM

The answer is crystal clear: There is no sacrament (you just can't know it).

How can it be crystal clear if you can't know it? 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 10:25:29 AM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 10:23:41 AM

How can it be crystal clear if you can't know it?

Because the objective reality exists independently of my subjective recognition or rejection of it.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 10:46:23 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 10:25:29 AM

Because the objective reality exists independently of my subjective recognition or rejection of it.

There has to be a way of knowing if a sacrament is knowingly invalid. It must be presumed to be valid otherwise.

And...wasn't the Council of Trent concerned only with the supposed sacraments as were administered by the Protestant heretics? It wasn't actual Catholics that were in question at Trent. The Protestant heresy was in full-swing back then. And some of the Protestant heretics still considered themselves to be Catholic (reformed Catholics). It needed to be addressed, and it was, at Trent.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 10:53:33 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 10:25:29 AM

Because the objective reality exists independently of my subjective recognition or rejection of it.

What you are saying goes contrary to Trent.

A Sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ to give grace. The outward sign *is* proper matter and form - that's reality. The sacraments were not instituted by priests or bishops, they are not the ones who give grace if they are in the proper mindset.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2023, 11:04:34 AM

Quote

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

If we are talking about the True Rite, using the Traditional form, the answer is unequivocally "yes".  Under the Tradition form/prayers, the minister's personal intention matters 0%.  What matters is the Church's intention, which is proper matter/form.


That's why an atheist can validly baptize.  Or a Jew, or a pagan, or even a church-hating mason.  So it applies to a church-hating, communist priest, assuming he is a valid priest.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 11:05:06 AM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 10:46:23 AM

There has to be a way of knowing if a sacrament is knowingly invalid. It must be presumed to be valid otherwise.

And...wasn't the Council of Trent concerned only with the supposed sacraments as were administered by the Protestant heretics? It wasn't actual Catholics that were in question at Trent. The Protestant heresy was in full-swing back then. And some of the Protestant heretics still considered themselves to be Catholic (reformed Catholics). It needed to be addressed, and it was, at Trent.

Sorry, but this is simply not the case.  A communion wafer could unknowingly contain invalidating ingredients; a priest could botch the form (e.g., the words of consecration at Mass); a wicked minister could form a covert contrary intention not to do what the Church does.

In none of these circuмstances is there any way to know the sacrament has become invalidated.

As regards your comment on Trent, you are effectively proposing an unheard of double standard: External intention suffices fo Catholics (later condemned by Alexander VIII), but heretics are additionally required to have proper internal intention.

In reaching this erroneous opinion, you apear to have what the Church does with what the Church intends (i.e., a heretic still believes himself to be baptizing -doing what the Church does.  Whether he intends to do what the Church intends is quite another matter).

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2023, 11:08:25 AM

Quote

Sorry, but this is simply not the case.  A communion wafer could unknowingly contain invalidating ingredients; a priest could botch the form (e.g., the words of consecration at Mass); a wicked minister could form a covert contrary intention not to do what the Church does.

These are all very rare exceptions.  In general, God does not allow His Church to operate in such a haphazard way.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 11:12:45 AM

Quote from: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 10:53:33 AM

What you are saying goes contrary to Trent.

A Sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ to give grace. The outward sign *is* proper matter and form - that's reality. The sacraments were not instituted by priests or bishops, they are not the ones who give grace if they are in the proper mindset.

So sorry, but all the citations I am providing (e.g., Hunter; Pohle) are based upon Trent.

Moreover, was your misunderstanding correct, the consequence would be that Alexander VIII would have anathematized himself (and all the manuals since Trent would be heretical).  

Regarding this last concern, I recognize that you do not shrink from making this very assertion regarding all the catechisms in the Church since Trent (nor does M. Ladislaus), but this is hardly believable.  

Incidentally, if you two (both Feeneyites) will then question the quality of Pohle's manual, I would simply point out to you that it was the very same manual which Fr. Feeney studied in the seminary: 


"Many Catholics living today can remember when priests were well trained in theology and could express the Faith properly in their sermons and in their writing. That is because they were given sound teaching at the seminary in Logic, Philosophy, and Dogmatic Theology from textbooks such as this 12 volume set. The famous Pohle-Preuss manual was used in many seminaries in America and other countries prior to the 1950's when seminary training began to go downhill.

This particular manual was used in the Jesuit seminary where Fr. Leonard Feeney, who was one called by his Jesuit superior "the greatest theologian we have in America...by far" was trained. This beautiful hardbound series is an exact reproduction of the edition originally published in 1911, and it was written by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pohle and edited by Arthur Preuss.

Joseph Pohle was a Jesuit and one of the founding faculty members of the Catholic University of America as well as a frequent contributor to the Catholic Encyclopedia. He died in 1922 after having produced one of the clearest and most succinct and useful systematic studies of Catholic theology ever published. This series is invaluable for priests, seminarians, and anyone interested in a systematic study of dogmatic theology."
https://www.leafletonline.com/pohle-preuss-manual-of-dogmatic-theology-six-book-set 

I would conclude by noting the very same teaching is to be found in every other approved manual of dogmatic or sacramental theology (lest it be written by an ancient Cathar).

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 11:16:20 AM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2023, 11:04:34 AM

If we are talking about the True Rite, using the Traditional form, the answer is unequivocally "yes".  Under the Tradition form/prayers, the minister's personal intention matters 0%.  What matters is the Church's intention, which is proper matter/form.


That's why an atheist can validly baptize.  Or a Jєω, or a pagan, or even a church-hating mason.  So it applies to a church-hating, communist priest, assuming he is a valid priest.

Can you please explain, then, the post-Trent anathema of Alexander VII, or the universal teaching of the contrary opinion in all the approved seminaries and manuals of the wrold (e.g., those cited by Hunter and Pohle above, or any othe rmanual of dogmatic theology you can find)?

You will soon find yourself keeping company with M. Ibranyi.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 11:25:59 AM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2023, 11:08:25 AM

These are all very rare exceptions.  In general, God does not allow His Church to operate in such a haphazard way.

Regarding the rarity or commonality of such occurrences, neither of us are in position to opine.

What I will say, is that the Church teaches us that we can acquire a moral certitude regarding validity, so long as external intention is manifested (i.e., the priest performs the rite), even if this does not infallibly exclude invalidation by the same minister covertly forming an intention not to do what the Church does.

As l' Abbe Hunter recounts (from p.1 of this thread):

"It is objected to this doctrine that it makes the validity of every Sacrament depend upon a purely internal fact, namely, the intention of the minister who may perform the outward acts with the interior intention of not acting as deputy of Christ. We admit the consequence, but deny that there is anything in it out of harmony with other parts of revealed doctrine; it is perfectly true that, without special revelation, no one can have absolute certainty that he has received a Sacrament or that he is in the state of grace (n. 639): but his assurance on the subject may approach so nearly to this absolute certainty as to make any misgiving on the subject foolish and vain; and it must always be remembered that God, who has bound Himself to give grace when the Sacraments are duly received, has nowhere limited His power, disabling Himself from giving grace apart from these holy rites. One, therefore, who acts in good faith may hope that no disaster will befall himself or those dear to him through the deceit of a wicked minister. (See n. 696.)"

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 11:29:34 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 11:12:45 AM

So sorry, but all the citations I am providing (e.g., Hunter; Pohle) are based upon Trent.

Sorry but Trent is clear.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 12:05:53 PM

Quote from: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 11:29:34 AM

Sorry but Trent is clear.

That Trent is clear is not disputed, but that it falls back upon you seems not to be perceived.

L' Abbe Tanqueray, (Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, Ch. 6, pp. 210, 211) holds the identical opinion of Pohle and Hunter:

In paragraphs 991 and 992, he first recounts the anathema of Trent against those would would say that, for the valid confection of sacraments, there is not required in the minister the intention to do that which the Church does.

Then he proceeds to recount the anathema of Pope Alexander VIII against those who argue that the performance of the rite suffices for suppliance of the requisite intention, even if the minister form a covert contrary intention not to do what the Church does.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2023, 12:12:25 PM

Quote

What I will say, is that the Church teaches us that we can acquire a moral certitude regarding validity, so long as external intention is manifested (i.e., the priest performs the rite), even if this does not infallibly exclude invalidation by the same minister covertly forming an intention not to do what the Church does.

So what's your point?  "Sacraments can never be certain."  Ok, so do you just want to wallow in confusion for the rest of your life?  What are you trying to accomplish?  Even St Thomas Aquinas was in doubt to as if he pleased God.  We humans can self-analyze ourselves to death, but as St Padre Pio continually told us, "Pray, hope and don't worry.  Worry is useless."


So what are you attempting to gain by pointing out the extreme?  It is certainly NOT THE NORM that Trad sacraments are invalid.  And if some of them are invalid, we can't know, so it's not our fault.  Again, worrying about it solves nothing.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 12:22:30 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2023, 12:12:25 PM

So what's your point?  "Sacraments can never be certain."  Ok, so do you just want to wallow in confusion for the rest of your life?  What are you trying to accomplish?  Even St Thomas Aquinas was in doubt to as if he pleased God.  We humans can self-analyze ourselves to death, but as St Padre Pio continually told us, "Pray, hope and don't worry.  Worry is useless."


So what are you attempting to gain by pointing out the extreme?  It is certainly NOT THE NORM that Trad sacraments are invalid.  And if some of them are invalid, we can't know, so it's not our fault.  Again, worrying about it solves nothing.

It would only be a defective conscience which would "wallow in confusion" when he is already in a state of moral certitude.

What I am "trying to accomplish" is to refute the erroneous opinion of M. Ladislaus, who would have you believe a condemned proposition, namely that, so long as a minister performs a rite, the requisite intention is necessarily present.  That is simply not the case (as Pope Alexander VIII illustrated).

I agree that worry about this is foolish.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2023, 12:33:11 PM

deleted

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 17, 2023, 12:34:08 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 12:22:30 PM

What I am "trying to accomplish" is to refute the erroneous opinion of M. Ladislaus, who would have you believe a condemned proposition, namely that, so long as a minister performs a rite, the requisite intention is necessarily present.  That is simply not the case (as Pope Alexander VIII illustrated).

Either you're an idiot or a malicious slanderer (you've already been exposed several times for lying), most likely both, as you've refuted nothing and keep claiming that I reject the Holy Office decision.  Of course, it's fair game for R&R vis-a-vis teachings of Ecuмenical Councils, and most including SVs reject the teaching of the Holy Office that declared non-geocentrism to be grave error proximate to heresy, and the decree from the Holy Office that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.  So the hypocrisy in some of these groups is breathtaking, picking and choosing what they want to reject while then trying to beat people up for not accepting things they want to accept.  In any case, it's beside the point, since I have already explained why I do not reject the Holy Office ruling on the matter (which you persist in characterizing as some teaching of Alexander VIII).

Evidently you're incapable of grasping the meaning of my distinction, either out of stupidity or malice of both.

Internal intention is required for validity, but it's the intention to do what the Church does and not to intend what the Church intends.  If you either refuse to grasp or cannot grasp what this means, then you need to just stop arguing theology, because you are unqualified to have an opinion on the matter.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 12:37:14 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 17, 2023, 12:34:08 PM

Either you're an idiot or a malicious slanderer (you've already been exposed several times for lying), most likely both, as you've refuted nothing and keep claiming that I reject the Holy Office decision.  Of course, it's fair game for R&R vis-a-vis teachings of Ecuмenical Councils, and most including SVs reject the teaching of the Holy Office that declared non-geocentrism to be grave error proximate to heresy, and the decree from the Holy Office that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.  So the hypocrisy in some of these groups is breathtaking, picking and choosing what they want to reject while then trying to beat people up for not accepting things they want to accept.  In any case, it's beside the point, since I have already explained why I do not reject the Holy Office ruling on the matter (which you persist in characterizing as some teaching of Alexander VIII).

Evidently you're incapable of grasping the meaning of my distinction, either out of stupidity or malice of both.

Internal intention is required for validity, but it's the intention to do what the Church does and not to intend what the Church intends.  If you either refuse to grasp or cannot grasp what this means, then you need to just stop arguing theology, because you are unqualified to have an opinion on the matter.

Hello M. Ladislaus, I ask you for the 7th time:

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Joe Cupertino on February 17, 2023, 12:38:35 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 15, 2023, 05:10:49 PM

... Where internal intention is lacking would be in situations where 1) a priest is not of sound mind, 2) a priest doing something in jest, 3) a priest doing something to practice / rehearse the Rite ... all of which can be discerned from the external forum.  But if a priest shows up for the 8:00 AM Mass scheduled at a Catholic church and peforms the Rite that's intended to be the Mass, he could sit there with all his might, gritting his teeth "intending" to do the exact opposite of what the Church does, but it would make no difference, and his Mass would be valid.

That is precisely the theory of the school of Catharinus.  They distinguished between an apparent jocose act and an apparent serious act, and argued that sufficient intention would be lacking in the apparent jocose act, but would not actually be lacking in an apparent serious act.

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 10:46:23 AM

There has to be a way of knowing if a sacrament is knowingly invalid. It must be presumed to be valid otherwise.

And...wasn't the Council of Trent concerned only with the supposed sacraments as were administered by the Protestant heretics? It wasn't actual Catholics that were in question at Trent. The Protestant heresy was in full-swing back then. And some of the Protestant heretics still considered themselves to be Catholic (reformed Catholics). It needed to be addressed, and it was, at Trent.

That the Council was only concerned with protestants is the argument of the school of Catharinus.


The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments (1949) - Rev. Raphael De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.L., pp.60-63:

Quote

The school of Catharinus made use of the decrees of theCouncil of Trent for one of its principal arguments for the sufficiency of external intention. The Council had made thefollowing decrees:

Quote

If anyone says that in the ministers, when they effectand confer the sacraments, there is not required at leastthe intention of doing what the Church does, let him beanathema. (° Session VH. can. 11 (Mansi 33, 53; DBU 854).)     

The penitent, therefore, ought not so to flatter himself on his own faith as to think that even though he have nocontrition and there be wanting on the part of the priestthe intention to act earnestly and absolve effectively, he isnevertheless really and in the sight of God absolved byreason of faith alone. For faith without penance effectsno remission of sins, and he would be most negligent ofhis salvation who, knowing that a priest absolved him jokingly, would not diligently seek another who would actearnestly.  (Session XIV. can. 6 (Mansi 33, 95; DBU 902).)    

If anyone says that the sacramental absolution of thepriest, is not a judicial act but a mere service of pronouncing and declaring to him who confesses that the.sins are forgiven, provided only he believes himself to beabsolved, even though the priest absolves not in earnestbut only in jest ... let him be anathema.  (Session XIV, can. 9 (Mansi 33. 101; DBU 919).)

These decrees of the Council were interpreted as meaning thatthe intention of doing what the Church does is the intention ofacting seriously, and that this is lacking only when the priest is known to be acting in a jocose manner. In the opinion of themembers of the school of external intention the Council taught that the only requirement in the minister was that he appear to beacting in a serious manner. The intention of acting in a jocose manner affects the validity of the sacrament only when this is apparent to the recipients:   

Quote

Therefore, through the intention of doing what theChurch does the Holy Synod understands the mind ofacting seriously, which is lacking when the priest isknown to be acting in a joking manner. Thus for a valid sacrament the Holy Synod taught that it was sufficient if the minister outwardly appeared to be acting seriously; and that the intention of acting jocosely affects the validity of the sacrament only when the joking and playfulmanner of the action of the minister is apparent to therecipients. (Juenin, G., De Sacramentis in Communi...)

In regard to the jocose absolution given by the priest, they maintained that these words of the Council can be understood only in reference to lack of serious intent which was externally manifested. Otherwise the penitent could never be aware of thejocose performance. It did not occur to them that the sacrament might also be rendered invalid if the jocose intention of the priestwould not be noticed, since it might easily happen that a piouspenitent would not take note of such behavior on the part of thepriest. 

From the statements of various members of the school ofCatharinus it can be gathered that the Council teaches that a contrary internal intention does not harm the validity of the sacraments in the least. According to them the Council wasconcerned only with the Protestants who had declared that thepenitent was truly absolved even if the priest absolved jokingly. 

The doctrine of external intention is demonstrated by severalexamples; the judge who would pass a sentence while joking and drinking would not be taken seriously, since he shows by hisactions that he is not acting in a serious manner. But if he wouldobserve all the procedures of law and seriously and freely pass asentence with a grave voice and countenance, the judgment wouldbe valid, even if the judge mentally did not intend to absolve theguilty party or impose a fine. Thus, in the same way the sacraments which are apparently confected in a serious manner arereally valid.   

It is true that the sentence of such a judge would be considered valid, since it is presumed that his judgment corresponded withhis apparently serious actions. But in se the judgment is not valid in the internal forum. In the event that the true intention of thejudge came to light, the state might declare that the judgmentstands. The state has the power to do this for the common good.  

But in the case of the sacraments we have no assurance from Christ that He will render those sacraments valid which appear to be such by the outward appearance of sincerity in the ministerwho lacks a true internal intention.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 12:44:18 PM

Quote from: Joe Cupertino on February 17, 2023, 12:38:35 PM

That is precisely the theory of the school of Catharinus.  They distinguished between an apparent jocose act and an apparent serious act, and argued that sufficient intention would be lacking in the apparent jocose act, but would not actually be lacking in an apparent serious act.

That the Council was only concerned with protestants is the argument of the school of Catharinus.


The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments (1949) - Rev. Raphael De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.L., pp.60-63:
These decrees of the Council were interpreted as meaning thatthe intention of doing what the Church does is the intention ofacting seriously, and that this is lacking only when the priest is known to be acting in a jocose manner. In the opinion of themembers of the school of external intention the Council taught that the only requirement in the minister was that he appear to beacting in a serious manner. The intention of acting in a jocose manner affects the validity of the sacrament only when this is apparent to the recipients: 

In regard to the jocose absolution given by the priest, they maintained that these words of the Council can be understood only in reference to lack of serious intent which was externally manifested. Otherwise the penitent could never be aware of thejocose performance. It did not occur to them that the sacrament might also be rendered invalid if the jocose intention of the priestwould not be noticed, since it might easily happen that a piouspenitent would not take note of such behavior on the part of thepriest.

From the statements of various members of the school ofCatharinus it can be gathered that the Council teaches that a contrary internal intention does not harm the validity of the sacraments in the least. According to them the Council wasconcerned only with the Protestants who had declared that thepenitent was truly absolved even if the priest absolved jokingly.

The doctrine of external intention is demonstrated by severalexamples; the judge who would pass a sentence while joking and drinking would not be taken seriously, since he shows by hisactions that he is not acting in a serious manner. But if he wouldobserve all the procedures of law and seriously and freely pass asentence with a grave voice and countenance, the judgment wouldbe valid, even if the judge mentally did not intend to absolve theguilty party or impose a fine. Thus, in the same way the sacraments which are apparently confected in a serious manner arereally valid. 

It is true that the sentence of such a judge would be considered valid, since it is presumed that his judgment corresponded withhis apparently serious actions. But in se the judgment is not valid in the internal forum. In the event that the true intention of thejudge came to light, the state might declare that the judgmentstands. The state has the power to do this for the common good. 

But in the case of the sacraments we have no assurance from Christ that He will render those sacraments valid which appear to be such by the outward appearance of sincerity in the ministerwho lacks a true internal intention.

Exactement!

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 12:48:04 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 12:05:53 PM

That Trent is clear is not disputed, but that it falls back upon you seems not to be perceived.

L' Abbe Tanqueray, (Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, Ch. 6, pp. 210, 211) holds the identical opinion of Pohle and Hunter:

In paragraphs 991 and 992, he first recounts the anathema of Trent against those would would say that, for the valid confection of sacraments, there is not required in the minister the intention to do that which the Church does.

Then he proceeds to recount the anathema of Pope Alexander VIII against those who argue that the performance of the rite suffices for suppliance of the requisite intention, even if the minister form a covert contrary intention not to do what the Church does.

You're arguing for it being permissible to doubt a sacrament after presuming to read, or to guess the mind of the priest or bishop - when we don't even know what goes on behind closed doors.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 12:50:19 PM

Quote from: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 12:48:04 PM

You're arguing for it being permissible to doubt a sacrament after presuming to read, or to guess the mind of the priest or bishop - when we don't even know what goes on behind closed doors.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Perhaps you will have better luck reading M. Cupertino's post above?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 01:10:20 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 12:50:19 PM

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Perhaps you will have better luck reading M. Cupertino's post above?

He posted:
"In the opinion of the members of the school of external intention the Council taught that the only requirement in the minister was that he appear to be acting in a serious manner. The intention of acting in a jocose manner affects the validity of the sacrament only when this is apparent to the recipients:"

Goes without saying imo - that's why nobody said it.

Have you been trying to say that +Leinart administered the sacrament of Holy Orders to +ABL in a jocose manner? If so you would have to prove it, if not, what's the purpose of this thread?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 01:21:34 PM

Quote from: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 01:10:20 PM

He posted:
"In the opinion of the members of the school of external intention the Council taught that the only requirement in the minister was that he appear to be acting in a serious manner. The intention of acting in a jocose manner affects the validity of the sacrament only when this is apparent to the recipients:"

Goes without saying imo - that's why nobody said it.

Have you been trying to say that +Leinart administered the sacrament of Holy Orders to +ABL in a jocose manner? If so you would have to prove it, if not, what's the purpose of this thread?

He already told you: to prove "M.Ladislaus" wrong. ::)

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:28:33 PM

Quote from: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 01:21:34 PM

He already told you: to prove "M.Ladislaus" wrong. ::)

Actually, what I said was "to refute the erroneous opinion of M. Ladislaus."

Do you also belong to the condemned School of Catharinus with M. Ladislaus (and Meg, Stubborn, and Pax Vobis)?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 01:33:39 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:28:33 PM

Actually, what I said was "to refute the erroneous opinion of M. Ladislaus."

Do you also belong to the condemned School of Catharinus with M. Ladislaus (and Meg, Stubborn, and Pax Vobis)?

Has this "School of Catharinus" ever been mentioned before here on CathInfo? I don't recall that it ever has. You seem to be quite familiar with it. I've never heard of it. It's very strange that you state that I (and others here) belong to it.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:41:05 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 01:33:39 PM

Has this "School of Catharinus" ever been mentioned before here on CathInfo? I don't recall that it ever has. You seem to be quite familiar with it. I've never heard of it. It's very strange that you would ask if I belong to it.

Evidently, you have not read (or have not understood) Cupertino's post above, which addressed your mistaken belief that the Council of Trent was only concerned with Protestants (a contention by which the followers of Catharinus sought to evade the Council's anathemas).

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 01:43:28 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:41:05 PM

Evidently, you have not read (or have not understood) Cupertino's post above, which addressed your mistaken belief that the Council of Trent was only concerned with Protestants (a contention by which the followers of Catharinus sought to evade the Council's anathemas).

Then why would you say that I (and others here) belong to this "School of Catharinus?" That's a ridiculous thing to say. You seem to want to distract from what we are saying here. Who cares about this Catharinus dude anyway? Just address the subject at hand.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:43:48 PM

Quote from: Joe Cupertino on February 17, 2023, 12:38:35 PM

That the Council was only concerned with protestants is the argument of the school of Catharinus.

The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments (1949) - Rev. Raphael De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.L., pp.60-63:

"The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments (1949) - Rev. Raphael De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.L., pp.60-63:
These decrees of the Council were interpreted as meaning thatthe intention of doing what the Church does is the intention ofacting seriously, and that this is lacking only when the priest is known to be acting in a jocose manner. In the opinion of themembers of the school of external intention the Council taught that the only requirement in the minister was that he appear to beacting in a serious manner. The intention of acting in a jocose manner affects the validity of the sacrament only when this is apparent to the recipients: 

In regard to the jocose absolution given by the priest, they maintained that these words of the Council can be understood only in reference to lack of serious intent which was externally manifested. Otherwise the penitent could never be aware of thejocose performance. It did not occur to them that the sacrament might also be rendered invalid if the jocose intention of the priestwould not be noticed, since it might easily happen that a piouspenitent would not take note of such behavior on the part of thepriest.

From the statements of various members of the school ofCatharinus it can be gathered that the Council teaches that a contrary internal intention does not harm the validity of the sacraments in the least. According to them the Council wasconcerned only with the Protestants who had declared that thepenitent was truly absolved even if the priest absolved jokingly.

The doctrine of external intention is demonstrated by severalexamples; the judge who would pass a sentence while joking and drinking would not be taken seriously, since he shows by hisactions that he is not acting in a serious manner. But if he wouldobserve all the procedures of law and seriously and freely pass asentence with a grave voice and countenance, the judgment wouldbe valid, even if the judge mentally did not intend to absolve theguilty party or impose a fine. Thus, in the same way the sacraments which are apparently confected in a serious manner arereally valid. 

It is true that the sentence of such a judge would be considered valid, since it is presumed that his judgment corresponded withhis apparently serious actions. But in se the judgment is not valid in the internal forum. In the event that the true intention of thejudge came to light, the state might declare that the judgmentstands. The state has the power to do this for the common good. 

But in the case of the sacraments we have no assurance from Christ that He will render those sacraments valid which appear to be such by the outward appearance of sincerity in the ministerwho lacks a true internal intention."

An excerpt from Cupertino's post, bumped to rebut the contention of Meg ^^^

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 01:44:54 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:43:48 PM

An excerpt from Cupertino's post, bumped for Meg ^^^

Oh, so now I'm not a member of the School of Catharinus, and you're going to properly educate me about it? No thanks. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:46:00 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 01:44:54 PM

Oh, so now I'm not a member of the School of Catharinus, and you're going to properly educate me? No thanks. 

Gibberish much?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 01:48:15 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:46:00 PM

Gibberish much?

Apparently, that's what the members of the "School of Catharinus" are prone to do, right?

Like I said, I could care less about Catharinus. You should be able to make your case without referring to someone that we haven't heard of before. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:48:57 PM

And the excerpt from Cupertino's post highlighting the condemned position of M. Ladislaus:

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 15, 2023, 05:10:49 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/was-lienart-really-a-mason/msg871751/#msg871751)

Quote

... Where internal intention is lacking would be in situations where 1) a priest is not of sound mind, 2) a priest doing something in jest, 3) a priest doing something to practice / rehearse the Rite ... all of which can be discerned from the external forum.  But if a priest shows up for the 8:00 AM Mass scheduled at a Catholic church and peforms the Rite that's intended to be the Mass, he could sit there with all his might, gritting his teeth "intending" to do the exact opposite of what the Church does, but it would make no difference, and his Mass would be valid.

Cupertino:

That is precisely the theory of the school of Catharinus.  They distinguished between an apparent jocose act and an apparent serious act, and argued that sufficient intention would be lacking in the apparent jocose act, but would not actually be lacking in an apparent serious act.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:49:42 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 01:48:15 PM

Apparently, that's what the members of the "School of Catharinus" are prone to do, right?

Like I said, I could care less about Catharinus. You should be able to make your case without referring to someone that we haven't heard of before.

Like Pope Alexander VIII?

Or the manuals of Tanqueray, Hunter, Pohle, and DeSalvo, which reiterate and expound upon this condemnation?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 01:52:16 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:49:42 PM

Like Pope Alexander VIII?

Or the manuals of Tanqueray, Hunter, Pohle, and DeSalvo, which reiterate and expound upon this condemnation?

Are they actual Church teachings? 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:53:14 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 01:52:16 PM

Are they actual Church teachings?

Yes.

Were this not official Church teaching, Pohle could not say that in the wake of Alexander VIII, the position of Catharinus is condemned.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 01:54:59 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:28:33 PM

Actually, what I said was "to refute the erroneous opinion of M. Ladislaus."

Do you also belong to the condemned School of Catharinus with M. Ladislaus (and Meg, Stubborn, and Pax Vobis)?

OK.  :laugh1:

I actually see what you're saying.  It's your unrelentless questioning "to refute the erroneous opinion of M. Ladislaus" that I think is pathetic.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:58:28 PM

Quote from: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 01:54:59 PM

OK.  :laugh1:

I actually see what you're saying.  It's your unrelentless questioning "to refute the erroneous opinion of M. Ladislaus" that I think is pathetic.

I note your pathetic indifference to doctrinal error.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 02:00:40 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 01:58:28 PM

I note your pathetic indifference to doctrinal error.

OK, Sean.  You win. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 02:10:50 PM

Quote from: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 02:00:40 PM

OK, Sean.  You win.

Thanks Jill.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Joe Cupertino on February 17, 2023, 02:19:16 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 01:33:39 PM

Has this "School of Catharinus" ever been mentioned before here on CathInfo? I don't recall that it ever has. You seem to be quite familiar with it. I've never heard of it. It's very strange that you state that I (and others here) belong to it.

Catharinus and his theory of external intention was discussed throughout the first four pages of this thread.  It's what the argument has been about for almost this entire thread.  Starting on page two, Ladislaus began trying to explain that his theory was not the same as the Catharinus-ian theory of external intention.  But the distinction he made is exactly the same as the explanation of the theory of external intention by those of the school of Catharinus.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 02:33:25 PM

Quote from: Joe Cupertino on February 17, 2023, 02:19:16 PM

Catharinus and his theory of external intention was discussed throughout the first four pages of this thread.  It's what the argument has been about for almost this entire thread.  Starting on page two, Ladislaus began trying to explain that his theory was not the same as the Catharinus-ian theory of external intention.  But the distinction he made is exactly the same as the explanation of the theory of external intention by those of the school of Catharinus.

Thanks Joe for that explanation, I got in late but to me, the theory, if I understand it correctly from the last 3 or 4 pages, seems like an exercise in futility, at least as far as the +ABL situation goes. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 02:39:27 PM

The title of the thread is: Was Lienart Really a Mason? But what it really seems to be about is to show that Archbishop Lefebvre was not validly ordained, IMO.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 02:42:43 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 02:39:27 PM

The title of the thread is: Was Lienart Really a Mason? But what it really seems to be about is to show that Archbishop Lefebvre was not validly ordained, IMO.

Exactly. I mean, what else is +Lienart know for?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 02:46:26 PM

Quote from: Stubborn on February 17, 2023, 02:42:43 PM

Exactly. I mean, what else is +Lienart know for?

But that's NOT what the OP article concludes!  LOL

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 02:54:52 PM

Quote from: 2Vermont on February 17, 2023, 02:46:26 PM

But that's NOT what the OP article concludes!  LOL

Good catch....I hadn't noticed that.

At the bottom of the OP article, it says: "To sum up what we have said:

"2) If Cardinal Lienart had been a Freemason, it would not have invalidated the sacraments he conferred."

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2023, 03:04:45 PM

Quote

Exactement!

Everything that Joe Cupertino posted lines up with what Ladislaus has been saying (and has said many times in the past) and does not support what De Lugo has been implying.  Either De Lugo needs better reading comprehension, or better writing skills, but what he reads/writes is not in agreement with Joe Cupertino's post.


In summary, if De Lugo agrees with Joe Cupertino's post, then Ladislaus would also agree.  So 90% of this thread is a misunderstanding.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 03:29:32 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2023, 03:04:45 PM

Everything that Joe Cupertino posted lines up with what Ladislaus has been saying (and has said many times in the past) and does not support what De Lugo has been implying.  Either De Lugo needs better reading comprehension, or better writing skills, but what he reads/writes is not in agreement with Joe Cupertino's post.


In summary, if De Lugo agrees with Joe Cupertino's post, then Ladislaus would also agree.  So 90% of this thread is a misunderstanding.

Oh la la!

The only question is: Do I allow M. Cupertino to break it to him, or do I do the honors?

NB: I see Joe Cupertino is online now. 

 :popcorn:

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Joe Cupertino on February 17, 2023, 03:31:41 PM

So there's no confusion, what I posted was about the theory of the school of Catharinus, which is virtually condemned, as De Salvo says on p.105

Quote

"The opinion of Catharinus and the school of external intention is not explicitly condemned, but in view of the common teaching of the great majority of theologians, the decrees of the Councils, and the condemnation of the proposition of Farvacques, it stands virtually condemned."

I highly recommend this book, available to read online:

The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments (1949) - Rev. De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.D. (https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/de Salvo, Rev. Raphael, O.S.B., S.T.L_/The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments (8681)/The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of - de Salvo, Rev. Raphael, O.S.B., S.T.L_.pdf)

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 03:37:01 PM

Quote from: Joe Cupertino on February 17, 2023, 03:31:41 PM

So there's no confusion, what I posted was about the theory of the school of Catharinus, which is virtually condemned, as De Salvo says on p.105

I highly recommend this book, available to read online here:
The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments (1949) - Rev. De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.D. (https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/de Salvo, Rev. Raphael, O.S.B., S.T.L_/The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments (8681)/The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of - de Salvo, Rev. Raphael, O.S.B., S.T.L_.pdf)

Pax-

What was that you were saying about reading comprehension?

Your declaration that everything Joe Cupertino posted (i.e., the condemned theory of Catharinus) lines up perfectly with M. Ladislaus is most certainly correct!

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2023, 03:51:25 PM

This is a complex issue and I admit i'm not an expert.  But riddle-me-this, batman, how can an atheist baptize validly, (they certainly do NOT have any proper intention), but yet a mason priest's baptism ceremony must be examined?

This makes no sense.  In the True Rite, the Church makes the form VERY clear, so that anyone/priest that follows it, is doing "what the Church does".  If it's any more complex than this, then Catholicism is one big doubt-burger.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on February 17, 2023, 04:02:01 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2023, 03:51:25 PM

This is a complex issue and I admit i'm not an expert.  But riddle-me-this, batman, how can an atheist baptize validly, (they certainly do NOT have any proper intention), but yet a mason priest's baptism ceremony must be examined?

This makes no sense.  In the True Rite, the Church makes the form VERY clear, so that anyone/priest that follows it, is doing "what the Church does".  If it's any more complex than this, then Catholicism is one big doubt-burger.

When the correct mater and form are used, the proper intention is *always* presumed. Unless the administrator of the sacrament specifically states that he did not intend to do what the Church does, it is *always* presumed that he did have the proper intention and the sacrament is to be considered valid.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2023, 04:09:33 PM

Quote

When the correct mater and form are used, the proper intention is *always* presumed. Unless the administrator of the sacrament specifically states that he did not intend to do what the Church does, it is *always* presumed to be valid.

1000% agree.  But De Lugo is arguing against this, which makes no sense.  He's complicating it.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 04:19:44 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2023, 04:09:33 PM

1000% agree.  But De Lugo is arguing against this, which makes no sense.  He's complicating it.

Completely false.

It was I who started the thread, who's primary conclusion is that there's no sound reason to doubt the validity of Msgr. Lefebvre's episcopal consecration or priestly ordination (which like all consecrations and sacraments, are morally, but never infallibly, certain).

I was later bound to point out that, despite this, and contrary to the condemned position of Catharinus and Ladislaus, it is not true that the intention of the minister is certainly valid simply because he performs a rite (i.e., the condemned theory of external intention).

We presume validity in such cases, but that presumption would not be in conformity with realiy, if the minister has formed a covert contrary intention to not do what the Church does (thereby deliberately omitting a criterion defined at Trent).

This should not cause insecurity to anyone, because the power and grace of God are not constrained to the sacraments, and it is certainly not sentimental, therefore, to believe that, should we ever be so unfortunate to come under the power of wicked ministers, God would not fail to transmit grace outside the sacraments (as the quote from l' Abbe Hunter describes).

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 04:53:42 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 04:19:44 PM

This should not cause insecurity to anyone, because the power and grace of God are not constrained to the sacraments, and it is certainly not sentimental, therefore, to believe that, should we ever be so unfortunate to come under the power of wicked ministers, God would not fail to transmit grace outside the sacraments (as the quote from l' Abbe Hunter describes).

Pretty sure that no one here thought to feel insecure about +ABL's consecration, despite your views and this dumb thread. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 05:28:44 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 04:53:42 PM

Pretty sure that no one here thought to feel insecure about +ABL's consecration, despite your views and this dumb thread.

Except for:

1) You, who accused me of starting this thread to undermine confidence in Msgr. Lefebvre's ordination;

2) Pax Vobis, who a few posts prior accused my articulation of the Church's teaching of throwing everything into one big "doubt burger;"

3) M. Ladislaus, who rejected the explanation of Fr. Hunter, and declared that were he correct, everyone should feel insecure about the validity of their sacraments.

You most definitely feel insecure, which, in the absence of any doctrinal argument since the beginning of this thread, explains the irrational and emotional nature of all your posts.

Bonsoir!

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 17, 2023, 05:30:54 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 05:28:44 PM

Except for:

1) You, who accused me of starting this thread to undermine confidence in Msgr. Lefebvre's ordination;

Actually, I think you started it to plant doubt. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 17, 2023, 05:34:28 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 17, 2023, 05:30:54 PM

Actually, I think you started it to plant doubt.

Ah oui!

Do not forget, my erratic femme, that I am also M. Johnson, and am therefore dedicated to discrediting Msgr. Lefebvre!


:laugh2::laugh1::facepalm:

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2023, 05:39:44 PM

De Lugo,
I applaud your efforts and intention, but when one re-reads the opening posts, the inconsistency/confusion arises because of the editorial "To sum up what we have said:".

That's what Ladislaus disagreed with to start, and you defended the "sum up" points.  In other words, the author of said article may have been good-intentioned, but the summary was "off".  Pts 1 and 2 are a contradiction.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 17, 2023, 11:45:10 PM

THE INTENTION "TO DO WHAT THE CHURCH DOES"

It is this concept which is creating the confusion in this thread.

Ladislaus, and many who have sided with him, and against de Lugo, on this issue hold the following:

Quote

"Internal intention to do WHAT the Church DOES.  When +Lienart put his vestments on, showed up at church, performed the Rite of Ordination ... unless he was insane (there was no indication of this) or botched the form (and no one there noticed) ... that means he was intending to do WHAT the Church does, i.e. to perform the Church's ordination rite (that's intended by the Church to make the man designated a priest)." (post by Ladislaus in this thread)Question: Is this really what the Church means by "intending to do what the Church does"? Does performing the ceremony necessarily guarantee the intention? THIS IS THE POINT OF CONTENTION.

Question: Is this really what the Church means by "intending to do what the Church does"? Does performing the ceremony necessarily guarantee the intention? THIS IS THE POINT OF CONTENTION.

If so, how are we to understand this proposition condemned by Pope Alexander VIII in 1690: 
"A baptism is valid which is conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and the form of baptising but who says in his heart 'I do not intend to do what the Church does'". 

This is a condemned proposition. Does it not necessarily follow, then, that the answer to the above question is, NO, putting on the vestments, showing up to the church and performing the ceremony does not mean the minister necessarily has the intention to do what the Church does. This is black and white, isn't it?

Clearly, in spite of performing the ceremony, it is possible that the minister has a defect of intention - a contrary inner intention as described by Pope Alexander VIII, or otherwise as explained by Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

Ludwig Ott:
"According to the almost general opinion of modern theologians, an inner intention is necessary for the valid administration of the Sacraments." WHAT IS THIS INNER INTENTION THAT IS REQUIRED? "By intentio interna is meant an intention which is directed, not merely to the external execution of the sacramental rite, but also to its inner signification."

Obviously, this does not preclude the possibility of a heretic performing a valid baptism, but they must have the intention of doing what the Church does. Ott goes on to explain that "The necessary inner intention can be an intentio specialis et reflexa or an intentio generalis et directa, according to whether the inner religious significance of the sacramental action is intended in particular or only in general, whether with or without reflection on the purpose and effects of the Sacrament." 

So, the INNER RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE of the sacramental action must be part of the minister's intention, even if only in a general way (e.g. wanting to do whatever the Church does when She performs this action, even if the minister doesn't know what that is, but not just performing the actions themselves). This forms part of the "intention to do what the Church does".

As has already been pointed out, even if Cardinal Lienart was a Freemason and had a contrary inner intention when ordaining Mgr Lefebvre, we need not worry, as there where two other co-consecrating bishops when he was made a bishop, which confers the fullness of the priesthood.

Ladislaus, I do value your opinion, and I would be really happy if you could point out any flaws in my logic. I think I understand your position, but it seems to be an older opinion that can no longer be held. We can presume validity, according to your argument (we can only judge the externals), but that is all?



 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: gladius_veritatis on February 18, 2023, 02:28:56 AM

Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 17, 2023, 11:45:10 PM

If so, how are we to understand this proposition condemned by Pope Alexander VIII in 1690:
"A baptism is valid which is conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and the form of baptising but who says in his heart 'I do not intend to do what the Church does'".

This is a condemned proposition.

If this were so and your reading/logic is correct, every single sacramental action would be suspect, requiring an interrogation, perhaps multiple interrogations -- before, during and after -- respecting the internal dispositions of those involved.  The result would be obvious, widespread insanity and endless doubt.  What if someone lied about his internal dispositions and intentions, etc?  How could we prove he was/n't lying? 

Does a faithless, sinful priest validly consecrate the Sacred Host at Mass just by pronouncing the correct form over the proper matter?  How do you know?  How do you know if any particular priest truly has faith, isn't in a state of sin, etc?  Where do we draw the line respecting such insoluble queries?  Can anyone know he has been baptized?  Received the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ rather than a bit of bread?  Should we all be legitimately worried that we really are guilty of idolatry in such an instance?

Stop the madness.

If a man DOES something, it is safe to presume he meant to DO that thing -- otherwise he would NOT have done it.  End of story.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: gladius_veritatis on February 18, 2023, 02:47:13 AM

Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 17, 2023, 11:45:10 PM

I think I understand your position, but it seems to be an older opinion that can no longer be held. We can presume validity, according to your argument (we can only judge the externals), but that is all?

Whether or not an idea/teaching (i.e., not an opinion) is recent or old is irrelevant.  All that matters is whether or not it is true. One may and must hold that which is true regardless of the passage of time.

What more than validity do you seek/want/need to know/presume in such cases?  Nothing.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 18, 2023, 04:20:11 AM

Quote from: gladius_veritatis on February 18, 2023, 02:47:13 AM

Whether or not an idea/teaching (i.e., not an opinion) is recent or old is irrelevant.  All that matters is whether or not it is true. One may and must hold that which is true regardless of the passage of time.

What more than validity do you seek/want/need to know/presume in such cases?  Nothing.

Thanks Gladius. I agree with that.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 18, 2023, 04:27:56 AM

Quote from: gladius_veritatis on February 18, 2023, 02:28:56 AM

Can anyone know he has been baptized?  

I'd rather you consult Pope Alexander VIII about that! Do you take issue with his condemnation, or believe that I have misrepresented what he says? 
Do you have some kind of philosophical objection to people discussing the theology of the sacraments?
Do you consider sacramental theology unimportant?
Or is it just that you consider I have a mistaken notion about the intention required by the minister for a valid sacrament? 
There is a serious debate here, and I thought my comments might help clarify things, so I'm sorry if I have compounded the confusion.
My aim is certainly not to create any antipathy.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 18, 2023, 04:30:18 AM

Quote from: gladius_veritatis on February 18, 2023, 02:28:56 AM

If a man DOES something, it is safe to presume he meant to DO that thing -- otherwise he would NOT have done it.  End of story.

I agree with this statement too, but not "end of story", because, as always, there is a little more to it if you consult the theology manuals.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Stubborn on February 18, 2023, 05:02:39 AM

Quote

If this were so and your reading/logic is correct, every single sacramental action would be suspect, requiring an interrogation, perhaps multiple interrogations -- before, during and after -- respecting the internal dispositions of those involved.  The result would be obvious, widespread insanity and endless doubt.  What if someone lied about his internal dispositions and intentions, etc?  How could we prove he was/n't lying? 

Does a faithless, sinful priest validly consecrate the Sacred Host at Mass just by pronouncing the correct form over the proper matter?  How do you know?  How do you know if any particular priest truly has faith, isn't in a state of sin, etc?  Where do we draw the line respecting such insoluble queries?  Can anyone know he has been baptized?  Received the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ rather than a bit of bread?  Should we all be legitimately worried that we really are guilty of idolatry in such an instance?

Stop the madness.

If a man DOES something, it is safe to presume he meant to DO that thing -- otherwise he would NOT have done it.  End of story.

I completely and totally agree, you articulated my thoughts exactly!

What de Lugo is trying to communicate is that although Trent declares heretics baptize validly if the heretic baptizes "with the intention of doing what the Church doth."

Pope Alexander VIII declares that one baptizes invalidly if he baptizes and "says in his heart 'I do not intend to do what the Church does.'" He must say these words in his heart, if not then the sacrament is valid.

Feel free to correct me, but I read the quoted theologians as correctly stating that the presumption is *always* whoever administers the sacrament did so "with the intention of doing what the Church doth."

Typical distractions or distractions of any sort do not invalidate the sacrament, if proper matter and form are used then the *only* thing that invalidates the sacrament is for the priest to say those above words in his heart, which we can never know unless the priest were to publicly confess such a thing after the fact.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 18, 2023, 11:20:18 AM

Quote from: Stubborn on February 18, 2023, 05:02:39 AM

Typical distractions or distractions of any sort do not invalidate the sacrament, if proper matter and form are used then the *only* thing that invalidates the sacrament is for the priest to say those above words in his heart, which we can never know unless the priest were to publicly confess such a thing after the fact.

No, a lack of intention also invalidates, the same as a contrary intention.  But a habitual intention to do what the Church does suffices.  So, for instance, a priest does not have to think during each Mass, "I intend to consecrate.  I intend to consecrate."  But the priest who just offers Mass without explicitly forming the intention nevertheless has a habitual/virtual intention to do what the Church does.  He wouldn't be going out there each day to offer Mass except that he's intending to do this Mass that the Church does.

No, nobody has to say any specific words in his heart, nor any words or explicit thoughts for that matter.  That's a total misreading of it.  All it means is that if someone has a contrary internal intention against DOing what the Church DOES, then it would invalidate the Sacrament.  It doesn't have to be "words" in one's heart of any kind, but that's just an example to illustrate the concept.

What's lost on the brain of "De Lugo" is that it's about intending to DO what the Church DOES, and not intending what the Church INTENDS.

You needn't intend what the Church intends but simply to do what the Church does.  This is why an atheist can baptize, as all theologians hold.  He simply intends to perform the rite.  He could be thinking the entire time that it's a bunch of nonsense and has no intention of putting the "soul" (that he doesn't even believe him) into a state of grace or having their sins forgiven and receiving the Sacramental character.  He doesn't have to intend any of what the Church intends by the Sacrament.  He just has to intend to DO what the Church DOES, i.e. "I intend to do this thing that Catholics/Christians do."  That's it, and this suffices for validity.

Same thing holds of the Masonic +Lienart.  Like the atheist in the above example, if he puts on his vestments and performs the Rite of the Catholic Church to ordain a priest, he intends to DO what the Church DOES, whether he believes in a priesthood or not, whether he intends that the man should become a priest or not ... or whether he has a positive CONTRARY intention.

Similarly, we say that bread is required for valid Mass / consecration.  It doesn't matter if there's simply NO bread or if someone tries to use a fudge brownie.  Similarly, it doesn't matter whether the intention is missing or if there's a contrary intention.  It's invalid either way.  Something is just as invalid by mere absence of a requirement as if someone tried to substitute a contrary element.

+Lienart could sit there gritting his teeth repeating to himself over and over again, "I don't intend for this man to become a priest.  I don't intend for this man to become a priest." but it matters  nothing.  +Lienart would have been intending to perform the Catholic Rite of Ordination, just as that atheist baptizing, and it would be valid on that account.

Scenarios where the internal intention do DO what the Church does would be lacking include things like ...

1) minister not of sound mind (insane, half asleep, etc.)
2) minister just playing (young Athanasius story) ... where they're not intending to actually DO what the Church does but just to imitate it in play
3) minister doing it to mock the Sacrament (two atheists fooling around and mocking the Sacrament while pouring water on each other and saying the words)

But eterior mocking doesn't necessarily invalidate either.  You could have that aforementioned atheist performing the Baptism, making faces and comments and eye rolls the entire time, or even preface it with, "What a bunch of nonsense, but here goes ... I baptize you, etc. ..."

Not intending the Saramental effect, however, does not invalidate the Sacrament.

This is very clear.  So often various individuals pounce on what they assume to be the true meaning of something without actually understanding it.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 18, 2023, 11:28:01 AM

We need to understand what "external intention" means.  Intention by definition is a motivation and is therefore internal by definition. 

What this refers to is to intend to merely do the external actions.  I intend to say some words.  I intend to pour the water on the head.  But am I intending to DO this thing that the Church does.  When the young Athanasius (even if it was just a story) was playing, he intended the same outward actions, saying words, pouring water on the person's head.  But the reason he intended those actions was motivated by play.  So while he had the external intention to say words and to pour water, the internal intention was to play.  Same with the atheists.  They intended to say the words and to pour water.  But the reason, the internal reason, for why they were doing it was not to DO what the Church DOES, but simply to mock what the Church does.

But when someone performs the ceremonies with all seriousness because it's what the Church does, whether it's an atheists who hates the Church and doesn't believe in there being a soul, much less Original Sin, or whether it's a Masonic infiltrator, the intention to be doing what the Church does is there internally, whether or not they intend what the Church intends by it.  When +Lienart showed up for an ordination, he knew full well that he was performing a Church function, and he went ahead with it.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: BonifaceSVIII on February 18, 2023, 11:56:15 AM

I found this lengthy treatment of the question. Read through to the end:
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-intention-required-in-the-minister-of-the-sacraments-10370

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Yeti on February 18, 2023, 12:37:07 PM

Here is an article (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/MasonicBishops.pdf) by +Fr. Cekada about this idea in his customary systematic fashion. He explains all the principles and refutes the idea that Lienart's Holy Orders are doubtful. The whole question is pretty simple to refute.

One point he raises, though, which I don't think has been raised in this thread, is that we have to follow the practice of the Church, not our own opinions or theories. In this case, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ has been around for 3-4 centuries and there have been known freemasons who were bishops in the Church, and popes have never considered their sacraments doubtful.

Quote

No Support in History.

The excuse sometimes given for not
providing such a citation — “it was not widely known what was
going on [regarding Masonic clergy] until the fruits were dis-
played at Vatican II” — is refuted by the history of the Church in
France, where many clergymen were Masons. In France before
the Revolution:
“One fact is inescapable: the lodges contained a large number
of ecclesiastics... At Caudebec fifteen out of eighty members of
the lodge were priests; at Sens, twenty-five out of fifty. Canons
and parish priests sat in the Venerable Assembly, while the Cis-
tercians of Clairvaux had a Lodge within the very walls of their
monastery! Saurine, a future bishop of Strasbourg under Napo-
leon, was a governing member of the Grand Orient. We cannot
be far from the truth in suggesting that towards the year 1789 a
quarter of French freemasons were churchmen... [In 1789 there
were] seven atheists and three deists out of one hundred and thirty-
five French bishops.” (H. Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Eight-
eenth Century [London: Dent 1960] 63, 73. See also J. McMan-
ners, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France [Oxford:
University Press 1998] 1:354, 356, 420, 509.)
The Masonic revolutionaries set up their schismatic Consti-
tutional Church in 1791 with clergy such as these, the most
prominent among them being Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-
Périgord, the former Bishop of Autun and an advocate of the
revolutionary cause.
Unlike the case of Cardinal Liénart, it is an established fact
that Talleyrand was a Mason — he belonged to the Francs
Chevaliers Lodge in Paris. Moreover, he was probably even an
unbeliever. On 25 January 1791 Mgr. Talleyrand consecrated the
first bishops for the Constitutional Church, and thus all its bish-
ops subsequently derived their consecrations from him.
Nevertheless, when Pope Pius VII signed his 1801 Concordat
with Napoleon, he appointed thirteen bishops from Talleyrand’s
hierarchy to head the restored Catholic dioceses.
Among them was the above-mentioned Mgr. Jean-Baptiste
Saurine, schismatically consecrated “constitutional” bishop of
Landes in August 1791. Of all the Masonic lodges in the world,
the Grand Orient of Paris in which Saurine was a governing
member has always been considered the most powerful and the
most anti-Catholic. Despite this, Pope Pius VII appointed Mgr.
Saurine Bishop of Strasbourg in 1802, a post that this Masonic
bishop retained until his death in 1813.
So in France we find Masonic bishops consecrating other
Masons bishops, whom the pope then appoints to head Catholic
dioceses, where they confirm children, bless holy oils used to


— 6 —
anoint the dying, ordain priests and consecrate other bishops. If
the Liénartists’ principle were indeed correct, the pope would
have permitted none of this, and would have insisted that all
bishops from the Constitutional hierarchy submit to conditional
re-consecration.
Proof that a cleric was affiliated with Masonry, moreover, is
not necessarily proof of atheism or hatred of the Church. Of the
many French clergy involved with Masonry, historian Henri
Daniel-Rops says:
“There is no reason to think all were, or considered themselves
to be, bad Catholics. On the contrary, there must have been a
great many of them who saw no incompatibility between their
faith and their Masonic membership, and who even regarded
Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as a weapon to be employed in the service of re-
ligion. One of these, in Savoy, was Joseph de Maistre, orator of
his lodge at Chambéry; he dreamed of creating within the
bosom of Masonry a secret staff which would have made the
movement a papal army at the service of universal theocracy.”
(Church in the Eighteenth Century, 63.)
Even though the adherence of many French clergy to Ma-
sonry during the revolutionary era was well known, theologians
did not treat their sacraments as “doubtful.”
If Masonic bishops had truly posed a threat to the validity of
the sacraments, one would expect to find theologians, especially
among the French, making this argument, or at least debating
the issue.
But even French theologians and canonists such as Cardinal
Billot (De Ecclesiae Sacramentis [Rome: Gregorian 1931] 1:195–
204), S. Many (Prael. de Sacr. Ordinatione 585-91) and R. Naz (“In-
tentNo Support in History. The excuse sometimes given for not

providing such a citation — “it was not widely known what was

going on [regarding Masonic clergy] until the fruits were dis-

played at Vatican II” — is refuted by the history of the Church in

France, where many clergymen were Masons. In France before

the Revolution:

“One fact is inescapable: the lodges contained a large number

of ecclesiastics... At Caudebec fifteen out of eighty members of

the lodge were priests; at Sens, twenty-five out of fifty. Canons

and parish priests sat in the Venerable Assembly, while the Cis-

tercians of Clairvaux had a Lodge within the very walls of their

monastery! Saurine, a future bishop of Strasbourg under Napo-

leon, was a governing member of the Grand Orient. We cannot

be far from the truth in suggesting that towards the year 1789 a

quarter of French freemasons were churchmen... [In 1789 there

were] seven atheists and three deists out of one hundred and thirty-

five French bishops.” (H. Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Eight-

eenth Century [London: Dent 1960] 63, 73. See also J. McMan-

ners, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France [Oxford:

University Press 1998] 1:354, 356, 420, 509.)

The Masonic revolutionaries set up their schismatic Consti-

tutional Church in 1791 with clergy such as these, the most

prominent among them being Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-

Périgord, the former Bishop of Autun and an advocate of the

revolutionary cause.

Unlike the case of Cardinal Liénart, it is an established fact

that Talleyrand was a Mason — he belonged to the Francs

Chevaliers Lodge in Paris. Moreover, he was probably even an

unbeliever. On 25 January 1791 Mgr. Talleyrand consecrated the

first bishops for the Constitutional Church, and thus all its bish-

ops subsequently derived their consecrations from him.

Nevertheless, when Pope Pius VII signed his 1801 Concordat

with Napoleon, he appointed thirteen bishops from Talleyrand’s

hierarchy to head the restored Catholic dioceses.

Among them was the above-mentioned Mgr. Jean-Baptiste

Saurine, schismatically consecrated “constitutional” bishop of

Landes in August 1791. Of all the Masonic lodges in the world,

the Grand Orient of Paris in which Saurine was a governing

member has always been considered the most powerful and the

most anti-Catholic. Despite this, Pope Pius VII appointed Mgr.

Saurine Bishop of Strasbourg in 1802, a post that this Masonic

bishop retained until his death in 1813.

So in France we find Masonic bishops consecrating other

Masons bishops, whom the pope then appoints to head Catholic

dioceses, where they confirm children, bless holy oils used to





— 6 —

anoint the dying, ordain priests and consecrate other bishops. If

the Liénartists’ principle were indeed correct, the pope would

have permitted none of this, and would have insisted that all

bishops from the Constitutional hierarchy submit to conditional

re-consecration.

Proof that a cleric was affiliated with Masonry, moreover, is

not necessarily proof of atheism or hatred of the Church. Of the

many French clergy involved with Masonry, historian Henri

Daniel-Rops says:

“There is no reason to think all were, or considered themselves

to be, bad Catholics. On the contrary, there must have been a

great many of theNo Support in History. The excuse sometimes given for not

providing such a citation — “it was not widely known what was

going on [regarding Masonic clergy] until the fruits were dis-

played at Vatican II” — is refuted by the history of the Church in

France, where many clergymen were Masons. In France before

the Revolution:

“One fact is inescapable: the lodges contained a large number

of ecclesiastics... At Caudebec fifteen out of eighty members of

the lodge were priests; at Sens, twenty-five out of fifty. Canons

and parish priests sat in the Venerable Assembly, while the Cis-

tercians of Clairvaux had a Lodge within the very walls of their

monastery! Saurine, a future bishop of Strasbourg under Napo-

leon, was a governing member of the Grand Orient. We cannot

be far from the truth in suggesting that towards the year 1789 a

quarter of French freemasons were churchmen... [In 1789 there

were] seven atheists and three deists out of one hundred and thirty-

five French bishops.” (H. Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Eight-

eenth Century [London: Dent 1960] 63, 73. See also J. McMan-

ners, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France [Oxford:

University Press 1998] 1:354, 356, 420, 509.)

The Masonic revolutionaries set up their schismatic Consti-

tutional Church in 1791 with clergy such as these, the most

prominent among them being Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-

Périgord, the former Bishop of Autun and an advocate of the

revolutionary cause.

Unlike the case of Cardinal Liénart, it is an established fact

that Talleyrand was a Mason — he belonged to the Francs

Chevaliers Lodge in Paris. Moreover, he was probably even an

unbeliever. On 25 January 1791 Mgr. Talleyrand consecrated the

first bishops for the Constitutional Church, and thus all its bish-

ops subsequently derived their consecrations from him.

Nevertheless, when Pope Pius VII signed his 1801 Concordat

with Napoleon, he appointed thirteen bishops from Talleyrand’s

hierarchy to head the restored Catholic dioceses.

Among them was the above-mentioned Mgr. Jean-Baptiste

Saurine, schismatically consecrated “constitutional” bishop of

Landes in August 1791. Of all the Masonic lodges in the world,

the Grand Orient of Paris in which Saurine was a governing

member has always been considered the most powerful and the

most anti-Catholic. Despite this, Pope Pius VII appointed Mgr.

Saurine Bishop of Strasbourg in 1802, a post that this Masonic

bishop retained until his death in 1813.

So in France we find Masonic bishops consecrating other

Masons bishops, whom the pope then appoints to head Catholic

dioceses, where they confirm children, bless holy oils used to





— 6 —

anoint the dying, ordain priests and consecrate other bishops. If

the Liénartists’ principle were indeed correct, the pope would

have permitted none of this, and would have insisted that all

bishops from the Constitutional hierarchy submit to conditional

re-consecration.

Proof that a cleric was affiliated with Masonry, moreover, is

not necessarily proof of atheism or hatred of the Church. Of the

many French clergy involved with Masonry, historian Henri

Daniel-Rops says:

“There is no reason to think all were, or considered themselves

to be, bad Catholics. On the contrary, there must have been a

great many of them who saw no incompatibility between their

faith and their Masonic membership, and who even regarded

Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as a weapon to be employed in the service of re-

ligion. One of these, in Savoy, was Joseph de Maistre, orator of

his lodge at Chambéry; he dreamed of creating within the

bosom of Masonry a secret staff which would have made the

movement a papal army at the service of universal theocracy.”

(Church in the Eighteenth Century, 63.)

Even though the adherence of many French clergy to Ma-

sonry during the revolutionary era was well known, theologians

did not treat their sacraments as “doubtful.”

If Masonic bishops had truly posed a threat to the validity of

the sacraments, one would expect to find theologians, especially

among the French, making this argument, or at least debating

the issue.

But even French theologians and canonists such as Cardinal

Billot (De Ecclesiae Sacramentis [Rome: Gregorian 1931] 1:195–

204), S. Many (Prael. de Sacr. Ordinatione 585-91) and R. Naz (“In-

tention,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canonque [Paris: Letouzey 1953]

5:1462), who otherwise discuss at some length sacramental inten-

tion, have nothing at all to say about “doubtful” sacraments

from Masons.

In his article on Masonry, moreover, Naz’s only comment on

clerics who are members is to note that they incur the penalties of

suspension and loss of office. (“Francmaçonnerie,” 1:897-9) He

says nothing about their membership rendering their sacraments
“doubtfulm who saw no incompatibility between their

faith and their Masonic membership, and who even regarded

Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as a weapon to be employed in the service of re-

ligion. One of these, in Savoy, was Joseph de Maistre, orator of

his lodge at Chambéry; he dreamed of creating within the

bosom of Masonry a secret staff which would have made the

movement a papal army at the service of universal theocracy.”

(Church in the Eighteenth Century, 63.)

Even though the adherence of many French clergy to Ma-

sonry during the revolutionary era was well known, theologians

did not treat their sacraments as “doubtful.”

If Masonic bishops had truly posed a threat to the validity of

the sacraments, one would expect to find theologians, especially

among the French, making this argument, or at least debating

the issue.

But even French theologians and canonists such as Cardinal

Billot (De Ecclesiae Sacramentis [Rome: Gregorian 1931] 1:195–

204), S. Many (Prael. de Sacr. Ordinatione 585-91) and R. Naz (“In-

tention,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canonque [Paris: Letouzey 1953]

5:1462), who otherwise discuss at some length sacramental inten-

tion, have nothing at all to say about “doubtful” sacraments

from Masons.

In his article on Masonry, moreover, Naz’s only comment on

clerics who are members is to note that they incur the penalties of

suspension and loss of office. (“Francmaçonnerie,” 1:897-9) He

says nothing about their membership rendering their sacraments
“doubtfulion,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canonque [Paris: Letouzey 1953]
5:1462), who otherwise discuss at some length sacramental inten-
tion, have nothing at all to say about “doubtful” sacraments
from Masons.
In his article on Masonry, moreover, Naz’s only comment on
clerics who are members is to note that they incur the penalties of
suspension and loss of office. (“Francmaçonnerie,” 1:897-9) He
says nothing about their membership rendering their sacraments
“doubtfulNo Support in History. The excuse sometimes given for not

providing such a citation — “it was not widely known what was

going on [regarding Masonic clergy] until the fruits were dis-

played at Vatican II” — is refuted by the history of the Church in

France, where many clergymen were Masons. In France before

the Revolution:

“One fact is inescapable: the lodges contained a large number

of ecclesiastics... At Caudebec fifteen out of eighty members of

the lodge were priests; at Sens, twenty-five out of fifty. Canons

and parish priests sat in the Venerable Assembly, while the Cis-

tercians of Clairvaux had a Lodge within the very walls of their

monastery! Saurine, a future bishop of Strasbourg under Napo-

leon, was a governing member of the Grand Orient. We cannot

be far from the truth in suggesting that towards the year 1789 a

quarter of French freemasons were churchmen... [In 1789 there

were] seven atheists and three deists out of one hundred and thirty-

five French bishops.” (H. Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Eight-

eenth Century [London: Dent 1960] 63, 73. See also J. McMan-

ners, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France [Oxford:

University Press 1998] 1:354, 356, 420, 509.)

The Masonic revolutionaries set up their schismatic Consti-

tutional Church in 1791 with clergy such as these, the most

prominent among them being Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-

Périgord, the former Bishop of Autun and an advocate of the

revolutionary cause.

Unlike the case of Cardinal Liénart, it is an established fact

that Talleyrand was a Mason — he belonged to the Francs

Chevaliers Lodge in Paris. Moreover, he was probably even an

unbeliever. On 25 January 1791 Mgr. Talleyrand consecrated the

first bishops for the Constitutional Church, and thus all its bish-

ops subsequently derived their consecrations from him.

Nevertheless, when Pope Pius VII signed his 1801 Concordat

with Napoleon, he appointed thirteen bishops from Talleyrand’s

hierarchy to head the restored Catholic dioceses.

Among them was the above-mentioned Mgr. Jean-Baptiste

Saurine, schismatically consecrated “constitutional” bishop of

Landes in August 1791. Of all the Masonic lodges in the world,

the Grand Orient of Paris in which Saurine was a governing

member has always been considered the most powerful and the

most anti-Catholic. Despite this, Pope Pius VII appointed Mgr.

Saurine Bishop of Strasbourg in 1802, a post that this Masonic

bishop retained until his death in 1813.

So in France we find Masonic bishops consecrating other

Masons bishops, whom the pope then appoints to head Catholic

dioceses, where they confirm children, bless holy oils used to





— 6 —

anoint the dying, ordain priests and consecrate other bishops. If

the Liénartists’ principle were indeed correct, the pope would

have permitted none of this, and would have insisted that all

bishops from the Constitutional hierarchy submit to conditional

re-consecration.

Proof that a cleric was affiliated with Masonry, moreover, is

not necessarily proof of atheism or hatred of the Church. Of the

many French clergy involved with Masonry, historian Henri

Daniel-Rops says:

“There is no reason to think all were, or considered themselves

to be, bad Catholics. On the contrary, there must have been a

great many of them who saw no incompatibility between their

faith and their Masonic membership, and who even regarded

Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as a weapon to be employed in the service of re-

ligion. One of these, in Savoy, was Joseph de Maistre, orator of

his lodge at Chambéry; he dreamed of creating within the

bosom of Masonry a secret staff which would have made the

movement a papal army at the service of universal theocracy.”

(Church in the Eighteenth Century, 63.)

Even though the adherence of many French clergy to Ma-

sonry during the revolutionary era was well known, theologians

did not treat their sacraments as “doubtful.”

If Masonic bishops had truly posed a threat to the validity of

the sacraments, one would expect to find theologians, especially

among the French, making this argument, or at least debating

the issue.

But even French theologians and canonists such as Cardinal

Billot (De Ecclesiae Sacramentis [Rome: Gregorian 1931] 1:195–

204), S. Many (Prael. de Sacr. Ordinatione 585-91) and R. Naz (“In-

tention,” Dictionnaire de Droit Canonque [Paris: Letouzey 1953]

5:1462), who otherwise discuss at some length sacramental inten-

tion, have nothing at all to say about “doubtful” sacraments

from Masons.

In his article on Masonry, moreover, Naz’s only comment on

clerics who are members is to note that they incur the penalties of

suspension and loss of office. (“Francmaçonnerie,” 1:897-9) He

says nothing about their membership rendering their sacraments
“doubtful

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Yeti on February 18, 2023, 12:40:02 PM

Lastly, if we could consider the sacraments of freemasons to be doubtful, that would call into question most of the sacraments performed in France and the United States for the last couple of centuries:

Quote

Absurd Consequences. The absurdity of the Liénartists’
principle is further demonstrated by applying it to (a) the hierar-
chy of the United States, where it would render doubtful forty
episcopal consecrations performed between 1896 and 1944, and
to (b) the lower clergy in France, where it would render doubtful
all baptisms performed since the 18th century.

(a) The episcopal consecrations in the United States are those
derived from Mariano Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro (1843–
1913), Pope Leo XII’s Secretary of State. After Rampolla died it is
said that among his personal effects was found proof he be-
longed to a luciferian Masonic sect called the Ordo Templi Orien-
talis (associated with the Satanist Alistair Crowley) and fre-
quented a Masonic lodge in Einsiedeln, Switzerland, where he
took his vacations.
Forty American bishops consecrated between 1896 and 1944
derived their consecrations from Rampolla, via either Mgr. Mar-
tinelli (the Apostolic Delegate) or Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val,
both of whom Rampolla consecrated bishops. (See Jesse W. Lon-
sway, The Episcopal Lineage of the Hierarchy in the United States:
1790–1948, plate E.)
If the Liénartists’ principle were true, all these bishops
would have to be considered “doubtful,” because the precise role
of assistant bishops at an episcopal consecration as true “co-
consecrators” was not clearly defined until 1944.
(b) I have shown that Masonry was widespread among
French clergy in the late 18 th century. If the principle “Masonic
affiliation = doubtful sacraments” were indeed true, it would
apply to sacraments conferred by priests as well. This would ren-
der “doubtful” all baptisms conferred in France since the 18th century.
After all, who knows which French priests were “secret Masons”
and which were not?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:19:09 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 18, 2023, 11:20:18 AM

No, a lack of intention also invalidates, the same as a contrary intention.  But a habitual intention to do what the Church does suffices.  So, for instance, a priest does not have to think during each Mass, "I intend to consecrate.  I intend to consecrate."  But the priest who just offers Mass without explicitly forming the intention nevertheless has a habitual/virtual intention to do what the Church does.  He wouldn't be going out there each day to offer Mass except that he's intending to do this Mass that the Church does.

No, nobody has to say any specific words in his heart, nor any words or explicit thoughts for that matter.  That's a total misreading of it.  All it means is that if someone has a contrary internal intention against DOing what the Church DOES, then it would invalidate the Sacrament.  It doesn't have to be "words" in one's heart of any kind, but that's just an example to illustrate the concept.

What's lost on the brain of "De Lugo" is that it's about intending to DO what the Church DOES, and not intending what the Church INTENDS.

You needn't intend what the Church intends but simply to do what the Church does.  This is why an atheist can baptize, as all theologians hold.  He simply intends to perform the rite.  He could be thinking the entire time that it's a bunch of nonsense and has no intention of putting the "soul" (that he doesn't even believe him) into a state of grace or having their sins forgiven and receiving the Sacramental character.  He doesn't have to intend any of what the Church intends by the Sacrament.  He just has to intend to DO what the Church DOES, i.e. "I intend to do this thing that Catholics/Christians do."  That's it, and this suffices for validity.

Same thing holds of the Masonic +Lienart.  Like the atheist in the above example, if he puts on his vestments and performs the Rite of the Catholic Church to ordain a priest, he intends to DO what the Church DOES, whether he believes in a priesthood or not, whether he intends that the man should become a priest or not ... or whether he has a positive CONTRARY intention.

Similarly, we say that bread is required for valid Mass / consecration.  It doesn't matter if there's simply NO bread or if someone tries to use a fudge brownie.  Similarly, it doesn't matter whether the intention is missing or if there's a contrary intention.  It's invalid either way.  Something is just as invalid by mere absence of a requirement as if someone tried to substitute a contrary element.

+Lienart could sit there gritting his teeth repeating to himself over and over again, "I don't intend for this man to become a priest.  I don't intend for this man to become a priest." but it matters  nothing.  +Lienart would have been intending to perform the Catholic Rite of Ordination, just as that atheist baptizing, and it would be valid on that account.

Scenarios where the internal intention do DO what the Church does would be lacking include things like ...

1) minister not of sound mind (insane, half asleep, etc.)
2) minister just playing (young Athanasius story) ... where they're not intending to actually DO what the Church does but just to imitate it in play
3) minister doing it to mock the Sacrament (two atheists fooling around and mocking the Sacrament while pouring water on each other and saying the words)

But eterior mocking doesn't necessarily invalidate either.  You could have that aforementioned atheist performing the Baptism, making faces and comments and eye rolls the entire time, or even preface it with, "What a bunch of nonsense, but here goes ... I baptize you, etc. ..."

Not intending the Saramental effect, however, does not invalidate the Sacrament.

This is very clear.  So often various individuals pounce on what they assume to be the true meaning of something without actually understanding it.

M. Ladislaus-

Hello M. Ladislaus, I ask you for the 8th time:

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

If after two days and 8 attempts to elicit a response from you to a very simple question, you still refuse to answer, I consider you have conceded the point.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Yeti on February 18, 2023, 01:31:37 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:19:09 PM

M. Ladislaus-

Hello M. Ladislaus, I ask you for the 8th time:

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

If after two days and 8 attempts to elicit a response from you to a very simple question, you still refuse to answer, I consider you have conceded the point.

.

No, you have not validly confected a sacrament.

However, people are required to consider that you did in fact validly confect the sacrament since a sacrament must be considered valid until the contrary is proven, if the rite is performed correctly.

By applying this principle to the sacraments conferred by Cardinal Lienart, we must consider his sacraments valid since he performed the rite correctly. You are violating this principle by casting doubt on sacraments that must be considered valid according to Catholic sacramental theology.

All of these ideas are pretty simple and I'm not clear what the problem is here.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:36:15 PM

So far, the manuals of De Salvo, Tanqueray, Hunter, Pohle-Preuss, the anathema of Pope Alexander VIII, and the Council of Trent all stand against the condemned neo-Catharinusian "exterior intention" argument of M. Ladislaus and his fellow Jansenists.

Here we add a 5th manual condemning the position of Ladislaus/Catharinus: 

MSGR. J.M. HERVÉ, S. Th. Dr.: THEOLOGIA DOGMATICA. VOL. III. Part 4: De Sacramentis in genere Chapter IV: De ministro sacramentorum.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-intention-required-in-the-minister-of-the-sacraments-10370 

473. Errors and Opinions.
a) Errors: According to the Protestants, the sacraments are nothing but signs for arousing or increasing the faith of those who receive them. Consequently, no intention is required for the validity of the sacraments; it suffices that any kind of external rite be performed.

b) Theory of Catharinus: Catharinus[1] teaches that "the material performance of the external rite, when it is performed freely, seriously, and without any jest," suffices for the validity of the sacrament, even if the minister has a contrary interior intention. Some others have welcomed this opinion, particularly some of the Faculty at the University of Paris, although they modify the opinion with the restrictive clause that "an external intention does not suffice unless the external rite, considered along with the circuмstances of place, time, and the state of the minister, seems to those watching to be a sacrament."

[1]. _De_necessaria_intentione_in_perficiendis_sacramentis_. Rome: 1552, p. 205ff; Salmeron, Serry, Drouin, and others believe likewise. Cf. Godefroy, _Dict._theol._, art. "Intention," col. 2273ff; art "Politi," p. 2432-33; Rambaldi, _L'oggetto_dell'intenzione_sacramentale_.... Rome:, 1944; Renwart, _N._R. Theol._," 1955, P. 800-821; 1075-1077.

474. Catholic Doctrine:
1. It has been defined, against heretics, that it is necessary for the validity of the sacrament that there be in the minister the intention *of doing what the Church does*.
2. In order to have this intention, moreover, it is commonly taught that a) it is not necessary that the minister will directly and explicitly to confect the sacrament or to perform the rite as instituted by Christ and productive of grace; b) nor does an external intention suffice, in the sense of Catharinus; c) but it is required, and also sufficient, that there be an internal intention, at least implicit, of performing the rite as it is customarily performed in the true Church, with all that this includes, or is thought, even falsely, to include, or of doing what Christians are accustomed to do through such a rite: for by so doing, the minister makes his own the intention of Christians.

[...]


476. 2º An internal intention is required [Common and certain teaching].
A. This is demonstrated from the sense of the Church:
a) For the validity of the sacraments, the councils require, beyond matter and form, an intention in the minister of doing what the Church does. And indeed the minister certainly has this intention, or an internal intention, as they say, when he immediately, and certainly and seriously intends to perform a true sacrament or immediately and absolutely wills that a sacrament be present.
b) Not otherwise teaches the Council of Trent, saying that there is no absolution, if the confessor lacks the "serious resolve [of the will: "animus"] of truly absolving."[1]
c) Alexander VIII, in the year 1690, condemned the following proposition of Farvacques, among the errors of the Jansenists: "A Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes every external rite and form of baptizing, but within, in his heart, resolves to himself: not to intend what the Church does."[2] Concerning this Benedict XIV said, "It cannot be denied that a grave wound [has been inflicted by this condemnation] on the aforementioned opinion (of Catharinus)."[3] (In practice, he says, the safer theory, that which demands an internal intention, must be followed; if this intention is lacking, therefore, the sacrament must be conditionally renewed in case of necessity; otherwise the Holy See is to be consulted about what to do.)
The RomanMissal implicitly teaches likewise, declaring a consecration ineffectual if the priest, having before himself 11 hosts, intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he intends, "because the intention is required."[4] This intention is certainly secret and internal."


As M. Joe Cupertino pointed out earlier, the position described by M. Ladislaus is exactly the same as that condemned in Catharinus, a Jansenist error, despite his illogical protestations to the contrary, and it is for this reason he is unable to answer my very simple question (asked now 8 times): He wants to say yes, but he knows his answer stands condemned.

It is interesting to also note in passing that the most vehemet defenders of this condemned Jansenist error are also Feeneyites (Ladislaus, Stubborn, Pax Vobis), which is perhaps not surprising, given the harsh perspective they have of God.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:53:53 PM

Quote from: Yeti on February 18, 2023, 01:31:37 PM

.

No, you have not validly confected a sacrament.

However, people are required to consider that you did in fact validly confect the sacrament since a sacrament must be considered valid until the contrary is proven, if the rite is performed correctly.

By applying this principle to the sacraments conferred by Cardinal Lienart, we must consider his sacraments valid since he performed the rite correctly. You are violating this principle by casting doubt on sacraments that must be considered valid according to Catholic sacramental theology.

All of these ideas are pretty simple and I'm not clear what the problem is here.

M. Yeti-

You have not understood me.

That it was I who posted the OP defending the validity of Msgr. Lefebvre's ordination/consecration should be proof of that.

As M. Joe Cupertino explained, on p.2, Ladislaus interjected with a condemned theory of intention, which -exactly like Catharinus and the Jansenists- considered that a mere moral certitude regarding sacramental validity was insufficient, and that merely vesting and saying a rite supplied the requisite intention (condemned extermal intention theory of Catharinus).

Against these errors, I, PV, and Joe Cupertino have amassed 5 manuals and a pope (with the former all pointing to the latter) as condemning M. Ladislaus's position.

Therefore, if you wish to apply my position to the ordination/consecration of Msger Lefebvre, you must conclude the opposite of what you concluded above (i.e., that I am casting doubt on his consecration): That I consider his ordination and consecration morally (but not infallibly) certain.

As every pope and manual which addressed the issue since Alexander VIII will attest, man cannot have more than moral certitude in the validity of any sacrament, by anyone.

Consequently, while I accept and agree with your 1st, 2nd, and final paragraphs, I must reject your 3rd.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 18, 2023, 01:55:44 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:36:15 PM

It is interesting to also note in passing that the most vehemet defenders of this condemned Jansenist error are also Feeneyites (Ladislaus, Stubborn, Pax Vobis), which is perhaps not surprising, given the harsh perspective they have of God.

So is that what this is all about? Feeneyism?

You say they have a harsh perspective of God, but it is not they who have doubts about +ABL's consecration.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:57:50 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 18, 2023, 01:55:44 PM

So is that what this is all about? Feeneyism?

You say they have a harsh perspective of God, but it is not they who have doubts about +ABL's consecration.

Who has doubts about Msgr. Lefebvre's ordination???

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 18, 2023, 01:58:29 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:57:50 PM

Who has doubts about Msgr. Lefebvre's ordination???

Don't you? 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:59:18 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 18, 2023, 01:58:29 PM

Don't you?

Of course not.  Why would I start a thread defending his Orders if I doubted them?  I am morally certain of their validity.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 18, 2023, 02:00:47 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:59:18 PM

Of course not.  Why would I start a thread defending his Orders if I doubted them?  I am morally certain of their validity.

So you are 100% sure that +ABL's consecration was legitimate? Even though he *may* have been consecrated by a Freemason? No doubts whatsoever?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 02:27:55 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 18, 2023, 02:00:47 PM

So you are 100% sure that +ABL's consecration was legitimate? Even though he *may* have been consecrated by a Freemason? No doubts whatsoever?

According to the Church, nobody can be 100% infallibly sure of sacramental validity (of any sacrament, performed by any minister, at any time in the whole history of the Church), because of the possibility of covert defects in form, matter, and/or intention.

The highest level of certitude available in the matter of sacramental validity is moral certitude (i.e., an extremely high probability), and this is what I have.

What this means is that I have no reasonable doubts regarding the validity of Msgr. Lefebvre's Orders, and entertaining any, in the absence of any exterior manifestation of defective intention would be what is called "negative doubt" (basically asking youself "what if" for no reason, which is often a suggestion of the devil), which every moralist says is to be despised.

At no point in this thread have I implied doubt, and it has been to my amazement that anyone would suggest otherwise.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Yeti on February 18, 2023, 02:33:30 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:53:53 PM

M. Yeti-

You have not understood me.

That it was I who posted the OP defending the validity of Msgr. Lefebvre's ordination/consecration should be proof of that.

As M. Joe Cupertino explained, on p.2, Ladislaus interjected with a condemned theory of intention, which -exactly like Catharinus and the Jansenists- considered that a mere moral certitude regarding sacramental validity was insufficient, and that merely vesting and saying a rite supplied the requisite intention (condemned extermal intention theory of Catharinus).

Against these errors, I, PV, and Joe Cupertino have amassed 5 manuals and a pope (with the former all pointing to the latter) as condemning M. Ladislaus's position.

Therefore, if you wish to apply my position to the ordination/consecration of Msger Lefebvre, you must conclude the opposite of what you concluded above (i.e., that I am casting doubt on his consecration): That I consider his ordination and consecration morally (but not infallibly) certain.

As every pope and manual which addressed the issue since Alexander VIII will attest, man cannot have more than moral certitude in the validity of any sacrament, by anyone.

Consequently, while I accept and agree with your 1st, 2nd, and final paragraphs, I must reject your 3rd.

.

I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood your position.

Well, now I really don't understand your position. I think the conversation has become too confusing for me to follow at this point, so I will have to bow out of it ... :laugh1:

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 02:36:50 PM

Quote from: Yeti on February 18, 2023, 02:33:30 PM

.

I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood your position.

Well, now I really don't understand your position. I think the conversation has become too confusing for me to follow at this point, so I will have to bow out of it ... :laugh1:

M. Yeti-

How about this:

If you accept what you have read posted here from Pope Alexander VIII, and the excerpts regarding intention (and the condemnation of the error of the Catharinus and the later Jansenists) taken from the manuals of Herve, Tanqueray, De Salvo, Hunter, and Pohle-Preuss, then we agree.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 18, 2023, 02:44:45 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 02:27:55 PM

According to the Church, nobody can be 100% infallibly sure of sacramental validity (of any sacrament, performed by any minister, at any time in the whole history of the Church), because of the possibility of covert defects in form, matter, and/or intention.

What theologian or Church teaching has ever used the word "infallibility" to describe certainty of holy orders? Or any sacrament?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 02:46:20 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:36:15 PM

So far, the manuals of De Salvo, Tanqueray, Hunter, Pohle-Preuss, the anathema of Pope Alexander VIII, and the Council of Trent all stand against the condemned neo-Catharinusian "exterior intention" argument of M. Ladislaus and his fellow Jansenists.

Here we add a 5th manual condemning the position of Ladislaus/Catharinus:

MSGR. J.M. HERVÉ, S. Th. Dr.: THEOLOGIA DOGMATICA. VOL. III. Part 4: De Sacramentis in genere Chapter IV: De ministro sacramentorum.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-intention-required-in-the-minister-of-the-sacraments-10370

473. Errors and Opinions.
a) Errors: According to the Protestants, the sacraments are nothing but signs for arousing or increasing the faith of those who receive them. Consequently, no intention is required for the validity of the sacraments; it suffices that any kind of external rite be performed.

b) Theory of Catharinus: Catharinus[1] teaches that "the material performance of the external rite, when it is performed freely, seriously, and without any jest," suffices for the validity of the sacrament, even if the minister has a contrary interior intention. Some others have welcomed this opinion, particularly some of the Faculty at the University of Paris, although they modify the opinion with the restrictive clause that "an external intention does not suffice unless the external rite, considered along with the circuмstances of place, time, and the state of the minister, seems to those watching to be a sacrament."

[1]. _De_necessaria_intentione_in_perficiendis_sacramentis_. Rome: 1552, p. 205ff; Salmeron, Serry, Drouin, and others believe likewise. Cf. Godefroy, _Dict._theol._, art. "Intention," col. 2273ff; art "Politi," p. 2432-33; Rambaldi, _L'oggetto_dell'intenzione_sacramentale_.... Rome:, 1944; Renwart, _N._R. Theol._," 1955, P. 800-821; 1075-1077.

474. Catholic Doctrine:
1. It has been defined, against heretics, that it is necessary for the validity of the sacrament that there be in the minister the intention *of doing what the Church does*.
2. In order to have this intention, moreover, it is commonly taught that a) it is not necessary that the minister will directly and explicitly to confect the sacrament or to perform the rite as instituted by Christ and productive of grace; b) nor does an external intention suffice, in the sense of Catharinus; c) but it is required, and also sufficient, that there be an internal intention, at least implicit, of performing the rite as it is customarily performed in the true Church, with all that this includes, or is thought, even falsely, to include, or of doing what Christians are accustomed to do through such a rite: for by so doing, the minister makes his own the intention of Christians.

[...]


476. 2º An internal intention is required [Common and certain teaching].
A. This is demonstrated from the sense of the Church:
a) For the validity of the sacraments, the councils require, beyond matter and form, an intention in the minister of doing what the Church does. And indeed the minister certainly has this intention, or an internal intention, as they say, when he immediately, and certainly and seriously intends to perform a true sacrament or immediately and absolutely wills that a sacrament be present.
b) Not otherwise teaches the Council of Trent, saying that there is no absolution, if the confessor lacks the "serious resolve [of the will: "animus"] of truly absolving."[1]
c) Alexander VIII, in the year 1690, condemned the following proposition of Farvacques, among the errors of the Jansenists: "A Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes every external rite and form of baptizing, but within, in his heart, resolves to himself: not to intend what the Church does."[2] Concerning this Benedict XIV said, "It cannot be denied that a grave wound [has been inflicted by this condemnation] on the aforementioned opinion (of Catharinus)."[3] (In practice, he says, the safer theory, that which demands an internal intention, must be followed; if this intention is lacking, therefore, the sacrament must be conditionally renewed in case of necessity; otherwise the Holy See is to be consulted about what to do.)
The RomanMissal implicitly teaches likewise, declaring a consecration ineffectual if the priest, having before himself 11 hosts, intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he intends, "because the intention is required."[4] This intention is certainly secret and internal."


As M. Joe Cupertino pointed out earlier, the position described by M. Ladislaus is exactly the same as that condemned in Catharinus, a Jansenist error, despite his illogical protestations to the contrary, and it is for this reason he is unable to answer my very simple question (asked now 8 times): He wants to say yes, but he knows his answer stands condemned.

It is interesting to also note in passing that the most vehemet defenders of this condemned Jansenist error are also Feeneyites (Ladislaus, Stubborn, Pax Vobis), which is perhaps not surprising, given the harsh perspective they have of God.

More from Herve:


477. It matters little whether the minister also acts seriously in those accompanying acts from which his will to act as a minister of Christ can be inferred. For the circuмstances themselves: 1. cannot make a rite in itself merely natural into a rite of the kind which Christ instituted; 2. cannot make a priest really act as a minister of Christ, if internally he does not wish to do so. It remains therefore that an internal intention is required in the minister.

488. Objection 1º: The sacraments produce grace "ex opere operato" (by the deed having been done). Ergo, whenever the external rite is seriously performed, grace necessarily follows, regardless of whether the minister has a contrary internal intention, just as seed sown in the earth yields fruit and as fire burns a rope, regardless of what the farmer or the one setting the fire internally wish.

R. 1. The sacraments are worked "ex opere operato" whenever they are and are performed according to the institution of Christ; but that they may be and may formally be performed according to the institution of Christ, they depend on the internal intention of the minister confecting and administering them.[1] -- 2. Therefore the comparison with the causes cited is not valid, for these causes possess in themselves the power of acting, and immediately produce their effect and are applied, independently of any intention. If this comparison were valid, the external rite, even when accomplished merely to mimic the sacrament, would in fact be a sacrament, which is the heresy of Luther.[2]
[1]. 3, q. 64, a. 8, ad 1. [2]. Cf. Franzelin, th. 17; Billuart, diss. 5, a. 7, prob. 6º.

479. Objection 2º: It is necessary that one can be certain of the validity of the sacraments: for otherwise the salvation of the faithful, and indeed perhaps the ecclesiastical hierarchy itself, are imperiled. But in fact, unless an external intention suffices, this certitude concerning the validity of the sacraments cannot be had, for an internal intention is known only to God. Therefore an internal intention is not required.

R. Concerning the validity of the sacraments one can have moral certitude, which suffices for acting prudently, and for dispelling anxieties of spirit. Thus Leo XIII: "When someone seriously and according to the ritual adheres to the due matter and form for confecting and conferring a sacrament, from this fact [considered according to the common manner in which men act] it may be inferred that he undoubtedly intends (with an internal intention) to do what the Church does."[1] For indeed, if there be any such, they are extremely rarely found, who have such malice that while they perform the sacrament with serious exterior, they internally withhold the intention; and in such a case, the truth of the opinion of Catharinus would profit little, since a minister as perverse as this could most likely secretly falsify the matter and form of the sacrament.
But in fact Christ provided thus far for the hierarchy, promising the perpetual assistance of the Holy Spirit, lest the Church ever fail.

IN PRACTICE: Whatever one thinks in theory about the opinion of Catharinus, it is wholly illicit to follow it, since where the validity of the sacraments is concerned, the safer portion must always be chosen.[2].

[1]. Ep. _Apostolicae_curae_, 13 Sept. 1896; cf. 3, q.64, a.8, ad 2. [2]. D. 1151

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 03:08:37 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 18, 2023, 02:44:45 PM

What theologian or Church teaching has ever used the word "infallibility" to describe certainty of holy orders? Or any sacrament?

None that I am aware of.  Why do you ask?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 18, 2023, 03:40:33 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 03:08:37 PM

None that I am aware of.  Why do you ask?

Because you said that no one can be 100% infallibly sure of sacramental validity. I wasn't asking about infallibility previously. Maybe you just used the term to prove a point, but the Church is precise in her language.

I'm 100% sure that +ABL's consecration is valid. Notice that I'm not saying anything about infallibility. So does that mean that I'm going against Church teaching in your opinion? 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 04:01:38 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 18, 2023, 03:40:33 PM

Because you said that no one can be 100% infallibly sure of sacramental validity. I wasn't asking about infallibility previously. Maybe you just used the term to prove a point, but the Church is precise in her language.

I'm 100% sure that +ABL's consecration is valid. Notice that I'm not saying anything about infallibility. So does that mean that I'm going against Church teaching in your opinion?

I was discussing and distinguishing between moral and infallible certitude, because some seemed to think that since I insisted that only moral certitude was available regarding sacramental validity (which is a lesser threshold than infallible certitude), I was thereby calling Msgr. Lefebvre's Orders into question.

Nothing could be further from the case. 

As regards your own subjective certitude, I am aware of no cause which should disturb it. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 18, 2023, 04:08:54 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 04:01:38 PM

I was discussing and distinguishing between moral and infallible certitude, because some seemed to think that since I insisted that only moral certitude was available regarding sacramental validity (which is a lesser threshold than infallible certitude), I was thereby calling Msgr. Lefebvre's Orders into question.

Nothing could be further from the case. 

As regards your own subjective certitude, I am aware of no cause which should disturb it.

But I asked you previously if the Church has used the term 'infallible' in regards to the validity of the sacraments, and you said that you were not aware of any use of it. But you are saying now that you were distinguishing between moral and infallible certitude. So where do you get the idea that infallibility is attached to the certitude of the validity of the sacraments? Unless you think that it an error to use the term?

Surely the Church would have distinguished between the two if she were concerned about it?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on February 18, 2023, 04:13:07 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 18, 2023, 03:40:33 PM

Because you said that no one can be 100% infallibly sure of sacramental validity. I wasn't asking about infallibility previously. Maybe you just used the term to prove a point, but the Church is precise in her language.

I'm 100% sure that +ABL's consecration is valid. Notice that I'm not saying anything about infallibility. So does that mean that I'm going against Church teaching in your opinion?

I think it would be better to state that we must assume and give our 100% assent that Archbishop Lefebvre’s orders are valid, in the absence of a *positive* doubt. There is no *positive* doubt that Cardinal Lienart, whether he was a freemason or not, preformed the ordination and consecration of Archbishop Lefebvre validly. We can never be 100% sure that any sacrament is valid because there can always be a negative doubt.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 04:19:24 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 18, 2023, 04:08:54 PM

But I asked you previously if the Church has used the term 'infallible' in regards to the validity of the sacraments, and you said that you were not aware of any use of it. But you are saying now that you were distinguishing between moral and infallible certitude. So where do you get the idea that infallibility is attached to the certitude of the validity of the sacraments? Unless you think that it an error to use the term?

It isn't.  Only moral certitude is.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 18, 2023, 04:19:43 PM

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 18, 2023, 04:13:07 PM

I think it would be better to state that we must assume and give our 100% assent that Archbishop Lefebvre’s orders are valid, in the absence of a *positive* doubt. There is no *positive* doubt that Cardinal Lienart, whether he was a freemason or not, preformed the ordination and consecration of Archbishop Lefebvre validly. We can never be 100% positive that any sacrament is valid because there can always be a negative doubt.

Okay, so that means that we are to always have negative doubt as to the validity of all the sacraments, whether it be baptism, Holy Eucharist, extreme unction, marriage, etc.?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 18, 2023, 04:21:00 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 04:19:24 PM

It isn't.  Only moral certitude is.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 04:21:12 PM

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 18, 2023, 04:13:07 PM

I think it would be better to state that we must assume and give our 100% assent that Archbishop Lefebvre’s orders are valid, in the absence of a *positive* doubt. There is no *positive* doubt that Cardinal Lienart, whether he was a freemason or not, preformed the ordination and consecration of Archbishop Lefebvre validly. We can never be 100% sure that any sacrament is valid because there can always be a negative doubt.

I have been trying to make this clear since the OP.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 04:22:45 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 18, 2023, 04:21:00 PM

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

I don't believe any further elaborations will help you.  

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 18, 2023, 04:23:30 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 04:22:45 PM

I don't believe any further elaborations will help you. 

Well, since you make up your own theology, that's probably true. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on February 18, 2023, 04:25:09 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 18, 2023, 04:19:43 PM

Okay, so that means that we are to always have negative doubt as to the validity of all the sacraments, whether it be baptism, Holy Eucharist, Extreme unction, marriage, etc.?

A negative doubt doesn’t matter in the least with regards to validity. Nearly all negative doubts are extremely minimal and can be a source of anxiety to the scrupulous.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 18, 2023, 04:27:33 PM

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 18, 2023, 04:25:09 PM

A negative doubt doesn’t matter in the least with regards to validity. Nearly all negative doubts are extremely minimal and can be a source of anxiety to the scrupulous.

Then what was the point of this thread? 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 04:28:30 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 18, 2023, 04:23:30 PM

Well, since you make up your own theology, that's probably true.

Please cite something I've made up.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 18, 2023, 04:29:07 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 04:28:30 PM

Please cite something I've made up.

All of this thread. It's bizarre. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 04:31:04 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 18, 2023, 04:29:07 PM

All of this thread.

So you reject everything I've written in this thread?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Stubborn on February 19, 2023, 10:18:46 AM

Quote from: Meg on February 18, 2023, 04:29:07 PM

All of this thread. It's bizarre.

This.
There's no other way to put it.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 19, 2023, 07:01:40 PM

Quote from: Stubborn on February 19, 2023, 10:18:46 AM

This.
There's no other way to put it.

I'm with you on this, Stubborn and Meg, that there are many bizarre and difficult to comprehend posts in this thread.

The OP is excellent, an extremely well written article, very interesting and instructive, and I thank de Lugo for bringing it to our attention.

As I previously posted, this is a real issue, and it is good to have clarity on it.
When my family first started attending SSPX Masses, Mel Gibson's father, Hutton, who had a periodical called 'The War is Now', ran these same false arguments against ABL and the SSPX which resulted in our staying away from Mass for several months until my parents researched the subject and concluded, thank God, in the same lines as this article. Who knows where I might be now if they hadn't...

If you want clarity, read the original post.

If you want to understand how Original Sin has affected our poor human nature, then keep reading after the OP...

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 19, 2023, 07:24:14 PM

Bravo de Lugo, for all your posts on the subject of proper ministerial intention.

Who would have thought CI trads would find it necessary to resurrect a condemned Jansenist error in order to achieve certitude in the orders of +Lefebvre?!

It boggles the mind.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2023, 11:28:06 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 19, 2023, 07:24:14 PM

Bravo de Lugo, for all your posts on the subject of proper ministerial intention.

Who would have thought CI trads would find it necessary to resurrect a condemned Jansenist error in order to achieve certitude in the orders of +Lefebvre?!

It boggles the mind.

Yet another intellectually challenged individual who doesn't actually understand the Holy Office ruling.  Of course, coming from a clown who believes that Ecuмenical Councils can lead the entire Church into an error, a defense of the Holy Office as if it were infallible seems rather ironic.

But you've never been one to understand the slightest subtleties of thought ... nor even the most straightforward distinction.  In fact, the very notion of a distinction is completely alien to you.

Distinguishing between internally intending to do what the Church does and internally intending what the Church intends (the Sacramental effect) evidently exceeds your intellectual capacity.

With De Lugo's (and evidently) your own distortion of the Holy Office ruling, there cannot in fact be any even-moral certitude regarding the validity of the +Lefebvre line, but a mere presumption only.  There's enough evidence regarding +Lienart having been a Mason to constitute positive doubt regarding the orders conferred by Archbishop Lefebvre ... if you accept your warped reading of the Holy Office ruling.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: BonifaceSVIII on February 19, 2023, 11:42:20 PM

Since apparently the consensus of modern theologians is that explicit internal intention to do what the church intends is necessary for valid sacraments, I’ll go one further and say that the Holy Office under Alexander VIII is wrong and that Catharinus is correct, as well as the Fathers of the Church and St Thomas Aquinas.

As to the crusade to defend the orders of Abp. Lefebvre, this thread can have done nothing but undermine the confidence-even the moral certitude or presumption of validity-in and of those Holy Orders. 

Theologians are not the Magisterium; the consensus of theologians is not infallible, especially not modern theologians who conclude contrarily to the consensus of the Fathers and all of Tradition up to Trent.

Catharinus was a council father at Trent and published his book during Trent, and helped write the anathemas of Trent; he was not condemned and neither were his opinions.

Abp Lefebvre was validly ordained a Priest and Consecrated a Bishop, not because I am ordered merely to presume as much by the fact of the externals-form, matter, time, place, absence of contrary statements; but because all such are thoroughly consistent evidence of having done what the church does makes for a certitude of validity.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2023, 11:44:12 PM

As per St. Thomas, which evidently is not understood by some of the posters here, as long as the individual intends to perform the ministry of the Church, i.e. to act as a minister of the Church, the Church's intention suffices, and the necessary intention of the individual consists only in intending to do what the Church does, i.e. to perform this action of the Church.

Quote

"[T]he minister of the sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament.  Since the minister works instrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his own, but by God’s power. Now, just as charity belongs to a man’s own power, so also does faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does not require that the minister should have charity, and even sinners can confer the sacraments, so neither is it necessary that he should have faith, and even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament, providing that the other essentials be there… Even if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believes that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Church intends to confer a sacra­ment by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices…

+Lienart knew full well that he was acting as a minister of the Church and performing a rite intended to turn men into priests, and he intended to perform this rite of the Church.  That is valid.  End of story.  He could intend the entire time that there should be no Sacramental effect, i.e. that the rite not have the effect intended by the Church, but it would have mattered nothing.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 19, 2023, 11:50:50 PM

Quote from: BonifaceSVIII on February 19, 2023, 11:42:20 PM

Since apparently the consensus of modern theologians is that explicit internal intention to do what the church intends is necessary for valid sacraments, I’ll go one further and say that the Holy Office under Alexander VIII is wrong and that Catharinus is correct, as well as the Fathers of the Church and St Thomas Aquinas.

I don't agree that the Holy Office is wrong, nor that Catharinus was correct.  According to the Catharinus view, the young Athanasius simply playing "Baptism" with a friend would have validly baptized, and the two atheists goofing around and mocking each other by pouring the water and saying the essential words, they too would validly confer the Sacrament.  In neither of those two cases, however, were there an intention to DO what the Church DOES, i.e. they did not intend to be acting as ministers of the Church and to perform this function of the Church.  These two examples suffices to illustrate the difference between external intention, i.e. the intention to say the words and pour the water, and the internal intention to do what the Church does, i.e. to serve as a minister in performing the Sacrament.  But when a priest shows up for his assigned 9:00 AM Mass, he knows full well that he's carrying out this ministry of the Church and he intends to perform this ministry, and whether he lacks the requisite intention either due to unbelief or due to a contrary will (where he wills that it not have the effect intended by the Church), none of that matters.  Of course, if no one is within earshot, he could always deliberately botch the words of consecration to render the Mass invalid, but that's a separate issue.  +Lienart could have tried the same stung, but there are always numerous MCs and other ministers in attendance that would likely have caught that.

Your formulation of "explicit internal intention to do what the Church intends" is inaccurate.  Otherwise, no unbeliever could validly baptized, but that is explicitly rejected by St. Thomas in the passage I just cited.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: BonifaceSVIII on February 19, 2023, 11:58:11 PM

The Holy Office “condemned” the proposition that a baptism is valid if the minister had a secret internal intention not to do it, while all the externals appear correct.
I reject this decision.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: BonifaceSVIII on February 20, 2023, 12:02:02 AM

It’s not my formulation. It’s the modern consensus. The catholic encyclopedia of 1913 article on Intention makes it clear. 
It’s a complete, apparent, repudiation of the notion that even a pagan or jew could confect valid baptism.
The article would never admit as much however.
How can a pagan or Jew or heretic validly baptize if an internal intention to do what the Church actually intends be required for validity?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 01:03:32 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 19, 2023, 11:28:06 PM

Yet another intellectually challenged individual who doesn't actually understand the Holy Office ruling.  Of course, coming from a clown who believes that Ecuмenical Councils can lead the entire Church into an error, a defense of the Holy Office as if it were infallible seems rather ironic.

But you've never been one to understand the slightest subtleties of thought ... nor even the most straightforward distinction.  In fact, the very notion of a distinction is completely alien to you.

Distinguishing between internally intending to do what the Church does and internally intending what the Church intends (the Sacramental effect) evidently exceeds your intellectual capacity.

With De Lugo's (and evidently) your own distortion of the Holy Office ruling, there cannot in fact be any even-moral certitude regarding the validity of the +Lefebvre line, but a mere presumption only.  There's enough evidence regarding +Lienart having been a Mason to constitute positive doubt regarding the orders conferred by Archbishop Lefebvre ... if you accept your warped reading of the Holy Office ruling.

From flat earth, to Feeneyite, to Jansenism.

Better to become a heretic than to concede an error.

Your only hope is that your insanity excuses your errors.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 01:05:27 AM

Quote from: BonifaceSVIII on February 19, 2023, 11:42:20 PM

Since apparently the consensus of modern theologians is that explicit internal intention to do what the church intends is necessary for valid sacraments, I’ll go one further and say that the Holy Office under Alexander VIII is wrong and that Catharinus is correct, as well as the Fathers of the Church and St Thomas Aquinas.

As to the crusade to defend the orders of Abp. Lefebvre, this thread can have done nothing but undermine the confidence-even the moral certitude or presumption of validity-in and of those Holy Orders.

Theologians are not the Magisterium; the consensus of theologians is not infallible, especially not modern theologians who conclude contrarily to the consensus of the Fathers and all of Tradition up to Trent.

Catharinus was a council father at Trent and published his book during Trent, and helped write the anathemas of Trent; he was not condemned and neither were his opinions.

Abp Lefebvre was validly ordained a Priest and Consecrated a Bishop, not because I am ordered merely to presume as much by the fact of the externals-form, matter, time, place, absence of contrary statements; but because all such are thoroughly consistent evidence of having done what the church does makes for a certitude of validity.

Yes, the Pope erred, the theologians mistakenly backed him, and the Jansenists are correct.

:facepalm:

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 01:06:39 AM

Quote from: BonifaceSVIII on February 19, 2023, 11:58:11 PM

The Holy Office “condemned” the proposition that a baptism is valid if the minister had a secret internal intention not to do it, while all the externals appear correct.
I reject this decision.

So does Loudestmouth.  He just doesn’t have the guts to say it.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 01:12:01 AM

Quote from: BonifaceSVIII on February 20, 2023, 12:02:02 AM

It’s not my formulation. It’s the modern consensus. The catholic encyclopedia of 1913 article on Intention makes it clear.
It’s a complete, apparent, repudiation of the notion that even a pagan or Jєω could confect valid baptism.
The article would never admit as much however.
How can a pagan or Jєω or heretic validly baptize if an internal intention to do what the Church actually intends be required for validity?

What the Church does is act as a minister of Christ to confect a sacrament.

Thats exactly what a heretic thinks himself to do.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 20, 2023, 04:07:52 AM

Have a blessed Lent, everyone.
I wish you all the grace of many valid sacraments from true ministers who intend to do what the Church does!
Many souls go to Hell because they have no one to pray and make sacrifices for them.
Let us do something to remedy that!

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Stubborn on February 20, 2023, 04:55:42 AM

Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 19, 2023, 07:01:40 PM

I'm with you on this, Stubborn and Meg, that there are many bizarre and difficult to comprehend posts in this thread.

The OP is excellent, an extremely well written article, very interesting and instructive, and I thank de Lugo for bringing it to our attention.

I simply stick universally with the Church initially presuming the sacrament is valid unless there is a very good reason to presume otherwise. That's what the Church does, that's what we Catholics do.

If we concern ourselves at all with the priest actually doing what the Church does, but in his mind or heart secretly does not intend to do what the Church does - well, I'm lost right there because then, as Gladius said earlier, the Church cannot presume validity, rather, we can only have at best, doubt, which is ridiculous because there is no way we can know the interior thoughts of anyone. Which is what makes this whole exercise bizarre.

As such, Pope Alexander VIII can easily (must?) be understood literally, i.e. that the condemnation is directed only to the minister, not the recipient, and only as regards the sacrament of baptism, not any of the other sacraments, as de Lugo posted:

Quote

This is condemned:

“A Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes every external rite and form of baptizing, but within in his heart, resolves to himself not to intend what the Church does.” - CONDEMNED,  (Pope Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy Office, December 7, 1690, Errors of the Jansenists, Denz., 1318).

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Stubborn on February 20, 2023, 05:02:44 AM

Quote from: BonifaceSVIII on February 19, 2023, 11:58:11 PM

The Holy Office “condemned” the proposition that a baptism is valid if the minister had a secret internal intention not to do it, while all the externals appear correct.
I reject this decision.

We cannot reject this condemnation. We may not fully understand it, which only means that we have to look into it more in order to understand it, but we cannot reject it. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 05:56:43 AM

Loudestmouth-

Please explain how a minister who forms a covert contrary intention NOT to do what the Church does, has somehow nevertheless intended to do what the Church does.

:facepalm:

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 06:22:26 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 19, 2023, 11:50:50 PM

But when a priest shows up for his assigned 9:00 AM Mass, he knows full well that he's carrying out this ministry of the Church and he intends to perform this ministry, and whether he lacks the requisite intention either due to unbelief or due to a contrary will (where he wills that it not have the effect intended by the Church), none of that matters. 

Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 06:37:56 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 19, 2023, 11:50:50 PM

I don't agree that the Holy Office is wrong, nor that Catharinus was correct.  According to the Catharinus view, the young Athanasius simply playing "Baptism" with a friend would have validly baptized, and the two atheists goofing around and mocking each other by pouring the water and saying the essential words, they too would validly confer the Sacrament.  In neither of those two cases, however, were there an intention to DO what the Church DOES, i.e. they did not intend to be acting as ministers of the Church and to perform this function of the Church.  These two examples suffices to illustrate the difference between external intention, i.e. the intention to say the words and pour the water, and the internal intention to do what the Church does, i.e. to serve as a minister in performing the Sacrament.  But when a priest shows up for his assigned 9:00 AM Mass, he knows full well that he's carrying out this ministry of the Church and he intends to perform this ministry, and whether he lacks the requisite intention either due to unbelief or due to a contrary will (where he wills that it not have the effect intended by the Church), none of that matters.  Of course, if no one is within earshot, he could always deliberately botch the words of consecration to render the Mass invalid, but that's a separate issue.  +Lienart could have tried the same stung, but there are always numerous MCs and other ministers in attendance that would likely have caught that.

Your formulation of "explicit internal intention to do what the Church intends" is inaccurate.  Otherwise, no unbeliever could validly baptized, but that is explicitly rejected by St. Thomas in the passage I just cited.

Very good explanation. 

However, at the risk of injecting more muddle into this thread, I cannot believe but that God would confer grace based upon the faith of the recipient who came empty handed before the Lord with penitent heart and love of Christ to receive a sacrament despite the priest or minister deliberately botching the words or doing something sub silentio to "invalidate" it. 

Whenever these debates on some aspect of the sacraments arises I can't help but think of Our Lord's words (Mark 2) regarding the holy sacrament of the Sabbath:

Quote

[27] (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=48&ch=2&l=27-#x) And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.
Et dicebat eis : Sabbatum propter hominem factum est, et non homo propter sabbatum.

[28] (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=48&ch=2&l=28-#x) Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also.
Itaque Dominus est Filius hominis, etiam sabbati.

Douay-Rheims Bible, Mark Chapter 2 (drbo.org) (https://drbo.org/drl/chapter/48002.htm)

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 06:58:54 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:36:15 PM

So far, the manuals of De Salvo, Tanqueray, Hunter, Pohle-Preuss, the anathema of Pope Alexander VIII, and the Council of Trent all stand against the condemned neo-Catharinusian "exterior intention" argument of M. Ladislaus and his fellow Jansenists.

Here we add a 5th manual condemning the position of Ladislaus/Catharinus:

MSGR. J.M. HERVÉ, S. Th. Dr.: THEOLOGIA DOGMATICA. VOL. III. Part 4: De Sacramentis in genere Chapter IV: De ministro sacramentorum.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-intention-required-in-the-minister-of-the-sacraments-10370

473. Errors and Opinions.
a) Errors: According to the Protestants, the sacraments are nothing but signs for arousing or increasing the faith of those who receive them. Consequently, no intention is required for the validity of the sacraments; it suffices that any kind of external rite be performed.

b) Theory of Catharinus: Catharinus[1] teaches that "the material performance of the external rite, when it is performed freely, seriously, and without any jest," suffices for the validity of the sacrament, even if the minister has a contrary interior intention. Some others have welcomed this opinion, particularly some of the Faculty at the University of Paris, although they modify the opinion with the restrictive clause that "an external intention does not suffice unless the external rite, considered along with the circuмstances of place, time, and the state of the minister, seems to those watching to be a sacrament."

[1]. _De_necessaria_intentione_in_perficiendis_sacramentis_. Rome: 1552, p. 205ff; Salmeron, Serry, Drouin, and others believe likewise. Cf. Godefroy, _Dict._theol._, art. "Intention," col. 2273ff; art "Politi," p. 2432-33; Rambaldi, _L'oggetto_dell'intenzione_sacramentale_.... Rome:, 1944; Renwart, _N._R. Theol._," 1955, P. 800-821; 1075-1077.

474. Catholic Doctrine:
1. It has been defined, against heretics, that it is necessary for the validity of the sacrament that there be in the minister the intention *of doing what the Church does*.
2. In order to have this intention, moreover, it is commonly taught that a) it is not necessary that the minister will directly and explicitly to confect the sacrament or to perform the rite as instituted by Christ and productive of grace; b) nor does an external intention suffice, in the sense of Catharinus; c) but it is required, and also sufficient, that there be an internal intention, at least implicit, of performing the rite as it is customarily performed in the true Church, with all that this includes, or is thought, even falsely, to include, or of doing what Christians are accustomed to do through such a rite: for by so doing, the minister makes his own the intention of Christians.

[...]


476. 2º An internal intention is required [Common and certain teaching].
A. This is demonstrated from the sense of the Church:
a) For the validity of the sacraments, the councils require, beyond matter and form, an intention in the minister of doing what the Church does. And indeed the minister certainly has this intention, or an internal intention, as they say, when he immediately, and certainly and seriously intends to perform a true sacrament or immediately and absolutely wills that a sacrament be present.
b) Not otherwise teaches the Council of Trent, saying that there is no absolution, if the confessor lacks the "serious resolve [of the will: "animus"] of truly absolving."[1]
c) Alexander VIII, in the year 1690, condemned the following proposition of Farvacques, among the errors of the Jansenists: "A Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes every external rite and form of baptizing, but within, in his heart, resolves to himself: not to intend what the Church does."[2] Concerning this Benedict XIV said, "It cannot be denied that a grave wound [has been inflicted by this condemnation] on the aforementioned opinion (of Catharinus)."[3] (In practice, he says, the safer theory, that which demands an internal intention, must be followed; if this intention is lacking, therefore, the sacrament must be conditionally renewed in case of necessity; otherwise the Holy See is to be consulted about what to do.)
The RomanMissal implicitly teaches likewise, declaring a consecration ineffectual if the priest, having before himself 11 hosts, intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he intends, "because the intention is required."[4] This intention is certainly secret and internal."


As M. Joe Cupertino pointed out earlier, the position described by M. Ladislaus is exactly the same as that condemned in Catharinus, a Jansenist error, despite his illogical protestations to the contrary, and it is for this reason he is unable to answer my very simple question (asked now 8 times): He wants to say yes, but he knows his answer stands condemned.

It is interesting to also note in passing that the most vehemet defenders of this condemned Jansenist error are also Feeneyites (Ladislaus, Stubborn, Pax Vobis), which is perhaps not surprising, given the harsh perspective they have of God.

Yup.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 06:59:58 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:19:09 PM

M. Ladislaus-

Hello M. Ladislaus, I ask you for the 8th time:

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

If after two days and 8 attempts to elicit a response from you to a very simple question, you still refuse to answer, I consider you have conceded the point.

Definitely conceded.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 20, 2023, 10:14:46 AM

Quote from: Stubborn on February 20, 2023, 04:55:42 AM

I simply stick universally with the Church initially presuming the sacrament is valid unless there is a very good reason to presume otherwise. That's what the Church does, that's what we Catholics do.

If we concern ourselves at all with the priest actually doing what the Church does, but in his mind or heart secretly does not intend to do what the Church does - well, I'm lost right there because then, as Gladius said earlier, the Church cannot presume validity, rather, we can only have at best, doubt, which is ridiculous because there is no way we can know the interior thoughts of anyone. Which is what makes this whole exercise bizarre.

As such, Pope Alexander VIII can easily (must?) be understood literally, i.e. that the condemnation is directed only to the minister, not the recipient, and only as regards the sacrament of baptism, not any of the other sacraments, as de Lugo posted:

Well said. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 10:29:04 AM

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 06:37:56 AM

Very good explanation.

However, at the risk of injecting more muddle into this thread, I cannot believe but that God would confer grace based upon the faith of the recipient who came empty handed before the Lord with penitent heart and love of Christ to receive a sacrament despite the priest or minister deliberately botching the words or doing something sub silentio to "invalidate" it.

Whenever these debates on some aspect of the sacraments arises I can't help but think of Our Lord's words (Mark 2) regarding the holy sacrament of the Sabbath:

.
Maintaining that God will supply graces extraordinarily in such cases is, I think, a common and prudent opinion. 
.
But that's completely different than holding no internal intention is necessary. De Lugo and Joe Cupertino have done a good job defending the traditional and mostly uncontroversial doctrine of the Church: that a minister of a sacrament must have sufficient internal intention to do what the Church does, otherwise his sacrament is null. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 20, 2023, 10:38:02 AM

Quote from: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 10:29:04 AM

.
Maintaining that God will supply graces extraordinarily in such cases is, I think, a common and prudent opinion.
.
But that's completely different than holding no internal intention is necessary. De Lugo and Joe Cupertino have done a good job defending the traditional and mostly uncontroversial doctrine of the Church: that a minister of a sacrament must have sufficient internal intention to do what the Church does, otherwise his sacrament is null.

Doesn't there have to be proof or at least strong evidence that there was not the sufficient intention necessary? Otherwise, how is one to know? 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 10:38:54 AM

Quote from: Meg on February 20, 2023, 10:38:02 AM

Doesn't there have to be proof or at least strong evidence that there was not the sufficient intention necessary? Otherwise, how is one to know?

Yes. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 20, 2023, 10:56:31 AM

Quote from: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 10:38:54 AM

Yes.

Thanks.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem that anyone on this thread is saying that if Lienart were to be proven to be a freemason, that it wouldn't be a problem and that the consecration is still absolutely valid. It would be a problem. Though I've seen it argued in the past that it could still (if Lienart were a freemason) be valid due to the presence of co-consecrators, but that's another subject.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 11:00:28 AM

Quote from: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 10:29:04 AM

.
Maintaining that God will supply graces extraordinarily in such cases is, I think, a common and prudent opinion.
.
But that's completely different than holding no internal intention is necessary. De Lugo and Joe Cupertino have done a good job defending the traditional and mostly uncontroversial doctrine of the Church: that a minister of a sacrament must have sufficient internal intention to do what the Church does, otherwise his sacrament is null.

Mith,

Hi there.

I agree, but what is meant by "internal intention"? Intention signifies end of an action. I think Lad's position is that it doesn't matter what a priest or person believes about what is being done, but that he intends to do it, i.e. the action. A priest who doesn't believe, for example, in transubstantiation, is nonetheless intending to perform the sacramental act of consecration by following the prescribed words and offering the host to the faithful who approach him for it with the faith of the Church. Just as a heretic might not believe that baptism effects a spiritual regeneration might nonetheless intend to perform the rite of baptism prescribed by the Church to render baptism to someone who desires Catholic baptism with a Catholic faith at the time of death.

Lad is not disclaiming all intent, but subjective intent as to what is being done as irrelevant. The intent to do the act, presumed by the action done, is always necessary.  His example of the kids playing at baptism is a good example: they only intend on playing priest, not conferring a sacrament of the church to someone coming to them for the sacrament. Whereas the non-believing priest intends to administer the sacrament to those who come to him, as the Church directs him to do - otherwise why would he do it? If he does it to maintain his position in the Church for whatever reason (to continue to receive food and board, to influence some away from the Church if they come to him for spiritual guidance, no matter - since he intends to do what the Church intends, which is necessary to remain as priest in the Church), he's doing it intending to do what the Church requires him to do to maintain his standing, etc.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 11:04:27 AM

Quote from: Meg on February 20, 2023, 10:56:31 AM

Thanks.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem that anyone on this thread is saying that if Lienart were to be proven to be a freemason, that it wouldn't be a problem and that the consecration is still absolutely valid. It would be a problem. Though I've seen it argued in the past that it could still (if Lienart were a freemason) be valid due to the presence of co-consecrators, but that's another subject.

I don't think it would be a problem. Did Lienart intend to make +ABL a Catholic bishop? Yes.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 20, 2023, 11:06:12 AM

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 11:04:27 AM

I don't think it would be a problem. Did Lienart intend to make +ABL a Catholic bishop? Yes.

Yes, perhaps you are right. It's possible that even a freemason would have the intention to make +ABL a bishop. I can see that now. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 11:19:09 AM

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 11:00:28 AM

Mith,

Hi there.

I agree, but what is meant by "internal intention"? Intention signifies end of an action. I think Lad's position is that it doesn't matter what a priest or person believes about what is being done, but that he intends to do it, i.e. the action. A priest who doesn't believe, for example, in transubstantiation, is nonetheless intending to perform the sacramental act of consecration by following the prescribed words and offering the host to the faithful who approach him for it with the faith of the Church. Just as a heretic might not believe that baptism effects a spiritual regeneration might nonetheless intend to perform the rite of baptism prescribed by the Church to render baptism to someone who desires Catholic baptism with a Catholic faith at the time of death.

Lad is not disclaiming all intent, but subjective intent as to what is being done as irrelevant. The intent to do the act, presumed by the action done, is always necessary.  His example of the kids playing at baptism is a good example: they only intend on playing priest, not conferring a sacrament of the church to someone coming to them for the sacrament. Whereas the non-believing priest intends to administer the sacrament to those who come to him, as the Church directs him to do - otherwise why would he do it? If he does it to maintain his position in the Church for whatever reason (to continue to receive food and board, to influence some away from the Church if they come to him for spiritual guidance, no matter - since he intends to do what the Church intends, which is necessary to remain as priest in the Church), he's doing it intending to do what the Church requires him to do to maintain his standing, etc.

.
The necessary intention is to do what the Church does. It matters not one but what the minister believes, it matters that he (or even she) intend to do what the Church does.
.
I have seen moral theologians specify even further what "the Church does" means, but those further specifications are just explanations that shed additional light on the psychology of the minister. The actual standard really is to just "do what the Church does." It's a pathetically low bar (fortunately!).
.
A Jєωιѕн midwife who baptizes an infant with the intention to "do this thing Catholics do to their babies" satisfies the bar of intention. A Jєωιѕн actor who is baptizing an infant for a scene in a film (like in the famous Godfather assassination/baptism scene) intends to "do this thing that's in the script" does not have sufficient intention.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 11:28:51 AM

So then the question is, how do you separate the intent from the act?  That is, "I do not intend to do what the Church does (provide the sacrament)...but I still do what the Church does (say the sacramental form with proper matter)."   

What is an example of a priest who does NOT intend to do what the Church does, but still does it?  I'm still not grasping the anathema of Alexander vs the very "low bar" of sacramental intent.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 11:42:01 AM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 11:28:51 AM

So then the question is, how do you separate the intent from the act?  That is, "I do not intend to do what the Church does (provide the sacrament)...but I still do what the Church does (say the sacramental form with proper matter)." 

What is an example of a priest who does NOT intend to do what the Church does, but still does it?  I'm still not grasping the anathema of Alexander vs the very "low bar" of sacramental intent.

.
Someone who simulates a sacrament uses the right matter and form while interiorly withholding, refusing, or otherwise failing to intend to do what the Church does. 
.
There are few to no normal situations under which this would occur. But a prelate who is sleep-walking would definitely lack the requisite intention. Or, suppose a bishop was held at gunpoint to ordain a man (whom he was known to not want to ordain) . The bishop might interiorly and explicitly, in his mind, will to stimulate the sacrament. I think if I saw a sacrament administered under duress I would hold it doubtful. 
.
There is no reason to run around doubting sacramental intention. De Lugo and Cupertino have never suggested otherwise in their excellent posts here. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 11:46:20 AM

Mith, based on your definitions, then how would you answer De Lugo's question that he's posted 8x?  I think it's too general to answer.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 11:57:33 AM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:19:09 PM

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

.
The answer is no. You have not validly confected a sacrament under this description. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 12:09:13 PM

Quote from: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 11:42:01 AM

.
Someone who simulates a sacrament uses the right matter and form while interiorly withholding, refusing, or otherwise failing to intend to do what the Church does.
.
There are few to no normal situations under which this would occur. But a prelate who is sleep-walking would definitely lack the requisite intention. Or, suppose a bishop was held at gunpoint to ordain a man (whom he was known to not want to ordain) . The bishop might interiorly and explicitly, in his mind, will to stimulate the sacrament. I think if I saw a sacrament administered under duress I would hold it doubtful.
.
There is no reason to run around doubting sacramental intention. De Lugo and Cupertino have never suggested otherwise in their excellent posts here.

Correct in all respects.

One example of covertly withholding internal intention would be the sad case of Bishop Rifan (of Campos):

Reports arose that he had concelebrated the new Mass, and he denied them.  Shortly thereafter, video emerged of him concelebrating.  His response was that he feigned concelebrating (ie., deliberately withheld internal intent to do what the Church does).

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 12:18:35 PM

Quote

There are few to no normal situations under which this would occur. But a prelate who is sleep-walking would definitely lack the requisite intention. Or, suppose a bishop was held at gunpoint to ordain a man (whom he was known to not want to ordain) . The bishop might interiorly and explicitly, in his mind, will to stimulate the sacrament. I think if I saw a sacrament administered under duress I would hold it doubtful. 

But these 2 examples have exterior manifestations, so they fail at explaining how a simple interior disposition (or lack thereof) works.

Quote

Reports arose that he had concelebrated the new Mass, and he denied them.  Shortly thereafter, video emerged of him concelebrating.  His response was that he feigned concelebrating (ie., deliberately withheld internal intent to do what the Church does).

To me, if we have to accept this invalidating reason (i.e. his word alone), this opens the door to utter chaos.


How many marriages can be annulled if one of the spouses simply has to say "I never intended to marry you 10 years ago."  BOOM, marriage invalid.  No investigation needs to (or can) happen.  Marriage is annulled immediately, based on lack of personal intention.  Yet...this is not historically or sacramentally true.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 12:24:14 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 12:18:35 PM

But these 2 examples have exterior manifestations, so they fail at explaining how a simple interior disposition (or lack thereof) works.

.
Uh, what act LACKS external manifestation? Do you know what an act is? An act is something someone does, prodded by the will. Usually the will corresponds with the act, but theoretically it may not. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 12:25:55 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 12:18:35 PM

How many marriages can be annulled if one of the spouses simply has to say "I never intended to marry you 10 years ago."  BOOM, marriage invalid.  No investigation needs to (or can) happen.  Marriage is annulled immediately, based on lack of personal intention.  Yet...this is not historically or sacramentally true.

.
Such claims have been made, and historically/traditionally no annulment has followed, because it is extraordinarily difficult to prove that someone did not intend to do something that they did. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 12:27:41 PM

That's exactly my point.  It seems the "lack of interior intention" issue is way overblown, especially by De Lugo.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 12:29:15 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 12:18:35 PM

To me, if we have to accept this invalidating reason (i.e. his word alone), this opens the door to utter chaos.


How many marriages can be annulled if one of the spouses simply has to say "I never intended to marry you 10 years ago."  BOOM, marriage invalid.  No investigation needs to (or can) happen.  Marriage is annulled immediately, based on lack of personal intention.  Yet...this is not historically or sacramentally true.

This fallacious concern has been refuted in this thread so many times (beginning on p.1, with the quote from Fr. Hunter’s manual, and several others thereafter), that it is hard to take your concern seriously.

Only the hysterically scrupulous would be concerned.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 12:29:52 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 12:27:41 PM

That's exactly my point.  It seems the "lack of interior intention" issue is way overblown, especially by De Lugo.

In what respect?

As far as I can tell, de Lugo was only insisting upon proper ministerial intent because Ladislaus was denying it (advancing instead a condemned theory of external intention precisely as it was condemned in Catharinus, and later adopted by the Jansenists).

You are suggesting it was wrong of de Lugo to refute Ladislaus, so that error could rest peacefully on CI?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 12:33:52 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 12:09:13 PM

Correct in all respects.

One example of covertly withholding internal intention would be the sad case of Bishop Rifan (of Campos):

Reports arose that he had concelebrated the new Mass, and he denied them.  Shortly thereafter, video emerged of him concelebrating.  His response was that he feigned concelebrating (ie., deliberately withheld internal intent to do what the Church does).

Suppose he was the only celebrant, and that he did not violate any norms or rubrics. Are you saying that Mass would have been invalid? 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 12:35:12 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 12:09:13 PM

Correct in all respects.

One example of covertly withholding internal intention would be the sad case of Bishop Rifan (of Campos):

Reports arose that he had concelebrated the new Mass, and he denied them.  Shortly thereafter, video emerged of him concelebrating.  His response was that he feigned concelebrating (ie., deliberately withheld internal intent to do what the Church does).

I went back to look this incident up, and Rifan says he feigned the words of consecration (which means he lacked both form and intention).

http://archives.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/bishop_fellay_extract_bishop_rifan.htm 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 12:36:52 PM

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 12:33:52 PM

Suppose he was the only celebrant, and that he did not violate any norms or rubrics. Are you saying that Mass would have been invalid?

Yes, for while he would have manifested external intention, he would have withheld the interior intention (without which there is no sacrament).

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 12:41:22 PM

Imagine de Lugo went on Cathinfo and said "you need oxygen to live; without it you'll die." Then a horde starts freaking out, worried they're going to step outside any second and find a world without oxygen. Then the horde comes to the realization that oxygen is plenteous and really, really difficult to run out of. And they accuse de Lugo of overstating the necessity of oxygen.

That's this thread.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 12:45:12 PM

Quote from: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 12:41:22 PM

Imagine de Lugo went on Cathinfo and said "you need oxygen to live; without it you'll die." Then a horde starts freaking out, worried they're going to step outside any second and find a world without oxygen. Then the horde comes to the realization that oxygen is plenteous and really, really difficult to run out of. And they accuse de Lugo of overstating the necessity of oxygen.

That's this thread.

👏👏👏

Title: Freaking out?
Post by: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 12:50:20 PM

Quote from: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 12:41:22 PM

Imagine de Lugo went on Cathinfo and said "you need oxygen to live; without it you'll die." Then a horde starts freaking out, worried they're going to step outside any second and find a world without oxygen. Then the horde comes to the realization that oxygen is plenteous and really, really difficult to run out of. And they accuse de Lugo of overstating the necessity of oxygen.

That's this thread.

Well, I'v'e only really jointed the discussion today and haven't been following the thread that closely, but I haven't seen anybody involved in the discussion today "freaking out." 

Title: Re: Freaking out?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 20, 2023, 12:55:27 PM

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 12:50:20 PM

Well, I'v'e only really jointed the discussion today and haven't been following the thread that closely, but I haven't seen anybody involved in the discussion today "freaking out."

Right, nobody's "freaking out".  We're having an argument/disagreement ... along the lines of many similar such prior arguments.

Title: Re: Freaking out?
Post by: Stubborn on February 20, 2023, 12:56:45 PM

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 12:50:20 PM

Well, I'v'e only really jointed the discussion today and haven't been following the thread that closely, but I haven't seen anybody involved in the discussion today "freaking out."

I'd say it's: Imagine de Lugo went on Cathinfo and said "your mind can be read, but only by other Catholics and only if you're a minister and only when you're administering the sacraments." Then a horde starts saying, "No one can read minds."

That's this thread.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 20, 2023, 12:57:26 PM

Quote from: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 12:41:22 PM

Imagine de Lugo went on Cathinfo and said "you need oxygen to live; without it you'll die." Then a horde starts freaking out, worried they're going to step outside any second and find a world without oxygen. Then the horde comes to the realization that oxygen is plenteous and really, really difficult to run out of. And they accuse de Lugo of overstating the necessity of oxygen.

That's this thread.

As if the subject of this debate debate is really that simple. It is not that simple. 

Title: Re: Freaking out?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 12:58:51 PM

Quote from: Stubborn on February 20, 2023, 12:56:45 PM

I'd say it's: Imagine de Lugo went on Cathinfo and said "your mind can be read, but only by other Catholics and only if you're a minister and only when you're administering the sacraments." Then a horde starts saying, "No one can read minds."

That's this thread.

Can you please provide a single instance of de Lugo suggesting a need to read minds?

As far as I can tell, he’s saying there’s no need to do so.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 01:00:33 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 20, 2023, 12:57:26 PM

As if the subject of this debate debate is really that simple. It is not that simple.

It is absolutely that simple.

Its just not simple for YOU, because you’re one of the hysterically scrupulous who feel destabilized by the Church’s teaching on proper ministerial intention.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 01:01:36 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 01:00:33 PM

It is absolutely that simple.

Its just not simple for YOU, because you’re one of the hysterically scrupulous who feel destabilized by the Church’s teaching on proper ministerial intention.

Come on, Sean. It's not simple. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 01:03:13 PM

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 01:01:36 PM

Come on, Sean. It's not simple.

I’m sorry you’re struggling, but to me it is Theology 101.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 01:03:31 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 20, 2023, 12:57:26 PM

As if the subject of this debate debate is really that simple. It is not that simple.

I agree with you Meg: it's far from simple. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 01:04:37 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 01:03:13 PM

I’m sorry you’re struggling, but to me it is Theology 101.

I'm glad for you.

But isn't there a beatitude regarding the simple?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 01:04:43 PM

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 01:03:31 PM

I agree with you Meg: it's far from simple.

Likely for the same reason.

I’ll tune back in, if the thread veers back on topic.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 01:06:30 PM

Quote

Such claims have been made (i.e. the example of lack of matrimony intent), and historically/traditionally no annulment has followed, because it is extraordinarily difficult to prove that someone did not intend to do something that they did. 

Of course it's difficult to prove an internal intention.  So when "Rifan says he feigned the words of consecration (which means he lacked both form and intention)" are we supposed to trust him on his word alone?  No evidence needed?

But yet the Church requires evidence for the same situation in regards to marriage?  

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 20, 2023, 01:08:24 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 01:03:13 PM

I’m sorry you’re struggling, but to me it is Theology 101.

Then you must believe yourself to be far, far above everyone else. You and de Lugo. You and De Lugo accuse Catholics here of adhering to condemned or heretical doctrine. Shame on you for your pride and arrogance. It is not that simple.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 01:11:44 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 20, 2023, 01:08:24 PM

Then you must believe yourself to be far, far above everyone else. You and de Lugo. You and De Lugo accuse Catholics here of adhering to condemned or heretical doctrine. Shame on you. It is not that simple.

Quite frankly, you’re a delicate soul, ignorant of Church teaching, who now feels needlessly destabilized to learn a covert contrary intention invalidates a sacrament.  That your emotional faculty predominates over your intellect is the cause of your struggle.  For those who do not labor under that baggage, this matter is quite simple.

I will pray for your peace.

Title: Re: Freaking out?
Post by: Stubborn on February 20, 2023, 01:11:55 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 12:58:51 PM

Can you please provide a single instance of de Lugo suggesting a need to read minds?

As far as I can tell, he’s saying there’s no need to do so.

The point is, if it ever actually happened there is only one way to know, namely, the minister must come right out at some point after the fact, and actually publicly tell someone that he did not intend to do what the Church does while he actually did what the Church does.

The whole issue has nothing whatsoever to do with a sleep walking priest or play acting in a movie, the pope condemned ministers who baptized while saying within themselves: "I do not intend to do what the Church does"  WHILE THE MINISTER ACTUALLY DID WHAT THE CHURCH DOES.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 01:12:31 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 01:04:43 PM

Likely for the same reason.

I’ll tune back in, if the thread veers back on topic.

So as not to make wrong assumptions: is that because I'm "one of the hysterically scrupulous who feel destabilized by the Church’s teaching on proper ministerial intention"?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Stubborn on February 20, 2023, 01:15:01 PM

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 01:12:31 PM

So as not to make wrong assumptions: is that because I'm "one of the hysterically scrupulous who feel destabilized by the Church’s teaching on proper ministerial intention"?

You have no idea what you're talking about, everyone knows when the minister is thinking the wrong thing as he does what the Church does! This is what Sean seems to be saying.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 01:15:48 PM

Quote from: Meg on February 20, 2023, 12:57:26 PM

As if the subject of this debate debate is really that simple. It is not that simple.

.
The claim that intention is required for sacramental validity is as simple as the claim that oxygen is required to remain alive. It's completely true as it stands, without any further explanation required in either case.
.
Of course, there are further explanations that can further expound the nature of sacramental intention just like there are further explanations to illustrate the nature of oxygen, where it comes from, how our bodies use it, and so on. And at that level, everything does get more complex. Which is all the more reason for careful deliberation and understanding when dealing with the material posted. The stuff de Lugo and Cupertino posted more or less literally and completely explains it all. I understand if they are frustrated that people continue to shoot from the hip and reduce the relevant theology into various fears and other empassioned responses/positions. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 01:24:45 PM

Quote

The claim that intention is required for sacramental validity is as simple as the claim that oxygen is required to remain alive.

The confusion lies in De Lugo's "gotcha" attitude where, instead of correcting the misunderstanding, was weirdly attempting to corner people so he could call them a heretic.

Typically only Sean practices this type of psychopathic interaction.

It basically boils down to wanting to be an accuser vs a teacher.  And acting like an argumentative imp instead of a rational human.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 01:27:08 PM

The necessity of intention for the valid administration of a sacrament is in the Baltimore Catechism. The Baltimore Catechism is (I would say) the most basic, barebones, and common Church-approved instructional docuмent for lay Catholics. It is extremely straightforward, ridiculously accessible (sold in every Catholic bookstore, even diocesan ones, available for free online in probably half a dozen places), written without jargon, etc. And this teaching is in there.

I'm not trying to embarrass anyone. Maybe my judgment of what is "simple" is wrong. And if someone didn't know intention is required for the valid administration of a sacrament, that doesn't mean they're stupid. It's a big Catechism, some things are easy to miss. 

But this doctrine is in there, simply and plainly. And I take that as a sign that it's a doctrine the Church expects her adult lay members to know. I think we all make similar judgments about what is or should be common knowledge among serious adult Catholics. If there is a better standard for that judgment than the Baltimore Catechism, I'm all ears. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 01:30:26 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 01:24:45 PM

The confusion lies in De Lugo's "gotcha" attitude where, instead of correcting the misunderstanding, was weirdly attempting to corner people so he could call them a heretic.

Typically only Sean practices this type of psychopathic interaction.

It basically boils down to wanting to be an accuser vs a teacher.  And acting like an argumentative imp instead of a rational human.

In other words, you are affirming my response to Meg, where I accused her of being emotional, and this emotionalism being the cause of her confusion (which on the basis of your response/admission, must also apply to you:

You do get it, you’re just poorly disposed to receive truth.

I note in fairness to de Lugo, tgat it was Ladislaus who drew first blood (on p.1), when he rejected Fr. Hunter’s explanation (and the 30 which followed).

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 20, 2023, 01:31:39 PM

Quote from: Stubborn on February 20, 2023, 01:15:01 PM

You have no idea what you're talking about, everyone knows when the minister is thinking the wrong thing as he does what the Church does! This is what Sean seems to be saying.

Yes, we are presumed to be mind-readers. It's just that simple. No need for further explanation. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 01:31:56 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 01:24:45 PM

The confusion lies in De Lugo's "gotcha" attitude where, instead of correcting the misunderstanding, was weirdly attempting to corner people so he could call them a heretic.

Typically only Sean practices this type of psychopathic interaction.

It basically boils down to wanting to be an accuser vs a teacher.  And acting like an argumentative imp instead of a rational human.

de Lugo was clearly frustrated, and in my opinion justifiably so given how capably and thoroughly he docuмented 'his' position. As an observer of this thread, I could only make sense of the replies contrary to him as having literally not read him. If you think he overstepped the boundaries of Christian charity, say a prayer for him. I'm sure his blood pressure could use it. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 20, 2023, 01:37:11 PM

Quote from: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 01:31:56 PM

de Lugo was clearly frustrated, and in my opinion justifiably so given how capably and thoroughly he docuмented 'his' position. As an observer of this thread, I could only make sense of the replies contrary to him as having literally not read him. If you think he overstepped the boundaries of Christian charity, say a prayer for him. I'm sure his blood pressure could use it.

Well, if he's going to put himself forth as an expert, then he needs patience with the dumb forum members who don't get it. If he suffers from high blood pressure, then antagonizing forum members is not a good thing. If this is how Resistance supporters treat people, then I'll consider removing my support of it.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 01:47:06 PM

Quote

The necessity of intention for the valid administration of a sacrament is in the Baltimore Catechism.

De Lugo started off mentioning the anathema of an error, and attacking from there.  When questioned about the anathema, he started talking about Jansenism.  He never explained anything from the start.  It's a bizzare place to start an argument...from a remote and isolated event of history...and then assume everyone knows what you're talking about.

Quote

I note in fairness to de Lugo, tgat it was Ladislaus who drew first blood (on p.1), when he rejected Fr. Hunter’s explanation (and the 30 which followed).

Not true.  The article was good.  Ladislaus made a mention of the "summary points" and how they were too simplified.  I agree.  For all the article's good details, the "summary points" were oddly too generalized.  De Lugo started defending the article, instead of answering the questions on the summary.  Then the thread lost its way. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 01:54:12 PM

Quote from: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 01:27:08 PM

The necessity of intention for the valid administration of a sacrament is in the Baltimore Catechism. The Baltimore Catechism is (I would say) the most basic, barebones, and common Church-approved instructional docuмent for lay Catholics. It is extremely straightforward, ridiculously accessible (sold in every Catholic bookstore, even diocesan ones, available for free online in probably half a dozen places), written without jargon, etc. And this teaching is in there.

I'm not trying to embarrass anyone. Maybe my judgment of what is "simple" is wrong. And if someone didn't know intention is required for the valid administration of a sacrament, that doesn't mean they're stupid. It's a big Catechism, some things are easy to miss.

But this doctrine is in there, simply and plainly. And I take that as a sign that it's a doctrine the Church expects her adult lay members to know. I think we all make similar judgments about what is or should be common knowledge among serious adult Catholics. If there is a better standard for that judgment than the Baltimore Catechism, I'm all ears.

Mith,

It'd be a good idea to post the relevant BC section here. I'll try to find it but since you are familiar with it it might be easy for you to find. If I beat you to the punch, ignore of course.

DR

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 02:07:45 PM

Mith-

Consider the unlikelihood that any effort on your part will bear fruit.

The time is long past to shake off the dust.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 02:08:01 PM

This is succinct and pretty good:

Quote

If a pagan or anyone else were to perform a sacrament, he would not have to believe that his words and actions had any effect. But he would have to intend what the Church does, namely, to perform the actions and say the words, without exteriorly expressing any contrary intent (such as an intent to merely demonstrate how a sacrament could be performed).

https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-sacramental-intention-which-is-needed-for-valid-sacraments

The contrary intent, of course, can also be expressed without words, such as the kids playing at baptizing, or an atheist mocking the baptismal rite to ridicule Christians. By word, it would be like in the example Sean gave of the bishop saying he had not intention of confecting the sacrament. 

The confusion (and hence "complexity" for me) comes in with simple definition of "intending what the Church intended," since "intent" suggests or invokes the subjectivity of the actor, and that false suggestion is what gets the opposition to it. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 02:09:09 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 02:07:45 PM

Mith-

Consider the unlikelihood that any effort on your part will bear fruit.

The time is long past to shake off the dust.

For you, with your assumptions about others being "hysterical." 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 02:12:58 PM

Quote from: DecemRationis on February 20, 2023, 01:54:12 PM

Mith,

It'd be a good idea to post the relevant BC section here. I'll try to find it but since you are familiar with it it might be easy for you to find. If I beat you to the punch, ignore of course.

DR

Questions 584 and 585.  
.
Bear in mind there's little exposition, the catechism (as catechisms tend to do) merely state the doctrine.
.

Quote

Q. 584. Does the outward sign merely indicate that grace has been given, or does the use of the outward sign with the proper intention also give the grace of the Sacrament?

A. The outward sign is not used merely to indicate that grace has been given, for the use of the outward sign with the proper intention also gives the grace of the Sacrament. Hence the right application of the outward sign is always followed by the gift of internal grace if the Sacrament be administered with the right intention and received with the right dispositions.

.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 02:32:06 PM

Sorry, Mith, but the catechism's definition does NOT answer the questions posed here.  

I will again post what Ladislaus posted and which makes sense to me.  Also, +Ottaviani pointed out that the True Mass' consecration formula contains the proper intention in the prayer, while the new mass does not.  Hence, the new mass' lack of the Church's intention (the new consecration prayer is written in a narrative style) REQUIRES that the priest PROVIDE the proper intention.  Thus, +Ottaviani said one can "positively doubt" the validity of the new mass.

The contrary would also be true.  One cannot doubt the True Mass, because the consecration prayers include the Church's intention.  

Quote

Defect of intention that would validate is discernable in the external forum.  If the priest intends to do what the Church does, then the Church's intention for the action supplies the necessary intention for the end of the action.

Again, the minister has to internally intend to do what the Church does, and not intend what the Church intends.  This is why atheists can validly confect the Sacraments. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 02:38:40 PM

Quote from: Joe Cupertino on February 17, 2023, 02:19:16 PM

Catharinus and his theory of external intention was discussed throughout the first four pages of this thread.  It's what the argument has been about for almost this entire thread.  Starting on page two, Ladislaus began trying to explain that his theory was not the same as the Catharinus-ian theory of external intention.  But the distinction he made is exactly the same as the explanation of the theory of external intention by those of the school of Catharinus.

Bump.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Mithrandylan on February 20, 2023, 02:47:20 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 02:32:06 PM

Sorry, Mith, but the catechism's definition does NOT answer the questions posed here. 

I will again post what Ladislaus posted and which makes sense to me.  Also, +Ottaviani pointed out that the True Mass' consecration formula contains the proper intention in the prayer, while the new mass does not.  Hence, the new mass' lack of the Church's intention (the new consecration prayer is written in a narrative style) REQUIRES that the priest PROVIDE the proper intention.  Thus, +Ottaviani said one can "positively doubt" the validity of the new mass.

The contrary would also be true.  One cannot doubt the True Mass, because the consecration prayers include the Church's intention. 

.
I said the catechism states the necessity of intention for the validity of sacraments. DM asked me to post the material. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Joe Cupertino on February 20, 2023, 02:48:17 PM

I posted this 1856 article on the subject in "The Library".  I think it would be very helpful for anyone to read, especially those who find the doctrine unclear.

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/the-intention-of-the-minister-(the-clifton-tracts-1856)/new/?topicseen#new (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/the-intention-of-the-minister-(the-clifton-tracts-1856)/new/?topicseen#new)

The Intention of the Minister Necessary for the Administration of the Sacraments
- The Clifton Tracts, Vol. III. By the Brotherhood of St. Vincent of Paul. New York: Edward Dunigan and Brother, 1856. Published under the sanction of the Bishop of Clifton, Cardinal Wiseman, and republished with the approbation of the Most Rev. John Hughes, D.D., Archbishop of New York. PP.3-30
https://archive.org/details/CliftonTractsV3/page/n7/mode/2up (https://archive.org/details/CliftonTractsV3/page/n7/mode/2up)

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 03:27:28 PM

Here is a clear explanation from St Robert Bellarmine, posted by Siscoe/Salza (of all people).

Another way to understand it is that the minister does not have to intend what the Church intends, but only what the Church does. The object of his intention is the action or ceremony performed, not the purpose of the action.  Bellarmine explains:

“The Council of Trent does not mention the purpose of the sacrament or say that the minister ought to intend to do what the Church intends but what the Church does. Moreover, what the Church does refers to the action, not the purpose. There is required the intention with regard to the action, not in so far as it is a natural action, but in so far as it is a sacred action or ceremony, which Christ instituted or Christians practice. If one intends to perform the ceremony which the Church performs, that is enough.” (Bellarmine, de Sacramentis in genere chapter 27.)  link (http://philorthodox.blogspot.com/2013/11/necessary-sacramental-intention.html) 

He continues:

"There is no need to intend to do what the Roman Church does; but what the true Church does, whichever it is, or what Christ instituted, or what Christians do: for they amount to the same. You ask: What if someone intends to do what some particular or false church does, which he thinks the true one, like that of Geneva, and intends not to do what the Roman church does? I answer: even that is sufficient. For the one who intends to do what the church of Geneva does, intends to do what the universal church does. For he intends to do what such a church does, because he thinks it to be a member of the true universal church: although he is wrong in his discernment of the true church. For the mistake of the minister does not take away the efficacy of the sacrament: only a defectus intentionis does that." (Bellarmine, de Sacramentis in genere chapter 27 paragraph 8, translated by Fr. Hunwicke).

The simplest way to understand it, is that the general intention “to baptize” (whatever that means), or “say Mass” (whatever that means), or to “ordain a priest” (whatever that means), is sufficient to produce the sacramental effect – even if the one administering the sacrament publicly denies the effect that the sacrament is intended to produce (e.g., washing away Original Sin, changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, etc.).. 

What will render a sacrament invalid is the positive intention not to do what the Church does.  This was addressed by the Holy Office under Pope Alexander VIII, which condemned the following proposition:

“A Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes every external rite and form of baptizing, but within in his heart, resolves to himself: not to intend what the Church does.” - CONDEMNED,  (Pope Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy Office, December 7, 1690, Errors of the Jansenists, Denz., 1318).

If the minister seriously intends to perform the religious ceremony, or the ceremonial action, and does not positively withhold the intention to do what the Church does, the validity of the sacrament will not be in doubt due to a defect of intention.


---

Conclusion - The Catharinus view is obviously wrong as they denied the necessity of ANY intention by the minister.  Pope Alexander's condemnation is obviously correct but the error condemned is more specific than the general error of the Catharinus.  Once I read the catharinus view, I understood better the truth being protected and the error.  

In my opinion, the condemnation as it is written needs more context to understand the purpose/truths.  Which context I did not have earlier in this thread.  For that, I apologize.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 03:37:50 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 03:27:28 PM

Here is a clear explanation from St Robert Bellarmine, posted by Siscoe/Salza (of all people).

Another way to understand it is that the minister does not have to intend what the Church intends, but only what the Church does. The object of his intention is the action or ceremony performed, not the purpose of the action.  Bellarmine explains:

“The Council of Trent does not mention the purpose of the sacrament or say that the minister ought to intend to do what the Church intends but what the Church does. Moreover, what the Church does refers to the action, not the purpose. There is required the intention with regard to the action, not in so far as it is a natural action, but in so far as it is a sacred action or ceremony, which Christ instituted or Christians practice. If one intends to perform the ceremony which the Church performs, that is enough.” (Bellarmine, de Sacramentis in genere chapter 27.)  link (http://philorthodox.blogspot.com/2013/11/necessary-sacramental-intention.html)

He continues:

"There is no need to intend to do what the Roman Church does; but what the true Church does, whichever it is, or what Christ instituted, or what Christians do: for they amount to the same. You ask: What if someone intends to do what some particular or false church does, which he thinks the true one, like that of Geneva, and intends not to do what the Roman church does? I answer: even that is sufficient. For the one who intends to do what the church of Geneva does, intends to do what the universal church does. For he intends to do what such a church does, because he thinks it to be a member of the true universal church: although he is wrong in his discernment of the true church. For the mistake of the minister does not take away the efficacy of the sacrament: only a defectus intentionis does that." (Bellarmine, de Sacramentis in genere chapter 27 paragraph 8, translated by Fr. Hunwicke).

The simplest way to understand it, is that the general intention “to baptize” (whatever that means), or “say Mass” (whatever that means), or to “ordain a priest” (whatever that means), is sufficient to produce the sacramental effect – even if the one administering the sacrament publicly denies the effect that the sacrament is intended to produce (e.g., washing away Original Sin, changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, etc.)..

What will render a sacrament invalid is the positive intention not to do what the Church does.  This was addressed by the Holy Office under Pope Alexander VIII, which condemned the following proposition:

“A Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes every external rite and form of baptizing, but within in his heart, resolves to himself: not to intend what the Church does.” - CONDEMNED,  (Pope Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy Office, December 7, 1690, Errors of the Jansenists, Denz., 1318).

If the minister seriously intends to perform the religious ceremony, or the ceremonial action, and does not positively withhold the intention to do what the Church does, the validity of the sacrament will not be in doubt due to a defect of intention.


---

Conclusion - The Catharinus view is obviously wrong as they denied the necessity of ANY intention by the minister.  Pope Alexander's condemnation is obviously correct but the error condemned is more specific than the general error of the Catharinus.  Once I read the catharinus view, I understood better the truth being protected and the error. 

Catharinus did not deny the necessity of any intention, but stated that external intention (ie., the minister joining together form and matter in a serious manner) sufficed.

This was his error.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 03:41:23 PM

I said "ANY intention by the minister" (i.e. they denied the necessity of a minister's personal intention).  They used St Thomas to incorrectly argue that the matter/form (external intention) was sufficient.  

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 20, 2023, 06:14:01 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 03:27:28 PM

The simplest way to understand it, is that the general intention “to baptize” (whatever that means), or “say Mass” (whatever that means), or to “ordain a priest” (whatever that means), is sufficient to produce the sacramental effect – even if the one administering the sacrament publicly denies the effect that the sacrament is intended to produce (e.g., washing away Original Sin, changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, etc.)..

Yes, I like that explanation. The general intention of doing what the Church does is enough, provided we understand that intention to be not merely an intention to perform some external ceremonies, but to include, even if only in a general way, its spiritual significance ("whatever that may be"...)

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 07:02:25 PM

Right.  So, in a roundabout way, both De Lugo and Ladislaus were correct.  Ladislaus was making a finer distinction, tangent to the anathema of Catharinus, while De Lugo kept reiterating the anathema.  A misunderstanding or a misinterpretation.  Such is often the case on this site.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 20, 2023, 07:12:21 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 07:02:25 PM

Right.  So, in a roundabout way, both De Lugo and Ladislaus were correct.  Ladislaus was making a finer distinction, tangent to the anathema of Catharinus, while De Lugo kept reiterating the anathema.  A misunderstanding or a misinterpretation.  Such is often the case on this site.

You are probably not too far from the truth...

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 07:19:26 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 07:02:25 PM

Right.  So, in a roundabout way, both De Lugo and Ladislaus were correct.  Ladislaus was making a finer distinction, tangent to the anathema of Catharinus, while De Lugo kept reiterating the anathema.  A misunderstanding or a misinterpretation.  Such is often the case on this site.

Not even close.

Ladislaus espoused a condemned Jansenist error, and de Lugo called him out on it.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 20, 2023, 07:24:50 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 03:27:28 PM

If the minister seriously intends to perform the religious ceremony, or the ceremonial action, and does not positively withhold the intention to do what the Church does, the validity of the sacrament will not be in doubt due to a defect of intention.

This is more or less what Ladislaus was saying.

And he is correct, so long as it is understood that if this is the case, it is because, in the normal course of events where we are dealing with a minister of good will, he will by the very fact of performing the ceremony have the "required (the) intention with regard to the action, not in so far as it is a natural action, but in so far as it is a sacred action or ceremony, which Christ instituted or Christians practice" as St Robert Bellarmine states earlier in your article.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 20, 2023, 07:30:51 PM

However, it would be really edifying to hear from Ladislaus that this is what he believes :)

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 07:42:33 PM

Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 20, 2023, 07:24:50 PM

This is more or less what Ladislaus was saying.

And he is correct, so long as it is understood that if this is the case, it is because, in the normal course of events where we are dealing with a minister of good will, he will by the very fact of performing the ceremony have the "required (the) intention with regard to the action, not in so far as it is a natural action, but in so far as it is a sacred action or ceremony, which Christ instituted or Christians practice" as St Robert Bellarmine states earlier in your article.

No, this is NOT what Ladislaus is saying.

Let's let Ladislaus say what Ladislaus is saying:

Reply #2 in this thread (you know, way back on p.1?):

"So a hypothetical Mason Lienart could sit there the entire time thinking, "I do not wish to ordain.  I do not wish to ordain."  But if he performs the Rite he intends to do the ordination, and therefore to ordain."

THAT's precisely what is condemned by Alexander VIII, and precisely what is advocated by the School of Catharinus and the later Jansenists.

There couldn't be a clearer case of invalidity than deliberately rejecting the requisite intention.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 20, 2023, 07:49:42 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 07:42:33 PM

No, this is NOT what Ladislaus is saying.

Let's let Ladislaus say what Ladislaus is saying:

Reply #2 in this thread (you know, way back on p.1?):

"So a hypothetical Mason Lienart could sit there the entire time thinking, "I do not wish to ordain.  I do not wish to ordain."  But if he performs the Rite he intends to do the ordination, and therefore to ordain."

THAT's precisely what is condemned by Alexander VIII, and precisely what is advocated by the School of Catharinus and the later Jansenists.

There couldn't be a clearer case of invalidity than deliberately rejecting the requisite intention.

Hmm, that is quite something else, isn't it? I started out a bit rusty too I must admit.
But I doubt he would hold that opinion now.
I am sure he will be back to enlighten us.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 07:52:37 PM

Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 20, 2023, 07:49:42 PM

Hmm, that is quite something else, isn't it? I started out a bit rusty too I must admit.
But I doubt he would hold that opinion now.
I am sure he will be back to enlighten us.

He absolutely still holds the same opinion, which is why he continues to evade de Lugo's question.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 21, 2023, 10:39:45 AM

Quote

"So a hypothetical Mason Lienart could sit there the entire time thinking, "I do not wish to ordain.  I do not wish to ordain."  But if he performs the Rite he intends to do the ordination, and therefore to ordain."

THAT's precisely what is condemned by Alexander VIII, and precisely what is advocated by the School of Catharinus and the later Jansenists.

This could be interpreted multiple ways, yet you always interpret it negatively...as a condemnation of whomever you have manufactured a war against.


"I do not wish to ordain"....but does it anyways.  That's different from the PRECISE contra-intention of "I'm going to withhold the grace of ordination."  Or, more simply, "I am not going to ordain."

Ladislaus deserves some slack here.  His example was one of a bishop who may not want to ordain because he is lazy, or hates the Faith, or hates his job.  But if he still goes ahead and performs the act, without the intention to withhold grace, then it's valid.

The "I don't want to" was poorly worded for this example, but it's not the same as "I'm not going to."  Plenty of things in life we don't want to do but we still do them.  Emotions don't invalidate.  It would take a purposeful, clear contrary-intention to invalidate.  Ladislaus was explaining the former, not the latter.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 21, 2023, 10:41:22 AM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 21, 2023, 10:39:45 AM

This could be interpreted multiple ways, yet you always interpret it negatively...as a condemnation of whomever you have manufactured a war against.


"I do not wish to ordain"....but does it anyways.  That's different from the PRECISE contra-intention of "I'm going to withhold the grace of ordination."  Or, more simply, "I am not going to ordain."

Ladislaus deserves some slack here.  His example was one of a bishop who may not want to ordain because he is lazy, or hates the Faith, or hates his job.  But if he still goes ahead and performs the act, without the intention to withhold grace, then it's valid.

The "I don't want to" was poorly worded for this example, but it's not the same as "I'm not going to."  Plenty of things in life we don't want to do but we still do them.  Emotions don't invalidate.  It would take a purposeful, clear contrary-intention to invalidate.  Ladislaus was explaining the former, not the latter.

Perhaps you could use the hermeneutic of continuity?! :facepalm::jester::laugh2:

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 21, 2023, 10:50:11 AM

I knew you wouldn't understand.  I wrote this for the benefit of others.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on February 21, 2023, 10:53:44 AM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 21, 2023, 10:50:11 AM

I knew you wouldn't understand.  I wrote this for the benefit of others.

I have a strange feeling Meg and Stubborn will find it extremely "helpful."  :laugh1::laugh2:

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Meg on February 21, 2023, 11:11:33 AM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 21, 2023, 10:39:45 AM

This could be interpreted multiple ways, yet you always interpret it negatively...as a condemnation of whomever you have manufactured a war against.


"I do not wish to ordain"....but does it anyways.  That's different from the PRECISE contra-intention of "I'm going to withhold the grace of ordination."  Or, more simply, "I am not going to ordain."

Ladislaus deserves some slack here.  His example was one of a bishop who may not want to ordain because he is lazy, or hates the Faith, or hates his job.  But if he still goes ahead and performs the act, without the intention to withhold grace, then it's valid.

The "I don't want to" was poorly worded for this example, but it's not the same as "I'm not going to."  Plenty of things in life we don't want to do but we still do them.  Emotions don't invalidate.  It would take a purposeful, clear contrary-intention to invalidate.  Ladislaus was explaining the former, not the latter.

I find this quite helpful. Thanks for posting it. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on February 21, 2023, 01:29:24 PM

I think everyone should keep in mind that the *only* way to prove that the sacrament is invalid (or the positive doubt) would be to have the testimony of the perpetrator. Other than that, the sacrament is considered valid. This is not complicated.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: gladius_veritatis on February 21, 2023, 08:21:19 PM

Quote from: Plenus Venter on February 18, 2023, 04:27:56 AM

Do you have some kind of philosophical objection to people discussing the theology of the sacraments?
Do you consider sacramental theology unimportant?

  
Absolutely not.  I have discussed such topics at great length on CI in the past.  However, I have no interest in getting entangled in this discussion which, surprisingly to me, has reached almost 20 pages.

There is only so much time in a day and little time left before we all face immense personal and societal challenges.  If you choose to continue to debate the matter, I wish you well.  I need to use the majority of my limited free time to prepare for the coming troubles.  Godspeed to you and yours, PV.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Plenus Venter on February 22, 2023, 12:22:14 AM

Quote from: gladius_veritatis on February 21, 2023, 08:21:19 PM

 
Absolutely not.  I have discussed such topics at great length on CI in the past.  However, I have no interest in getting entangled in this discussion which, surprisingly to me, has reached almost 20 pages.

There is only so much time in a day and little time left before we all face immense personal and societal challenges.  If you choose to continue to debate the matter, I wish you well.  I need to use the majority of my limited free time to prepare for the coming troubles.  Godspeed to you and yours, PV.

Agreed on that Gladius.
More time meditating on the Passion this Lent and praying Rosaries!
God bless you and yours too. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 22, 2023, 07:11:55 AM

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 21, 2023, 01:29:24 PM

I think everyone should keep in mind that the *only* way to prove that the sacrament is invalid (or the positive doubt) would be to have the testimony of the perpetrator. Other than that, the sacrament is considered valid. This is not complicated.

That depends.  If a priest / bishop deliberately botched the words of consecration at Mass or the essential form of an ordination, and no one heard it, then the individual would have to confess, which is unlikely if it had been done deliberately.  But that's why most of the Sacraments require (under normal circuмstances) for there to be witnesses, and which the Church requires 2 co-consecrators for bishops.

But absent a butchery of the essential form, if +Lienart or some other Masonic infiltrator performed the Rite of the Church, it was valid.  Period.  No amount of internal mental "I don't intend this consecration to be valid." would undo that.  There's never been any requirement for the minister to intend what the Church intends or to intend the Sacramental effect.  He simply must intend to perform the Church's Rite.

If I'm a priest to show up for 9AM Mass and perform the cermony (correctly pronouncing the essential form), I'm acting as a minister of the Church and intending to do what the Church does.  Valid Mass.  Period.

Someone trying mental gymnastics is very similar to the contrary-intention stuff in my analogy.  I hold a loaded gun up to someone's head and pull the trigger.  I could in my mind schizophrenically say "I don't intend for this man to die." but by pulling the trigger I intended to do what is necessary to kill the man, and the man would in fact end up dead, and i intended for him to die by intending to pull the trigger.  It's as simple as that.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on February 22, 2023, 08:50:22 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 22, 2023, 07:11:55 AM

That depends.  If a priest / bishop deliberately botched the words of consecration at Mass or the essential form of an ordination, and no one heard it, then the individual would have to confess, which is unlikely if it had been done deliberately.  But that's why most of the Sacraments require (under normal circuмstances) for there to be witnesses, and which the Church requires 2 co-consecrators for bishops.

But absent a butchery of the essential form, if +Lienart or some other Masonic infiltrator performed the Rite of the Church, it was valid.  Period.  No amount of internal mental "I don't intend this consecration to be valid." would undo that.  There's never been any requirement for the minister to intend what the Church intends or to intend the Sacramental effect.  He simply must intend to perform the Church's Rite.

If I'm a priest to show up for 9AM Mass and perform the cermony (correctly pronouncing the essential form), I'm acting as a minister of the Church and intending to do what the Church does.  Valid Mass.  Period.

Someone trying mental gymnastics is very similar to the contrary-intention stuff in my analogy.  I hold a loaded gun up to someone's head and pull the trigger.  I could in my mind schizophrenically say "I don't intend for this man to die." but by pulling the trigger I intended to do what is necessary to kill the man, and the man would in fact end up dead, and i intended for him to die by intending to pull the trigger.  It's as simple as that.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. The intention is always presumed *unless* the minister of the sacrament states, in the external forum, that he didn’t have the proper intention when he preformed the sacrament:


“The minister of the sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is, and in the words which he utters the intention of the Church is expressed.  This intention suffices for the perfection of the sacrament unless the contrary is externally expressed on the part of the minister or the recipient of the sacrament.” --- ST III, Q. 64, Art. 8, ad. 2. (Saint Thomas Aquinas)



“Defect of intention must be very rare, with the sole exception of marriage, in which diverse motives may operate to cause defect of real will.  There is always an abstract possibility that a man or woman may merely simulate marriage consent.  In spite of this, people do not generally worry about the validity of their marriages; the presumption is always that the internal mind corresponds to the words spoken.  So it is, likewise, with all the sacraments; the presumption always is that the minister intends what he does.” (pp.491-492, no.567) --- Leeming, Bernard, S.J. Principles of Sacramental Theology. 1956. 


“The ‘implicit intention of doing what Christ instituted' means so vague and small a thing that one can hardly help having it — unless one deliberately excludes it.” (p.94) --- Fortescue, Adrian, D.D..  The Greek Fathers. 1908. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on February 24, 2023, 05:57:54 AM

I’m not sure if this has been already posted but, here is a link to a very good study on sacramental intention focusing on the case of Cardinal Lienart:


https://archive.org/details/CardinalLienartAndTheIntentionToDoWhatTheChurchDoes-1

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 24, 2023, 07:11:06 AM

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 24, 2023, 05:57:54 AM

I’m not sure if this has been already posted but, here is a link to a very good study on sacramental intention focusing on the case of Cardinal Lienart:


https://archive.org/details/CardinalLienartAndTheIntentionToDoWhatTheChurchDoes-1

Thank you.  Pages 21-28.  Case closed on this stupid thread.  St. Thomas (quoted extensively there) teaches verbatim exactly what I've been saying.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 24, 2023, 07:12:10 AM

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 22, 2023, 08:50:22 PM

Sorry, but you are incorrect. The intention is always presumed *unless* the minister of the sacrament states, in the external forum, that he didn’t have the proper intention when he preformed the sacrament:

Wrong.  Please read 21-28 of the link you just posted.  He can say anything he wants about what he "intended" to do or not to do.  It matters nothing.  St. Thomas refutes every objection, teaching clearly that the intention to simply perform the rite as Catholics perform is all that's required, and a perverse intention on the part of the minister means nothing.  That book makes the same distinction I've been making and assigns terms to it, direct vs. reflexive intention ... the schizophrenic double intention.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Comrade on February 24, 2023, 05:11:55 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 24, 2023, 07:12:10 AM

Wrong.  Please read 21-28 of the link you just posted.  He can say anything he wants about what he "intended" to do or not to do.  It matters nothing.  St. Thomas refutes every objection, teaching clearly that the intention to simply perform the rite as Catholics perform is all that's required, and a perverse intention on the part of the minister means nothing.  That book makes the same distinction I've been making and assigns terms to it, direct vs. reflexive intention ... the schizophrenic double intention.

If we had only had said "STOP, what does the Summa say?" We could have avoided all this nonsense. Maybe Mathew can rewrite the code to always reference this booklet anytime the the words "intention" and "Sacraments" come up in another thread.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on February 24, 2023, 07:08:42 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 24, 2023, 07:12:10 AM

Wrong.  Please read 21-28 of the link you just posted.  He can say anything he wants about what he "intended" to do or not to do.  It matters nothing.  St. Thomas refutes every objection, teaching clearly that the intention to simply perform the rite as Catholics perform is all that's required, and a perverse intention on the part of the minister means nothing.  That book makes the same distinction I've been making and assigns terms to it, direct vs. reflexive intention ... the schizophrenic double intention.

Sorry, but you shouldn’t have stopped reading at page 28. Starting at the next page (29), the author explains how the minister of the sacrament CAN make the sacrament invalid if he “deliberately excludes the intention of doing what the Church does.” He also uses Saint Thomas to back this up: 

“The minister of the sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is, and in the words which he utters the intention of the Church is expressed.  This intention suffices for the perfection of the sacrament unless the contrary is externally expressed on the part of the minister or the recipient of the sacrament.” --- ST III, Q. 64, Art. 8, ad. 2. (Saint Thomas Aquinas)”

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 24, 2023, 07:18:33 PM

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 24, 2023, 07:08:42 PM

Sorry, but you shouldn’t have stopped reading at page 28. Starting at the next page (29), the author explains how the minister of the sacrament CAN make the sacrament invalid if he “deliberately excludes the intention of doing what the Church does.” He also uses Saint Thomas to back this up:

:facepalm: ... you guys still can't read English, intention to do what the Church DOES, and deliberately rejects needing to intend what the Church INTENDS, i.e. the Sacramental effect.  READ the several pages of St. Thomas Aquinas quotes for crying out loud.

Read it and repeat to yourself, DO what the Church DOES, DO what teh Church DOES ...

Unbelievable.

I guess I'll have to come back here and post long sections from it, but I guess there's no much I can down when people lack basic reading comprehension skills because they're filtering thoughts and concepts using confirmation bias.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Mithrandylan on February 24, 2023, 08:14:41 PM

CI won't let me down thumb Ladislaus. Doesn't even tell me I can't, just gives me a blank page when I try. So: Ladislaus, quit having such a pathologically fragile ego and take your own advice. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on February 24, 2023, 08:33:35 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 24, 2023, 07:18:33 PM

:facepalm: ... you guys still can't read English, intention to do what the Church DOES, and deliberately rejects needing to intend what the Church INTENDS, i.e. the Sacramental effect.  READ the several pages of St. Thomas Aquinas quotes for crying out loud.

Read it and repeat to yourself, DO what the Church DOES, DO what teh Church DOES ...

Unbelievable.

I guess I'll have to come back here and post long sections from it, but I guess there's no much I can down when people lack basic reading comprehension skills because they're filtering thoughts and concepts using confirmation bias.

Maybe you’re still living on the flat Earth. :laugh1: Here on the global Earth, words have meanings. Once again, the author of the study, where you got the St. Thomas quotes from, follows up with the following passage from SAINT THOMAS HIMSELF:

“The minister of the sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is, and in the words which he utters the intention of the Church is expressed.  This intention suffices for the perfection of the sacrament unless the contrary is externally expressed on the part of the minister or the recipient of the sacrament.” --- ST III, Q. 64, Art. 8, ad. 2. (Saint Thomas Aquinas)”

This unmistakably means that the sacrament can be *shown* to be invalid if the minister externally manifests that he didn’t have the intention to do what the Church does when he confected the sacrament. I don’t know why this is so difficult for you to understand???

Here is the author, PLEASE READ:

The Church is clear about just how little intention is required for a valid sacrament.  All that is required is simply an implicit intention to do what the Church does, and this intention is expressed in the form of the sacrament.  Because of this, one can hardly help having the intention when performing a sacrament.  It is possible, however, for a sacrament to be invalid because one deliberately excludes the intention of doing what the Church does.  This could only be known if the minister were to state in some way that he deliberately excluded the intention to perform that sacrament.  Unless a minister expressly states that for a particular sacrament, or number of sacraments, he intended to not do what the Church does, then the Church presumes that the minister intended what he did.

DO YOU SEE YOUR ERROR?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 24, 2023, 09:21:25 PM

Quote

This unmistakably means that the sacrament can be *shown* to be invalid if the minister externally manifests that he didn’t have the intention to do what the Church does when he confected the sacrament. I don’t know why this is so difficult for you to understand???

:facepalm:  You're answering a question that hasn't been asked.  Or you're debating a point that Ladislaus hasn't made. 

Ladisalus (and others) are saying that there is no INTERNAL intention ALONE (without an external sign) that can invalidate.   

You keep quoting passages which reference an EXTERNAL act or word, which can show invalidating.

These are 2 different questions/situations.

Quote

Unless a minister expressly states that for a particular sacrament, or number of sacraments, he intended to not do what the Church does, then the Church presumes that the minister intended what he did.

And for the entire thread, Ladislaus (and others) have been ONLY debating the INTERNAL issue, where NO EXPRESSION is made.  So your quotes deal with an entirely different circuмstance.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on February 25, 2023, 05:46:07 AM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 24, 2023, 09:21:25 PM

:facepalm:  You're answering a question that hasn't been asked.  Or you're debating a point that Ladislaus hasn't made. 

Ladisalus (and others) are saying that there is no INTERNAL intention ALONE (without an external sign) that can invalidate.   

You keep quoting passages which reference an EXTERNAL act or word, which can show invalidating.

These are 2 different questions/situations.

And for the entire thread, Ladislaus (and others) have been ONLY debating the INTERNAL issue, where NO EXPRESSION is made.  So your quotes deal with an entirely different circuмstance.

We all understand that the lack of intention can render the sacrament invalid due to a change in the matter or form (externals). Pope Leo XIII made this clear when he discussed Anglican orders. You are battling windmills. :facepalm:

What I and others are saying is that, yes, if the minister has the intention internally NOT to do what the Church does and manifests that externally afterwards, we must deem that the sacrament was invalid. Short of this we *must* accept all sacraments as valid as long as the matter and form have not been changed.

Read again carefully:

“Defect of intention must be very rare, with the sole exception of marriage, in which diverse motives may operate to cause defect of real will.  There is always an abstract possibility that a man or woman may merely simulate marriage consent.  In spite of this, people do not generally worry about the validity of their marriages; the presumption is always that the internal mind corresponds to the words spoken.  So it is, likewise, with all the sacraments; the presumption always is that the minister intends what he does.” (pp.491-492, no.567) --- Leeming, Bernard, S.J. Principles of Sacramental Theology. 1956.

“Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that unless the minister externally expresses that he did not intend to do what the Church does when he was performing a sacrament, then the intention expressed in the words he uttered in the sacrament suffices for the Church to presume validity. 

“The minister of the sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is, and in the words which he utters the intention of the Church is expressed.  This intention suffices for the perfection of the sacrament unless the contrary is externally expressed on the part of the minister or the recipient of the sacrament.” --- ST III, Q. 64, Art. 8, ad. 2.

“Consequently, as long as the matter and form are correct, the Church does not, as a rule, doubt the intention of the minister.  No Catholic should doubt what the Church does not doubt. 

"As a general rule there is no doubt about the intention of the minister of the sacraments provided the matter and the form are correctly posited.  It is taken for granted that the minister has the intention of doing what the Church does." (p.ix) --- De Salvo, Rev. Raphael, O.S.B., S.T.L. The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments. 1949.  

“Therefore the Church holds, and till the contrary is proved wishes all to hold, that such due intention is never absent whensoever the minister seriously goes through the sacramental rite she has prescribed, using the matter and form which she uses.” (p.105) --- Brandi, Rev. S. M., S.J. and Smith, Sydney F., S.J.  A Last Word on Anglican Ordinations.1897. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 25, 2023, 06:56:21 AM

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on February 25, 2023, 05:46:07 AM

We all understand that the lack of intention can render the sacrament invalid due to a change in the matter or form (externals). Pope Leo XIII made this clear when he discussed Anglican orders. You are battling windmills. :facepalm:

Again, could you please READ Leo XIII?  He stated that the perveted intention of the Anglican Rite was due to their having tampered with the form so that THE RITE no longer clearly expressed the intention OF THE CHURCH for the Sacrament.  Has nothing to do with the individual mental state of the minister.

In fact, Leo XIII's teaching is the perfect corollar to this, where he taught that NO AMOUNT of positive internal intention on part of the MINISTER could supply the defective intention of the RITE that had been butchered, so that even if a given minister had the correct intention, it didn't suffice.

There's a bunch of reading into sources going on here due to bias.

I'll come back later with the citations from St. Thomas, who teaches word for word exactly what I've beeing saying and who refutes every one of these absurd objections.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 25, 2023, 07:10:10 AM

It just doesn't sink in here with people that they are conflating internal intention with intending to do what the Church intends, when it's with intending to do what the Church does.  There's no amount of mental "wishing away" of the Sacramental effect that the Mason Lienart could have done to invalidate the Sacrament.

St. Thomas gives a concrete example to illustrate the point.  You have a servant sent by his master to take alms to some poor person.  He carries out the orders, but is secretly plotting some mischief, such as to steal the alms from the man (now that he knows that he has them).  So he's underminig the intent of his master, and has no intention of conforming with what the master intended, i.e. to relieve the poor person of some poverty and need, but he nevertheless carries out the instructions of the master.

St. Thomas here clearly illustrates the difference between intending to DO what the Chuch DOES.  This servant intended to carry out the orders of the master ... even though the entire time he was plotting against the "effect" of what the master wished to accomplish.  This servant taking the alms, accoding to St. Thomas, is akin to the necessary intention.

+Lienart goes to an announced ordination rite at 10AM on some Saturday, puts on his vestments, and follows the Rite.  He knows FULL WELL that he's acting as a functinary of the Church, knows full well that the Church views this as an official celebration of the Rite.  He then intends to perform the rite.  Valid.  Period.  No amount of mental gymnastics could override this intention.

If I hold the loaded gun up to someone's head and pull the trigger, while thinking "I do not wish that he die.  I do not wish that he die." ... did  I intend to kill him.  Absolutely, regardless of this schizophrenic mind-game.  I INTENDED to DO that which has the EFFECT of killing the man.  So I intended to kill him.  This is what was distinguished in the book as direct vs. reflexive intention.  I clearly intended (directly) to kill him, despite the fact that I played this mental game (reflexive intention) to try wishing it away.

These are the two types of internal intention being conflated here.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 25, 2023, 07:30:26 AM

I think you all need to give up this thread for Lent. :laugh1:

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on February 25, 2023, 07:40:09 AM

Quote from: 2Vermont on February 25, 2023, 07:30:26 AM

I think you all need to give up this thread for Lent. :laugh1:

I don't know.  It seems like it's good penance.  :-)

PS -- why is there no simple "smilie face" smilie?  Really the many reason smilies / emoticons were invented was to give indication that a comment was said in jest, or tongue in cheeck, vs. seriously, and it consisted originally of just a simple smilie fact.

So there's a huge difference between saying ...

You're such an idiot.

AND

You're such an idiot (smile).

But there's no actual plain SMILE in the smilie collection.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: 2Vermont on February 25, 2023, 07:48:00 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 25, 2023, 07:40:09 AM

I don't know.  It seems like it's good penance.  :-)

PS -- why is there no simple "smilie face" smilie?  Really the many reason smilies / emoticons were invented was to give indication that a comment was said in jest, or tongue in cheeck, vs. seriously, and it consisted originally of just a simple smilie fact.

So there's a huge difference between saying ...

You're such an idiot.

AND

You're such an idiot (smile).

But there's no actual plain SMILE in the smilie collection.

I think there are others we could use as well.  I tend to revert to right clicking and using the emojis on my computer: 😊

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: DecemRationis on February 25, 2023, 08:38:58 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 25, 2023, 07:40:09 AM

PS -- why is there no simple "smilie face" smilie?  Really the many reason smilies / emoticons were invented was to give indication that a comment was said in jest, or tongue in cheeck, vs. seriously, and it consisted originally of just a simple smilie fact.

So there's a huge difference between saying ...

You're such an idiot.

AND

You're such an idiot (smile).

But there's no actual plain SMILE in the smilie collection.

Hear, hear!!! Glad someone finally said it. I thought I was an idiot - insert smilie? - for not being able to find it or something. 

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 25, 2023, 09:25:04 AM

Quote

What I and others are saying is that, yes, if the minister has the intention internally NOT to do what the Church does and manifests that externally afterwards, we must deem that the sacrament was invalid.

No one is debating this.  We all agree.


Again, here's the question under debate:  
if the minister has the intention internally NOT to do what the Church does and manifests that externally afterwards and does NOT manifest this externally, then what?  

Answer:  Since there was no external manifestation, we must conclude validity.  Also, even though the minister have a contrary INTERNAL intention, since he ACTUALLY performed the rite (i.e. he EXTERNALLY did what the Church DOES) then, again, we must conclude validity.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on February 25, 2023, 10:58:59 AM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 25, 2023, 09:25:04 AM

No one is debating this.  We all agree.


Again, here's the question under debate: 
if the minister has the intention internally NOT to do what the Church does and manifests that externally afterwards and does NOT manifest this externally, then what? 

Answer:  Since there was no external manifestation, we must conclude validity.  Also, even though the minister have a contrary INTERNAL intention, since he ACTUALLY performed the rite (i.e. he EXTERNALLY did what the Church DOES) then, again, we must conclude validity.

“does NOT manifest this externally, then what?”

As I said in a previous post, the sacrament is considered valid. Period. No if’s and’s or but’s. Only God and the perpetrator knows that the sacrament is actually invalid.

“Answer:  Since there was no external manifestation, we must conclude validity.  Also, even though the minister have a contrary INTERNAL intention, since he ACTUALLY performed the rite (i.e. he EXTERNALLY did what the Church DOES) then, again, we must conclude validity.Answer:  Since there was no external manifestation, we must conclude validity.  Also, even though the minister have a contrary INTERNAL intention, since he ACTUALLY performed the rite (i.e. he EXTERNALLY did what the Church DOES) then, again, we must conclude validity.”

I believe we agree, thank you.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on February 25, 2023, 11:08:37 AM

“What I and others are saying is that, yes, if the minister has the intention internally NOT to do what the Church does and manifests that externally afterwards, we must deem that the sacrament was invalid.”


“No one is debating this.  We all agree.“


The problem is, Ladislaus does not agree with this. He believes that the sacrament would still be valid.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on February 25, 2023, 11:13:05 AM

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 25, 2023, 06:56:21 AM

Again, could you please READ Leo XIII?  He stated that the perveted intention of the Anglican Rite was due to their having tampered with the form so that THE RITE no longer clearly expressed the intention OF THE CHURCH for the Sacrament.  Has nothing to do with the individual mental state of the minister.

For the record, I’ve never disagreed with this.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 12:10:42 PM

Since Ladislaus is regurgitating all his errors on ministerial intention, I guess its time to bump this old thread.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 12:19:35 PM

Quote from: Joe Cupertino on February 17, 2023, 02:19:16 PM

Catharinus and his theory of external intention was discussed throughout the first four pages of this thread.  It's what the argument has been about for almost this entire thread.  Starting on page two, Ladislaus began trying to explain that his theory was not the same as the Catharinus-ian theory of external intention.  But the distinction he made is exactly the same as the explanation of the theory of external intention by those of the school of Catharinus.

Yup^^^

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 12:26:17 PM

Quote from: de Lugo on February 18, 2023, 01:36:15 PM

So far, the manuals of De Salvo, Tanqueray, Hunter, Pohle-Preuss, the anathema of Pope Alexander VIII, and the Council of Trent all stand against the condemned neo-Catharinusian "exterior intention" argument of M. Ladislaus and his fellow Jansenists.

Here we add a 5th manual condemning the position of Ladislaus/Catharinus:

MSGR. J.M. HERVÉ, S. Th. Dr.: THEOLOGIA DOGMATICA. VOL. III. Part 4: De Sacramentis in genere Chapter IV: De ministro sacramentorum.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-intention-required-in-the-minister-of-the-sacraments-10370

473. Errors and Opinions.
a) Errors: According to the Protestants, the sacraments are nothing but signs for arousing or increasing the faith of those who receive them. Consequently, no intention is required for the validity of the sacraments; it suffices that any kind of external rite be performed.

b) Theory of Catharinus: Catharinus[1] teaches that "the material performance of the external rite, when it is performed freely, seriously, and without any jest," suffices for the validity of the sacrament, even if the minister has a contrary interior intention. Some others have welcomed this opinion, particularly some of the Faculty at the University of Paris, although they modify the opinion with the restrictive clause that "an external intention does not suffice unless the external rite, considered along with the circuмstances of place, time, and the state of the minister, seems to those watching to be a sacrament."

[1]. _De_necessaria_intentione_in_perficiendis_sacramentis_. Rome: 1552, p. 205ff; Salmeron, Serry, Drouin, and others believe likewise. Cf. Godefroy, _Dict._theol._, art. "Intention," col. 2273ff; art "Politi," p. 2432-33; Rambaldi, _L'oggetto_dell'intenzione_sacramentale_.... Rome:, 1944; Renwart, _N._R. Theol._," 1955, P. 800-821; 1075-1077.

474. Catholic Doctrine:
1. It has been defined, against heretics, that it is necessary for the validity of the sacrament that there be in the minister the intention *of doing what the Church does*.
2. In order to have this intention, moreover, it is commonly taught that a) it is not necessary that the minister will directly and explicitly to confect the sacrament or to perform the rite as instituted by Christ and productive of grace; b) nor does an external intention suffice, in the sense of Catharinus; c) but it is required, and also sufficient, that there be an internal intention, at least implicit, of performing the rite as it is customarily performed in the true Church, with all that this includes, or is thought, even falsely, to include, or of doing what Christians are accustomed to do through such a rite: for by so doing, the minister makes his own the intention of Christians.

[...]


476. 2º An internal intention is required [Common and certain teaching].
A. This is demonstrated from the sense of the Church:
a) For the validity of the sacraments, the councils require, beyond matter and form, an intention in the minister of doing what the Church does. And indeed the minister certainly has this intention, or an internal intention, as they say, when he immediately, and certainly and seriously intends to perform a true sacrament or immediately and absolutely wills that a sacrament be present.
b) Not otherwise teaches the Council of Trent, saying that there is no absolution, if the confessor lacks the "serious resolve [of the will: "animus"] of truly absolving."[1]
c) Alexander VIII, in the year 1690, condemned the following proposition of Farvacques, among the errors of the Jansenists: "A Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes every external rite and form of baptizing, but within, in his heart, resolves to himself: not to intend what the Church does."[2] Concerning this Benedict XIV said, "It cannot be denied that a grave wound [has been inflicted by this condemnation] on the aforementioned opinion (of Catharinus)."[3] (In practice, he says, the safer theory, that which demands an internal intention, must be followed; if this intention is lacking, therefore, the sacrament must be conditionally renewed in case of necessity; otherwise the Holy See is to be consulted about what to do.)
The RomanMissal implicitly teaches likewise, declaring a consecration ineffectual if the priest, having before himself 11 hosts, intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he intends, "because the intention is required."[4] This intention is certainly secret and internal."


As M. Joe Cupertino pointed out earlier, the position described by M. Ladislaus is exactly the same as that condemned in Catharinus, a Jansenist error, despite his illogical protestations to the contrary, and it is for this reason he is unable to answer my very simple question (asked now 8 times): He wants to say yes, but he knows his answer stands condemned.

It is interesting to also note in passing that the most vehemet defenders of this condemned Jansenist error are also Feeneyites (Ladislaus, Stubborn, Pax Vobis), which is perhaps not surprising, given the harsh perspective they have of God.

Against Ladislaus^^^

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 12:31:37 PM

More from Herve:



477. It matters little whether the minister also acts seriously in those accompanying acts from which his will to act as a minister of Christ can be inferred. For the circuмstances themselves: 1. cannot make a rite in itself merely natural into a rite of the kind which Christ instituted; 2. cannot make a priest really act as a minister of Christ, if internally he does not wish to do so. It remains therefore that an internal intention is required in the minister.

488. Objection 1º: The sacraments produce grace "ex opere operato" (by the deed having been done). Ergo, whenever the external rite is seriously performed, grace necessarily follows, regardless of whether the minister has a contrary internal intention, just as seed sown in the earth yields fruit and as fire burns a rope, regardless of what the farmer or the one setting the fire internally wish.

R. 1. The sacraments are worked "ex opere operato" whenever they are and are performed according to the institution of Christ; but that they may be and may formally be performed according to the institution of Christ, they depend on the internal intention of the minister confecting and administering them.[1] -- 2. Therefore the comparison with the causes cited is not valid, for these causes possess in themselves the power of acting, and immediately produce their effect and are applied, independently of any intention. If this comparison were valid, the external rite, even when accomplished merely to mimic the sacrament, would in fact be a sacrament, which is the heresy of Luther.[2]
[1]. 3, q. 64, a. 8, ad 1. [2]. Cf. Franzelin, th. 17; Billuart, diss. 5, a. 7, prob. 6º.

479. Objection 2º: It is necessary that one can be certain of the validity of the sacraments: for otherwise the salvation of the faithful, and indeed perhaps the ecclesiastical hierarchy itself, are imperiled. But in fact, unless an external intention suffices, this certitude concerning the validity of the sacraments cannot be had, for an internal intention is known only to God. Therefore an internal intention is not required.

R. Concerning the validity of the sacraments one can have moral certitude, which suffices for acting prudently, and for dispelling anxieties of spirit. Thus Leo XIII: "When someone seriously and according to the ritual adheres to the due matter and form for confecting and conferring a sacrament, from this fact [considered according to the common manner in which men act] it may be inferred that he undoubtedly intends (with an internal intention) to do what the Church does."[1] For indeed, if there be any such, they are extremely rarely found, who have such malice that while they perform the sacrament with serious exterior, they internally withhold the intention; and in such a case, the truth of the opinion of Catharinus would profit little, since a minister as perverse as this could most likely secretly falsify the matter and form of the sacrament.
But in fact Christ provided thus far for the hierarchy, promising the perpetual assistance of the Holy Spirit, lest the Church ever fail.

IN PRACTICE: Whatever one thinks in theory about the opinion of Catharinus, it is wholly illicit to follow it, since where the validity of the sacraments is concerned, the safer portion must always be chosen.[2].

[1]. Ep. _Apostolicae_curae_, 13 Sept. 1896; cf. 3, q.64, a.8, ad 2. [2]. D. 1151

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 12:42:29 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on February 20, 2023, 07:42:33 PM

Let's let Ladislaus say what Ladislaus is saying:

Reply #2 in this thread (you know, way back on p.1?):

"So a hypothetical Mason Lienart could sit there the entire time thinking, "I do not wish to ordain.  I do not wish to ordain."  But if he performs the Rite he intends to do the ordination, and therefore to ordain."

THAT's precisely what is condemned by Alexander VIII, and precisely what is advocated by the School of Catharinus and the later Jansenists.

There couldn't be a clearer case of invalidity than deliberately rejecting the requisite intention.

Ladislaus pretending not to ascribe to the ccondemned theory of Catharinus, but perfectly replicating the Catharinian position here^^^

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Angelus on June 22, 2023, 12:53:43 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 12:42:29 PM

Ladislaus pretending not to ascribe to the ccondemned theory of Catharinus, but perfectly replicating the Catharinian position here^^^

Sean, do you realize that your argument supports the proposition that Lefebvre's Priestly Ordination was doubtful? Do you think that there is a positive doubt that Lefebvre was not ordained as a priest by Leinart because of the possibility of Lienart's evil "ministerial intention?"

The "Catharinus position" would be that the ministerial intention of Leinart is irrelevant so long as Leinart followed used the proper Matter and Form. But you seem to be stating that we cannot be sure of Leinart's internal (unstated) intention when he ordained Lefebvre and because we cannot be sure of Lienart's internal intention that Lefebvre's ordination is positively doubtful.

But I don't think you want to come to that conclusion, since you are a Resistance supporter, right?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 12:58:21 PM

Quote from: Angelus on June 22, 2023, 12:53:43 PM

Sean, do you realize that your argument supports the proposition that Lefebvre's Priestly Ordination was doubtful? Do you think that there is a positive doubt that Lefebvre was not ordained as a priest by Leinart because of the possibility of Lienart's evil "ministerial intention?"

The "Catharinus position" would be that the ministerial intention of Leinart is irrelevant so long as Leinart followed used the proper Matter and Form. But you seem to be stating that we cannot be sure of Leinart's internal (unstated) intention when he ordained Lefebvre and because we cannot be sure of Lienart's internal intention that Lefebvre's ordination is positively doubtful.

But I don't think you want to come to that conclusion, since you are a Resistance supporter, right?

No it does not.

The Church did not find doubt in the case of Talleyrand, so how could any find doubt in the case of Lienart???

It means Lefebvre's ordination (just like every other sacrament ever received by anyone) is only morally certain.

Moral certitude is probability so great that, even though not infallible, one would be judged imprudent to disregard it.

Would you consider youself to be in positive doubt because you are not infallibly certain that your place of employment has not burned down over the weekend?  And would you therefore refuse to go to work on Monday, because you are only morally certain the building is still standing?

To equate moral certitude and positive doubt is an extreme error.

Infallible certitude does not exist in the domain of sacramental validity, since there is no way of knowing if, for example, a host has been corrupted, or the priest has secretly botched the words of consecration, or (as in the present discussion) the minister has covertly formed a contrary intention not to do what the Church does.  Those who can't accept that will be led to theological errors like Catharinus was.

It was precisely because of his inability to accept this, that Catharinus formed his condemned opinion, saying that anyone who performed the rites in a serious manner therefore had the requisite intention.

That's exactly what Alexander is condemning.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Angelus on June 22, 2023, 01:20:20 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 12:58:21 PM

No it does not.

The Church did not find doubt in the case of Talleyrand, so how could any find doubt in the case of Lienart???

It means Lefebvre's ordination (just like every other sacrament ever received by anyone) is only morally certain.

Moral certitude is probability so great that, even though not infallible, one would be judged imprudent to disregard it.

Would you consider youself to be in positive doubt because you are not infallibly certain that your place of employment has not burned down over the weekend?  And would you therefore refuse to go to work on Monday, because you are only morally certain the building is still standing?

To equate moral certitude and positive doubt is an extreme error.

Infallible certitude does not exist in the domain of sacramental validity, since there is no way of knowing if, for example, a host has been corrupted, or the priest has secretly botched the words of consecration, or (as in the present discussion) the minister has covertly formed a contrary intention not to do what the Church does.  Those who can't accept that will be led to theological errors like Catharinus was.

It was precisely because of his inability to accept this, that Catharinus formed his condemned opinion, saying that anyone who performed the rites in a serious manner therefore had the requisite intention.

That's exactly what Alexander is condemning.

Sean, in your opinion, if Leinart secretly wanted to invalidate all of his presumed ordinations, could he do so simply by forming an "internal intention" to withhold the Sacrament from his ordinands? I will assume your answer is yes.

Is "the Church" then allowed to take such "internal intention" into account when when judging the validity or invalidity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders? I assume your answer is no because of what Leo XIII said.

Therefore, what is the point of discussing "internal ministerial intention" in the context of judging whether or not the Sacrament of Holy Orders is valid or invalid? Do you see that it is a merely academic exercise? And that being the case, as Leo XIII says "the Church" ignores "internal" or "covert" intention of the minister because it is impossible for humans to know such things.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 01:21:50 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 12:58:21 PM

No it does not.

The Church did not find doubt in the case of Talleyrand, so how could any find doubt in the case of Lienart???

It means Lefebvre's ordination (just like every other sacrament ever received by anyone) is only morally certain.

Moral certitude is probability so great that, even though not infallible, one would be judged imprudent to disregard it.

Would you consider youself to be in positive doubt because you are not infallibly certain that your place of employment has not burned down over the weekend?  And would you therefore refuse to go to work on Monday, because you are only morally certain the building is still standing?

To equate moral certitude and positive doubt is an extreme error.

Infallible certitude does not exist in the domain of sacramental validity, since there is no way of knowing if, for example, a host has been corrupted, or the priest has secretly botched the words of consecration, or (as in the present discussion) the minister has covertly formed a contrary intention not to do what the Church does.  Those who can't accept that will be led to theological errors like Catharinus was.

It was precisely because of his inability to accept this, that Catharinus formed his condemned opinion, saying that anyone who performed the rites in a serious manner therefore had the requisite intention.

That's exactly what Alexander is condemning.

Stated differently, one cannot simultaneously be in a state of both moral certitude and positive doubt, since the two are incompatible.

Since all are morally certain regarding Lefebvre, the only doubts which can arise are negative doubts (i.e., asking oneself the question, "What if...?).

The moralists tell us "a negative doubt is to be despised."

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 01:27:30 PM

Quote from: Angelus on June 22, 2023, 01:20:20 PM

Sean, in your opinion, if Leinart secretly wanted to invalidate all of his presumed ordinations, could he do so simply by forming an "internal intention" to withhold the Sacrament from his ordinands? I will assume your answer is yes.

Is "the Church" then allowed to take such "internal intention" into account when when judging the validity or invalidity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders? I assume your answer is no because of what Leo XIII said.

Therefore, what is the point of discussing "internal ministerial intention" in the context of judging whether or not the Sacrament of Holy Orders is valid or invalid? Do you see that it is a merely academic exercise? And that being the case, as Leo XIII says "the Church" ignores "internal" or "covert" intention of the minister because it is impossible for humans to know such things.

If there is no point discussing it, then why are you bothering to discuss it?

Why did Alexander, and all the theologians (or Catharinus, for that matter) bother to discuss it?

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Angelus on June 22, 2023, 01:35:13 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 01:27:30 PM

If there is no point discussing it, then why are you bothering to discuss it?

Why did Alexander, and all the theologians (or Catharinus, for that matter) bother to discuss it?

The Holy Office theologians under Alexander VIII (not Alexander VIII himself) and other theologians discuss all kinds of esoteric, impractical issues. They debate each other endlessly.

However, Pope Leo XIII gave us the guide for practical action in these matters. Specifically, he said that there is no need to doubt the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders based on some covert interior ministerial intention. So we don't need to bring that up in cases of practical moral judgment.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 01:42:09 PM

Quote from: Angelus on June 22, 2023, 01:35:13 PM

The Holy Office theologians under Alexander VIII (not Alexander VIII himself) and other theologians discuss all kinds of esoteric, impractical issues. They debate each other endlessly.

However, Pope Leo XIII gave us the guide for practical action in these matters. Specifically, he said that there is no need to doubt the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders based on some covert interior ministerial intention. So we don't need to bring that up in cases of practical moral judgment.

What Leo XIII did NOT say was that interior intention is irrelavent to sacramental validity.

What he DID say is that, since we cannot know when such a covert contrary intention not to do what the Church does is present, we PRESUME the proper intention was present.

What Alexander and all the paproved theologians are saying is that, if such a covert contrary intention was present, the sacrament is clearly invalid.

If you are disagreeing with that, you have become a Catharinian, and embraced a condemned opinion.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on June 22, 2023, 03:04:40 PM

I find it quite sad and fascinating how people can reject the clearest of self-evident doctrines.

In this case Ladislaus is doing some kind of mental gymnastics to get around the fact that you can invalidate the sacrament by forming a contrary intention while the more common lunacy is rejecting John 3:5 and the canons declaring it literal.

Sad. 

Lad why are you doing this to yourself?

You have to submit even if you don't understand.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Angelus on June 22, 2023, 03:44:43 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 01:42:09 PM

What Leo XIII did NOT say was that interior intention is irrelavent to sacramental validity.

What he DID say is that, since we cannot know when such a covert contrary intention not to do what the Church does is present, we PRESUME the proper intention was present.

What Alexander and all the paproved theologians are saying is that, if such a covert contrary intention was present, the sacrament is clearly invalid.

If you are disagreeing with that, you have become a Catharinian, and embraced a condemned opinion.

I agree with what you said. Interior intention IS relevant to validity in sacramental theology. But interior intention IS NOT relevant in moral theology related to validity of the Sacraments because we cannot act on information that is impossible for us to know. 

Leo XIII has made it very clear that

"A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does."

So, as moral actors considering who to approach for the Sacraments, we only need to follow Pope Leo XIII's instructions. We don't need to read about a condemned theological proposition in 1690. To do so just confuses people, moral actors in the real world.

P.S. This is also why there should be no doubt about the validity of Lefebvre's ordination. Leinart "correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament." So, in that case, ministerial intention was satisfied from a moral standpoint.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 04:33:53 PM

Quote from: Angelus on June 22, 2023, 03:44:43 PM

I agree with what you said. Interior intention IS relevant to validity in sacramental theology. But interior intention IS NOT relevant in moral theology related to validity of the Sacraments because we cannot act on information that is impossible for us to know.

Leo XIII has made it very clear that

"A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does."

So, as moral actors considering who to approach for the Sacraments, we only need to follow Pope Leo XIII's instructions. We don't need to read about a condemned theological proposition in 1690. To do so just confuses people, moral actors in the real world.

P.S. This is also why there should be no doubt about the validity of Lefebvre's ordination. Leinart "correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament." So, in that case, ministerial intention was satisfied from a moral standpoint.

Yes, they are presumed valid (even if they aren't).

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: NIFH on June 22, 2023, 07:27:33 PM

Thank you, Sean, for this education.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: NIFH on June 22, 2023, 07:31:24 PM

Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 04:33:53 PM

Yes, they are presumed valid (even if they aren't).

Archbishop Lefebvre applied a similar line of thinking to the validity of recent pontificates.  It is certainly possible that these scandalous popes ceased to be pope because of formal heresy known to only a few.  Since we ourselves cannot point to a self-declared formal heresy, we must behave toward the pope as if he really is the pope.  We must presume his papacy is valid (even if it isn't).

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on June 22, 2023, 07:32:26 PM

Leo XIII was talking about the intention of the Rite itself, due the vitiation of the Rite, and not the intention of the minister.  It's not possible for a right intention of the minister to overcome the vitiated intention of the Rite, even after they tried to fix the essential form.  It's all right there if you actually read Apostolicae Curae.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on June 22, 2023, 07:34:48 PM

Quote from: NIFH on June 22, 2023, 07:27:33 PM

Thank you, Sean, for this education.

You're being educated by a halfwit.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 22, 2023, 07:47:27 PM

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 22, 2023, 07:34:48 PM

You're being educated by a halfwit.

Says the Catharinian.

:facepalm:

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: trad123 on June 23, 2023, 02:57:07 AM

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,  Ludwig Ott


https://archive.org/details/fundamentalsofca0000ottl/page/342/mode/2up?view=theater


Page 342

Quote

Objectively considered, the intention of doing what the Church does suffices. The minister, therefore, does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely, to produce the effects of the Sacraments, for example, the forgiveness of sins. Neither does he need to intend to execute a specific Catholic rite. It suffices if he have the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians.

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 23, 2023, 05:15:17 AM

Trad123-

Obviously, one who forms a covert contrary intention NOT to do what the Church does, does not intend to do what the Church does, even if he feigns having a proper intention by walking through a sacramental rite.

Herve references this in his commentary on Leo XIII regarding “wicked ministers,” which he surmises will be rare (see post #305 in the bolded font):

“For indeed, if there be any such, they are extremely rarely found, who have such malice that while they perform the sacrament with serious exterior, they internally withhold the intention; and in such a case, the truth of the opinion of Catharinus would profit little, since a minister as perverse as this could most likely secretly falsify the matter and form of the sacrament.”

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on June 23, 2023, 06:16:13 AM

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 20, 2023, 12:18:35 PM

How many marriages can be annulled if one of the spouses simply has to say "I never intended to marry you 10 years ago."  BOOM, marriage invalid.  No investigation needs to (or can) happen.  Marriage is annulled immediately, based on lack of personal intention.  Yet...this is not historically or sacramentally true.

There is a huge difference between a person claiming that their marriage is invalid due to lack of intention and a bishop or priest conferring an invalid sacrament due to the same. It is plainly obvious that in the case of marriage the individual who wants the annulment has a vested interest in claiming lack of intention, whereas the bishop or priest wouldn’t have the same partiality unless he was trying to impress some satanist.:laugh1:

Title: Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
Post by: Ladislaus on June 23, 2023, 08:38:55 AM

Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on June 23, 2023, 06:16:13 AM

There is a huge difference between a person claiming that their marriage is invalid due to lack of intention and a bishop or priest conferring an invalid sacrament due to the same. It is plainly obvious that in the case of marriage the individual who wants the annulment has a vested interest in claiming lack of intention, whereas the bishop or priest wouldn’t have the same partiality unless he was trying to impress some satanist.:laugh1:

While the rationale might be different, as you point out, the problem would be the same in essence.  So, for marriages, before the Conciliar annulment Wild West, the Church would summarily reject such claims.  For a while in Conciliar-land, they required witnesses to testify that you had expressed such sentiments prior to the time of your marriage.  But how hard would it be for some dishonest individual to get some "friends" to "witness" that you had reservations at the time.  And of course, there's the usual interpretation of having some trepidation or "cold feet" about getting married ... that's inflated into "I didn't really intend to get married."

Really, the other scenario where the intention could come out would be if some conversation were overheard by someone else.  "I heard Lienart telling someone that he was withholding intention on most of his ordinations." where perhaps +Lienart was discussing it with a fellow conspirator / Mason.