Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 22

Author Topic: Was Lienart Really a Mason?  (Read 18460 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46400
  • Reputation: +27308/-5043
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
« Reply #15 on: February 16, 2023, 06:49:05 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline de Lugo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 563
    • Reputation: +421/-74
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #16 on: February 16, 2023, 08:11:00 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.

    Logged
    Noblesse oblige.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #17 on: February 16, 2023, 10:08:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #18 on: February 16, 2023, 10:18:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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)
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #19 on: February 16, 2023, 10:26:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Oops....deleted. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline de Lugo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 563
    • Reputation: +421/-74
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #20 on: February 16, 2023, 11:01:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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)

    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 
    Logged
    Noblesse oblige.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #21 on: February 16, 2023, 11:09:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline de Lugo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 563
    • Reputation: +421/-74
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #22 on: February 16, 2023, 11:15:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged
    Noblesse oblige.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #23 on: February 16, 2023, 11:17:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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. 
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline de Lugo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 563
    • Reputation: +421/-74
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #24 on: February 16, 2023, 11:18:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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 
    Logged
    Noblesse oblige.

    Offline Meg

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6790
    • Reputation: +3467/-2999
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #25 on: February 16, 2023, 12:58:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged
    "It is licit to resist a Sovereign Pontiff who is trying to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him in not following his orders and in preventing the execution of his will. It is not licit to Judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."

    ~St. Robert Bellarmine
    De Romano Pontifice, Lib.II, c.29

    Offline de Lugo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 563
    • Reputation: +421/-74
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #26 on: February 16, 2023, 01:04:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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:
    Logged
    Noblesse oblige.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46400
    • Reputation: +27308/-5043
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #27 on: February 16, 2023, 03:20:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46400
    • Reputation: +27308/-5043
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #28 on: February 16, 2023, 03:31:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline de Lugo

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 563
    • Reputation: +421/-74
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #29 on: February 16, 2023, 03:40:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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?
    Logged
    Noblesse oblige.
    Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 22
    « previous next »