Actually, I think you started it to plant doubt.

"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.

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?

Can anyone know he has been baptized?  

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.

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