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.

.

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.

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???

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.

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.

.

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 ...

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.

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