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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 22

Author Topic: Was Lienart Really a Mason?  (Read 18431 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 14655
  • Reputation: +6042/-904
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
« Reply #180 on: February 19, 2023, 10:18:46 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1509
    • Reputation: +1235/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #181 on: February 19, 2023, 07:01:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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...
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #182 on: February 19, 2023, 07:24:14 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46389
    • Reputation: +27301/-5043
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #183 on: February 19, 2023, 11:28:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline BonifaceSVIII

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 12
    • Reputation: +10/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #184 on: February 19, 2023, 11:42:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46389
    • Reputation: +27301/-5043
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #185 on: February 19, 2023, 11:44:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46389
    • Reputation: +27301/-5043
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #186 on: February 19, 2023, 11:50:50 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline BonifaceSVIII

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 12
    • Reputation: +10/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #187 on: February 19, 2023, 11:58:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline BonifaceSVIII

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 12
    • Reputation: +10/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #188 on: February 20, 2023, 12:02:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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?
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #189 on: February 20, 2023, 01:03:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #190 on: February 20, 2023, 01:05:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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:
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #191 on: February 20, 2023, 01:06:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #192 on: February 20, 2023, 01:12:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1509
    • Reputation: +1235/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #193 on: February 20, 2023, 04:07:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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!
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14655
    • Reputation: +6042/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #194 on: February 20, 2023, 04:55:42 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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).


    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse
    Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 22
    « previous next »