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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22]

Author Topic: Was Lienart Really a Mason?  (Read 18451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Angelus

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 1158
  • Reputation: +489/-94
  • Gender: Male
Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
« Reply #315 on: June 22, 2023, 03:44:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #316 on: June 22, 2023, 04:33:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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).
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 213
    • Reputation: +60/-29
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #317 on: June 22, 2023, 07:27:33 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Thank you, Sean, for this education.
    Logged

    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 213
    • Reputation: +60/-29
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #318 on: June 22, 2023, 07:31:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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).
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46395
    • Reputation: +27305/-5043
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #319 on: June 22, 2023, 07:32:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46395
    • Reputation: +27305/-5043
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #320 on: June 22, 2023, 07:34:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: NIFH on June 22, 2023, 07:27:33 PM
    Thank you, Sean, for this education.

    You're being educated by a halfwit.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #321 on: June 22, 2023, 07:47:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on June 22, 2023, 07:34:48 PM
    You're being educated by a halfwit.

    Says the Catharinian.

    :facepalm:
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #322 on: June 23, 2023, 02:57:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • 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.

    Logged
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #323 on: June 23, 2023, 05:15:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.”
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #324 on: June 23, 2023, 06:16:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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:
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46395
    • Reputation: +27305/-5043
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Was Lienart Really a Mason?
    « Reply #325 on: June 23, 2023, 08:38:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22]
    « previous next »