I have posted it multiple times on this website. Have you genuinley missed it?
Yes, you're totally right that it might have been only the once that he withheld, which is the attitude we might go in with when interviewing him alive. But we can't assume that and the matter is a very serious one.
Yes, I am quite new here, I have only seen what you posted in this thread. Where might I find it?
It is not a matter of it *might* have been only that time, that is all we are aware of (assuming for the sake of argument, your evidence of this fact is truly evidence), so in reality it
was only that time.
This is the problem with the SSPV and those with their mindset: they act on negative doubts, which is what characterizes scrupulosity. If +Thuc were alive, there would be no obligation to ask him whether he intended to consecrate or not, according to the teaching of Pope Leo XIII below.
Apostolicae Curae:
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]
The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. 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 [/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)](intendisse)[/color][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]
what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.[/color]
Topic: Permanent Chapel in Alberta, Canada (Read 3690 times)