"Sacramental Intention & Masonic Bishops" -- Fr. Cekada

[INPEFESS]

Troll Alert!

What are you, the resident troll alerter?

Yep!

 

[Oldavid]

This is all very interesting, but it seems that anti-trollist thought police have almost wrecked it already.
Please everyone but the thought police continue.

[jovan66102]

This is all very interesting, but it seems that anti-trollist thought police have almost wrecked it already.
Please everyone but the thought police continue.

Do I take it that you agree with the troll that Fr Cekada, a respected member of this forum, is a 'mere layman in a collar'?

[Oldavid]

Nope,
But it seems that you are trying to stop the the discussion.

[jovan66102]

Nope,
But it seems that you are trying to stop the the discussion.

Nope. If you'll notice I asked the troll a question. If I was trying to stop the discussion, I would simply have posted a troll alert. I actually enjoy engaging with trolls.

[Oldavid]

Good oh

[joe17]

Eurocath and whoever,

   What say you about baptism being administered by a non-Catholic or even an excommunicant where the proper form was used and they were willing to do what Christ(his spouse the Church)does?  Valid or invalid?  How do you know the internal forum of an individual?  The Chlurch teaches that we must go by external actions.  Lienart is not the 1st unworthy bishop to have come down the pike.  Sacraments galore would have to be questioned if we went down that road.  As to the deathbed confession, we don't know and we don't even know if he categorically stated that when ordaining he actually witheld his intention to ordain, notwithstanding his going by the book during the ceremony.  Until you can present such facts, all the rest of it is hearsay and 3rd party.  Not admissable.

 Joe

[eurocath]

Fr. C probably knows the real answer, but it seems to me (and my failing memory) that priests were a kind of development to help the bishops as were the minor orders.  In the very early days I think there were only bishops made and the priests (as opposed to bishops) came later as helpers to the bishops as did the minor orders.

Obviously, early on there were not Seminaries, etc.  The formation was done probably through a form of apprenticeship, and this apprenticeship became the Minor Orders and the Priesthood (vs. the Episcopacy).  At least that's what my memory recalls from theology class, but, really, I could be remembering it completely wrong so take it with a grain of salt unless someone else confirms it... (Fr. C?).

You have it right. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) has a long explanation under "Priesthood". But it is clear that the powers discussed here, especially forgiving sin and confecting the Eucharist, come from the power of priesthood ("simplex sacerdos s. secundi ordinis") and not the episcopate, which latter is the elevating of a priest to a higher rank. Gerard asked if the Apostles were something unique and unrepeatable, and according to the Catholic Encyclopedia they were which is what makes Holy Orders "Apostolic".

The point relevant to the issue at hand is that nowhere has the Church ever consecrated a layman as a bishop. Even in cases where a layman is elected Pope, he is first ordained priest and then consecrated.

[eurocath]

This is all very interesting, but it seems that anti-trollist thought police have almost wrecked it already.
Please everyone but the thought police continue.

Do I take it that you agree with the troll that Fr Cekada, a respected member of this forum, is a 'mere layman in a collar'?

Really, Anthony Cekada has your respect? How well do you know him? What do you know about his jurisdiction in the Catholic Church?

Does Father Markus Ramolla have your respect too? How about the many former parishoners of Saint Gertrude the Great? Do you even realize what is going on?

[eurocath]

   What say you about baptism being administered by a non-Catholic or even an excommunicant where the proper form was used and they were willing to do what Christ(his spouse the Church)does?  Valid or invalid?

Get a good, thorough catechism and read it. You will learn that anyone can validly Baptise, even an excommunicant.

However, this is not the issue at hand. Please do not be fooled by Cekada's very clever slight of hand. The issue is not "can an unworthy person adminster a Sacrament"; the issue is "can an excommunicated anti-Catholic validly receive a Sacrament." An excommunicated individual is not permitted to receive Holy Orders. If Lienart was never a bishop, how could he ordain priests? That's the issue.

Lienart is not the 1st unworthy bishop to have come down the pike.  Sacraments galore would have to be questioned if we went down that road.

Right. That's not the road we go down. That's the road that Cekada has cleverly deflected many people down, and what is the result? Of course people will say "What a canard. That Lienart business, that's just silly."

Cekada is a man of high intelligence. Why would he read the many articles and books about the Lienart affair and get it completely wrong? And then spend time researching an article about this wrong idea? It's obvious. It's to keep people on the wrong track.

If you notice, Cekada's "debunking" article does not list out any of the original works (some of them 30 years old) that bring this all out in detail. Why? What is being hidden here? I will tell you. The fact that none of these articles or books say "Lienart is an unworthy bishop so maybe he withheld his intention." No one says that. That is an illusion meant to keep you from reading and understanding the original idea. The point is, it's a very sly move. And people who have supported the St Gertrude operation in the past did not realize what they were doing. I only pray that now that the whole house of cards has fallen, Cekada and Dolan will do the right thing and admit all this. They will be forgiven by true Catholics and their role in this era of the history of the Church will be good. I'm sure Cekada wanted to be a priest. What else could he do? So he made some mistakes? We all do. I pray that now he will do the right thing.

As to the deathbed confession, we don't know

We do know this: we do know that he was well aware of his prize student Lefebvre's "resistance" movement and he laughed at it. He knew about the "bishops", the "priests", the "seminaries" and what did he say? Many witnesses attest to his laughing at it, that the hierarchy was gone completely. He said "Humanly speaking, the Catholic Church is dead."

[matthew_talbot]

There were cocosecrating Bishops with Liienart..He could have been a Mason, a Dixon, or a line...makes no difference..the other bishops would still have conferred the consecration validly..

The same principal applies to all SSPX Priests ordained after 1988 since Bishop  de Castro Mayer was a coconscrator of the bishops who ordained these priests..sorry troll

[joe17]

 Where is the source stating that Cardinal Lienart said on his deathbed that witheld the intention to ordain when he conducted the said ceremony?  Are the witnesses named?  Were they consulted, or just said to be present?  His not being eligible to have ecclesiastical office would speak more to liceity, not necessarily validity.   

  I do know about baptism and who is capable of conferring it.  I was trying to show that a non-member of the Church is capable, as you stated.

 Joe

[Anastasia]

"He could have been a Mason, a Dixon, or a line."
   Great line.

[glgas]

Fr. C probably knows the real answer, but it seems to me (and my failing memory) that priests were a kind of development to help the bishops as were the minor orders.  In the very early days I think there were only bishops made and the priests (as opposed to bishops) came later as helpers to the bishops as did the minor orders.

Obviously, early on there were not Seminaries, etc.  The formation was done probably through a form of apprenticeship, and this apprenticeship became the Minor Orders and the Priesthood (vs. the Episcopacy).  At least that's what my memory recalls from theology class, but, really, I could be remembering it completely wrong so take it with a grain of salt unless someone else confirms it... (Fr. C?).

The traditional evidence to the early priesthood (as sacramental office) is

James 5:14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

The hagiographies of the 1st century popes : Cletus (76-88), Clement (88-97), Evaristus (97-105) (with the exception of Linus (67-76)) records the number of deacons, presbyters and bishops whom they ordained.

On the record in average there are half as many bishops than presbyters which  mean that most of the priests (who lived long enough, and were not victims of the persecutions) were ordained later bishops.

As far as I remember the teaching was not restricted to the orders, but mostly the bishops celebrated the masses, the presbyters (priests) listened to the confessions and assisted on the mass.

[glgas]

Dear Father Cekada,

didn't you just proved, that all the post Vatican ordinations are valid?

laszlo