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

[Oldavid]

Dear Father Cekada,

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

laszlo


glgas,
I must have missed the bit that could have inferred that.

Anyway, no amount of intention can make up for a deficiency of matter or form.

[glgas]

Anyway, no amount of intention can make up for a deficiency of matter or form.

Would you so kind to enlighten me with facts, quoting the deficient form side by side with the valid one?

[eurocath]

You're confused. The idea you have is erroneous. You've been pushed down the wrong road.

The issue is not any consecration. It's ordination. Lienart, the radical enemy of the Church, was all alone when he ordained Lefebvre. So those two co-consecrating bishops who came a few years later don't matter, since the problem was with the orindation.

I'm glad you brought up de Castro Mayer since that 1988 incident ("the consecrations") shows that they reinacted the same plan. Lefebvre went and ordained all four "priests" himself, and he brought in a real bishop to help co-consecrate later. But here's the whole issue, don't you see. If those four men were not really priests, then the fact that de Castro Mayer was there doesn't matter.

Who was it that said de Castro Mayer also wanted to give Lefebvre conditional re-ordination and Lefebvre said no? de Castro Mayer's diocese was wholly Catholic until after that point when he turned it over to the SSPX. Then they all lost the faith.

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

[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?

What say you about Holy Mass 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?

Do you attend a TLM? Do they have the Leonine Prayers immediately after Mass? Do priests have the authority to stop saying them or substitute some other prayers in their place? Licit or illicit?

[eurocath]

6. While you're here, I was wondering if you could also comment on what our friend Richard Williamson has said and written on this matter. I don't know if you've seen his comments on it, but his defense is very different from yours. First, he engages in name-calling, typical of the "negative fishies" anonymous contingent here on FishEaters. And then he claims that a layman can receive episcopal consecration, without having to be ordained a priest. He also claims in the same breath that St. Cyprian was a layman consecrated bishop in that manner, but any research on the St. Cyprians (there were several) clearly shows otherwise. What do you think of Williamson's priestless bishop idea?

Is there a citation for this? I know the SSPX is pseudo-traditional at best, but for one of its leaders to actually claim this (that you don't have to be ordained a priest to become a bishop) seems too incredible to believe.

[eurocath]

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'?

Do you know the Ode?


[Edit by Quis]

I have to come out of retirement to address this....

Do NOT link to that stuff.  It is foul and completely offensive.  If there are problems, Catholics should go to competent authority, both ecclesiastical and secular as appropriate, and not hold an Internet tribunal.  These are serious charges that should be dealt with in a civil and lawful manner by Church approved authorities (which in this case would be a competent Bishop and/or the secular authorities).  No good can come of this type of action.

Discussion of that subject is completely off limits here as are links to it.   I will have zero tolerance for it, and I will make the time to deal with it if it occurs again.

[eurocath]

6. While you're here, I was wondering if you could also comment on what our friend Richard Williamson has said and written on this matter…  he claims that a layman can receive episcopal consecration, without having to be ordained a priest… What do you think of Williamson's priestless bishop idea?
…
Since today is the Feast Day of St. Cyprian, I was wondering if you might comment on my point 6, above. Personally I would love to know what you have to say about the traditional Catholic orthodoxy of the Williamson Priestless Bishop postulation!

It's really not off base, because some dogmatic theologians such as Lennerz (de Ordine, Rome: 1953, 235) did in fact support the idea:

"Therefore, since there are many accounts (even in the church of Rome herself) attesting that those who were not priests were validly consecrated bishops, and since there are not solid reasons to the contrary, it does not appear that one can support the opinion any longer which says that only a priest is capable of receiving the episcopal order."

Whether one could act on the basis of such a conclusion, however, would require further research.

You, clearly one of the most intelligent traditional clergy, could become a Catholic hero right now, as you're probably already realizing. Perhaps you acted on the basis of this conclusion because of the times, maybe there seemed to be no other answer, and you wanted to do good. All of us make mistakes. If you come forward now about all of this you'll be known as a hero. You'll change the whole dynamic of the "traditional movement" and the revolution against the Church will have lost one of its greatest weapons. All Catholics will come to your aid.

[matthew_talbot]

You're confused. The idea you have is erroneous. You've been pushed down the wrong road.

The issue is not any consecration. It's ordination. Lienart, the radical enemy of the Church, was all alone when he ordained Lefebvre. So those two co-consecrating bishops who came a few years later don't matter, since the problem was with the orindation.

I'm glad you brought up de Castro Mayer since that 1988 incident ("the consecrations") shows that they reinacted the same plan. Lefebvre went and ordained all four "priests" himself, and he brought in a real bishop to help co-consecrate later. But here's the whole issue, don't you see. If those four men were not really priests, then the fact that de Castro Mayer was there doesn't matter.

Who was it that said de Castro Mayer also wanted to give Lefebvre conditional re-ordination and Lefebvre said no? de Castro Mayer's diocese was wholly Catholic until after that point when he turned it over to the SSPX. Then they all lost the faith.

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

Enough of this drivel..Argue with Aquinas and Leo XIII, Eurotroll,

   Let's  for the sake of argument, assume this line of reasoning needs further exploration:.

The question then would be: Would this affect the validity of ordinations performed by Cardinal Liénart?

Those who have attacked the Archbishop claim it would, and they make much of the chronology of the alleged sequence of events. The sequence they give is the following:

      Cardinal Liénart: Born, 1884; ordained, 1907; became Mason, 1912; promoted to 30th degree, 1924; became bishop 1928; ordained Archbishop Lefebvre, 1929; became Car­dinal, 1930.

      Now, the question of the validity of the or­dination depends upon the usual criteria for the validity of any sacrament. The essential re­quirements are "intention, matter, form, minister, and disposition of the recipient."

We can presume that matter and form fulfilled the necessary re­quirements of the Church, for in such solemn and public ceremonies an error in this regard would not have escaped unnoticed.

With regard to the minister, it is a teaching of the Church that neither faith nor the state of grace is required. Sinful, heretical, schismatic and apostate priests or bishops can still validly (though sinfully and illicit­ly) confect the sacraments, provided that they use the proper matter and form and have the necessary intention.

The question (if Bishop Liénart had been a Mason) would NOT be whether he could have validly administered a sacrament at all, but whether in fact he did so. In other words, did he either withhold his intention, or have an in­tention contrary to that which is considered necessary?

      The obvious answer is that we do not know and cannot know — because we cannot look back into his heart in 1929. The requirement established, or rather defined, at the Council of Trent is that the minister must "intend to do what the Church does." (Sess. 7, Can. 11)

Is it possible for a Freemason to intend to do what the Church does? The answer is yes. It is also possible for him to withhold this intention and to have a contrary in­tention — but, then, it is possible for any priest or bishop to do the same with any sacrament.

      To backtrack a little, intention can be characterized as "external" and "internal." Exter­nal intention is reflected in performing the rites correctly, but it does not suffice. If the minister does not have the correct internal intention, he would be acting in his own name or by his own power, rather than in Christ's name and with Christ's power. He would be performing a purely natural act — and not a supernatural one.

      The crux of the issue is how can we know and recognize this "internal intention" on the part of the minister?

Pope Leo XIII spoke to this issue when discussing Anglican orders:

“Concerning the mind or intention, insomuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but insofar as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it. Now if, in order to effect and confer a Sacrament, a person has seriously and correctly used the matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intend­ed to do what the Church does. It is on this principle that the doctrine is solidly founded which holds as a true Sacrament that which is conferred by the ministry of a heretic or a non-baptized person [as in Baptism] as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite.” (Em­phasis supplied.)

      Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the Church cannot pass judgment purely on inter­nal intentions for the simple reason that she cannot ever really know them.

Thus, those who claim that Cardinal Liénart was a Mason and for this reason did not validly confer priestly ordination arrogate to themselves the right to do something even the Church has no power to do — pass judgment on the unexpressed intentions of the ministers of a sacra­ment.

      All this is not to say that the correct perfor­mance of the external rites, absent any intention at all, suffices for validity — indeed, this opinion was condemned by the Church.

In the absence of external evidence which clearly shows that the intention was withheld, the Church always presumes that the minister did in fact have the intention of doing what the Church does.

And thus we find St. Thomas Aquinas teaching that "the 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." (Summa, Part III, Question 64, 8 and 2).

Argue with Summa, addle-brain 

[glgas]

What say you about Holy Mass 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?

Do you attend a TLM? Do they have the Leonine Prayers immediately after Mass? Do priests have the authority to stop saying them or substitute some other prayers in their place? Licit or illicit?

As for the mass: if the celebrant is validly ordained but later excommunicated / suspended / etc his Mass is valid but illicit.

As for the Leonine prayers since 1962 there are not obligatory, and even before there were not uniform. In Hungary only the Sancte Michael Archangele prayer was recited after the low masses. 

[INPEFESS]

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'?

Do you know the Ode?

Edit by Quis - remove link

Please, that is not appropriate. While I do not advocate what actions have been taken, this is not a laughing matter. I know many poor souls who are caught up in this catastrophe and whose lives have been destroyed by these events. Grave scandal has been given, trust has been broken, families have been split, reputations have been soiled, vicious rumors have been promulgated, and deceptions have been exposed. It is not something to post for the Catholic world to scoff.

[joe17]

Euro,

  As was earlier stated by someone else, yes, if the priest was validly ordained, he is capable of saying a valid Mass, notwithstanding his excommunication or hersey, etc.

  I do assist solely at the TLM.  They do say the Leonine prayers after Low Mass.  That's how it was left to us when Pope Pius XII died.  We must continue until furthur notice from the next pope.  The explainations just given, quoting Trent and Pope Leo and St Thomas explain much of the crux of this manner in a nutshell, in my opinion.

 Joe

[eurocath]

  I do assist solely at the TLM.  They do say the Leonine prayers after Low Mass.  That's how it was left to us when Pope Pius XII died.  We must continue until furthur notice from the next pope.

Agreed. Did you know that Cekada, Dolan, and related clergy have seen fit to stop saying these prayers?

  The explainations just given, quoting Trent and Pope Leo and St Thomas explain much of the crux of this manner in a nutshell, in my opinion.

Don't be led astray by wolves. Maybe you have not been following this closely. Take a moment to read the posts in this thread again. Cekada is talking about priestly "intention" but nobody else is. The critics who discovered the whole Lienart connection never spoke of "intention" as the invalidating matter. The issue has to do with the chronology posted above. If the man left the Church he could not have been Bishop. If not a Bishop, it does not matter what his intention was

[eurocath]

Talbot here cut and pastes A. Cekada's essay, which is good because it demonstrates  how Cekada (cleverly!) changes the "Lienartists" argument completely, and how he goes at length to uphold a false strawman argument so that it can be debunked. Instead of addressing (or "debunking") the true, serious, grave concerns brought up by many Catholics about whether or not Achille Lienart could have become a bishop in 1928 as an excommunicated man (the Church teaches that he could not - if you are not part of the church, you cannot have a See in that Church), instead Cekada twitsts that argument into "if we suspect a bishop has bad intentions, can we assume his ordinations are invalid".

As anyone can see, the "Lienartist" claim is an apple to Cekada's orange. Cekada cannot debunk the "Lienartist" apple, and it's an apple so dangerous to Cekada that he can't even give you the names of those apples or tell you where to look at them. You can read Cekada's article whose quotations about intention are perfectly correct ... but it doesn't debunk any "Lienartist" claim at all.

   Let's  for the sake of argument, assume this line of reasoning needs further exploration:.

The question then would be: Would this affect the validity of ordinations performed by Cardinal Liénart?

Those who have attacked the Archbishop claim it would, and they make much of the chronology of the alleged sequence of events. The sequence they give is the following:

      Cardinal Liénart: Born, 1884; ordained, 1907; became Mason, 1912; promoted to 30th degree, 1924; became bishop 1928; ordained Archbishop Lefebvre, 1929; became Car­dinal, 1930.

That sequence of events tells all. The "Lienartists" have pointed out that Lienart never became a bishop in 1928 since he was not a member of the Church. As an excommunicated man, not part of the Church, he could not receive its sacraments and he could not hold a position in the Church he was not part of.

      Now, the question of the validity of the or­dination depends upon the usual criteria for the validity of any sacrament. The essential re­quirements are "intention, matter, form, minister, and disposition of the recipient."

We can presume that matter and form fulfilled the necessary re­quirements of the Church, for in such solemn and public ceremonies an error in this regard would not have escaped unnoticed.

Disposition of Lienart at his OWN elevation to the episcopacy? We know the answer to that one.

With regard to the minister, it is a teaching of the Church that neither faith nor the state of grace is required.

BUT FOR THE RECIPIENT?

(In this case, Lienart)

Sinful, heretical, schismatic and apostate priests or bishops can still validly (though sinfully and illicit­ly) confect the sacraments, provided that they use the proper matter and form and have the necessary intention.

The question (if Bishop Liénart had been a Mason) would NOT be whether he could have validly administered a sacrament at all, but whether in fact he did so. In other words, did he either withhold his intention, or have an in­tention contrary to that which is considered necessary?

The question is not what Cekada poses here at all. The question was whether Lienart himself could have been consecrated bishop, if he was outside the Church.

The question that everyone should be asking is this: why did Cekada do this? Surely he is smart enough to understand the various "Lienartists". So why did he deflect and show us an orange when they had given an apple?

[Oldavid]

The question is not what Cekada poses here at all. The question was whether Lienart himself could have been consecrated bishop, if he was outside the Church.

This is precisely the sede vac argument vis popes.

I recall a lecture somewhere way back in my past where there was a problem in Spain, back in medieval times, when a good number of Jews had infiltrated the priesthood (they were called Maranos, or something like that) and they had the habit of saying (among other things) "non absolvo te" instead of the proper "absolvo te" when hearing confessions.
This naturally caused consternation among penitents. "Do I have to try to repeat all my confessions of the last umpteen years and and what happened to my poor old Mum who died last year?"
There was a directive, ex Vatican, ( I don't remember any of the details) that said something like as long as everything else is as it should be (the usual requirements for a good confession on the part of the penitent) then "ecclesia suplet". That is, that the intention of the Church will make good the deficiency of intention of the actual minister.

[FatherCekada]

The question is not what Cekada poses here at all. The question was whether Lienart himself could have been consecrated bishop, if he was outside the Church.

If you mean validly consecrated, the answer is yes.