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

[FatherCekada]

Quote from: 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.

Quote from: FatherCekada
If you mean validly consecrated, the answer is yes.

----------------------

There is no doubt about this, otherwise the Church would not have considered the orders of the Orthodox and the Old Catholics of Utrecht.

I don't see how anyone could challenge this principle.

[Zakhur]

If I recall correctly, someone on this thread raised the question whether a layman can be directly ordained to the episcopacy.  I'm not sure why that was raised in the context of this discussion if it was (except perhaps that some suspect Lienart to have not been validly ordained a priest).

Anyway, I found this

For the subdiaconate and the higher orders there is, moreover, required a title, i.e., the right to receive maintenance from a determined source. Again, the candidate must observe the interstices, or times required to elapse between the reception of variousorders; he must also have received confirmation and the lower orders preceding the one to which he is raised. This last requirement does not affect the validity of the order conferred, as every order gives a distinct and independent power. One exception is made by the majority of theologians and canonists, who are of opinion that episcopal consecration requires the previous reception of priest's orders for its validity. Others, however, maintain that episcopal power includes full priestly power, which is thus conferred by episcopal consecration. They appeal to history and bring forward cases of bishops who were consecrated without having previously received priest's orders, and though most of the cases are somewhat doubtful and can be explained on other grounds, it seems impossible to reject them all. It is further to be remembered that scholastic theologians mostly required the previous reception of priest's orders for valid episcopal consecration, because they did not consider episcopacy an order, a view which is now generally abandoned.

here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm.

I was surprised to read this.  I had no idea this was an open question.

[Zakhur]

Eurocath,

If you can prove Bishop Lienart withheld, or internally contradicted, his intention to do what the Church does when he ordained Marcel Lefebvre to the priesthood or when he consecrated Fr. Marcel Lefebvre to the episcopacy (which may not matter since Lefebvre was also consecrated by Bishop Jean-Baptiste Fauret, C.S.Sp. and Bishop Alfred-Jean-Félix Ancel), you can win your argument with Fr. Cekada.  Otherwise, I fail to see the reason you began it with him.

[Scipio_a]

Sedevacantist? Where did you get this? Anthony Cekada is a famous sedevacantist. Did you not know this?

I have to say I wonder about the Catholicity of a forum where the top posters regularly get into the kind of name calling that happens here. You chase away people who want to talk about traditional Catholicism. Why?

Yes I know he is a sedevacantist....but not of the deranged sort you seem to be.  And I have no problem with sedevacantists in general as stated many times on this forum.


Wondering about what I know is funny in light of what you don't know.

If you were an NOer you would not seriously bring these arguments to bear since almost ALL of your priests would the be as questionable as I make them out to be with the three elements argument and you'd have no where to go for Mass except the CMRI


So either you are a fool of an NO who loves to shoot himself in the foot...thus not nearly as skillful as Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (not a fool) or you are a deranged sort of sedevacantist....not the type that is representative of most sedevacantists or sedeprivantists.


The reason we all want to end the discussion you bring is that it has ZERO merit...it has been handled to the satisfaction of reason...and your side lost.


Further...you, like another on this board do not display an interest in talking about trad cathol on this thread...you seem bent on trying to undermine it through false allegations and arguments and insulting a priest...



So lets do this again since you say you're not sede...but instead some sort of NO interested in trad cath


the three elements argument goes this:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3420734.msg33064487.html#msg33064487

Once again it comes down to the three essentials -- matter, form, and intention.  Now, some Novus Order folks don’t seem to understand that since we believe as we pray, that in short order there will be services of the NO that are invalid due to belief changes.  The abuse of not using the correct matter is known, of not using the correct form is known, not having the proper intention can only be suspected but is not a bad bet in some cases.  Since this is the case it would be best to avoid those known and suspected invalid services, be they any one of the sacraments.  Let’s see what those are:

1)   Baptism
2)   Confession
3)   Confirmation
4)   Marriage
5)   Holy Orders (any of them)
6)   Extreme Unction
7)   Holy Eucharist

All of these can be called into question because they all require the same three elements.  I’ll let each of you follow the logic of what happens over time with each invalid sacrament, but the conclusion is this, fewer real Masses, priests, bishops, marriages, Christians, etc., not in any particular order but the whole thing snowballs.  And when is that critical mass point reached where it becomes unsafe to attend NO services?  I have described the NO as a mine field and suggested.  I would not step in the field were I to know that there was only one mine (even suspect only one mine).  If you choose to enter such a field you are foolish at best.

If you need me to follow that logic out for you I will....but I think you know where it leads...and unlike the foolishness you have brought here...my three elements argument is FLAWLESS...and furthur we already KNOW of abuses...so you are left holding a bag you picked up by even trying some crap about +L and his ordinations and such...

by the way...you may want to see a Dr. about that foot.


PS...why is it that NOtards always wonder about name calling when they jump on here and start insulting folks right out of the gate???   Pretty funny really.

[devotedknuckles]

LoL
It sure is
Sip sip

[eurocath]

Quote from: 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.

Quote from: FatherCekada
If you mean validly consecrated, the answer is yes.

----------------------

There is no doubt about this, otherwise the Church would not have considered the orders of the Orthodox and the Old Catholics of Utrecht.

I don't see how anyone could challenge this principle.

You are being very clever by bringing up a false parallel. Considering what has already been posted here, you are obviously doing this on purpose. Ie, deceptively. It is a shame because you could have been a hero, even now with the house of cards collapsing all around you.

The Orthodox and Old Catholic who defected were already bishops at the time of defection. Of course their orders are valid! And, as you surely know, their priests and bishops are not and can not be Catholic priests and bishops. So if the Lienart case were a parallel, you would be a valid priest. Just not a Catholic priest.

But since Lienart defected before he was consecrated bishop, he was never a bishop himself, so he could not ordain anyone. No matter what his intention was. You know that. You also know that this is the "Lienartist" argument. The arument is nothing about "intention" at all. So the question remains: why didn't you ever write about this, which is was the "Lienartists" are talking about? Why did you invent the false claim that stated this issue is about a "bad" Bishop giving a "wrong" intention? No "Lienartist" believes that Lienart was a bishop at all. No "Lienartist" cares what his intention was, because (according to the argument) it doesn't matter. Your article includes no references to "LIenartist" literature because if anyone reads it, they will see that you carefully avoid the heart of the argument, and you substitute this argument about the "intention" of a bishop.

I am replying not for the Phisheater Pharisees, who have no interest in discussion, but for the many people like myself who have come to wonder about St. Gertrude the Great Church and how Catholic priests and bishops could be doing such  things. My answer is, wll obviously, they can't!

Here is a rebuttal to your comment that should be clear for everyone to see:

Bishop O, a Roman Catholic bishop, defects from the Church and becomes an Orthodox heretic. He cannot validly receive Catholic sacraments. He is still a valid bishop, but no longer a Catholic bishop. He can ordain priests and consecrate bishops, with valid orders, but they are Orthodox priests and bishops. They are not Catholic priests and bishops. (Should any of these schismatic but valid priests or bishops decide to join the Church, they do not have to be ordained again because their ordinations are valid. But to do so they have to join the Church and gain jurisdiction in it.)

Bishop P, a Roman Catholic bishop, defects from the Church and becomes an Old Catholic schismatic. The same applies to Bishop P as Bishop O above. He can ordain priests, but they are Old Catholic priests, perhaps with valid orders but with no function or jurisdiction in the Roman Catholic Church.

Father L, a Roman Catholic priest, defects from the Church and becomes ... not a heretic but a blasphemous apostate, a non-Christian, a high-ranking evil plotter against the Church. He is excommunicated and being no longer even a Christian he has no office (see Canon 188 and 2314). He cannot validly receive Catholic sacraments. That means no Communion and of course no Holy Orders. Bishops Lecomte, Jansoone and Feltin were valid bishops, but their consecration of Father L was in vain, as Father L was not a Catholic anymore.

[eurocath]

Zakhur, you probably did not read the text of my argument. Cekada's response about "intention" has nothing to do with my argument or anyone else's published argument concerning the validity of the Lienart line. Another poster made comments early in this thread which also outlined my concerns. I never argued anything about Lienart's "intention" at the time he was ordaining or consecrating people. That is not the argument of the "Lienartists"; the argument is that when Father Lienart left the Church and became an apostate, he was excommunicated and unable to be the recipient of Catholic sacraments. Least of which include Holy Orders. Father Lienart, as you know (and as Marcel Lefebvre confirmed many times), was an evil plotter against the church who left the Catholic religion. So all I am saying is that such a man could not be made a Catholic bishop. That's the argument I have with Cekada. And not being a bishop, he couldn't ordain anybody, no matter what his "intentions" were at the time.

And yes, Lefebvre had two co-consecrators who were valid. But please note: that was at Lefebvre's episcopal consecration. Lefevbre was all alone with Lienart for his priestly ordination. If not a priest, he could never have been a bishop. And yes, they repeated the exact same escapade in 1988, when Lefebvre ordained his "priests" and then had a genuine bishop come out for the co-consecration. Notice how none of the consecrands were Campos priests, whose orders were genuine and unquestioned? Remember, Lefebvre had been given a chance just before this to end all the doubts and get himself conditionally ordained and consecrated. If he was trying to be the lone hero to save the Church, why did he refuse this precaution? If it ever becomes clear (through verifiable and traditional sources) that laity can be consecrated bishops without being ordained to the priesthood first, I guarantee that the forces against the Church will be in a total panic. And this will show how they have totally lost.

Eurocath,

If you can prove Bishop Lienart withheld, or internally contradicted, his intention to do what the Church does when he ordained Marcel Lefebvre to the priesthood or when he consecrated Fr. Marcel Lefebvre to the episcopacy (which may not matter since Lefebvre was also consecrated by Bishop Jean-Baptiste Fauret, C.S.Sp. and Bishop Alfred-Jean-Félix Ancel), you can win your argument with Fr. Cekada.  Otherwise, I fail to see the reason you began it with him.

[FatherCekada]

Eurocath wrote:

"But since Lienart defected before he was consecrated bishop, he was never a bishop himself, so he could not ordain anyone. … You also know that this is the "Lienartist" argument."

--------------------------

Find the principle you have laid down in your first sentence above in any pre-Vatican II manual of sacramental theology or canon law, and post it here with the name, work and page number.

Happy hunting!

[Zakhur]

Zakhur, you probably did not read the text of my argument. Cekada's response about "intention" has nothing to do with my argument or anyone else's published argument concerning the validity of the Lienart line. Another poster made comments early in this thread which also outlined my concerns. I never argued anything about Lienart's "intention" at the time he was ordaining or consecrating people. That is not the argument of the "Lienartists"; the argument is that when Father Lienart left the Church and became an apostate, he was excommunicated and unable to be the recipient of Catholic sacraments. Least of which include Holy Orders. Father Lienart, as you know (and as Marcel Lefebvre confirmed many times), was an evil plotter against the church who left the Catholic religion. So all I am saying is that such a man could not be made a Catholic bishop. That's the argument I have with Cekada. And not being a bishop, he couldn't ordain anybody, no matter what his "intentions" were at the time.

I read your arguments (but I have not read everything on this thread) and was aware that Lienartists think Lienart was not a bishop.  I did not acknowledge this fact because I do not consider it relevant to the question of Ab. Lefebvre's episcopal orders (as you will see from reading my second paragraph in this post).  However, I did not realize from my reading that Lienartists consider the question of intention unimportant because they are totally convinced Lienart was not a bishop.  It seems to me that Lienart would have been perfectly capable of giving proper intent "for the helluvit" IF indeed he were a bishop.  Have you provided solid evidence that he was not?  I would need that, of course, to accept the non-ordination of Marcel Lefebvre to the priesthood.

And yes, Lefebvre had two co-consecrators who were valid. But please note: that was at Lefebvre's episcopal consecration. Lefevbre was all alone with Lienart for his priestly ordination. If not a priest, he could never have been a bishop.

As the quote I provided from the old Catholic Encyclopedia illustrates, the question of the validity of episcopal orders when conferred upon a layman is indeed open.  Therefore, in good conscience I must assume that episcopal orders were validly conferred upon Marcel Lefebvre by Bishops Jean-Baptiste Fauret and Alfred-Jean-Félix Ancel.  Thus, I must also assume that everything he did sacramentally was valid following this conferral, nonexistence of his prior priesthood notwithstanding (again, can that even be verified?).

And yes, they repeated the exact same escapade in 1988, when Lefebvre ordained his "priests" and then had a genuine bishop come out for the co-consecration. Notice how none of the consecrands were Campos priests, whose orders were genuine and unquestioned? Remember, Lefebvre had been given a chance just before this to end all the doubts and get himself conditionally ordained and consecrated. If he was trying to be the lone hero to save the Church, why did he refuse this precaution?

These are interesting observations, at least some of which you have made before on this thread.  I found especially interesting Lefebvre's decision not to be conditionally ordained and consecrated by de Castro Meyer.  Only two plausible motives come to mind.  1) He was emotionally incapable of admitting to himself that his priesthood prior to his episcopacy, and perhaps even his episcopacy, had been nonexistent.  2) He was able to admit the invalidity of his priestly ordination but considered the conferral of episcopal orders upon laymen to be so possible as to exclude the necessity of conditional re-conferral.  The motive that some put forth, that he was a Masonic agent bent on doing Hell's will, is implausible to me.

If it ever becomes clear (through verifiable and traditional sources) that laity can be consecrated bishops without being ordained to the priesthood first, I guarantee that the forces against the Church will be in a total panic. And this will show how they have totally lost.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this except that if the conferral of episcopal orders upon laymen is possible, without question, the SSPX is truly a remnant (and the spearhead of any remnant) of the Catholic Church amidst a general apostasy.  But since this is already acknowledged by so many, and the enemies of the Church have already shown panic regarding its possible juridical reintegration and consequent validation for the conservatives, I don't really see the reasoning behind your point.  Do you think the damage done to the Church by its enemies is far greater than anything ABL ever described...?

[Zakhur]

If it ever becomes clear (through verifiable and traditional sources) that laity can be consecrated bishops without being ordained to the priesthood first, I guarantee that the forces against the Church will be in a total panic. And this will show how they have totally lost.

Behold!  Article V of the Supplement:

Article 5. Whether the character of one Order necessarily presupposes the character of another Order?

Objection 1. It would seem that the character of one Order necessarily presupposes the character of another Order. For there is more in common between one Order and another, than between Order and another sacrament. But the character of Order presupposes the character of another sacrament, namely Baptism. Much more therefore does the character of one Order presuppose the character of another.

Objection 2. Further, the Orders are degrees of a kind. Now no one can reach a further degree, unless he first mount the previous degree. Therefore no one can receive the character of a subsequent Order unless he has first received the preceding Order.

On the contrary, If anything necessary for a sacrament be omitted in that sacrament, the sacrament must be repeated. But if one receive a subsequent Order, without receiving a preceding Order, he is not reordained, but he receives what was lacking, according to the canonical statutes (cap. Tuae literae, De clerico per salt. prom.). Therefore the preceding Order is not necessary for the following.

I answer that, It is not necessary for the higher Orders that one should have received the minor Orders, because their respective powers are distinct, and one, considered in its essentials, does not require another in the same subject. Hence even in the early Church some were ordained priests without having previously received the lower Orders and yet they could do all that the lower Orders could, because the lower power is comprised in the higher, even as sense in understanding, and dukedom in kingdom. Afterwards, however, it was decided by the legislation of the Church that no one should present himself to the higher orders who had not previously humbled himself in the lower offices. And hence it is that according to the Canons (cap. Tuae literae, De clerico per salt. prom.) those who are ordained without receiving a preceding Order are not reordained, but receive what was lacking to them of the preceding Order.

Reply to Objection 1. Orders have more in common with one another as regards specific likeness, than order has with Baptism. But as regards proportion of power to action, Baptism has more in common with Order, than one Order with another, because Baptism confers on man the passive power to receive Orders, whereas a lower Order does not give him the passive power to receive higher Orders.

Reply to Objection 2. Orders are not degrees combining in one action or in one movement, so that it be necessary to reach the last through the first; but they are like degrees consisting in things of different kinds, such as the degrees between man and angel, and it is not necessary that one who is an angel be first of all a man. Such also are the degrees between the head and all members of the body; nor is it necessary that that which is the head should be previously a foot; and thus it is in the case in point.

Source:  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5035.htm

Therefore, on September 18, 1947, Marcel Lefebvre was consecrated a bishop of the Holy Roman Catholic Church by Bishop Jean-Baptiste Fauret, C.S.Sp. and Bishop Alfred-Jean-Félix Ancel.  ALL his sacramental actions following that consecration were valid.

He is the second Athanasius.

-- Baruk Khazad!  Khazad ai-menu!

[Arun]

.... Cekada's response about "intention" .....That's the argument I have with Cekada. .....And yes, Lefebvre had two co-consecrators who were valid. But please note: that was at Lefebvre's episcopal consecration. Lefevbre was all alone with Lienart for his priestly ordination. ....Lefebvre ... Lefebvre

That is not the way you refer to a priest, or an archbishop. Its Fr Cekada, and Archbishop Lefebvre, thank you very much.

[Benno]

Care factor zero, and plummeting.

So canon law and selective evidence can be used to support people you like and damn people you don't like? Who woulda thunk it?

[Zakhur]

Not really sure what you mean here.  The evidence and arguments presented so far lead to pretty clear conclusions, I think.

[devotedknuckles]

Eurotrash
Father Cekeda is a priest. U must show him the resect he deserves by reffering to him as Father.
Show Father Cekeda the respect he deserves.