The science of logic, therefore, is of paramount importance for all the other sciences to be understandable and to draw conclusions with certitude. Anything else is a waste of time.
Nevertheless, no amount of knowledge and science will be enough to convince the fool. For, "a fool convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." Herein lies the fundamental problem in presenting the truth and of its being Faccepted and acted upon.
Frequently, there is a misunderstanding as to the real causes of that which appears to be `confusion.' The truth is that confusion can generally be resolved by going to authoritative sources on a question.
It is not `confusion' that causes division. It is `conflict.' Confusion affects the intellect (mind, understanding), `conflict' affects the will. Most problems are not due to confusion, cut to conflict.
Simply stated: We are usually dealing with obstinacy of the will more than ignorance of the intellect.
No better authority close to home can be invoked than that of Pope Pius XII, who wrote in his Encyclical Letter Humani generis :
"Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious matters have always been a cause of profound sorrow to all good men, but above all to the true and loyal sons of the Church, especially today, when we see the principles of Christian culture being attacked on all sides.
It is not surprising that such discord and error should always have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence over and governs the world, and also of the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful." (August 12, 1950,Rome).
These words of Pope Pius XII should be engraved on everyone's memory. They should be the first thought before either listening to questionable teachers, or reading their eagerly propagated misconceptions.
Just as it is not surprising that discord and error should be found outside the fold of Christ, it should be surprising that such discord and error are to appear among those who claim to believe, uphold and defend the true faith. Sound reason would dictate that there should be unity of belief as well as of practice among those who carry the name of the same Lord.
The use of familiar Catholic terminology casts the cloak of confusion over the conflict of interests.
The `confused' person says: "I don't know what the truth is." And the person with a `conflict' says: "I don't care what the truth is; this is what I want to do and I am going to do it no matter what lie I must tell, no matter what truth I must distort."
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS is the reason why Traditionalists cannot be united.
The `fools' will never be convinced of a truth they refuse to accept. This eventually becomes obvious to those of good will who desire the conversion of those in error.
This is why the false teachers and false leaders are seldom converted to the truth, while their followers have a better chance of returning to the truth. Followers are often simply deceived because of their own honesty. Then, once they realize the truth, the hardest thing to do is have the courage to separate themselves from the false leaders.
Of course, the false teachers and false leaders will be the first to protest loudly and ferociously. Having usurped and arrogated to themselves an authority that is not theirs, the only means of holding onto stolen authority is to heap the garbage of falsehood upon the genuine teachers and leaders.
One of the first objects of attack by Satan are the channels of grace instituted by Jesus Christ: the Sacraments.
By cutting off the source of grace most accessible to the people, Satan and his subordinates lure souls away not so much from their visible pastors, but from salvation itself.
There is no other name under heaven by which man must be saved. That Name belongs to Jesus, the Incarnate Son of God. Therefore, there is no salvation outside the means established by Jesus, the Son of God. To think or claim anything other than this simple truth is absolute falsehood and blasphemy.
It is an absolute falsehood because it can never be true under any circumstances. God has spoken through Jesus, His Incarnate Son and through Him to the entire world.
This is the reason why the true and genuine Body of Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church, cannot change this truth. This is also the reason why the Church courageously teaches that no one can be saved who has not received the Sacrament of Baptism, or, the desire of receiving it.
Anyone of whatever position, condition or rank who holds a view contrary to this one which the Roman Catholic Church teaches is a heretic.
This necessarily includes everyone from a pope to a peon. And anyone who would associate with anyone holding the contrary doctrine of the Church is equally excommunicated by the Church. Pope Pius XII clearly stated that those who are separated from the Church by reason of doctrine or disobedience to Her legitimate authority, are neither in the Body nor have the Holy Spirit in them.
What, then, do heretics and schismatics have to offer those who willingly follow them? The followers of these heretics and schismatics may have the brief consolation of satisfying their self-will, but they are destined for an eternity of punishment.
To be sure, those among the many "independent" clergy or laity may not be concerned with anything dealing with the other side of death's door. For these, no amount of pleading nor reasoning has any effect. They are fixed in their obstinacy, unshakable in their pride, and concerned only with the number of unsuspecting souls they can lead to damnation with them.
For this reason, namely, that there is seldom hope for the leaders of heresy and schism, the following information dealing with the validity and fruitfulness of the Sacraments is intended for those who would find the teachings of the Church useful for their own protection.
Contrary to what the majority of renegade clergymen tell you, there are three things necessary for the validity of a Sacrament: matter, form and intention.
Although each of the three needs explanation, the question of intention is dealt with here for the simple reason that among the heretics and schismatics of the right, most arguments are directed against the need for the right intention.
Without doubt, the right intention is essential to the validity of a Sacrament. As is already taken for granted, the use of the adjective `right' implies that there are other intentions which are not sufficient for the validity of a Sacrament.
Following the traditional teaching of the Church as represented in reputable textbooks on dogmatic theology, use will be made of one that is familiar to almost every priest and knowledgeable layman.
What was once very clear to every seminarian and priest has now become a resurrected dead issue. This was caused by the fact that the late "Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre" made notorious for his seeming resistance against the Apostate Church occupying the facilities of the Vatican, was ordained and later consecrated by a French Freemason operating within the Church. That man was Cardinal Lienart, Lefebvre's professor in the seminary and mentor.
To be sure, all those deriving their presumed "ordination" from Marcel Lefebvre are quick to attack anyone who would dare to challenge their validity. This kind of conduct painfully resembles the fanatic shouts of "Crucify him! Crucify him!" of the first Christian century and the equally irrational shouts of those who cry "Anti-Semitism! Anti-Semitism!" whenever historical "facts" presented for general consumption are shown to be false.
In a talk in Montreal, Canada, Marcel Lefbvre (Known to the public as "Archbishop Lefebvre") publicly acknowledged to the crowd that the man who ordained and consecrated him was "Cardinal" Lienart; and that Lienart was a Freemason.
Forgetting his theology, or perhaps even subscribing to an opinion contradicted by general Catholic teaching, Lefebvre publicly stated that he had actually seen Lienart in all his Masonic paraphernalia. To which statement he added: "Fortunately, my orders are valid." Well, this is what most people accepted as true. But, Were Marcel Lefebvre's orders valid beyond reasonable doubt?
While Lefebvre's organization was growing leaps and bounds, steam-rolling over anyone who got in their way, and calling into doubt anyone whom they could not reduce to their regime of feudalistic servitude, their own validity not only as validly ordained priests but also as a validly establish `society' in the Church were seriously questioned. The greatest legacy Marcel Lefebvre left the Church which he helped to destroy was a legacy of disobedience and deception.
It is ironic that the organization attributed to Marcel Lefebvre would merit the same denunciation hurled at the Modernist heretics by the `patron' of their society: St. Pope Pius X!
In his Encyclical Letter `Pascendi,' Pope Pius X wrote: "Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action."
The question of Masonic infiltration into the Catholic Church has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Consider the term `reasonable doubt.' It means that anyone who is using his right reason and is not influenced by prejudice can no longer doubt the fact. Anyone who doubts the fact is rightly suspected of bad will.
We face a situation very similar to the one faced over four hundred years ago in England. The Roman Catholic Church was reduced to a small hand-full. The majority of Englishmen today still consider themselves `Catholic' while having abandoned the doctrines of the Church and the authority of the Church. They still maintain that they are `Catholic' _ but with this difference: they see themselves as `Anglican Catholic.'
Even after more than four hundred years of rites pretending to be `rituals of ordination' and all these hundreds of years of Anglicans calling themselves priests and bishops, the truth of the matter remains just as it did when the Popes of the Roman Catholic Church declared that "Anglican Orders are invalid."
Clearly, this declaration of the Roman Catholic Church did not in any way halt the tidal wave of apostasy. It continues today.
While the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the validity of other sects that broke with the Church, such as the various national Orthodox Churches, She cannot recognize the validity of Orders in the Anglican (Episcopalian) Church, or, as it is often called the "Church of England."
There will be cause to return to this Anglican question shortly
Now is the time to embark on the question of the necessity of a right intention.
The first thing to clarify in our minds is the meaning of intention. Surprisingly many confuse it with an act of the intellect. It is not.
The definition of intention is that it is an act of the will by which that faculty efficaciously desires to reach an end by using the necessary means.
Intention should not be confused with or taken to mean the same as attention. Man can act with a purpose even when his mind is distracted.
Usually, theologians distinguish different types of intention whereby an act may be prompted.
These several kinds are: actual intention, virtual intention, habitual intention, and interpretative intention.
A brief description follows:
1. Actual intention: This is the intention that operates with the full advertence of the intellect. For example: When a minister wishes here and now to confer a Sacrament, he is said to have an actual intention.
2. Virtual intention: Its effectiveness is borrowed from a previous act of volition, which is accounted as continuing in some result produced by it. Example: When a minister begins with an actual intention to administer a Sacrament and while doing so is distracted.
3. Habitual intention: This is an intention that once actually existed, but of the present continuance of which there is no positive trace.
The most that can be said of this kind of intention is that it has never been retracted. Example: A priest subject to sleep walking who administers Baptism in his sleep, might be said to act with an habitual intention.
4. Interpretative intention: This is an intention that would be thought of, but for want of thinking of it, is not elicited. It is merely an assumption as to the purpose which a man would have had in a circumstance had he given thought to the matter. In this kind of intention, there has been no actual movement of the will.
What kind of intention is required for the valid administration of a Sacrament?
An intention of some kind is necessary in the minister for the valid administration of the Sacrament.
Some conclusions:
An actual intention need not be present because distractions cannot always be avoided.
A virtual intention is sufficient.
Neither the habitual nor interpretative intention are sufficient for the valid administration of a Sacrament.
We will pass over at this time the qualitative distinctions made by reputable theologians, namely, the direct or reflex intention and the indirect intention.
The so-called "merely external" intention is what interests us here because there are those who would argue that this intention is sufficient for the validity of a Sacrament.
Let us examine this alleged "intention." It is generally defined as the purpose of performing the external rite of a Sacrament while internally withholding the intention to administer the same.
The "merely external" intention is insufficient for the validity of the Sacraments. The inner intention is necessary for the valid administration of the Sacrament.
What is meant by "inner intention"? By "inner intention" is meant an intention which is directed, not merely to the external execution of the sacramental rite, but also to its inner signification.
The "mere external intention" was regarded by many theologians of early Scholasticism and later by Ambrosius Catarinus, O.P. (died 1553) and many theologians of the 17th and 18th centuries as adequate, and which is directed towards merely performing the external action with earnestness and in the proper circumstances, while the inner religious significance is not taken into consideration, is insufficient.
The mere external intention is not compatible with the concept of doing what the Church intends, or with the status of the minister as a servant of Christ, or with the religious determination of the sacramental sign, which is itself capable of many interpretations, or with the declarations of the Church.
Pope Alexander rejected the following proposition: "A Baptism is valid which is conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and the form of baptizing but who says in his heart `I do not intend to do what the Church does.'."
The attention of the patient reader is drawn to this important point because there are currently those who would skirt the teaching and practice of the Church by returning to this already obsolete and refuted erroneous idea.
Catharinus and some other theologians following his lead, thought that such an intention of performing the external rite, even if coupled with an internal refusal to do what the Church does, would suffice for the validity of a Sacrament.
This point is especially crucial for evaluating and resolving the question of the validity of ordinations administered by "Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre" and the consequent Sacraments which his alleged- priests administer.
Admittedly, the desire for some objective assurance for the faithful could easily prompt such a seemingly secure solution to the possibility of being exposed to a priest who is, in fact, not a priest. What recourse would the faithful have?
The only recourse any one of us may have is a trust in God's providence to protect us from such situations. It is not God's providence that would have us ignore the problem. No. God's providence lies in the fact that God raises up loyal ministers to study and where applicable to declare the truth.
God does not `mystically' ordain anyone. Even Moses was not ordained; but he appointed Aaron his brother to be the priest.
It should be carefully noted that this opinion of Catharinus has practically no adherents. In fact, it is the common doctrine of the Church that a real internal intention (Namely, the will to accomplish what Christ instituted the Sacraments to effect) is required.
The theses directly affecting the necessity of an internal intention of doing what the Church does is formulated as follows:
I. To administer a Sacrament validly, the minister must have the intention at least to do what the Church does.
This proposition contains an article of faith.
Proof:
The "Decree for the Armenians" defines that the intention to do what the Church does is a necessary requisite for the valid administration of a Sacrament.
The Council of Trent solemnly declares: "If anyone saith that in ministers, when they effect and confer the Sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Sess.VII, can. 11).
The full significance of this declaration is borne out when considering the important distinction between "what the Church intends' and `what the Church does.' One must look to the practice of the Church to understand what She is teaching.
St. Paul the Apostle says: "So let men account us as ministers of Christ." (I Cor. IV, 1). What does this mean? What does it mean to be a "minister of Christ"? A minister of Christ must have the intention of exercising the powers delegated to him by the Master.
Since the Church is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, and since one who does not have the intention of at least doing what the Church does, cannot be said to conduct himself as a minister of Christ, nor does he exercise the power conferred by Him. Consequently, without the intention of doing what the Church does there can be no Sacrament.
A priest, therefore, in saying Mass who would refuse to subject himself to the will of Christ, in Whose name he speaks and acts, would not have the right intention, and would not, then, act as a minister of Christ. The words of consecration pronounced by him would be without effect. The same is true for all the other Sacraments.
Reputable theologians give as a theological note "de fide" for the following two propositions:
A) For the valid dispensing of the Sacraments it is necessary that the minister accomplish the Sacramental Sign in the proper manner. (De fide)
B) The minister must further have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. ( De fide).
The classification of these propositions as "de fide" mean that anyone who would deny them is a formal heretic.
The teaching of tradition on this question has developed over a long period of time to the point that it is no longer subject to debate.
From Tradition we find statements not only by Popes but a series of theologians among whom rank Saints and Doctors of the Church.
The most ancient testimony that reaches us is contained in a letter of Pope Cornelius (251-253 A.D.) to Fabius of Antioch. The Pope relates how the anti-pope Novatian, who was the leader of the rigorist party, enticed three ignorant provincial bishops to Rome, made them drunk, and compelled them to give him episcopal consecration. The Pope unambiguously stated that this consecration was invalid.
Anglican Orders. When Pope Leo XIII consented to having the common view on the invalidity of Anglican Orders questioned, the lengthy investigation concluded to the following: "And now, taking into consideration the fact that this matter, although it had already been duly settled, has by certain persons for one reason or another been called again in question, and that not a few may in consequence be led into the dangerous error of thinking themselves to find the sacrament of Order and its fruits where in fact they do not exist, We have resolved in the Lord to pronounce Our judgment.
Therefor adhering to the decrees of the Pontiffs Our Predecessors on this subject, and fully ratifying and renewing them by Our authority, on Our own initiative and with certain knowledge, We pronounce and declare that ordinations performed according to the Anglican rite have been and are completely null and void." (Apostolicae curae, Pope Leo XIII,1896).
In this Apostolic Letter, not only defect of form is stated, but also defect of intention:
"Who these bishops were that had not been `regularly and rightly ordained' had already been made sufficiently clear by earlier documents and by the faculties which the Legate had used in the matter: they were those who had been promoted to the episcopate, as others had been promoted to other orders, `without the observance of the customary form of the Church,' or, as the Legate himself had written to the Bishop of Norwich, without the observance of `the Church's form and intention.'" (Apostolicae curae).
Aware that those bent on being contentious even in the face of the clear teaching of the Church will still insist on extorting from the text their contumacious views, the question concerning the ordinations and consecrations of the members of the Lefebvre sect must be considered in the light of what the Church teaches.
The question before us, then, is this: Was the ordination of Marcel Lefebvre by the Freemason Achille Lienart, later "Cardinal" Lienart valid? Was Marcel Lefebvre's later consecration by this same Lienart valid?
An answer taken out of the sky is no answer at all. For an answer to be of any value, it must take into consideration actual circumstances. What were the important circumstances in the case of Marcel Lefebvre? First of all, Lienart was a professor in the seminary attended by Lefebvre. There was, then, a greater or lesser bond created between student and teacher. This is normal. Already a Freemason, Lienart ordains Lefebvre. Some years later, Lienart _ now a `Cardinal' with not a little influence in Rome _ consecrates his former pupil and collaborator (Lefebvre worked for Lienart as a diocesan priest for a number of years in a secretarial position) who had since entered the foreign mission society of the Holy Ghost Fathers.
The question of Marcel Lefebvre's ordination and subsequent consecration are very important. That the external ceremony of ordination and consecration were performed is not in question. The essential question here concerns the intention.
Could a Freemason have the requisite internal intention for the valid administration of a Sacrament? In this case, of course, the Sacrament is Holy Orders.
To answer this question objectively and without prejudice, it is necessary to know what Freemasonry represents. Even the Conciliar Church (Church of Vatican II) has issued statements concerning Freemasonry.
In a declaration of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the following was stated:
"…the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic associations remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion." (Declaration on Masonic Associations, Joseph card.Ratzinger _prefect).
The plural is used in this declaration because there are other Masonic `front organizations' such as Rotary Club, Lions Club, etc. No Catholic may be a member of these associations because they promote the naturalism of Freemasonry among their members.
Freemasonry is the front organization for Zionism. Which is the "Church of the Antichrist". In fact, Freemasons hold Lucifer as their source of "light". For this reason, namely, that Freemasonry necessarily denies the possibility of the supernatural, it is essentially opposed to all that the Catholic Church represents.
Freemasonry is, as one of its high ranking members declared, the `enemy of the Catholic Church.' Its purpose is the destruction of the Catholic Church and replacing it with the worship of Lucifer who is, actually, the invisible Antichrist.
Therefore, since Freemasonry has vowed and actively works to undermine and destroy the Catholic Church, it is inconceivable that a Freemason could have the minimum intention of doing what the Church does in administering a Sacrament. To pretend that this is possible is to betray an ignorance of basic psychology. The two are completely irreconcilable.
For this reason: That Freemasonry is dedicated to the promotion of Naturalism (which denies the Supernatural) and the Church is dedicated to the promotion of the Supernatural, the administration of any Sacrament by a Freemason must be deemed null and void.
It must have come to the attention of Marcel Lefebvre that his background had been investigated and his connection with Freemason Lienart was soon to become public that may have prompted him to make the public declaration before anyone else. His statement to his audience in Montreal, Canada, regarding his having seen Achille Lienart in his Masonic regalia could only have been intended to brush aside any serious connection with his own validity. Marcel Lefebvre was gambling on the ignorance of many priests and laymen who would readily accept the erroneous notion that the mere external intention to perform a rite was sufficient for its validity.
This, as we have seen, is not true. Consequently, based on the clear teachings of the Church regarding the Sacraments, and the further practice of the Church concerning doubtful validity, every Catholic is bound in conscience to avoid those who present themselves as priests or bishops claiming their ordination or consecration from Marcel Lefebvre.
It is the practice of the Church that such doubtful reception of Holy Orders requires that the Sacrament be reiterated. To ignore this would result in the reception of Sacraments that are not Sacraments, both invalid and fruitless. This is the practice of the Church. Those who deliberately disregard this doctrine of the Church cannot be considered Catholic. These, then, make up part of that group called "Heretics of the Right".
Return to Contents
Return to Homepage.