Before examining sacramental intention in particular, let us first remember some basic catechism about three things necessary for a valid sacrament.
The Catholic Church teaches that valid sacraments require valid Matter, Form and Intention.1 Very generally, the sacrament’s Matter is an object/action which is necessary for the sacrament’s validity (e.g., pouring the water in baptism). Id. The sacramental Form is the essential words required for the sacrament’s validity. Id. The required Intention is the intention of the persons administering and receiving the sacrament. Id.
Now let us examine more closely the sacramental intention needed for a valid sacrament.
To administer sacraments validly, a minister need not believe in the sacrament’s supernatural effect, but must intend to do what the Church does, in performing the sacrament.2
When someone administers a sacrament, he acts in the person of the Catholic Church, i.e., as Her representative, even if he is not Catholic. The Catholic Church expresses Her intention through this minister’s actions and words (i.e., through the Matter and Form of the sacrament). Whenever a minister acts and speaks as required by the Church, the sacrament will be valid unless the minister outwardly shows the intent not to administer the sacrament.3
For example, because baptism is the most important sacrament for salvation4, The Catholic Church allows anyone who has the use of reason — even pagans! — to validly baptize. The person performing the baptism does not need to believe in grace, Original Sin, heaven or even the soul. He does not need to believe that baptism causes any supernatural effect. He must merely intend to pour the water and say the correct words of baptism — i.e., to perform what the Church prescribes.5 This is intending to do what the Church does.
On the other hand, a person invalidates a sacrament when he outwardly shows that he has no intention to perform the sacrament. For example, suppose a person prefaces the words and actions of baptism by saying:
“I will show you how to baptize. If I were going to really baptize someone, this is how I would do it” [followed by the words and actions of baptism].
By outwardly professing only to demonstrate, this person invalidates any baptism that would have otherwise happened.6
A person can also invalidate a sacrament by outwardly disclaiming intent to receive the sacrament. For example, before receiving the words and actions of baptism, suppose a person said:
“I will demonstrate how to receive baptism. If I were to really receive baptism, this is how someone would baptize me” [followed by second person performing the words and actions of baptism].
That would not be a valid baptism because the person purportedly receiving baptism was exteriorly manifesting an intent to merely be part of a demonstration how to perform a baptism,7 and he manifested that he did not intend to receive the baptism itself.8
Note however, that:
do not prevent a person from performing valid sacraments, even for the express purpose of committing horrific sacrileges. This is why Black (satanic) Masses are valid, as long as Satan’s minions get the cooperation of a valid priest who uses the correct Matter and Form with the intention of doing what the Church does, namely saying the words and using the Matter as necessary for a valid Mass.
If a pagan or anyone else were to perform a sacrament, he would not have to believe that his words and actions had any effect. But he would have to intend what the Church does, namely, to perform the actions and say the words, without exteriorly expressing any contrary intent (such as an intent to merely demonstrate how a sacrament could be performed).
Having seen the Church’s required minimum intention necessary for a valid sacrament, now let’s apply this principle to a concrete dispute, viz., the claim by Archbishop Lefebvre’s enemies that his own ordination and consecration are invalid.
Achille Cardinal Liénart raised Archbishop Lefebvre both to the priesthood and to the episcopate. For decades, Archbishop Lefebvre’s enemies have attacked the validity of his ordination and consecration, claiming that Cardinal Liénart did not have the required sacramental intention to ordain and consecrate Archbishop Lefebvre. They do not question that Liénart said the required words and did the required actions, because so many witnesses saw him comply with Church requirements.
Archbishop Lefebvre’s enemies suppose Cardinal Liénart lacked a valid sacramental intention because they assert that he was a secret freemason and therefore suppose that he must have been secretly anti-Catholic and thus allege that he would secretly lack the minimum required intention for a sacrament’s validity.
We have been unable to find sufficient proof that Cardinal Liénart was in fact a freemason.9 However, even supposing Cardinal Liénart were a freemason, that does not prove he secretly intended to invalidate the ordinations and consecrations he performed. For example, even a wicked bishop can wish to ordain valid priests in order to subvert them to wickedness and give the devil more powerful tools.
Moreover, even if Cardinal Liénart were a freemason, he nonetheless acted and spoke as required by the Church (i.e., using the correct sacramental Matter and Form). He did not suggest that he was unwilling to perform the sacrament.10
Because Cardinal Liénart spoke and acted as the Church requires for administering the sacraments, without outwardly disclaiming the intent to administer orders, he intended to do what the Church does and thus satisfied the Church’s requirement of a valid sacramental intention when ordaining and consecrating Archbishop Lefebvre.
Answer: No, because there is no reason to doubt the validity of the ordination and consecration.
The sacraments so powerfully aid our salvation that we should always be “on the safe side” concerning them. Thus, if there is even the smallest real (i.e., reasonable) doubt about a sacrament’s validity, we should treat it as invalid and so perform it again conditionally.11 That is the reason sacraments (such as baptism, ordination and confirmation) are sometimes given conditionally.
On the other hand, if there is not even a tiny reason to doubt, but only an idle supposition, one must treat the sacrament as valid and must not administer or receive the sacrament conditionally. Thus, e.g., the following idle supposition is insufficient to require conditional ordination:
The Catholic Church requires a basis for doubt, because otherwise one can raise baseless doubts against any sacrament any day and every cleric would need a new conditional ordination every day. However, if there is any reason to doubt, even the smallest reason, one must not recognize a sacrament’s validity until the person receives the sacrament conditionally.12
One such reason is because the “ordination” was done in the new conciliar rite or was performed by a “bishop” whose “consecration” was in the new conciliar rite (as are some “priests” in the N-SSPX and in Bishop Williamson’s group).13
Even if Cardinal Liénart were a freemason, there is no reason to doubt that he intended to do what the Church does, viz., he intended to use the words the Church told him to use and perform the actions the Church told him to perform in the sacrament.
There were many witnesses to what Cardinal Liénart did and said. None of them claimed that he exteriorly manifested any contrary intention. Thus, there is no reasonable doubt—not even the smallest reasonable doubt—that Cardinal Liénart had the required, minimum intent to validly ordain and consecrate Archbishop Lefebvre. This means we have a moral certainty that Archbishop Lefebvre’s ordination and consecration are valid.
See, e.g., Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon XI, et al.; Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas, III, Q. 60; Q. 64, aa. 8 & 10.↑
Here is how the Council of Trent infallibly declares this truth:
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.
The Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon XI, On the Sacraments in General (emphasis added).↑
Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas admirably explains this truth:
The minister of a 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, unless the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament.
Summa, III, Q.64, a.8 ad 2 (emphasis added).
Here is how Pope Leo XIII teaches this truth:
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 (intendisse) 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.
Apostolicae Curae, (On the Nullity of Anglican Orders), Pope Leo XIII, September 15, 1896, §33 (emphasis added).↑
Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas admirably explains this truth:
It is due to the mercy of Him “Who will have all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4) that in those things which are necessary for salvation, man can easily find the remedy. Now the most necessary among all the sacraments is Baptism, which is man's regeneration unto spiritual life: since for children there is no substitute, while adults cannot otherwise than by Baptism receive a full remission both of guilt and of its punishment. Consequently, lest man should have to go without so necessary a remedy, it was ordained, both that the matter of Baptism should be something common that is easily obtainable by all, i.e. water; and that the minister of Baptism should be anyone, even not in orders, lest from lack of being baptized, man should suffer loss of his salvation.
Summa, III, Q.67, a.3, respondeo (emphasis added).↑
Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas admirably explains this truth:
It may happen that a man's faith is defective in regard to something else, and not in regard to the reality of the sacrament which he confers: for instance, he may believe that it is unlawful to swear in any case whatever [which is a heresy], and yet he may believe that baptism is an efficient cause of salvation. And thus such unbelief does not hinder the intention of conferring the sacrament. But if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (Article 8, Reply to Objection 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister's faith is made good.
Summa, III, Q.64, a.9, ad 1 (emphasis added; bracketed words added; parenthetical words in the original).↑
We are not recommending this manner of demonstrating how to perform a baptism.↑
Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas admirably explains this truth:
The minister of a 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, unless the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament.
Summa, III, Q.64, a.8 ad 2 (emphasis added).↑
We are not recommending this manner of demonstrating how to receive baptism.↑
Our research found various assertions that Cardinal Liénart was a freemason. Most claims cited no supporting evidence. When we examined the claims that did contain a source, the best source we could find was a talk Archbishop Lefebvre himself gave in Montreal, Canada on May 27, 1976.
In that talk, Archbishop Lefebvre was quoted as saying that he himself believed Cardinal Liénart was a Mason based on his (i.e., Archbishop Lefebvre’s) memory of an article in the Italian publication, Chiesa Viva, published two months earlier. This issue is No. 51, March, 1976.
However, in June 1982, the SSPX’s own U.S. publication (at the time), The Roman Catholic, stated that Archbishop Lefebvre’s memory was mistaken and that this Chiesa Viva issue did indeed contain information about Freemasonry and also about Cardinal Liénart on the same page, but that this page did not contain any evidence or even any claim that Cardinal Liénart himself was a Mason, as the Archbishop thought he remembered.
However, for purposes of this article, we examine whether Cardinal Liénart’s sacramental intention was sufficient, even supposing he were a Mason.↑
Notice, in the quote above on this issue, St. Thomas teaches:
The minister of a 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, III, Q.64, a.8 ad 2.
In the quote from Pope Leo XIII above, he teaches:
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 (intendisse) 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.
Apostolicae Curae, (On the Nullity of Anglican Orders), Pope Leo XIII, September 15, 1896, §33 (emphasis added).↑
See, e.g., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Hunter, S.J., Benziger Bros., 1896, vol. 3, p. 219 (requiring conditional ordination wherever there is even the “smallest doubt” about the validity of the ordination); see also, Denzinger #1151: Pope Innocent XI condemning (in 1679) those accepting probably-valid sacraments and not taking the safer course.
However, this smallest doubt (which requires conditional ordination), must be a real, (i.e., an affirmative) doubt. In other words, there must be a reason to doubt the validity of the ordination. A doubt for no reason at all, that is, a wholly negative doubt (“dubium est mere negativum”), is not sufficient. See, H. Nolin, S.J., Summa Theologiae Moralis, Oeniponte, 1920, vol. III, p.27.
When Fr. Nolin contrasts a real (i.e., affirmative) doubt, which requires conditional re-ordination, with a purely negative doubt, which does not require (or even allow) conditional ordination, he describes the negative doubt as “entirely imprudent and empty” (“omnino imprudens atque inane”). Id. Thus, the Catholic Church’s test for determining the need for conditional re-ordination, is whether there is the smallest reason to doubt, but (of course) excluding any doubt for no reason at all.↑
Because a doubtful ordination must be treated as invalid, the faithful should avoid any so-called “priest” whose ordination is doubtful. For this reason, Catholic Candle lists hundreds of priests who are (or claim to be) part of Catholic Tradition and gives you the best evidence we have concerning their ordinations.
However, a doubtful ordination is not the only reason to avoid a priest. For example, Catholics should avoid sedevacantist priests and liberal priests, even if their ordinations are free from doubt. Thus, this is not a list of “approved” priests. This list is a beginning of a prudent inquiry concerning a particular priest.↑
This is why conciliar consecrations and ordinations should always be conditionally re-performed because there is always an inherent doubt. For an explanation why conciliar ordination and consecration are always doubtful and so must be treated as invalid, read these articles: