TRUTH & REALITY OF TRADITIONAL VATICAN I BISHOPS according to UNIVERSAL LAW

Roman Catholic Bishops outside of the Roman Catholic Church Vatican II are not only heralds, but custodians of the most ancient and a powerful continuous spiritual lineage that still exists in Apostolic Succession from Vatican I

Roman Catholic Sebastiao Leme Cardinal da Silveira Cintra, Brazil, ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS. PDF. His Eminence Cardinal-Priest of Ss. Bonifacio ed Alessio, Archbishop of Sao Sebastiao do Rio de Janeiro. Vatican I. 

Roman Catholic Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa, ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS 1937 PDF.  Roman Catholic Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa re appointed from Diocesan Bishop to Titular Bishop of Maurensi 22 September 1937. ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS. Vatican I.

Catholic Bishop Salamao Ferraz accepted and appointed as Roman Catholic Bishop of Eleuterna, ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS 1969 . Catholic Bishop Salamao Ferraz was consecrated a sacred Catholic bishop by Most Reverend Carlos Duarte Costa on the 15 August 1945. Accepted by the Roman Catholic Church under Vatican II and appointed Titular See in May 1963 of Eleuterna without ever being re-consecrated ' Ad Cautelm'.

The Holy Council of Vatican I teaches that “the doctrine of Faith that God has revealed, was not proposed to the minds of men as a philosophical discovery to be perfected, but as the divine deposit, entrusted to the Spouse of Christ that she might faithfully keep it and infallibly define it. Consequently, the meaning of the sacred dogmas which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding” (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz.1800).  “The Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter, not that they might make known new doctrine by His Revelation but rather that, with His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the Revelation or deposit of Faith that was handed down through the Apostles” (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus Dz. 1836). Moreover, “the power of the Pope is not unlimited; not only can he not change anything which is of divine institution (to suppress episcopal jurisdiction, for instance), but he is to build and not to destroy (cf. II Cor.10,8); he is enjoined, through natural law, not to sow confusion in the flock of Christ” (Dict. de Theol. Cath., II, col.2039-2040).

Saint Paul too confirmed the Faith of his converts: “But though we or an angel from heaven preach a Gospel to all besides that which we have preached to all, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8). Saint Paul instructed Timothy: “O Timothy, keep the deposit” (1 Tm. 6:20), the deposit of Faith! , it seems that Saint Paul is telling us: “Keep the deposit…the deposit that is entrusted to us, not discovered by you. You receive it: you did not draw it from your resources. It is not the fruit of any personal understanding but of teaching. It is not personal use, but it belongs to public tradition. It does not come from the Pope, but it has come to the Peope. With respect to it, you cannot act as an author, but only a simple keeper. The Pope is not its initiator but its disciple. It is not for the pope and Vatican II to direct it, but your duty to follow it” (Saint Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, No. 21).

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese de Campe Grande in Brazil have placed a statement on their web site http://arquidiocesedecampogrande.org.br/arq/formacao/formacao-igreja/351-o-que-e-a-igreja-brasileira-ou-igreja-catolica-brasileira-.html?start=1  it tells us all what is being taught to other Roman Catholic bishops and faithful “In response to rumours that spread around the person of D. Carlos, the ecclesiastical authorities sought to appease him. How did not give results, D. Carlos was suspended in 1944 order, that is, lost the authority to exercise the functions of the sacred ministry. This measure was of no use, for this D. Carlos was excommunicated on July 6, 1945.

If Most Reverend Dom Carlos Duarte Costa was excommunicated as alleged then WHY? Did His Holiness Pope John XXIII accept the consecration by the hands of Most Reverend Dom Carlos Duarte Costa de jure de facto of Most Reverend Salomao Barbosa Ferraz as a valid Catholic Bishop as it is clear that he was consecrated by Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa on the 15 August 1945 clearly over 1 year later after Dom Duarte Costa alleged suspension and 1 month and 9 days later after the alleged excommunication?  He was accepted in to the Roman Catholic Church as a catholic bishop de jure and de facto on the 8 December 1959.

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Campe Grande in Brazil states “this day decided to found his Church, called "Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church." In view of this attitude, the Holy Office declared D. Carlos excommunicated vitandus (shunned, literally "to be avoided) on July 3, 1946”.  Again this does not make truth being portrayed by the Archdiocese of de Campe Grande or any Roman Catholic Bishop as there website decree, if Most Reverend Dom Carlos Duarte Costa was Excommunicated  Vitandus as alleged some 1 year later after his initial Excommunication in 1945 WHY? Did His Holiness Pope John XXIII by de jure and de facto accept Most Reverend Dom Orlanda Arce Moya as a Catholic Bishop by Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa’s hands, bearing in mind that he was not consecrated until 30 November 1956, 12 years after Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa alleged suspension, 11 years after his alleged excommunication and 10 years after the alleged excommunication Vitandus?The reason is because the allegation of suspension and excommunication is untrue;

In the Acta Apostolica Sedis there is no record of such important acts, just in 1937 that Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa was appointed as Titular Bishop, a bishop never the less.

Lets not forget that Most Reverend Dom David Bell was consecrated sacred catholic bishop by Most Reverend Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez the 4th Bishop consecrated by Most Reverend Dom Carlos Duarte Costa in 1948 assisted by Most Reverend Dom Salamao Ferraz and Most Reverend Antidio Vargas, Yet as you can see His Excellency Most Reverend Dom David Bell is pictured being presented to the Holy Father Pope Benedict XIII as a Catholic Bishop.

(1) The imposition of hands by the consecrating bishop (technically called the matter of the sacrament).     

(2) The essential 16-word formula recited by the consecrating bishop (technically called the form of the sacrament). For validity, it is not even necessary that the bishop get all the words exactly right, as long as he does not change the meaning substantially. See E. Regatillo, Jus Sacramentarium (Santander: Sal Terrae 1949), 873     

(3) A minimal intention on the consecrating bishop’s part “to do what the Church does” (called ministerial intention).

Though all the ceremonies prescribed in the rite should be observed, the three foregoing elements are all that is required for an episcopal consecration to be valid, notwithstanding that all of the Society of Pope Leo XIII consecration’s to the Catholic Episcopate are recorded on to Video to attest to the strict Rites and Rubrics used and all pertaining matters.

Canon Law in force from 1917 until the resignation of Most Reverend Dom Carlos Duarte Costa in 1937 was Canon Law 1917 of the Universal Church for which Most Reverend Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez was not applicable to abide by.

1917 Code of Canon law states: A bishop is not allowed to confer Episcopal consecration on anyone without a papal mandate (Roman Catholic Church Canon 953, CIC 1917). Whoever acts contrarily incurs Excommunication latae sententiae—"reserved to the Holy See" (Canon 1382, CC 1983). Excommunication Latae Sententiae takes effect by the very act itself; it does not need to be decreed. In this particular case, the 1917 Canon Law inflicted only a suspension ("Ipso iure suspensi sunt, donec sedes Apostolica eos dispen­averit"—"They are suspended by the law itself, until the Apostolic See dispenses them" [Canon 2370, CC 1917.1). However, if such a consecration or act was a matter of emergency, then the act (Suspension) itself cannot take place. In the case of H.E.  Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa. Who was fighting for the poor, starving faithful this itself is an act of emergency for the faithful to be able to receive communion against the financial demands of the Roman Catholic Church at that time. Therefore, the Ipso iure suspensi sunt dones sedes Apostolica eos dispenaverit does not apply.

An act of disobedience cannot be equated to schism under either the 1917 or 1983 Code of Canon law.

Let’s not forget it is only since the Decree of the Holy Office of Rome; August 9, 1951, that the sanction of the excommunication ‘ipso facto’ most specially reserved to the Holy See of Rome was introduced for illegal Episcopal consecrations. However, as Roman Catholic Titular Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa ‘Carolum Duarte Costa’ resignation was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church by His Holiness Pope Pius XI in 1937 from his Diocese of Botucatu in 1937. 

Acta Apostolica Sedis records in Latin the following:  Ssmus Dominus Noster Pius, divina Providentia Papa XI, successivis decretis Sacrae Congregationis Consistorialis, singulas quae sequuntur Ecclesias de novo Pastore providere dignatus est, nimirum : 22 Septembris 1937 Titulari episcopal! Ecclesiae Maurensi Exc. P. D. Carolum Duarte Costa, hactenus Episcopum Botucatuensem. His Holiness. Pope Pius XI appointed / decreed ‘Roman Catholic Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa’ as Titular Bishop of Maurea.

Therefore, accepting Roman Catholic Diocesan Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa’s resignation to Titular Catholic Bishop as stated in the Holy See of Rome’s ACTA APOSTOLICA SEDIS 1937. H.E. Most Reverend Dom. Carlos Duarte Costa released himself from the Roman Catholic Church law of its 1917 Canon laws. Furthermore, Roman Catholic Canon law or Roman Catholic Church sanctions from 1937 onwards could not/ did not apply to him or any of his fellow bishops in the unbroken Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession as long as all the Rite and Rubrics was strictly observed this being the Roman Pontifical Pre Vatican II. The same Rite & Rubrics used by our forefathers before Vatican II & the new Rite of Paul VI. A Diocesan Bishop was occasionally transferred from that of a diocesan bishop to a titular see; this was been used by the Roman Holy See to strip the diocesan of his responsibilities. A bishop whose behaviour was disapproved of. 

Assigning titular sees served two purposes. Since part of being a bishop means being the head of a church, titular sees serve that purpose for bishops without a diocese. At the same time, the office of titular bishop memorializes ancient churches that fell into the hands of non-Christian conquerors, formerly in ‘partibus infidelium’, or that were absorbed into other dioceses. However a titular bishop is nevertheless a bishop and can still validly consecrate another bishop as a Catholic bishop.What is often ignored and not known is that some 3 years after H.E. Most Reverend Dom. Carlos Duarte Costa’s resignation was accepted he was permitted by the Ordinary that being H.E. Cardinal Sebastian Leme da Silveira Cintra. Archbishop of Sao Sebastiao do Rio de Janerio. Cardinal-Priest of Ss. Bonifacio ed Alessio to act as a co consecrator for a Roman Catholic Bishop Eliseu Maria Coroli, B. † on 13.10. 1940 . Bishop Eliseu Coroli served on all 4 councils of  Vatican II.

Was His Excellency. Most Reverend Dom. Carlos Duarte Costa Excommunicated. Are all bishops by his hands excommunicated after 1937?

No. There are many rumours. But again canon law of 1917 which was in place during his Bishopric with Rome states that 1917 Canon Law inflicted only a suspension "Ipso iure suspensi sunt, donec sedes Apostolica eos dispen­averit"—"They are suspended by the law itself, until the Apostolic See dispenses them" [Canon 2370, CC 1917.1).

It was not until the Decree of the Holy Office of Rome; August 9, 1951, that the sanction of the excommunication ‘ipso facto’ most specially reserved to the Holy See was introduced for illegal Episcopal consecrations. Years later the code of canon law was revised in 1983 to clearly include the decree of the Holy Office of Rome; August 9, 1951 for punishment of illegal consecrations without a papal mandate. This was due to learning errors by the Holy See from 1937 when H.H. Pope Pius XI accepted H.E. Carlos Duarte Costa’s resignation and appointed him as Titular Bishop of Maura an ancient African diocese. (Photo to the right is Msgr Bell & Msgr Carroll attending for a meeting within the Vatican Palace Rome).

In regards to bishop’s consecrated by H.E Most Reverend Dom. Carlos Duarte Costa after his resignation as Diocesan Bishop in 1937 and as Titular Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church he consecrated:

1.            Catholic Bishop. Salomão FERRAZ consecrated Bishop Dom Carlos Duarte Costa: Founder of the Order of St. Andrew. Incardinated in to the Roman Catholic Church by H.H. Pope John XXIII, was appointed the title "Eleuterna HOLDER OF CRETE" and assigned as auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Sao Paulo, Brazil.

2.            Catholic Bishop OSCAR OSVALDO FERNANDEZ CAIROLI, received royalties from the Vatican from His Holiness: Pope John XXIII and assigned to duties in the Holy See.

3.            Catholic Bishop PEDRO HERNANDEZ:  received by the Vatican with the blessing of H.H. Pope John XXIII, and immediately assigned as Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of La Paz, Bolivia, South America.

4.            Catholic Bishop ORLANDO ARCE MOYA, consecrated by Roman Catholic Titular Bishop Dom Carlos Duarte Costa on the November 30, 1956, as bishop of Santiago de Chile. Years later was also received by H.H. Pope John XXIII and appointed Auxiliary Bishop to the Archbishop of Madrid, Spain. Years later he was transferred in the position of auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of Ceará, Brazil Republic.

5.            Catholic Bishop Eliseu Maria Coroli consecrated by co consecrator Roman Catholic Titular Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa on 13 Oct 1940. Roman Catholic Bishop Coroli was appointed as Titular Bishop of Zama Major for and within the Roman Catholic Church authorized by His Eminence Cardinal Cintra.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION

"DOMINUS IESUS"

ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH.

17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

By reading this statement it is clear that although a bishop is without a Papal Mandate; but with a bishops mandate and a unbroken Catholic Apostolic Succession, there is no question of validity as a Catholic Bishops, Let’s not forget that Archbishop Bell is so close to the original Roman Catholic Bishop it is hard to argue of any invalidity at all

1.            S. Woywood, Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (New York: Wagner 1952), 1905. “A sacred order is presumed valid until its invalidity is established by proof to the effect that it was received with want of intention on the part of the petitioner. He must show that something essential was lacking when the sacrament was conferred.”

2.            P. Gasparri, Tractatus de Sacra Ordinatione (Paris: Delhomme 1893), 1:970. “Canonist Gasparri (later a cardinal and compiler of the 1917 Code of Canon Law) offers a general principle: “…an act, especially one as solemn as an ordination, must be regarded as valid, as long as invalidity would not be clearly demonstrated.”…tum quia actus, praesertim adeo solemnis qualis est ordinatio, habendus est ut validus, donec invaliditas non evincatur.” 

3.            A priest or bishop who confers a sacrament doesn’t have to “prove” that he intends to do what the Church does. He is automatically presumed to intend what the rite means. This is certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church. And to deny it is “theologically rash B. Leeming, Principles of Sacramental Theology (Westminster md: Newman 1956), 482. “This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be theologically rash… the minister is presumed to intend what the rite means..”  (Photo to the left is Msgr Bell & Msgr Carroll inside the Vatican Palace after attending a meeting at the Holy Fathers Office)

4.            Pope Leo XIII specifically confirmed the principle with regard to Holy Orders when he said that someone who seriously and correctly uses the matter and form “is for that very reason deemed to have intended to do what the Church does Bull Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896. “Iamvero quum quis ad sacramentum conficiendum et conferendum materiam formamque debitam serio ac rite adhibuit, eo ipso censetur id nimirum facere intendisse quod facit Ecclesia.” 

5.            A bishop who confers Holy Orders is never presumed to have the intention of not ordaining someone as long as the contrary is not proved. For no one should be presumed to be evil, he adds, unless he is proven as such -Tractatus de Sacra Ordinatione, 1:970. “Proinde numquam praesumitur ministrum talem intentionem non ordinandi habuisse in ordinatione peragenda, donec contrarium non probetur; tum quia nemo praesumitur malus, nisi probetur…” His emphasis.

6.            Theologian Coronata, “is certainly present in someone who regularly performs sacramental actions.” The mere act of putting on vestments and going to the altar is considered sufficient evidence for virtual intention. Conte a Coronata, De Sacramentis: Tractatus Canonicus (Turin: Marietti 1943) 1:56. “Virtualis enim intentio, ut iam vidimus, est intentio ipsa actualis quae cum distractione operatur. Talis intentio certe habetur in eo qui de more ponit actiones sacramentales. 

7.            Recipient of the sacrament for challenges, his diocesan ordinary, and the ordinary of the diocese where the sacrament was conferred. See Canon 1994.1. “Validitatem sacrae ordinationis accusare valet clericus peraeque ac Ordinarius cui clericus subsit vel in cuius diocesi ordinatus sit.” All other person lack the right to accuse, See Cappello 4:683. “Aliae personae extraneae procul dubio jure accusandi carent.” 

8.            A consecration without any assistants and without obtaining a pontifical dispensation, it would still be valid. S. Many, Praelectiones de Sacra Ordinatione (Paris: Letouzey 1905), 519. “Alexander VII, brevi Onerosa, 4 Feb. 1664, concessit ut aliqua episcopalis ordinatio, apud Sinas, fieret ab uno tantum episcopo, cum assistentia duorum presbyterorum, et etiam, si opus esset, sine illorum assistentia.” 

9.            Pope Alexander VII, Brief Alias, 27 February 1660. “Quantum spectat ad sacramentum et impressionem characteris fuisse validam.”  Pope Clement XI and Pope Benedict XIV declared that consecrations performed without such a dispensation are valid De Synodo Diocesana 13.13.9-10. “…consecrationem hujusmodi validam, licet illicitam, esse censuerunt… ratam firmamque, sed illicitam Consecrationem pronuntiavit.” Benedict’s emphasis, quoting Clement’s decree of 26 November 1718. 

10.          The Catholic faith that the valid administration of a sacrament does not depend on a priest or bishop’s probity. Cappello, 1:36. “In ministro non requiritur nec status gratiae, nec vitae probitas, imo nec ipsa fides, ad validam sacramentorum confectionem vel administrationem. Haec est veritas catholica de fide.”

11.          Pope Leo XIII answers clearly and with solemn authority: Concerning the mind or intention, inasmuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but in so far 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 due 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 of a non-baptized person, as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite. (Photo to the right is Msgr Bell being presented as a valid but illicit Catholic Bishop to the Holy Father in 2009)

12.          St. Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of Theologians, says the same thing (III, Q. 64, A. 8 ad 2): In the words uttered by (the minister), the intention of the Church is expressed; and this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, EXCEPT THE CONTRARY BE EXPRESSED EXTERIORLY on the part of the minister [emphasis given by author]. Therefore, in the conferral of the sacrament of holy orders (or of any other) as long as the ordaining bishop, be he Catholic or apostate, observes externally the rite prescribed for the sacrament, he MUST be presumed to have the right intention, and the sacrament MUST be accepted as valid. Let us recall one more time that there is not the least question of the possibility of receiving valid ordinations from a bishop who has abandoned the faith. In fact, such ordinations received from heretics or others are normally valid.

13.          In defining this truth of faith, Pope Paschal II does not add the least qualification, not even an implicit reference to cases where such ordinations might not be valid: Therefore, instructed by the examples of our Fathers, who at diverse times have received Novatians, Donatists, and other heretics in their orders [i.e., acknowledging the validity of the orders which they had received in their heretical sects]: We receive in the episcopal office [i.e., as valid bishops] the bishops of the aforesaid kingdom, who were ordained in schism... October 22, 1106. 

14.          Let us consider momentarily a few more points on the intention required in the minister of a sacrament. We shall distinguish the intention of doing what the Church does, and the intention of doing what the Church intends. The Church does (performs) a sacred rite instituted by Christ, and by this rite she intends to confer grace —and in some sacraments, the character. The minister does not at all need to intend to confer grace by the rite which he performs. It suffices that he intend to perform a sacred rite. (So teach all theologians.)  Indeed, he does not even have to believe that the rite which he is performing is sacred. It suffices that he intends to perform seriously a rite which Christians hold as sacred. Thus, for example, a Jew can validly baptize a Christian child, even though he believes that baptism is a completely meaningless ceremony, if he intends to perform a rite which Christians hold to be sacred. Thus, also a priest who has lost the faith in the Sacraments can still confect them validly as long as he has the intention of performing seriously the rites which the faithful ask of him and which they consider sacred.  

15.          St. Thomas teaches the same thing (in IV Sent., dist. 6, Q. 1 A. 3, sol 2, ad 1): Sometimes he [the minister] intends to do what the Church does, although he considers it to be nothing. The minimum intention required in the minister of a sacrament is, then, this: That he intends to perform a rite which the Church considers sacred and to accomplish seriously all the prescribed externals. Indeed, who could possibly lack this minimal intention in administering a sacrament? We have seen that the Church considers the presence of the required intention the normal case as regards sacraments administered by heretics, schismatics, etc. It is almost impossible for a sacerdotal (Priestly) ordination to be invalid, an invalid episcopal consecration would be even more impossible for this reason: In accordance with the most ancient tradition of the Church, a new bishop is always consecrated by THREE other bishops. The Pontificale Romanum refers them as assistentes, but since, as the rubrics prescribe, all three bishops impose hands on the bishop-elect (the matter of the sacrament), and recite the form of consecration.

16.          Pope Pius XII (Episcopalis consecrationis, Nov. 30, 1944) insists that they are to be referred to as co-consecrators. Thus, as this was already obvious, all three concur in the consecration (where only one would suffice for validity), and, therefore, even in the unimaginable case where two of the three bishops would lack the necessary intention, the remaining bishop would still validly consecrate the elect. (Cf. also Pius XII, Allocution to the International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy, Sep. 22, 1956.)

17.          Consecrations without Papal Mandate: leads us to consider the precedent found in ecclesiastical history for the consecration of bishops during the time of interregnum (the vacancy of the Apostolic See).  “On November 29, 1268, Pope Clement IV died, and there began one of the longest periods of interregnum or vacancy of the papal office in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. The cardinals at that time were to assemble in conclave in the city of Viterbo, but through the intrigues of Carlo d’Anglio, King of Naples, discord was sown among the members of the Sacred College and the prospect of any election grew more and more remote. “After almost three years, the Mayor of Viterbo enclosed the cardinals in a palace, allowing them only strict living rations, until a decision would be made which would give to the Church its visible Head. At last, on September 1, 1271, Pope Gregory X was elected to the Chair of St Peter. “During this long period of vacancy of the Apostolic See, vacancies also occurred in many dioceses throughout the world. In order that the priests and faithful might not be left without shepherds, bishops were elected and consecrated to fill the vacant sees. There were accomplished during this time twenty-one known elections and consecrations in various countries. The most important aspect of this historical precedent is that all of these consecrations of bishops were ratified by Pope Gregory X, who consequently affirmed the lawfulness of such consecrations.” there is on 9 separate other occasions that a pope did not sit on the Chair of St Peter’s throne for a record between 2 to 4 years. However consecrations of hundreds of bishops took place. Yet there was no Papal Mandate issued for their consecrations. (Information taken from Vatican Archives) And yet there consecrations remain valid and licit.

18.          Pope Leo XIII answers clearly and with solemn authority:Concerning the mind or intention, inasmuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but in so far 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 due 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 of a non-baptized person, as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite. 

19.          St. Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of Theologians, says the same thing (III, Q. 64, A. 8 ad 2): In the words uttered by (the minister), the intention of the Church is expressed; and this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, EXCEPT THE CONTRARY BE EXPRESSED EXTERIORLY on the part of the minister [emphasis given by author]. Therefore, in the conferral of the sacrament of holy orders (or of any other) as long as the ordaining bishop, be he Catholic or apostate, observes externally the rite prescribed for the sacrament, he MUST be presumed to have the right intention, and the sacrament MUST be accepted as valid. Let us recall one more time that there is not the least question of the possibility of receiving valid ordinations from a bishop who has abandoned the faith. In fact, such ordinations received from heretics or others are normally valid.

20.          In defining this truth of faith, Pope Paschal II does not add the least qualification, not even an implicit reference to cases where such ordinations might not be valid:Therefore, instructed by the examples of our Fathers, who at diverse times have received Novatians, Donatists, and other heretics in their orders [i.e., acknowledging the validity of the orders which they had received in their heretical sects]: We receive in the episcopal office [i.e., as valid bishops] the bishops of the aforesaid kingdom, who were ordained in schism... October 22, 1106.21.         

Let us consider momentarily a few more points on the intention required in the minister of a sacrament. We shall distinguish the intention of doing what the Church does, and the intention of doing what the Church intends. The Church does (performs) a sacred rite instituted by Christ, and by this rite she intends to confer grace —and in some sacraments, the character. The minister does not at all need to intend to confer grace by the rite which he performs. It suffices that he intends to perform a sacred rite. (So teach all theologians.)  Indeed, he does not even have to believe that the rite which he is performing is sacred. It suffices that he intends to perform seriously a rite which Christians hold as sacred. Thus, for example, a Jew can validly baptize a Christian child, even though he believes that baptism is a completely meaningless ceremony, if he intends to perform a rite which Christians hold to be sacred. Thus, also a priest who has lost the faith in the Sacraments can still confect them validly as long as he has the intention of performing seriously the rites which the faithful ask of him and which they consider sacred.

22.          St. Thomas teaches the same thing (in IV Sent., dist. 6, Q. 1 A. 3, sol 2, ad 1): Sometimes he [the minister] intends to do what the Church does, although he considers it to be nothing. The minimum intention required in the minister of a sacrament is, then, this: That he intends to perform a rite which the Church considers sacred and to accomplish seriously all the prescribed externals. Indeed, who could possibly lack this minimal intention in administering a sacrament? We have seen that the Church considers the presence of the required intention the normal case as regards sacraments administered by heretics, schismatics, etc. 

23.          It is almost impossible for a sacerdotal (Priestly) ordination to be invalid, an invalid episcopal consecration would be even more impossible for this reason: In accordance with the most ancient tradition of the Church, a new bishop is always consecrated by THREE other bishops.

The Pontificale Romanum refers them as assistentes, but since, as the rubrics prescribe, all three bishops impose hands on the bishop-elect (the matter of the sacrament), and recite the form of consecration, Pope Pius XII (Episcopalis consecrationis, Nov. 30, 1944) insists that they are to be referred to as co-consecrators. Thus, as this was already obvious, all three concur in the consecration (where only one would suffice for validity), and, therefore, even in the unimaginable case where two of the three bishops would lack the necessary intention, the remaining bishop would still validly consecrate the elect. (Cf. also Pius XII, Allocution to the International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy, Sep. 22, 1956.)

Most illustrious & Most Reverend Dom. David Bell.

His Excellency, Archbishop of London. Catholic Church in Great Britain & Ireland.