The Most Reverend Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez, was consecrated a catholic bishop in 1948, by (the late) Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa a Roman Catholic Bishop, who in turn was consecrated by Cardinal Sebastio leme da Silveria Cintra also of the Roman Catholic Church, even when Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa left (resigned) the Roman Catholic Holy See; his consecrator and dear friend H.E. Cardinal Sebastio leme da Silveria Cintra of the Roman Catholic Church always befriended him and gave him protection.

We must not forget that Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa resigned from the Roman Catholic Church (Holy See) in 1937. His resignation was accepted by the Holy Father and Archbishop Duarte Costa was appointed a Titular See.

Canon & Ecclesiastical law is clear no bishop not even the Holy Father can discipline a Bishop or priest not of his own household.

Therefore, by the Holy Father accepting the resignation of Monsignor Duarte Costa in 1937, he relinguished his authority over the Roman Catholic Bishop.

However as a matter of fact of Universal Roman Canon Law, Any bishop who consecrates another bishop without a Papal mandate is automatically excomunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, but this never the less has little bearing as the Bishop can validily ordain and consecrate a Bishop and priest of the Catholic Church, this is the same for which has happened in the case of other Roman Catholic Bishop such as Archbishop Lefbvre in Econe, Switzerland etc.

The Roman Catholic Church sees such consecrations as stated as Valid But Illicit (Illicit meaning without the consent of the Holy Father).

Picture of Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa who has just consecrated Bishop Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez in 1948 using the prescribed Rites and ceremonies according to the Pre-Vatican II Roman Pontifical for the Catholic Church.

2 The proper form (i.e., the words pronounced over the matter, for example: "This is my Body", etc., in the Eucharist);

3 And in the minister (i.e., in him who confects the Sacrament), the proper intention.

In the case of the ordination and consecration of Roman Catholic Archbishop Duarte Costa, Archbishop Castillo Mendez, Archbishop D Bell, there can be no question that in such solemn and public ceremonies a mistake of matter or of form could escape unnoticed.

The question, therefore, if question there is —and such as the above-mentioned persons have posed it —is a question of the INTENTION of Roman Catholic Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa when he administered the Sacrament of Holy Orders to Bishop Castillo Mendez and the same when Archbishop Castillo Mendez administered the Sacrament of Holy Orders to Archbishop D Bell.

Before considering the case directly, it will be useful to consider in summary the teaching of the Church and of sound theology on the INTENTION OF THE MINISTER OF A SACRAMENT in general.

First of all, what the question is NOT. The Church has solemnly defined, and all Catholics must believe, that for the valid confection of a Sacrament neither faith nor the state of grace is required in the minister. Therefore, both sinful and heretical, schismatical and apostate priests and bishops can still validly (though sinfully and illicitly) confect the Sacraments, provided, of course, that they use the proper matter and form and have the necessary intention. The question, therefore, is NOT whether or not Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa and Archbishop Castillo Mendez could validly administer a Sacrament at all, but whether they did in this case.

Secondly, let us formulate more precisely the question of the REQUIRED INTENTION. We shall distinguish the external intention (by which the minister wishes to accomplish properly the external ceremonies and rites of the Sacrament, but inwardly wishes not to confect the Sacrament); and the internal (by which the minister truly and interiorly wishes to do what the Church does).

The Church has defined that the minister must have the intention of doing what the Church does (Trent, sess. 7, can. 11). Therefore, at least the external intention of doing what the Church does, and thus of accomplishing the ceremony properly, is required. For one reason, because the minister of the Sacrament acts only as the minister of Christ, and thus must intend to act as such, and not simply to perform a natural action, or to act in his own name or by his own power.

But, furthermore, today theologians commonly hold, and the declarations of the Church seem to confirm, that the external intention does not suffice, but that to confect a Sacrament validly, the minister must have, at least implicitly, the INTERNAL INTENTION of doing what the Church does.

The Church solemnly requires matter, form and intention for a valid Sacrament. But if no internal intention were required, there would be no reason to include intention as the third element in the list, for the external intention of accomplishing the ceremony properly is actually nothing more than the use of the matter and form.

Therefore, this required intention must be something more: internal.

Furthermore, if the minister had no internal intention, he would simply be acting in his own name, or by his own power, performing a natural and not a supernatural act.

The central question, then, will be: How are we to recognize the presence of this internal intention required in the minister for the valid confection of a Sacrament?

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."

Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of Theologians, says the same thing:

"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"

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.

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.

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.

Saint Thomas teaches the same:

"Sometimes 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.

According to the solemn teaching of the Church, therefore, and the conclusions of sound theology, there is ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION for any doubts on the validity of the Holy Orders of Archbishop Duarte Costa and Archbishop Castillo Mendez and in our case as a valid Catholic bishops consecrated by Archbishop Castillo Mendez who in turn consecrate fellow bishops.

Therefore no person can challenge the unbroken Catholic Apostolic Succession of The Most Reverend Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez the Patriarch of Brazil, Diocesan Bishop of Brasilia and therefore no one can challenge our unbroken apostolic succession which has always been transmitted to each fellow bishops; in the United Kingdom, Australia, Italy and the United States of America.

Let’s examine my most favourite piece of law above all besides the intent and Sacraments as mentioned earlier,

In August 2000 the present Pope of Rome issued a document called “Dominus Iesus” in his previous position as Prefect of the (Roman Catholic) Congregation for the Doctrine and Faith, Paragraph 17 of the Declaration reads:

“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 (Second Vatican Council, Unitatis redintegratio Ss14 & 15) 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”

The Declaration then defines those Churches, such as the Church of England, which “are not churches in the proper sense”, It is my understanding of ecclesiastical law that, if we accept the definition of Dominus Iesus, the Society of Pope Leo XIII is recognised by the Vatican as a “true particular church”, in the same way as for instance, the Greek, Bulgarian and Russian Orthodox Churches are.

On a note than can not be ignored, two Catholic Bishops ( Bishop Ferraz was consecrated on the 15th August 1945 and was accepted back in to the Roman Catholic Church by Pope John XXIII and appointed as Bishop of Eleuntrna and assistant to the Cardinal of Sao Paulo and Bishop Moya was consecrated 30th November 1956 he to was accepted back to the Roman Catholic Church by Pope John XXIII as a Bishop) both was consecrated for the Igreja Catolica Apostolica Brasileira by Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa, both returned to the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church in 1960’s and went on to enjoy careers in the Vatican hierarchy.

By the Holy See accepting both bishops back in to the Roman Catholic Church without re consecrating them sub-conditione it is clear that by receiving both bishops from the Igreja Catolica Apostolica Brasileira; the Roman Catholic Church has affirmed both de Jure and de Facto that the consecration received by Roman Catholic Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa the founder of the Igreja Catolica Apostolica Brasileira is valid and that they did receive a valid Episcopal consecration.

All of our Catholic Bishop’s have a pure Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession according to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Pre-Vatican II Roman Pontifical.

In any case, though this has no relation to any question of Holy Orders, Archbishop Duarte Costa never lost his jurisdiction as Archbishop of Sao Paulo. and thus ipso facto excommunicated, he retained his jurisdiction as Bishop until his eternal reward to the gates of St Peter.