Invalidity of Traditionalist Orders
Pope Innocent XI condemned the proposition: It is not illicit in conferring the sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned, unless the law forbids it, convention or the danger of incurring grave harm. Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders. (DZ 1151) Basically it is never permitted to use a probable opinion in the validity of any Sacrament, we must have certainty. First of all a probable opinion has been established that Peter Martin Ngo-Dihn Thuc used the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration in the consecrations of Guerard des Lauriers, Moises Carmona and Aldolpho Zamora. This is sufficient to place doubt on the whole Thuc line of bishops.Saint Thomas states: 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 of either the minister or the recipient. (III Q64 A8, ad2) The minister’s intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not intent to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially if it be manifested outwardly. (III Q64 A10) It is possible for someone to withhold intention inwardly. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved. (Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by the Fifth Lateran Council, DZ 752)Decree for the Armenians, Florence (DZ 695): All these sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as matter, by words as form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing as the Church does; if any of these is lacking the sacrament is not fulfilled.Trent (DZ 854): If anyone shall say that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, the intention of doing what the church does is not required: let him be anathema.Alexander VIII condemned the following error of the Jansenists (DZ 1318): Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and form of baptizing, but within his heart resolves, I do not intend what the Church does. Monsgr (Lefebrve),
I have heard that you are in this moment in bad health. This is why I have taken the audacity to tell you the following:
You have been consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Lienart, (who) never believed in our religion, so your consecration by him has been nulled. I am ready to consecrate you a bishop or you can find a bishop to consecrate you secretly.
As regards the ecclesiastics that you made priests, find a bishop, for example myself, to consecrate them. All this, is in strict secrecy, known only between you and I.
Pierre Martin Ngo-dihn-Thuc, Archbishop
Since it has been proven that Lienart was a Freemason prior to his own consecration, his intention must be held in doubt. The enemies of the Church, themselves, well know the vital importance of the priesthood; for against the priesthood in particular, as We have already had to lament in the case Our dear Mexico, they direct the point of their attacks. It is the priesthood they desire to be rid of; that they may clear the way for that destruction of the Church, which has been so often attempted yet never achieved. Ad catholici sacerdotii Pope Pius XI December 20, 1935.The key to Lefebvre's invalidity rests on the validity of Achille Lienart's consecration as a bishop after rising to the 30th Degree of Freemasonry. First of all, sufficient evidence has been produced that Lienart was a Freemason. Since Freemason's intention is the destruction of the Catholic Church, we must conclude that they will withhold intention in recieving or adminsitering the Sacraments in order to facilitate such destruction. It may be possible to prepare an argument for validity, but at best it will be only probable, and we are forbidden to use a probable opinion in the validity of the Sacraments. Further for their admitted participation in Vatican II, both Lefebvre and Ngo-Dihn Thuc became notorious heretics by signing one or more heretical decrees. Further both celebrated the heretical Novus Ordo Missae, which is also an act of heresy. All persons who presume to receive orders from a prelate who has been excommunicated, suspended or interdicted by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic or schismatic automatically incur suspensions a divinis reserved to the Apostolic See. Any person who has been ordained in good faith by such men, forfeits the right to exercise the order thus received until he obtains dispensation from the prohibition. (Canon 2372)In a footnote to an article on the validity of Liberal Catholic Orders Fr. Rumble states: It may be worth noting that a Catholic who lapses from the Church and receives orders from a schismatical bishop can be received back into the Church only on the understanding that such ordination, even if valid, will be complete disregarded. He then cites a decree of the Holy Office from November 18, 1931: Ecclesiam non habere neque unquam habituram esse oratroem tamquam ordinatum, eumque propterea nullis obligationis statui clericali annexis teneri. We must conclude that the ordinations and consecration by Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc are at best extremely doubtful and are actually invalid. Since their operations mirror their predecessors the old-Catholics, the same principles should be applied that are applied to the old-Catholcis and other schismatic and heretical sects. 
Michael Fighting
