Validity of Catholic Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa Sacraments & Episcopal Consecrations.
The contents here written is actual evidence of the truth according to Canon Law and the teachings of the Catholic Forefathers.
Not here-say and or
speculation as some people do, but simple hard facts along with
actual facts of bishops consecrated by and from the Archbishop Duarte
Costa line who have returned in one way or another in full communion
with the Roman Catholic Church Vatican II from 1964 through to 2012
without ever being re-consecrated.
On the 13 June 2006
Reverend Msgr David Bell was consecrated a catholic bishop by one man
in the capacity of principal consecrator being His Holiness,
Patriarch of Brazil. Most Reverend Lord Luis Fernando Castillo
Mendez. He was assisted by two fellow co-consecrators.
H.H. Patriarch Lord
Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez was appointed by Catholic Archbishop
Carlos Duarte Costa.
Roman Catholic Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa, ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS 1936 and consecrated a bishop on 3 May 1948 by him,The purpose here is not to review the ins and outs of Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa’s career. But rather, we want to determine whether or not the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Duarte Costa from 1945 to 1961 and those consecrated by these bishops are validly-consecrated bishops — that is, whether or not they possess the sacramental power possessed by all catholic bishops to administer the Sacrament of Baptism, Confirmation, to Ordain priests who are real priests, and to consecrate other bishops who are true bishops from the hands of Most Reverend Lord Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez from 1948 to 2008.
This sacramental power is
called the Apostolic Succession, passes from one catholic bishop to
all the bishops that he may consecrate. They in turn pass this
sacramental power on to all the bishops they consecrate, and so on.
To pursue our inquiry, therefore, we must look to the episcopal consecrations of the three prelates to whom six bishops from 1945 to 1956 traced their consecrations: Bp’s Castillo Mendez, Salameo Ferraz and Orlanda Arce- Moya. If the episcopal consecrations of the latter two must be regarded as valid, then the line of orders which proceeds from them is likewise valid.
Now, as we shall demonstrate below, the pertinent facts and the pronouncements of popes, canonists (canon law experts) and Catholic moral theologians all lead to one unavoidable conclusion: we are obliged to regard as valid the episcopal consecrations Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa conferred on Bishop Salameo Ferraz. Catholic Bishop Salamao Ferraz , Bishop of Eleuterna, ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS 1969 & Orlando Arce-Moya.
Since the consecrations of Bps. Ferraz and Arce-Moya were valid, we are likewise obliged to regard as valid the line of orders which proceeds from them, and thus to hold that the priests ordained in this line are truly priests and that the bishops consecrated in this line are truly bishops.
1. SOME NOTES ON THE INVESTIGATION.
In 1936 Roman Catholic Diocesan Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa resignation was accepted by Pope Pus XI although he had been consecrated sacred bishop by Roman Catholic Cardinal Sebastiao Leme da Silveira Cintra Roman Catholic Sebastiao Leme Cardinal da Silveira Cintra, Brazil, ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS. In place of being a Diocesan Bishop he was appointed as Titular Bishop of Maura which is confirmed in the 1936 Acta Apostolica Sedis. Roman Catholic Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa, ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS (a catholic bishop nevertheless) .
Upon His Holiness Pope Pius XI of the Roman Catholic Church accepting Diocesan Bishop Carlos Duarte Costas resignation, the pontiff directly relinguished any and all authority as the Roman Catholic Pope of Rome over Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa.
From 1945 to 1956 Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa consecrated 8 catholic bishops in total. Three of them being Bishop Salameo Ferraz on the 15 August 1945, (Notice from Vatican Two records of the death of the Roman Catholic Bishop Salamao Ferraz , Bishop of Eleuterna, ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS 1969 ) Bishop Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez on the 3rd May 1948 and Bishop Orlanda Arce-Moya on the 30 November 1956.
One who is excommunicated and or suspended can excommunicate another. For such a one has lost NEITHER ORDERS, NOR JURISDICTION, since neither is he ordained anew when he is absolved, nor is his jurisdiction renewed. But excommunication requires nothing more than orders or jurisdiction. Therefore even one who is excommunicated or suspended can excommunicate. In simple words a excommunicated or suspended Bishop does not lose his jurisdiction.
The power of consecration results from the power of the character which is INDELIBLE, wherefore, from the very fact that a bishop has the character of order, he can always consecrate, though not always lawfully. It is different with the power of excommunication which results from jurisdiction, for this can be taken away and bound that is all. Bishop Carlos refused to follow the political policy of the Vatican and was deposed from his diocese in 1937. He was named the titular Bishop of Maura, which was tantamount to being the bishop of no where.
Most Reverend Jaime de Barros Câmara was installed as Archbishop of Rio de Janeiro on the 15 September 1943 extremely jealous and angry at Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa for many years when he was ordained Bishop of Mossorro, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil on the 2nd February 1936. As Archbishop he now felt he had the right to levy a suspension against Titular Bishop Duarte Costa in April 1945, he personally “excommunicated him on July 6, 1945”.
However, the Archbishop had NO AUTHORITY to discipline a BISHOP NOT OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD. In other words not under his authority / Archdiocese and by such attempted actions the Archbishop is suspended himself for a period of 1 year according to Roman Catholic Canon law 1917 and the Sacred Council of Trent.
As Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa resignation to the Roman Catholic Church Pontiff was accepted in 1936 some NINE YEARS PREVIOUSLY such authority over him did NOT EXIST. THERE IS NO EXCOMMUNICATION IN FORCE by the HOLY SEE.
Therefore, Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa was NOT EXCOMMUNICATED by the CATHOLIC CHURCH but by an INDIVIDUAL CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP within the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, which to be honest has little or no bearing at all as for hundreds of years bishops have excommunicated each other for one thing or another.
Therefore, Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa was not Excommunicated by the Catholic Church but an individual Archbishop within the Roman Catholic Church which to be honest has little or no bearing at all as for hundreds of years bishops have excommunicated each other for one thing or another. Pope JOHN XXIII actions of accepting after the individual Catholic Archbishops actions towards Archbishop Duarte Costa in July 1945 by his bishops consecrated in August 1945 & November 1956 clearly shows this “de Jure & de Facto”. You can not excommunicate a catholic bishop who is a Apostle of Christ on earth representing that of St Peter.
Catholic Bishops are Apostles of St Peter chosen careful by bishop to bishop over the century's so long as their apostolic succession traces back to one of the apostles no matter whom it may be, it is valid. They are true bishops.
The power of
consecration results from the power of the character which is
INDELIBLE, wherefore, from the very fact that a bishop has the
character of order, he can always consecrate, though not always
lawfully. It is different with the power of excommunication which
results from jurisdiction, for this can be taken away and bound that
is all. Bishop Carlos refused to follow the political policy of the
Vatican and was deposed from his diocese in 1937. He was named the
titular Bishop of Maura, which was tantamount to being the bishop of
Most Reverend Jaime de
Barros Câmara was installed as Archbishop of Rio de Janeiro on the
15 September 1943 extremely jealous and angry at Bishop Carlos
Duarte Costa for many years when he was ordained Bishop of Mossorro,
Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil on the 2nd February 1936. As Archbishop
he now felt he had the right to levy a suspension against Titular
Bishop Duarte Costa in April 1945, he personally “excommunicated
him on July 6, 1945”.
However, the Archbishop had NO AUTHORITY to discipline a BISHOP NOT OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD. In other words not under his authority / Archdiocese and by such attempted actions the Archbishop is suspended himself for a period of 1 year according to Roman Catholic Canon law 1917 and the Sacred Council of Trent.
The bishop still remains a Catholic Bishop with the right to dispense the sacraments.
THE FACT OF THE
We begin our inquiry by asking two simple questions:
• On 8 December
1924 in Brazil, did Abp. Silveira Card Cintra perform the rite of
episcopal consecration for Carlos Duarte Costa using the traditional
*Did Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa establish as a bishop can lawful do his own Catholic Church with their own Canon Law the answer is yes. Therefore, all consecrations from this day is governed by their own Church Canon Law and not that of the Roman Catholic Church in the same way that the Orthodox Churches are governed by their own canon laws established by their Patriarchs and not the Patriarch of the West being the Pope Of Rome.
• On 15 August
1945 in Brazil did Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa perform the rite of
episcopal consecration for Salameo Ferraz using the traditional
• On 3rd May 1948
in Brazil did ABp. Carlos Duarte Costa perform the rite of episcopal
consecration for Luis Fernando Castillo Menndez assisted by Bp
Salameo Ferraz and Bp Jose Vargas using the traditional Catholic
• On 30 November
1956 in Brazil did ABp. Carlos Duarte Costa perform the rite of
episcopal consecration for Orlando Arce-Moya using the traditional
The answer to all these questions is Yes.
But note, we’ve used a deliberate clumsy phrase. We’ve asked if Abp. Silveira Card Cintra and Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa performed the rite of episcopal consecration for the above people, rather than asking if he consecrated them. Why?
To call attention to an
important distinction between two things:
• The fact
of a sacrament — i.e., did a ceremony take place? and
validity of a sacrament — i.e., did the ceremony work?
Catholic canonists and
moralists such as Fathers Cappello, Davis, Noldin,
Wanenmacher, and Ayrinhac take such a distinction for granted.
So, too, do Church tribunals convened to rule on the validity of a
marriage  or an ordination. Facts first, validity later. In
this section, therefore, we will not address the issue of validity
(Did the consecrations work?), but merely the issue of fact (Did the
ceremony take place; did Abp. Silveria Cintra, Bp Carlos Duarte Costa
and Castillo Mendez perform the rite?)
Clearly, the above
consecrations took place. But since a few traditional priests have
claimed that fact of the consecrations is not “proven” or
“certain,” or can’t be “acknowledged,” we’ll take a few
moments to prove the obvious.
A. Legal Limbo
When things were normal in the Church, it was easy to ascertain the fact that an episcopal consecration took place. You went to someone with authority. He looked up the particulars in an official register. If an authorized church official had duly recorded the consecration in the register, church law regarded it as a fact — “proven” in the eyes of church law. The same goes for baptisms, confirmations and priestly ordinations.
If these official registers were lost or accidentally destroyed, you took another route. You brought the evidence to someone with authority — a diocesan bishop or a judge in a Vatican tribunal, say. The official examined the evidence and issued a decree stating that so-and-so had received the sacrament.
These officials enjoyed
a legal power called ordinary jurisdiction — authority, deriving
ultimately from the pope, to command, make laws, punish and judge.
Part of that authority consisted in the power to establish in the
eyes of church law the fact that a given sacramental act took place —
to function as a sacramental counterpart to the Registrar of Deeds.
In both cases — that
of either official registers or hierarchical decrees — someone with
ordinary jurisdiction was exercising his power. He judged he had
sufficient legal evidence that, say, a particular ordination had been
performed. He entered it into the official register, or issued a
decree. The fact of the ordination was then established before the
In contrast to this, Archbishop David Bell considers his own ordination.
It’s a fact that His Holiness, Patriarch Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez ordained Father James Atkinson-Wake to the episcopacy in Brasilia, Brazil on the 13 June 2006. But that fact has not been legally established?.
It’s not recorded in the ordination register of the Diocese of Brazil of the Roman Catholic Vatican II Church, as their church law would require.
Should normalcy return to the Church in my lifetime, I’d go to someone with ordinary jurisdiction. He would then rule on the evidence and issue a decree which would legally establish the fact of my ordination. see the evidence by EXARCH. Milan Kucera. LL.M. Ph.D. including that of the independent ruling of the Regina's Judiciary of England & Wales.
Where does this leave the fact of Abp Carlos Duarte Costa and Patriarch Lord Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez consecrations? In the same place it leaves Archbishop David Bells ordination, the consecrations and all sacraments traditional Catholic clergy confer: in a sort of legal limbo.
Since no one in the traditional movement possesses ordinary jurisdiction, no one has the power to rule on the legal evidence that a particular sacrament was performed and then establish it as a fact before church law. That’s a function of church officials who have received their authority from a pope.
Nevertheless, we traditional Catholics can and do establish the fact that we have conferred or received sacraments.
The means we use is moral certitude, a simple concept we’ll apply to the consecrations, just as we do to any other sacrament.
consecrations, Abp Duarte Costa and Bp Castillo Mendez consecrations
received little or no publicity in the Brazil. Nevertheless, it’s
easy to document the fact that the ceremonies took place. Here are
photographs of the consecration of Bp Carlos Duarte Costa by Abp.
Silveira Cintra and assisting bishops.
photographs of the consecration of Bp. Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez
by Abp Carlos Duarte Costa and assisting bishops..
photographs and DVD evidence of Bp. James Atkinson-Wakes consecration by
Patriarch Dom Castillo Mendez and assisting bishops on 13 June 2006.
4. Roman Catholic
Vatican Archives known as Acta Apostolica Sedis dated 1937 stating
that Bp Carlos Duarte Costa resignation was accepted by Pope Pius XI
from Diocesan Bishop of Bucato to appointment as Titular Bishop of
Maura.. Roman Catholic Vatican Archives known as Acta Apostolica
Sedis dated 196 shows Bishop Salameo Ferraz as Titular Bishop of
Eleuntrna for the Roman Catholic Church Vatican II.
5. Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church archives and notwithstanding government records of the consecration documents issued by Patriarch Dom. Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez for which all bear the signature and seals of witness who each verified each others signature and office they hold witnessing from that of Patriarch Dom Castillo Mendez, Bp Olinto Ferreira Pinto Filho and Bp Pereria de Oliveria such as:
1A. Brazilian Notary's.
2B. Bureau of Vital Static’s Federal District Brasilia DF.
3C. Secretary of State of Foreign relations Consular Assistance Division of the Brazilian Government, Brasilia DF.
4D. British Embassy Brasilia DF.
5E. Home Office Official of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office United Kingdom on behalf of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs with a further seal attached known as
6F. Apostille as in line with the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961
7G. A recorded letter dated 26 June 2006 signed and sealed by Bp Castillo Mendez.
8H. An email from Patriarch Dom Castillo Mendez dated July 2007, which speaks of pure catholic intent of the Catholic Apostolic Succession transmitted by the principal consecrating catholic bishop to catholic bishop David Bell
9I. The fact that Patriarch Dom. Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez also in 2005 legally established CCEW and consecrated Archbishop David Bell as a ICAB Bishop.
C. An Established Fact.
Faced with this documentation, the reader sensibly concludes that it is a fact that Abp. Silverira Cintra through Bp Carlos Duarte Costa through to Patriarch Lord Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez through to Abp James Atkinson-Wake performed these consecrations. A fact that they used the traditional Catholic rite. Why? The documentation all points to the same basic facts. The parties involved never change their stories on these facts. It “rings true.” The “sound of truth” we hear, when considering facts about this or any other matter, results from moral certitude, a common-sense standard we employ all the time.
Catholic moral theologians say that moral certitude occurs when we realize it’s impossible for us to be wrong about a particular fact, since the opposite of that fact is so unlikely that we know it would be imprudent to believe it. It therefore involves considering the opposite of something to see how likely it is.
To arrive at moral certitude about the Abp Carlos Duarte Costa consecrations, therefore, we consider whether the opposite of the evidence we have is likely enough to be believable: i.e., that Abp Carlos Duarte Costa did not perform either Bp. Salameo Ferraz, Castillo Mendez or Bp. Arce-Moya’s consecration, or that, if he did, he did not use the traditional rite.
This pre-supposes scenarios like the following:
(1) That Abp. Carlos Duarte Costa, Patriarch Dom Castillo Mendez (both now deceased), faked photos on several occasions, committed perjury in two instances, and engaged in a complex and well-orchestrated conspiracy.
(2) That the different people most directly involved were completely mistaken about the fact that episcopal consecrations took place.
(3) That Abp Carlos Duarte Costa, Bp Salameo Ferraz and Patriarch Lord Castillo Mendez subsequently conferred ordinations and episcopal consecrations they knew were null and void.
(4) That Abp Carlos Duarte Costa, Bp Salameo Ferraz and Patriarch Lord Castillo Mendez aided and abetted to consecrate anyone as a bishop with some rite other than the traditional Catholic rite.
(5) That the persons involved with the consecrations also deceived officials about the event, and / or conspiracy.
These scenarios, obviously, are preposterous and absurd, and no evidence whatsoever exists to support them. But they’re the only kind of theories someone can put forward if he wants to say that we have no moral certitude about the fact of the Abp’s Carlos Duarte Costa, Bp Salameo Ferraz and Bp Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez consecrations.
This leaves us with moral certitude about the fact of the Abp Duarte Costa, Bp Salameo Ferraz and Bp Castillo Mendez consecrations, certitude “which excludes all fear of error and every serious or prudent doubt.” This is all that theologians require for any sacrament. Since we have no serious or prudent ground to doubt that the consecrations took place and that the old rite was used, we must regard both occurrences as established facts.
III. THE VALIDITY OF THE CONSECRATIONS.
We now turn to the
question which occasioned this study:
• Are we obliged to regard the Abp Carlos Duarte Costa, Bp Salameo Ferraz and Bp Castillo Mendez consecrations as valid — i.e, as having worked?See signed documents attesting to the validity of Catholic Apostolic Succession of Archbishop Castillo Mendez from a Doctor in Canon law Pontifical Lateran University. DOCTOR IN CANON LAW PONTIFICAL LATERAN UNIVERSITY AUXILIARY BISHOP TO CARDINAL RICKETTS CONFIRMS BISHOP LUIS FERNANDO CASTILLO MENDEZ ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION VATICAN ONE. VALID. PDF
Based on the principles church law and moral theology apply to all the sacraments, we are obliged to answer YES.
To understand why, we have but to recall how little is required to perform a valid episcopal consecration, and how church law and moral theologians consider those requirements as met in a given case, unless there is positive evidence to the contrary.
A. Recipe for Validity
Among the many
beautiful ceremonies of the Catholic Church, the Rite of Episcopal
Consecration is surely the most splendid and the most complex. It
takes place on the feast of an Apostle, usually before a large
gathering of the faithful. In its most solemn form, the catholic
bishop who performs the rite is assisted by two other catholic
bishops (called “Co-consecrators”), To perform an episcopal
consecration observing all the elaborate ceremonial directions takes
about three to four hours.
On the other hand, to
perform an episcopal consecration validly takes about 15 seconds.
This is about the length of time it takes a catholic bishop to impose his hands on a priest’s head and recite the 16-word formula the Church requires for validity.
The foregoing may startle the many readers. But the case is akin to something we all learned in catechism class. All you need to baptize someone validly is ordinary water and the short formula (I baptize thee, etc.). It was so simple that even a Moslem or a Jew could get it right if someone really wanted to be baptized. And once the water was poured and the short formula was recited, you’d be just as validly baptized, and just as much a Christian as if the pope himself had done it in St. Peter’s Basilica.
The recipe the Catholic
Church lays down for a valid episcopal consecration is equally
simple. Other than a validly-consecrated catholic bishop to perform
the rite and a validly-ordained priest who intends to receive
consecration, there are just three ingredients essential for
(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).
(3) A minimal intention
on the consecrating bishop’s part “to do what the catholic 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.
B. Burden of Disproof
Once you’re certain of the fact that a real catholic bishop performed a consecration using a Catholic rite, is it then necessary to prove positively that the catholic bishop did not omit one of these essential elements during the ceremony?
NO. The mere fact that a catholic bishop used a Catholic rite is of itself sufficient evidence for validity, which thereafter requires no further proof. Validity becomes a “given,” which can only be disproved. And this can only be achieved by demonstrating that one of the ingredients essential to validity was either absent (or probably absent) when the ceremony was performed.
This applies to all the
sacraments and is evident from:
1. Ordinary Pastoral Practice. Day-to-day sacramental record-keeping takes for granted that the minister of a sacrament fulfilled the essential requirements for validity. Official baptismal and ordination registers say nothing whatsoever about technical terms such as “matter,” “form” or “ministerial intention.” And sacramental certificates merely state that so-and-so received a sacrament “with all necessary and fitting ceremonies and solemnities,” or simply “according to the rite of the Holy Roman Church.” They say nothing more, because church law requires nothing more. Such sacraments are regarded as valid without further proof.
2. Canonists speak of “the queen of presumptions, which holds the act or contract as valid, until invalidity is proved.” It is applied to the sacraments in the following way: If someone goes before a church court to challenge the validity of a Catholic baptism, marriage or ordination, the burden of proof is on him. He must show that something essential was lacking when the sacrament was conferred.
3. Church Law and Moral Theology. These sources forbid read ministering a sacrament conditionally unless there is a “prudent” or “positive” doubt about validity. As an example of a doubt which would not fall into this category, the Dominican moral theologian Fanfani speaks of a priest who does not recall whether he recited the essential sacramental formula. “He should repeat nothing,” says Fanfani. “Indeed, he sins if he does so — for everything that is done must be supposed to have been done correctly, unless the contrary is positively established.” That the essential parts of the rite were performed is once again simply taken for granted.
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.”
4. Even Unusual Cases. Canonists and moralists even extend these principles to cases where someone other than the usual Catholic minister employs a Catholic rite to confer a sacrament. If a midwife who says she performed an emergency baptism is serious, trustworthy and instructed in how to perform baptisms, says the theologian Merkelbach, “there is no reason to doubt seriously the validity of a baptism.”
Finally, so strongly
does the Church hold for the validity of a sacrament administered
according to a Catholic rite, that she extends the principle not only
to Catholic clergymen, but also even to schismatics. Thus ordinations
and episcopal consecrations received from Orthodox bishops, and from
Old Catholic bishops in Holland, Germany and Switzerland “are to be
regarded as valid, unless in a particular case an essential defect
were to be admitted.”
The foregoing, of course, reflects the Church’s reasonableness. She doesn’t ask us to disprove convoluted negative accusations — “Prove positively to me that you did not omit to do what you were supposed to do to make the sacrament valid.” Otherwise, hordes of specially-qualified witnesses would have to be trained to do an independent validity check each time a priest conferred a sacrament.
It is easy to see,
therefore, why a sacrament administered with a Catholic rite must be
regarded as valid till the contrary is positively established.
The requirements for a valid episcopal consecration, then, are minimal. And when a Catholic rite is employed for this or any other sacrament, ordinary pastoral practice, canonists, church law and moral theologians require no further proof for a sacrament’s validity — even when it is administered by a schismatic. Validity, rather must be disproved. When we turn to consider the consecrations of Abp Carlos Duarte Costa, Bp Salameo Ferraz, Bp Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez, and Bp James Atkinson-Wake. Three key facts are absolutely certain:
(1) Abp. Carlos Duarte
Costa was a validly-consecrated bishop as he was Catholic Vatican
One, consecrated within by a Cardinal of the Roman catholic Church
(2) Bp Salameo Ferraz
was a validly consecrated bishop as he worked on Vatican II
commissions as a Vatican One Catholic Bishop. Acta Apostolicae Sedis
of Bishop Ferraz as Roman Catholic Bishop Vatican II.
(3) Patriarch Lord Luis
Fernando Castillo Mendez was a validly consecrated catholic bishop.
(4) They all performed
the rite of episcopal consecration for Bp. Luis Fernando Castillo
Mendez on the 3 May 1948 who.
(5) Patriarch Lord Luis
Fernando Castillo Mendez with 2 assisting bishops performed the rite
of episcopal consecration for Bp. David Bell.
(6) Abp Carlos Duarte
Costa, Bp Salameo Ferraz and Bp Vargas employed a Catholic rite for
Bp Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez consecrations in turn the same was
repeated for the consecration to Bp James Atkinson-Wake.
We have a
validly-consecrated bishop. Each one performed the rite of episcopal
consecration. Each one used a Catholic rite. No further proof is
needed. Therefore: We are obliged to
regard the episcopal consecrations Abp Carlos Duarte Costa conferred
on Bp Castillo Mendez conferred on Bp David Bell as valid but
illicit.(illicit meaning without the approval and blessing of the
Pope of Rome, Patriarch of the West of the Roman Catholic Church)
The only way a sacrament can truly be said to be doubtful is if you establish a positive (or prudent) doubt about its validity. A doubt is positive when it possesses a basis which is clearly objective and firmly rooted in reality. In the case of a sacrament, it must be founded on solid evidence that something essential to validity was probably omitted. To establish a positive doubt about the validity of Abp Carlos Duarte Costa consecratons to Bp’s Salameo Ferraz, Bp Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez and Bp Orlando Arce-Moya consecrations including that of Bp James Atkinson-Wake, therefore, you’d have to prove that, when the rite was performed, a substantial defect either did occur or probably occurred in one of the following essential elements:
imposition of hands. • The
essential 16-word formula. • The
minimal intention of the bishop “to do what the Church does.”
No one who was present
at Abp Carlos Duarte Costa consecrations or at Bp Atkinson-Wake
consecration by His Holiness Patriarch Dom Castillo Mendez has ever
said or proved that one of these defects occurred.
Absent any evidence
whatsoever for such a defect, any objectors raise personal
speculations, musings, conjectures, hypotheses and — a favourite
device — rhetorical questions about what may or may not, or
possibly could or could not, have occurred during the “essential 15
seconds” of the fore mentioned consecration. he chief
characteristic of such objections, however, is that they are
subjective — i.e., rooted not in a knowledge of what occurred
during the rite, but in the objector’s lack of personal knowledge
of what occurred. Such objections are what moral theologians call
negative (or imprudent) doubts. And negative doubts don’t render a
sacrament “doubtful.” We’ll limit ourselves
to a few of the more frequently-repeated negative doubts.
Objection 1. I question whether Abp Carlos Duarte Costa and Patriarch Lord Castillo Mendez “intended to do what the Church does,” so the consecrations must be considered doubtful.
• 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.”
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.”
We quoted earlier the canonist Gasparri’s statement that an ordination must be regarded as valid until invalidity is demonstrated. He also says that a catholic 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.
Attacking Abp Carlos Duarte Costa, Bp Salameo Ferraz, Patriarch Lord Castillo Mendez and Archbishop Atkinson-Wakes ministerial intention, therefore, is impermissible.
• The mere attempt to do so, moreover, betrays an epic spirit of presumption. Investigating and trying cases where ordinations are impugned for lack of intention was the job of a Vatican court called the Holy Office. The pope himself then specifically confirmed the court’s decision.
No clergy, therefore, have neither the right nor the authority to attack the ministerial intention of a validly-consecrated Catholic bishop. The very idea is silly.
Objection 2. I think Patriarch Lord Castillo Mendez was insane or senile, so the consecrations must be considered doubtful.
Since it attacks His Holiness Patriarch Lord Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez ministerial intention. From what we’ve said above, it’s likewise impermissible.
• The minimum “level” of intention required to confer a sacrament validly is virtual intention. A lengthy discussion of this technical concept isn’t possible here. All we need say is that virtual intention guarantees that a sacrament is valid, even if the priest or bishop is internally distracted before and during the whole sacramental rite.
• Virtual intention, says the 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.
His Holiness, Patriarch Lord Castillo Mendez celebrated Mass regularly before and after the consecrations — and very devoutly. It’s ridiculous to imply that, when he vested and performed the three-hour-long episcopal consecrations, Patriarch Lord Castillo Mendez suddenly couldn’t manage the bare minimum of a virtual intention.
• Those who actually knew him dismiss these accusations. Several bishops and clergy including laity, who was present at the consecration of Bishop Bell, attested under oath that His Holiness, Patriarch Lord Castillo Mendez “conferred the consecrations in full possession of his intellectual powers.” Stating that he was of “sound mind,” “perfectly lucid,” and “had the intention to do what the Church does.” Bp Castillo Mendez, was “nobody’s fool,” and discussed with competence various issues in theology and canon law. He even regaled Bp Dineley, Abp Carroll and Abp Bell with details about Abp Bells consecration with excitement.. Validity of the consecrations is beyond question.
• His Holiness, Patriarch Dom Castillo Mendez remained as Patriarch of Brazil and travel widely to various country’s.
• We therefore draw the appropriate conclusion: Catholic teaching forbids assaults on Bp Castillo Mendez sacramental intention. And, in light of statements from the many and those who knew him, Catholic moral principles dictate that one cease repeating the baseless calumny that he was incapable of conferring a valid sacrament.
B. Non-Existent “Requirements”
Objection 1. Without a signed certificate, an episcopal consecration is doubtful.
• There is no church law which says that failure to issue a certificate automatically renders an episcopal consecration doubtful. Moral certitude about the fact a sacrament took place is all that’s required to regard it as valid.
• In any case, Patriarch Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez had such episcopal signed certificate from his consecrating bishop. and such is recorded in government records of the said episcopal consecration.
• In any case, Archbishop David Bell has such episcopal signed certificate from his consecrating bishop’s. and such is recorded in government records of the said episcopal consecration.
• Under church law, only three classes of people can challenge the validity of an ordination or consecration.
A. Recipient of the sacrament,.
B. his diocesan ordinary, and the
C. ordinary of the diocese where the sacrament was conferred.
**All other persons, says the canonist Cappello, lack the right to accuse.**
Objection 2. Without “qualified witnesses” an episcopal consecration is doubtful.
• No church law prescribes that witnesses, qualified or otherwise, must be present at an episcopal consecration — still less, that a consecration is doubtful without them.
Objection 3. Without at least two priests present to attest that it was performed validly, an episcopal consecration is doubtful.
This “requirement” doesn’t exist, and is directly contradicted by acts authorized by the Holy See.
• The function of the priest-assistants is not, to attest to the validity of a consecration. Pope Benedict XIV says clearly that the reason for the priest-assistants is to add solemnity to the liturgical act and to carry out the prescriptions of the rites.
• In mission countries, episcopal consecrations were often performed without priest-assistants. The practice was sanctioned by Pope Alexander VII, Pope Clement X and Pope Pius VI. Pius VI’s brief, in fact, was addressed to bishops in what was then called Tonkin and Cochin China..
• The Church did not merely allow episcopal consecrations to be performed without two priest-assistants, but in some cases specifically ordered it. In one case, Rome ordered that an episcopal consecration not only be performed secretly and without assistants, but even under the seal of confession.
In a more recent case, Pope Pius XI in 1926 ordered that the Papal Nuncio to Germany perform a secret episcopal consecration without anyone present. The Nuncio was Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, later, of course, Pope Pius XII. Pacelli petitioned Rome that he be allowed to have at least one priest present — not, please note, to serve as a “witness,” but merely so the Cardinal could have someone to hold the Missal on the new bishop’s shoulders as prescribed while the Preface was recited.
• Pius XI sent the bishop whom Pacelli consecrated, Mgr. d’Herbigny, into Russia in order to consecrate bishops secretly. He conducted the first such consecration on 21 April 1926 for a certain Father Neveu. The consecration took place without priest-assistants and in the presence of two laymen — circumstances identical to those of the Thuc consecrations. Mgr. d’Herbigny issued no certificate.
The Church, obviously, would not allow — still less command — a bishop to perform an episcopal consecration without priest-assistants if such were “doubtful.” It is impossible, therefore, to maintain that the Bp Castillo Mendez consecrations are “doubtful” on such grounds.
Objection 4. Without a papal dispensation, an episcopal consecration performed without two priest-assistants is doubtful.
• Once again, no law or canonist supports this.
• The teachings of the canonists directly contradict it. Bouix says flatly: “Even if there should be a consecration without any assistants and without obtaining a pontifical dispensation, it would still be valid.” Regatillo, writing in a 1953 work, goes even further. He says that a consecration performed without a dispensation would be valid even if the bishop “is the only one who is present at the consecration.”
• Pope Alexander VII, Pope Clement XI and Pope Benedict XIV declared that consecrations performed without such a dispensation are valid.
Traditional Catholics, long accustomed to controversies where the virtue or wickedness of persons or organizations stands at center stage, may find all the foregoing dry and bland. We’ve spent no time at all arguing over the personal qualities of the parties involved — whether or not Bp Duarte Costa, Salameo Ferraz or Castillo Mendez were virtuous, wise, prudent, logical, consistent or theologically perspicacious.
Such discussions have no bearing whatsoever on the issue of whether or not a sacrament is valid. They concern what theologians call the probity of the minister. And it is a truth of the Catholic faith that the valid administration of a sacrament does not depend on a priest or bishop’s probity.
The issue of whether the Abp Carlos Duarte Costa, Bp Salameo Ferraz or Patriarch Dom Castillo Mendez consecrations were valid, therefore, boils down to a few dry principles and a handful of facts:
(1) All that is required to perform an episcopal consecration validly is an imposition of hands, a 16-word formula and the minimal intention “to do what the Church does.”
(2) Once you establish the fact that a validly-consecrated bishop performed an episcopal consecration using a Catholic rite, the essential elements are taken for granted. The validity of the consecration requires no further proof; rather, it can only be disproved — and the burden of disproof is on the accuser. This is evident from ordinary pastoral practice, canonists, church law and moral theology. The principle is extended even to episcopal consecrations performed by schismatic’s.
(3) Three essential facts are beyond any dispute:
(a) Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa was a validly-consecrated Roman Catholic Bishop Vatican One.
(b) He performed the rite of episcopal consecration for Bp Salameo Ferraz on the 15 August 1945 and Bp Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez on 3 May 1948
(c) Abp Duarte Costa employed a Catholic rite for both consecrations. So did His Holiness, Patriarch Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez upon consecration of Bp James Atkinson-Wake.
(e)The Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church Vatican Two has shown on not less than two occasions that two consecrations done by Abp Carlos Duarte Costa since his voluntary resignation in 1937 which was accepted by Pope Pius XI and his alleged excommunication on the 6 July 1945 from the Roman Catholic Church by Pope Pius XII are nevertheless valid by ‘de jure and de facto’ in that both bishops that Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa consecrated that is:
Bishop Salameo Barbosa Ferraz consecrated on the 15 August 1945 was accepted as a valid catholic bishop by then Pope John XXIII as he was received and appointed on May 10, 1963 as Titular Bishop of Eleuterna, he was later called by Pope Paul VI to serve on a working commission of the Second Vatican Council and addressed the Council Fathers in session.
Bishop Orlanda Arce Moya consecrated October 1956 was accepted as a valid catholic bishop by then Pope John XXIII, He was appointed by the Pope John XXIII as Auxiliary Bishop to the Cardinal -Archbishop of Madrid, Spain.
Neither Bishops Salameo Ferraz and / or Bishop Orlanda Arce Moya were re-consecrated, not even sub-conditione. By the said actions of the Roman Catholic Church they accepted the authority of Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa to consecrate bishops even outside the Roman Catholic Church after 1945.
Lets also not forget that a co-consecrator to His Holiness Patriarch Lord Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez on the 3 May 1948 was Bishop Salameo Ferraz accepted by Pope John XXIII as a Catholic Bishop from the hands of Abp Carlos Duarte Costa and that a co-consecrators are themselves’ bishops who assist the presiding bishop in the act of consecrating a new bishop. It is a very strict rule of the Church that there should be two such assistant bishops, or three bishops in all-though an exception is made for missionary countries where it is practically impossible to bring so many bishops together, The part assigned by the Roman Pontifical in its present form to the assistant bishops is, after helping to place the book of the Gospels on the shoulders of the elect, to join the consecrator in laying hands on his head, and in saying over him the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum.
If there is any problem with the validity of the presiding bishop from the bishop receiving consecration. It can be rest assured that one of the co consecrators will be a valid catholic bishop. Therefore, there could not be any errors in the Apostolic Succession.
In the situation of
Patriarch Lord Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez his co-consecrator was
Bp Salameo Ferraz and Bp Vargas who both were consecrated by Roman
Catholic Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa(Validity of Salameo Ferraz has
already been clearly established) in the case that if Patriarch Dom
Castillo Mendez validity was at error, the co- consecrators (also
known as assistants ) of Bishop David Bell would take effect. This
being Bishop Olinto Ferreira Pinto Filho, he was ordained a priest by
Catholic Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa on November 16, 1947 later
raised to the Catholic Episcopate as a catholic bishop on 1st May
1966 by Catholic Bishop Pedro dos Santos Silva, he in turn was
consecrated also by Catholic Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa on 4 May
1956 being the 7 Bishop to be consecrated.
Bishop Josivaldo Pereria de Oliveria was a co-consecrator also to Bishop James Atkinson-Wake. He was raised to the Catholic Episcopate as a Bishop by Principal Consecrator Bishop Mascuolo who was consecrated by Bishop Antidio Vargas in turn he was consecrated by Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa in 1946 (see the chart of Apostolic Succession for the full list). Co-consecrators to bishop Josivaldo was Bishop Victor de Tarso Sanches Pupo who was consecrated in 1965 by Bishop Pedro dos Santos Silva who was consecrated 4 November 1956 by Archbishop Carlos Duarte Costa.
It is impossible for all these lines of Apostolic Succession to be invalid.
As Pope John XXIII confirmed that both consecrations of Bp Salameo Ferrraz and Bp Orlando Arce-Moya was valid during his reign as Pope.
Patriarch Dom Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez was consecrated some 3 years after Bp Salameo Ferraz and some 8 years before Bp Orlanda Arce-Moya there is no question that the apostolic succession of His Holiness, Patriarch Lord Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez is valid but illicit according to the Roman Catholic Church Vatican Two.
We have a validly consecrated bishop’s. They performed episcopal consecrations. They used a Catholic rite. We are obliged, therefore, to regard the episcopal consecrations Abp Carlos Duarte Costa conferred on Bp’s Salameo Ferraz, Orlando Arce-Moya and Patriarch Lord Castillo Mendez as valid who in turn conferred such on Abp James Atkinson-Wake as valid but illicit.
Since these consecrations are valid, we are likewise obliged to regard the Abp Carlos Duarte Costa, Bp Salameo Ferraz and Patriarch Dom Castillo Mendez including Bp Orlando Arce-Moya. as validly-consecrated bishops who possess the sacramental power to confirm, to ordain, and to consecrate other catholic bishops.
If someone were to say a catholic bishop whether it be Abp Duarte Costa or Patriarch Lord Castillo Mendez that he was guilty for having arrived at such a mistaken notion of the existence of an emergency (not, in fact, existing), still:
Decree concerning the
Consecration of a Bishop without Canonical Appointment.
"The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, in virtue of a special faculty established for it by the Supreme Pontiff, published the following Decree:
"A Bishop, of whatever rite or dignity, who consecrates as a Bishop someone who is neither nominated by the Holy See nor expressly confirmed by that same See, and he who receives consecration, even if coerced by grave fear (c.229, §3, 3), incur ipso facto [automatically] excommunication most especially reserved to the Apostolic See. This Decree takes effect from the date of its promulgation.
Those who have
attempted to invoke this decree in our own circumstances seem to have
confused two things:
1. The Mandatum: the papal document granting permission for the consecration of a bishop who will serve as a bishop in any capacity, including as an auxiliary or titular bishop, and
2. The canonical
appointment: a papal decree designating a bishop as Ordinary (or
"residential bishop") of a duly constituted diocese, which
appointment auxiliary and titular bishops did not receive.
Canonist Fr. Eduardo
Regatillo, in his Institutiones Juris Canonici (Santander: Sal
Terrae 1956), 2:600, states that the 1951 decree affects only
bishops consecrated without papal appointment to be heads of
"Anyone who is to
be promoted to the episcopacy needs the canonical appointment by
which he is constituted Bishop of a such a vacant diocese.
"In practice, it
may be doubted whether only those who are to be consecrated
residential Bishops are affected - that is, those who are consecrated
for a diocese now in existence - or also titular bishops (who are
created for an extinct see or diocese), or bishops who are
consecrated for no diocese.
"From the purpose intended by the Holy Office, the decree appears to cover only those who are consecrated as residential bishops, for this is the actual case which the Holy See intends to condemn.
The consecration of a bishop has, in the hierarchy of the Sacrament of Orders, pride of place. A cardinal and the pope do not have a higher consecration. A bishop possesses two powers:
The episcopal power is
a power of divine right, which endows a bishop with a personal
authority and gives him a legal and constitutional status which the
pope can neither suppress nor modify.
For the valid
confection of a Sacrament, it has always been believed and the Church
has solemnly defined that three things are required:
1. The proper
matter (e.g., bread and wine in the Eucharist);
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
In the case of the
consecration of Bishop Castillo Mendez, there can be no question that
in such solemn and public ceremonies a mistake of matter or of form
could escape unnoticed.
therefore, if question there is - and such as the above-mentioned
persons have posed it - is a question of the INTENTION of Archbishop
Duarte Costa when he administered the sacrament of holy orders to
Bishop Castillo Mendez and then same from Patriarch Dom Castillo
Mendez to Bishop James Atkinson-Wake and so on. 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 or
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 Duarte Costa, could validly administer
a sacrament at all, but whether he 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 question is, does the external intention
suffice? That is, will a sacrament be valid if the minister properly
performs all the necessary external rites and ceremonies (with the
proper matter and form), if within himself he wishes not to confect
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.
Why? 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.
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
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.
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. 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.
The same facts were always taught between 1883 - 1973 by:
H.E. Most Reverend Amleto Giovanni Cardinal Cicognani, Titular Archbishop of Laodicea in Phrygia.
Secretary Emeritus of the Secretariat of State. Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati. Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia.
Dean of the College of Cardinals.Professor of Canon Law at the Pontifical Institute of Canon and Civil Law in Rome.
To accuse a priest or bishop of being doubtfully or invalidly ordained or consecrated, without sufficient reason, is objectively a mortal sin of injustice. Sacerdotium vol. III p.3.
**Lets not forget that at least two of the Bishops later consecrated by Archbishop Duarte Costa were accepted back in to mainstream Catholicism and went on to enjoy careers in the Vatican II hierarchy. They was never re-consecrated not even sub conditione, by these actions “ de jure and de facto” the validity of the Holy Orders that Archbishop Duarte Costa transmitted in August 1945 Bishop Salameo Barbosa Ferraz and November 1956 Bishop Orlando Arce-Moya.
There is also a later case of validity of : Bishop Eduardo Aguirre Oestmann.
He was consecrated a catholic bishop on the 27th October 2007 in Mexico by Bishop Josivaldo Pereira de Oliveria and several assisting bishops of ICAB that is the Brazilian Catholic Church.
Years, later bishop Eduardo Aguirre petitioned the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch to be incardinated as a valid catholic bishop.
The Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch which is in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church Vatican II granted the incardination. Accepting Bishop Eduardo Aguirres consecration as a bishop by Bishop Josivaldo. Again this reaffirmed “de jure and de facto” the validity of the consecration transmitted by the principal consecrator Bishop Josivaldo Pereira de Oliveria simply as a valid bishop.
Now bishop Aguirre is known within the Syriac Orthodox Church as Mor Yaqub Eduardo Aguirre Oestmann.
Bishop Josivaldo Pereira de Oliveria was a co-consecrator of Archbishop David Bell and that of Archbishop Neville Anderson for which photographic evidence can be seen by clicking on this link.. For more information in greater detail you can purchase the book written by Archbishop James Atkinson-Wake full of photographic and documented evidence from here.