Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations  (Read 8923 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Disputaciones

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1432
  • Reputation: +391/-165
  • Gender: Male
Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
« Reply #60 on: March 01, 2015, 11:25:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    The Council of Trent defined that three sacraments, namely: baptism, confirmation, and holy orders can be received only once. However, in in case of reasonable doubt about whether one of those sacraments was validly received, it can be administered conditionally. It mostly happens regarding baptisms. It seems that within the Church, the SSPX is the only organization performing conditional ordinations to NO priests, but this only for particular cases.

    This alone proves that if for whatever reason, a sacrament is doubtful, that does not automatically make it invalid. Otherwise, there would not even exist a way to re-administer such sacraments "conditionally" nor would exist Church - approved specific formulas for such events. If that was the case, and a doubtful sacrament were necessarily an invalid sacrament, then the Church would teach that such sacrament must be again received absolutely from the start, but this is not so because of the great gravity of receiving such sacraments twice, as declared in Trent.


    Why do you parade here in these forums as if you were a learned theologian when in reality you know nothing and are in grave error in so many things? Why do you presume to teach others being in grave error yourself? It is really intolerable to see such a thing. I feel what they call pena ajena seeing such a thing.

    You should learn some humility, get off these forums for a while, and go read some actual theological works, instead of pretending to be an arrogant know-it-all here when like I said in reality you know nothing.

    It really is embarrassing.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
    « Reply #61 on: March 01, 2015, 01:08:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Cantarella,

    In the moral order it is only lawful to approach sacraments of which we are morally certain. In the moral order, there is no practical difference between a doubtful and invalid sacrament (see quotes supplied earlier from Connell, Prummer and others).  For all intents and purposes, a doubtful sacrament is an invalid sacrament.  

    In what I suppose we could call the ontological order, a doubtful sacrament *may* be valid (that is, contrary to all discernible and achievable evidence, a sacrament which appears invalid or doubtful may in fact really be valid) but this is not a consolation nor a principle by which we may act; it would be like thinking a nosedive off of a ten-story building is a morally lawful act because you "may" not be killed.

    We are covering already trodden ground. Nothing you have said hasn't already been said by Stubborn; and I am merely repeating to you what I have said to Stubborn, and not yet been met with a relevant reply.

    I'll reply to you in the future, Nishant.


    The implications of this line of reasoning is that any individual Catholic in the pew is excused from approaching the sacraments needed for salvation, solely based upon a personal "presumption" or "doubt" but not a certainty. Given that we are talking about priestly ordinations, that means that the entire Roman hierarchy has almost disappeared making it impossible for 95% of Catholics to have access to any valid sacraments at all.

    This absurdity makes sense of course, when you realize that all the sedevacantists arguing here in this thread, happen to be also avid BODers for whom the Catholic sacraments are really not that necessary for salvation and people can be saved without any sacraments at all, so it is not that of a big deal for them. Ironically, these sedes have not a leg to stand on when criticizing anything about Vatican II since they share the same liberal progressive underlining error from where all the crisis spreads from.  
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Online Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3505
    • Reputation: +4127/-265
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
    « Reply #62 on: March 01, 2015, 02:39:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Disputaciones
    Quote from: Cantarella
    The Council of Trent defined that three sacraments, namely: baptism, confirmation, and holy orders can be received only once. However, in in case of reasonable doubt about whether one of those sacraments was validly received, it can be administered conditionally. It mostly happens regarding baptisms. It seems that within the Church, the SSPX is the only organization performing conditional ordinations to NO priests, but this only for particular cases.

    This alone proves that if for whatever reason, a sacrament is doubtful, that does not automatically make it invalid. Otherwise, there would not even exist a way to re-administer such sacraments "conditionally" nor would exist Church - approved specific formulas for such events. If that was the case, and a doubtful sacrament were necessarily an invalid sacrament, then the Church would teach that such sacrament must be again received absolutely from the start, but this is not so because of the great gravity of receiving such sacraments twice, as declared in Trent.


    Why do you parade here in these forums as if you were a learned theologian when in reality you know nothing and are in grave error in so many things? Why do you presume to teach others being in grave error yourself? It is really intolerable to see such a thing. I feel what they call pena ajena seeing such a thing.

    You should learn some humility, get off these forums for a while, and go read some actual theological works, instead of pretending to be an arrogant know-it-all here when like I said in reality you know nothing.

    It really is embarrassing.


    Quote from: St Paul's 1st Letter to Timothy, Ch. 2
    [11] Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed; then Eve. [14] And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Online Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3505
    • Reputation: +4127/-265
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
    « Reply #63 on: March 01, 2015, 03:00:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Cantarella,

    In the moral order it is only lawful to approach sacraments of which we are morally certain. In the moral order, there is no practical difference between a doubtful and invalid sacrament (see quotes supplied earlier from Connell, Prummer and others).  For all intents and purposes, a doubtful sacrament is an invalid sacrament.  

    In what I suppose we could call the ontological order, a doubtful sacrament *may* be valid (that is, contrary to all discernible and achievable evidence, a sacrament which appears invalid or doubtful may in fact really be valid) but this is not a consolation nor a principle by which we may act; it would be like thinking a nosedive off of a ten-story building is a morally lawful act because you "may" not be killed.

    We are covering already trodden ground. Nothing you have said hasn't already been said by Stubborn; and I am merely repeating to you what I have said to Stubborn, and not yet been met with a relevant reply.

    I'll reply to you in the future, Nishant.


    The implications of this line of reasoning is that any individual Catholic in the pew is excused from approaching the sacraments needed for salvation, solely based upon a personal "presumption" or "doubt" but not a certainty. Given that we are talking about priestly ordinations, that means that the entire Roman hierarchy has almost disappeared making it impossible for 95% of Catholics to have access to any valid sacraments at all.

    This absurdity makes sense of course, when you realize that all the sedevacantists arguing here in this thread, happen to be also avid BODers for whom the Catholic sacraments are really not that necessary for salvation and people can be saved without any sacraments at all, so it is not that of a big deal for them. Ironically, these sedes have not a leg to stand on when criticizing anything about Vatican II since they share the same liberal progressive underlining error from where all the crisis spreads from.  


    You don't need to call it an implication, you can call it what it is: Catholics have a moral obligation to avoid and treat as invalid dubious sacraments.

    It's true enough that this principle properly executed and expressed depends on a well-formed conscience, just as its true that scrupulosity should be avoided and we should not needlessly and without good reason doubt a given sacrament.  

    Many traditionalists think, with good reason, the NREC should be avoided at least on dubious if not certainly invalid grounds.  
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline Charlemagne

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1432
    • Reputation: +2100/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
    « Reply #64 on: March 01, 2015, 03:06:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Quote from: Disputaciones
    Quote from: Cantarella
    The Council of Trent defined that three sacraments, namely: baptism, confirmation, and holy orders can be received only once. However, in in case of reasonable doubt about whether one of those sacraments was validly received, it can be administered conditionally. It mostly happens regarding baptisms. It seems that within the Church, the SSPX is the only organization performing conditional ordinations to NO priests, but this only for particular cases.

    This alone proves that if for whatever reason, a sacrament is doubtful, that does not automatically make it invalid. Otherwise, there would not even exist a way to re-administer such sacraments "conditionally" nor would exist Church - approved specific formulas for such events. If that was the case, and a doubtful sacrament were necessarily an invalid sacrament, then the Church would teach that such sacrament must be again received absolutely from the start, but this is not so because of the great gravity of receiving such sacraments twice, as declared in Trent.


    Why do you parade here in these forums as if you were a learned theologian when in reality you know nothing and are in grave error in so many things? Why do you presume to teach others being in grave error yourself? It is really intolerable to see such a thing. I feel what they call pena ajena seeing such a thing.

    You should learn some humility, get off these forums for a while, and go read some actual theological works, instead of pretending to be an arrogant know-it-all here when like I said in reality you know nothing.

    It really is embarrassing.


    Quote from: St Paul's 1st Letter to Timothy, Ch. 2
    [11] Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed; then Eve. [14] And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.


    Feminists would rather heed Helen Reddy: "I am woman. Hear me roar!"
    "Kindness is for fools! They [modernists] want to be treated with oil, soap, and caresses, but they ought to be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don't count or measure the blows, you strike as you can. War is not made with charity. It is a struggle, a duel." -- Pope St. Pius X


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
    « Reply #65 on: March 01, 2015, 03:24:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant
    , please delineate for me what constitutes the essential form in the Coptic and Maronite rites, which part signifies the grace of the Holy Ghost (G) and which signifies the specific power of Order (P) conferred.


    This remains unanswered.

    Please illustrate how is it that the substance in the new formula of ordination was altered, (instead of the accidentals, if you actually comprehend such terms taught by Aquinas, which so far it seems you don't) and how this would differ from the ordination formulas used and approved in the Eastern Rites.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Online Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3505
    • Reputation: +4127/-265
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
    « Reply #66 on: March 01, 2015, 03:32:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Quote from: Nishant
    Mith, if we accept your method of proceeding, please delineate for me what constitutes the essential form in the Coptic and Maronite rites, which part signifies the grace of the Holy Ghost (G) and which signifies the specific power of Order (P) conferred. We can begin with the traditional Roman form, in fact, which is "Complete in Thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.”


    Nishant,

    If we argue for the integrity of the NREC's essential form based on the legacy of these Eastern rites, it would be on the basis of the Church's traditional acceptance of said rites, as Pius XII taught "and [forms] which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense [of expressing the effects of the sacrament]."
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
    « Reply #67 on: March 01, 2015, 03:39:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Quote from: Nishant
    Mith, if we accept your method of proceeding, please delineate for me what constitutes the essential form in the Coptic and Maronite rites, which part signifies the grace of the Holy Ghost (G) and which signifies the specific power of Order (P) conferred. We can begin with the traditional Roman form, in fact, which is "Complete in Thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.”


    Nishant,

    If we argue for the integrity of the NREC's essential form based on the legacy of these Eastern rites, it would be on the basis of the Church's traditional acceptance of said rites, as Pius XII taught "and [forms] which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense [of expressing the effects of the sacrament]."


    No, Mithrandylan. You have not answered.

    Quote
    , please delineate for me what constitutes the essential form in the Coptic and Maronite rites, which part signifies the grace of the Holy Ghost (G) and which signifies the specific power of Order (P) conferred.


    Actually, you need to break the Eastern formula apart like Nishant did it, conpare it, and then explain how the substance in the new latin formula, (and not the accidentals), was altered.

    But just to cease my curiosity that you in fact understand what I'm talking about, why don't you tell me what is the difference between substance vs. accidental in regards to a sacrament, as taught by Aquinas?
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9387
    • Reputation: +3724/-838
    • Gender: Male
    Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
    « Reply #68 on: March 01, 2015, 04:16:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Why does the Church even have such a thing as administering sacraments “Conditionally” if doubtful sacraments are no sacrament at all? Why did the Church make it a sacrilege and why not simply re-administer doubtful sacraments? I'd like these questions answered please.


    Since no one answered my question, I will let you know the answer - - - - the reason the Church instituted the sacraments can be administered "Conditionally" is in case it cannot be proven that the previous sacrament was valid.

    She made it a sacrilege because the Church presumes validity and considers it offensive to Our Lord and injurious to the dignity and sanctity of the sacrament to re-administer indiscriminately.
     


    Quote from: Disputaciones


    Stubborn (and any other anti-SV, like Nishant and the even more stubborn than Stubborn ignorant woman-"theologian" Cantarella) really needs to answer what Mithrandylan said here, although I would bet $100 he won't, since he hasn't yet of course.

    I've been busy till now since my last post.
    First, to paraphrase Ladislaus's reply where he said:
    Quote from: Ladislaus
    If you believe with the certainty of faith that Paul VI was [not] a true pope, then you must accept [deny] without question the validity of this rite.


    This is where the seed takes root. Sedevacantism. SVs have bonded themselves to everything SVism which blinds them to any suggestion to the contrary. We can argue that point all day but what's the point when this bond is what dictates the faith of SVs. This fact is demonstrated repeatedly on these forums.

    Anyway, Disputaciones, your comments have been rude and insulting. If you cannot make a coherent attempt to reply to Cantarella, why demonstrate the fact by your ad homenms?


    Quote from: Mithrandylan

    The only sacrament which bears an assumption of validity until proven invalid is marriage.


    Marriage is not the only one, and for validity of all the sacraments sake, it does serve a good purpose, but because of the uniqueness of the sacrament of matrimony which involves the marriage contract, let's simply not use marriage for further examples.

    Please only use any of the 3 sacrament which cannot be repeated without sacrilege or can only be conditionally re-administered.


    Quote from: Mithrandylan

    Any other sacrament is presumed valid if and when the proper form and matter are present.  If there is a doubt to the form and/or matter, the sacrament is doubtful (or invalid) and treated as invalid; and then must be administered either conditionally, absolutely (or not at all in a rare case where the Church rules definitively in favor of validity).


    Because proper intent is impossible to know, let's presume intent is proper.

    Who establishes proper matter and form? I think that THIS is what it all boils down to, for SVs anyway.

     
    Quote from: Mithrandylan

    If you think about it, this makes sense.  No one is bound to recognize (for example) a "baptism" administered with what reeks of vinegar, or a "consecration" of a chocolate chip cookie.  Much less are they bound to presume such sacraments as valid until the Church says otherwise.  The presumption of validity depends first on the presence of proper form and matter.  In the case of the NREC, it's the very form of the sacrament which is in question, so it cannot possibly be presumed valid if the form is doubtful.  That's a perfectly circular type of reasoning.


    You are using examples that do not apply to this issue. The NO does not use vinegar. Keep it real.  

    Proper form and proper matter is absolutely necessary - I think everyone already agrees on that fact, but who establishes proper form and proper matter?  


    Quote from: Mithrandylan

    Allow me to draw your attention to the fact that a doubtful sacrament may in fact be valid.  The problem is that "may" be valid is not a good enough level of certainty to presume it to be valid.  That is why I quoted Connell, Prummer and others earlier-- they are drawing our attention to this fact: nothing short of moral certainty satisfies when approaching sacraments.  We cannot approach sacraments under the auspices that they "may" be valid, we can only approach them lawfully under moral certainty that they are valid.


    Again, we are speaking about the NO NREC, or baptism or Confirmation. These are the three which we are not permitted to have re-administered.

     
    Quote from: Mithrandylan

    That being said, in this particular case, I don't even think it's correct to say that the NREC "may" be valid.  I think the probability of it's validity is very slim; but even if the probability of it's validity was very likely, so long as it's validity falls short of moral certainty, it cannot be regarded or presumed as valid.  To say the NREC "may" be valid, in my mind, is like saying "I may not die if I dive off of this ten story building".
     

    Again, it is not your place or my place to determine validity or not. We cannot know. We know the NREC is not the same as the Old Rite and we doubt validity because it was changed along with everything else NO, but we cannot say that because we have doubt, the NREC is invalid. We can avoid it because we have doubt, but if the essentials are there, and because of all things NO, we can justify our doubt, but what we cannot know, is if those essentials are there or not, because we cannot know this, we cannot say the NREC is always invalid.


    Quote from: Council of Trent
    On the Sacraments in general:
    CANON XII.-If any one saith, that a minister,[/b] being in mortal sin,-if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament,-neither effects, nor confers the sacrament; let him be anathema.


    It is up to you to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that the essentials are not observed in the NREC. Until you can prove absolutely the essentials are not observed, you or Fr. Cekada or  anyone cannot say that the NREC is "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void" - - - or to put it another way; Fr. Cekada, you and whoever else says that the NREC is "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void" without proof beyond any shadow of a doubt, is anathema.

    Personally, I do not know what those essentials consist of. I remember reading that St. Thomas said that even if the essential words were not identical but if  the words said basically (not exactly) the same thing, that the sacrament is valid.

    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Online Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3505
    • Reputation: +4127/-265
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
    « Reply #69 on: March 02, 2015, 09:15:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Why does the Church even have such a thing as administering sacraments “Conditionally” if doubtful sacraments are no sacrament at all? Why did the Church make it a sacrilege and why not simply re-administer doubtful sacraments? I'd like these questions answered please.


    Since no one answered my question, I will let you know the answer - - - - the reason the Church instituted the sacraments can be administered "Conditionally" is in case it cannot be proven that the previous sacrament was valid.

    She made it a sacrilege because the Church presumes validity and considers it offensive to Our Lord and injurious to the dignity and sanctity of the sacrament to re-administer indiscriminately.


    Key word indiscriminately.  You may disagree that the NREC is doubtful or invalid, but you can hardly say that those not trusting of its validity do so indiscriminately.  The very fact that such people have published works and can express a defense of their opinion (regardless of its correctness) proves that there is nothing indiscriminate about it.
     

    I do not understand why you seek to settle your argument by relying on the authority of the Novus Ordo Church-- of course it is the Church who establishes the proper form and matter of the sacraments, so much as she is able (obviously there are certain, and even many things that even she cannot change).

    That doesn't solve any problems when the NREC still violates the formula defined by Pius XII; the NREC is not merely *different* from the traditional rite of episcopal consecration, it is substantially different from the formula specified by Pius XII for the Latin rite moving forward.  

    The Eastern rites have been mentioned as justifications for the NREC; I do not find this convincing for reasons already mentioned: the NREC is not identical to those rites, and the differences between the NREC and the Eastern rites in question outweigh the similarities.  It would be like arguing that since the NREC has half a dozen words in common with the traditional rite of consecration it is therefore valid.  No, that's just silly.  

    While you're thinking about that, consider that JPII approved the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, a nonsensical and blatantly invalid form of consecration.  So while you want to avoid considering hypotheticals where obviously invalid matter is used (vinegar, milk, cookies, etc.) just remember that the Novus Ordo Church has already approved of an outrageous consecration form.

    I'd like to close by again asking you to re-examine your defense of the NREC which relies on you trusting the authority of the Novus Ordo Church.  It's just terrible, and utterly inconsistent.  If a Novus Ordite were to approach you about attending the N.O.M. you'd go on and on about invalid promulgation, illicitness, doubtful form in some cases, inherently impious and irreverent liturgy, etc.  The authority of the Novus Ordo Church means absolutely nothing to you as it concerns the N.O.M.  But then when we talk about the NREC, some light switches and all you can do is repeat ad nauseum "the Church defines the form, the Church defines the form, etc. etc."  What is it about the NREC that is so off limits, so beyond corruption, so integral that it cannot be invalidated or made dubious by the Novus Ordo Church, but the Holy Mass, Canon Law, Catechisms, an Ecumenical Council and virtually everything else produced by this monstrous organization can be subject to doubt or invalidity?

    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Online Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3505
    • Reputation: +4127/-265
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
    « Reply #70 on: March 02, 2015, 09:39:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's too late to edit my last post, but just to clarify, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is obviously and outrageously invalid is because it is literally missing the consecration.  It doesn't exist.  And this form has been approved by the Novus Ordo Church as valid.

    JPII himself admitted that the prayers are missing!  Still calls it valid.

    Quote from: Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist...
    Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.


    This is the authority on which you rely to contend the NREC is valid?  An authority which admits that there is no coherent and literal consecration, but a "dispersed" and "integrated" succession of thanksgiving, praise and intercession which brings about the Holy Species?  
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
    « Reply #71 on: March 02, 2015, 10:30:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan
    It's too late to edit my last post, but just to clarify, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is obviously and outrageously invalid is because it is literally missing the consecration.  It doesn't exist.  And this form has been approved by the Novus Ordo Church as valid.

    JPII himself admitted that the prayers are missing!  Still calls it valid.

    Quote from: Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist...
    Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.




    You are once again mistaken, because as presumed, you do not understand the difference between substance and accidental. Exact wording alone does not change the substance of the sacrament. Furthermore, in the case of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, it is nor that the words themselves are absent but that they are dispersed from beginning to end, making it difficult to point out when does the consecration actually takes place.

    Nothing has changed in the traditional requirement that the words of Consecration must be explicitly present. What makes the Anaphora of Addai and Mari strange is that the words are found throughout the liturgy, but that does not mean they are not explicitly present.

    Generally speaking, there two parts of the liturgy which effect the consecration: the Consecration (Institution) and the Epiklesis (Invocation to the Holy Ghost). It is Catholic dogma that that the words of Consecration are essential to the Sacrament, but in the Eastern Rites, is mostly believed that is the Epiklesis, which effects the consecration. All valid rites must contain both the consecration and epiklesis, though.

    Because of the oddity in the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, the Church actually  tried to require that Chaldean Catholics insert a coherent consecration narrative into the Liturgy but the situation was that the Church in Persia and Mesopotamia is divided and the Chaldean Catholics were usually receiving the sacraments from schismatic rites. To avoid that, The Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist were issued in 2001 which permitted Chaldean Catholics to attend the Assyrian rite, which is why it was necessary to determine the validity of the schismatic form of the liturgy of Addai and Mari.

    Even if the approval to such odd anaphora was questionable, you can't really compare an Eastern anaphora in 2001 with the entire New Rite of Episcopal Ordinations in the Church going on since 1968, which if they were to prove invalid, it would affect 99% of Catholic throughout the world, making the sacraments needed for salvation inaccessible and the unsustainable situation going on for half a century now. Invalidity is a big word, carelessly thrown by many traditionalists.  
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
    « Reply #72 on: March 02, 2015, 10:47:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan


    This is the authority on which you rely to contend the NREC is valid?  An authority which admits that there is no coherent and literal consecration, but a "dispersed" and "integrated" succession of thanksgiving, praise and intercession which brings about the Holy Species?  


    Define what is meant by a literal consecration.

    Would you say that the following is a LITERAL consecration?

    Quote

    When he was prepared for the redemptive passion, in the bread which by Him was blessed, broken and divided unto His holy apostles, He gave us His propitiatory Body for life eternal.

    Likewise, also in the cup which by Him was signed, sanctified and and given to His holy apostles, He gave us His propitiatory Blood for life eternal.

    And with these He added this admonition, saying: So often as You partake of these, make remembrance of My death, My burial and My resurrection until I come.


    Notice it misses all the words that Christ said at the Last Supper, so is it valid or not, Mithrandylan?
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Online Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9387
    • Reputation: +3724/-838
    • Gender: Male
    Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
    « Reply #73 on: March 03, 2015, 05:54:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Mithrandylan
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Quote from: Stubborn
    Why does the Church even have such a thing as administering sacraments “Conditionally” if doubtful sacraments are no sacrament at all? Why did the Church make it a sacrilege and why not simply re-administer doubtful sacraments? I'd like these questions answered please.


    Since no one answered my question, I will let you know the answer - - - - the reason the Church instituted the sacraments can be administered "Conditionally" is in case it cannot be proven that the previous sacrament was valid.

    She made it a sacrilege because the Church presumes validity and considers it offensive to Our Lord and injurious to the dignity and sanctity of the sacrament to re-administer indiscriminately.


    Key word indiscriminately.  You may disagree that the NREC is doubtful or invalid, but you can hardly say that those not trusting of its validity do so indiscriminately.  The very fact that such people have published works and can express a defense of their opinion (regardless of its correctness) proves that there is nothing indiscriminate about it.
     

    I do not understand why you seek to settle your argument by relying on the authority of the Novus Ordo Church-- of course it is the Church who establishes the proper form and matter of the sacraments, so much as she is able (obviously there are certain, and even many things that even she cannot change).


    I do not rely on the authority of the NO for anything, show me where I defend the NREC anywhere. I don't defend the NREC. I despise the NREC because, like all things NO, of the confusion it causes among those struggling with this issue, who cannot see clear because they listen to Fr. Cekada, who actually demonstrates before our eyes that he presumes to be the full authority of the Church, when he is a priest who should be helping to clarify the issue according to the Church, not add to the confusion by presuming to be the  Church itself.

    I am relying on and I provided quotes from what the Church teaches in this regard.

    I quoted from Trent's catechism and from the Council of Trent - why do you consider those sources Novus Ordo?

    In the past, I've said many times that *I believe* that there are many NO priests out there who are not priests at all and that, thanks to the NREC, validity is doubtful, but I cannot say honestly, that the NREC is “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void", neither can Fr. Cekada and neither can you no matter how great our doubt is.

    We are perfectly justified to doubt the validity of priests ordained in the NREC, just as we are justified to doubt all things NO, but again, our doubt means that we avoid, it does not give us the license to declare it absolutely invalid. That is something we can be sure the Church will do when She triumphs over this mess, and we have to wait until then.


    Quote from: Mithrandylan

    That doesn't solve any problems when the NREC still violates the formula defined by Pius XII; the NREC is not merely *different* from the traditional rite of episcopal consecration, it is substantially different from the formula specified by Pius XII for the Latin rite moving forward.  

    The Eastern rites have been mentioned as justifications for the NREC; I do not find this convincing for reasons already mentioned: the NREC is not identical to those rites, and the differences between the NREC and the Eastern rites in question outweigh the similarities.  It would be like arguing that since the NREC has half a dozen words in common with the traditional rite of consecration it is therefore valid.  No, that's just silly.  

    While you're thinking about that, consider that JPII approved the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, a nonsensical and blatantly invalid form of consecration.  So while you want to avoid considering hypotheticals where obviously invalid matter is used (vinegar, milk, cookies, etc.) just remember that the Novus Ordo Church has already approved of an outrageous consecration form.



    "The Anaphora of Addai and Mari" sounds like something Hindu to me, I don't know what it is and am happy to remain so.


    Quote from: Mithrandylan

    I'd like to close by again asking you to re-examine your defense of the NREC which relies on you trusting the authority of the Novus Ordo Church.  It's just terrible, and utterly inconsistent.  If a Novus Ordite were to approach you about attending the N.O.M. you'd go on and on about invalid promulgation, illicitness, doubtful form in some cases, inherently impious and irreverent liturgy, etc.  The authority of the Novus Ordo Church means absolutely nothing to you as it concerns the N.O.M.  But then when we talk about the NREC, some light switches and all you can do is repeat ad nauseum "the Church defines the form, the Church defines the form, etc. etc."  What is it about the NREC that is so off limits, so beyond corruption, so integral that it cannot be invalidated or made dubious by the Novus Ordo Church, but the Holy Mass, Canon Law, Catechisms, an Ecumenical Council and virtually everything else produced by this monstrous organization can be subject to doubt or invalidity?


    I agree with you that it would be "terrible, and utterly inconsistent" if in fact I was defending the NREC or trusting the authority of the Novus Ordo Church, but these are two things which you falsely accuse me of doing.

    You confuse my defending of the sanctity of the sacrament as defending the NREC and the Novus Ordo.

    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17576
    • Reputation: +9859/-4293
    • Gender: Male
    Unconvinced: A Response to Fr. Cekadas Argument- Consecrations
    « Reply #74 on: March 03, 2015, 10:23:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Bellator Dei
    100% Novus Ordo


    Looks valid to me.  After all there was some mention of a "higher power", a governing spirit in the sky, if you will, made during the ceremony ... good enough for me.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16