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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.