Author Topic: Were most 4th century sacraments invalid? (Read 2505 times)

reconquest · « **Reply #15 on:** August 28, 2013, 08:08:23 PM »

I wonder if the fact that the Arians did not change the rite of ordination is relevant to the resolution of this question.

Sigismund · « **Reply #16 on:** August 28, 2013, 08:32:43 PM »

Quote from: Cathedra

Quote from: MiserereMeiDeus
History tells us that almost the entire hierarchy and almost all the priests of the 4th century were Arian heretics. Did they cease to be Catholic? It would seem they would have to have. Are all the priests and bishops ordained and consecrated from the lines of those bishops invalid non-priests and non-bishops? It would seem so. Did they confect nothing, and give only bread and wine to the Faithful? Again, I would guess so. Were their absolutions worthless? Who dares say they weren't? Did countless Catholics go to hell as result of receiving bad sacraments, then and in subsequent centuries? Do the math: the vast majority of priests, bishops and popes since the 4th century couldn't have been real priests bishops or popes according to that line of reasoning. So is that the reality, or is there a flaw in the reasoning, and if so, where?

This isn't just idle speculation, or a twisted joke. This seems to have a real bearing on today's situation, and the arguments of those who have nothing but contempt for "una cuм" Catholics. I'm just trying to figure it out.

Ditto what Matto said.

Just because someone's a heretic doesn't mean the sacraments are invalid.

But just because they are valid doesn't mean they are licit or permissible.

"Whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned".

And a ditto from me too.

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #17 on:** August 28, 2013, 11:08:07 PM »

Quote from: reconquest

I wonder if the fact that the Arians did not change the rite of ordination is relevant to the resolution of this question.

The Arians did change the sacrament of Baptism. Which is why they were not only heretics, but apostates.

The formula was "I baptize you in the name of the Father who is greater, and of the son who is lesser and of the Holy Ghost." I have heard that, but I have also read that the Ecuмenical Councils accepted the baptism of Arians as valid. As I have read conflicting information it would be nice to have :reading: someone look into that. I would appreciate it thanks!

BTNYC · « **Reply #18 on:** September 02, 2013, 01:12:58 PM »

Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher

Quote from: reconquest
I wonder if the fact that the Arians did not change the rite of ordination is relevant to the resolution of this question.

The Arians did change the sacrament of Baptism. Which is why they were not only heretics, but apostates.

The formula was "I baptize you in the name of the Father who is greater, and of the son who is lesser and of the Holy Ghost." I have heard that, but I have also read that the Ecuмenical Councils accepted the baptism of Arians as valid. As I have read conflicting information it would be nice to have :reading: someone look into that. I would appreciate it thanks!

There is also the unavoidable fact that, since the Arians did not believe in the Divinity of Christ, they could not have ever had the proper intention to change bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord.

Proper Form, Matter and Intention are required for a valid Sacrament, so make of this what you will. What I make of it is this: The post-conciliar era is the most disastrous period in Church history since the Arian heresy - but still not quite as disastrous.

Nishant · « **Reply #19 on:** September 02, 2013, 02:54:18 PM »

Quote from: Fr. Peter Scott

A negative doubt is to be despised.
This axiom is accepted by all moral theologians.
A negative doubt is a doubt that is not based upon any
reason. It is the question “what if” that we frequently
ask for no reason at all. Such a doubt cannot weaken
moral certitude and is not reasonable. (Cf. Prummer,
Manuale Theologiae Moralis, I, §328.)

The matter and the form of the Latin rite of priestly
ordination introduced by Pope Paul VI in 1968 are
not subject to positive doubt.

They are, in effect, practically identical to those
defined by Pope Pius XII in 1947 in Sacramentum
Ordinis.

There can be reasons to doubt the intention of the
ordaining bishop in the conciliar Church.
The minister of the sacrament does not have to
intend what the Church intends, which is why a heretic
can administer a valid sacrament. He must, however,
intend to do what the Church does.

The question of episcopal consecration in the 1968
rite promulgated by Paul VI is even more delicate.
The difficulty lies in the complete change of the
wording of the form of episcopal consecration. The very
erudite article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., published in The
Angelus (December 2005 & January 2006), establishes
that the form is in itself valid. Although radically
different from the traditional Latin form, and although
only similar, but not identical, to the forms used in the
Eastern rites, it is in itself valid, the meaning designating
sufficiently clearly the Catholic episcopacy.

However, this does not mean that this new rite of
episcopal ordination is valid in every concrete case, for
this could depend upon the translation, modifications
(now that the principle of change has been accepted),
and eventual defect of intention. For the danger of the
creeping in of a defective intention, as with the rite of
priestly ordination, cannot be excluded.