Author Topic: New Rite of Ordination (Read 7839 times)

Elizabeth · « **Reply #45 on:** June 01, 2010, 08:54:04 PM »

Or maybe the loaves are not invalid; instead they are cursed validly?

Caminus · « **Reply #46 on:** June 01, 2010, 09:34:48 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Caminus
Quote
The purely internal does not matter at all.

My purpose was to demonstrate the error of the above assertion which you and Lad attempted to make. The text from you you cited is almost entirely devoted to demonstrating the above opinion as erroneous.

That is why I said purely internal, because there is always an external associated with a Sacrament. What is externally manifest, which also shows us something of the internal, is what is important to judge when a sacrament is administered. It is the only thing anybody can know.

This is precisely why you don't understand the "pope issue".

So then you agree that the internal intention does matter, which was the whole point of Rev. Raphael De Salvo in his dissertation. Your qualification doesn't seem to hold water, but so be it. If you meant precisely the opposite of what you wrote then we can agree.

You are analyzing the matter in its relation to the recipient when in reality you should examine the essence of the doctrine in itself, not in relation to something else.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #47 on:** June 02, 2010, 05:35:11 AM »

Yes, the internal intention matters, but what I'm arguing is that in intending the cause you implicitly intend the effect also--as per my gun analogy (which I must admit I didn't articulate all that well).

So performing the Sacramental rite according to the form prescribed by the Church is the instrumental cause of the Sacrament. So if you intend (internally) to perform the rite according to the Church's prescription, then you implicitly intend the effect. If you pull a trigger on a loaded gun that's pointed at someone, then you can't say, "Well, I didn't mean to shoot the person but just wanted to pull the trigger." In pulling the trigger you implicitly intended to shoot the person. In other words, my contention is that you cannot simply will away the Sacramental effect any more than you can pull the trigger and will away its effect of shooting the person at which the gun is aimed.

So IMO if some evil freemason priest puts on his vestments, goes to the altar at some scheduled time, performs the rites prescribed by the Church for Mass, says the words of consecration, he's intending to DO WHAT the Church DOES.

That's why an atheist can validly baptize, because one need not actually intend the Sacramental effect.

SJB · « **Reply #48 on:** June 02, 2010, 06:46:48 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

In pulling the trigger you implicitly intended to shoot the person.

Yes, but one is morally certain that the experienced marksman KNOWS the pulling of the trigger shoots the gun.

The priest KNOWS that when he uses the correct matter and form he does what the Church does and confects the sacrament (notwithstanding some other visible defect). So when he does this, his intention must be to confect the sacrament.

Even the non-Catholic layman who baptizes with the proper matter and form KNOWS he is performing the rite the way the Church does.

SJB · « **Reply #49 on:** June 02, 2010, 06:50:16 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

So then you agree that the internal intention does matter, which was the whole point of Rev. Raphael De Salvo in his dissertation. Your qualification doesn't seem to hold water, but so be it.

The internal intention is ALWAYS associated with the ACT of performing the rite of the sacrament. There cannot even be an intention without the external rite being performed.