Author Topic: New Rite of Ordination (Read 7761 times)

SJB · « **Reply #15 on:** May 29, 2010, 09:10:27 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote
SSPX: New Rite of Ordination is intrinsically valid but can often be invalid due to the faulty intention of the priest. [I find this so very flawed that I don't have the time to go into this.]

Or rather your mischaracterization is deeply flawed.

That article by Fr. Scott expresses a positive doubt, like it or not. That means that these new rites are doubtful at best.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** May 29, 2010, 10:42:29 AM »

In an article otherwise fairly well written, Father Scott wrongly asserts that the new Rite of Ordination in the Latin is identical with the Traditional.

In the essential form, there's the omission of a SINGLE LATIN WORD, the "ut". Why was this one little word in someone's way? Why go to the trouble of leaving it out when you're taking the rest of it word for word? Becaues it's in a crucial part of the essential form which clearly expresses the Sacramental effect; "ut" links the ordination with its Sacramental effect explicitly. One could argue that it may be implicit anyway, but now we have positive doubt regarding the form.

Then there's the "ex adjunctis" argument applied by Pope Leo XIII in declaring Anglican Orders invalid.

Father Scott clearly states that one must intend to do what the Church does and not what the Church intends, but then goes on to say that the Church's new rite doesn't adequately express the traditional intention of the Church. First of all, it's impossible for the Church to promulgate a rite defective in that way. Secondly, that has nothing to do with the priest's intention to do what the Church does. And so, Caminus, I in no way mischaracterized the SSPX subject on this opinion. What I stated is exactly what Father Scott is arguing.

Cristian · « **Reply #17 on:** May 29, 2010, 04:18:18 PM »

Quote

I've also read that the theologians argue that if the rites are performed outwardly exactly according to the liturgical books established by the Church but intention to "do as the Church does" is only inwardly manifest, then the Church will supply validity for the Sacrament.

As fas as I know the Church doesn`t supply for the power of sacraments, just for jurisdiction. Any source?

Quote

The only exception to this would be if the priest, though performing a Sacrament correctly in all elements (i.e., outwardly) also manifests his lack of intention to "do as the Church does" in some other way.

For example, should a priest give a talk immediately prior to performing an outwardly correct Baptism that the sole purpose of the ceremony is to receive the child into the Church and that Original Sin is a figment of the imagination, the intention is clearly lacking and the Baptism invalid.

Ok, this is beyond dount.

Quote

On the other hand, if the priest secretly thinks this but never makes his belief known, the Church supplies validity, thus, we can have "moral certainty".

This is the thing, moral certainty does not exclude invalidity, it just exclude positive doubts

Quote

I wish I could provide a reference, but I do know that I believed the source reliable at the time. If this is not accurate, I would appreciate correction.

Ah sorry, well if you find some sourse, it would be much appreciated.
Theologians quote a thesis condemned by some Pope (Alexander VI ?) saying internal intention was not required, and all the books I`ve at home agree internal intention is necessary, except if I`m not wrong Fenton, but implicitly by what he says.

As for the New Rites of Ordination and Consecration of Bishops, it would be difficult to believe many Novus Ordo clerics have any intention of ordaining priests to offer Sacrifice or consecrating Bishops as true successors of the Apostles. This vocabulary is nearly completely absent from our Conciliar priests and bishops.

I fully agree.

Cristian

PS: perhaps we should create a new post to discuss this?

Cristian · « **Reply #18 on:** May 29, 2010, 04:23:34 PM »

Quote

Otherwise, the Church would be in utter chaos, because you never would know if any given priest has valid orders due to some bad intention on the part of the ordaining bishop.

Against this theologians say you have moral certitude and therefore this cannot happen but by an exception. In the same way as internal faith is not required to be member of the Church that doesn`t mean the majority of them are hypocrites. Not that this argument convinces me, I`m just saying what they say to answer this objection

Cristian

Cristian · « **Reply #19 on:** May 29, 2010, 04:24:22 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

There are some theologians who hold the position I advocated above.

Could you please quote at lest their names?

Thanks

Cristian