No, that's not what the Church is teaching here. This is a condemnation of the Prot heresy that the Sacraments do not confer grace ex opere operato but merely ex opere operantis.
While any Mass has infinite value, and even a single Mass would suffice to convert the entire world, and a single Holy Communion could immediately turn someone into a saint, God has chosen to "throttle" the graces that come from the Sacraments. Saints are quite clear, for instance, that fewer graces go out to the people from Masses said by gravely unworthy priests. Catholics could not hope to receive much (if any) grace from the Sacraments conferred by the schismatics. But the amount of grace that actually transmits from the infinite well of graces (in any given Sacrament) to souls is entirely up to God, and there's absolutely nothing in Church teaching that precludes God cutting off the conferral of grace from Sacraments that were confected sacrilegiously, such as from a Black Mass, or from the Novus Ordo. Grace is grace, a free gift, and God can withhold it from souls as He pleases. It's perfectly legitimate to speculate that God would withhold conferring grace through the Sacrament confected at either a Black Mass or an Orthodox Mass or a Novus Ordo Mass.
Of course, it's a moot point, since the NOM is invalid, a blasphemous congealing of heretical and blasphemous Prot liturgical concepts along with the sacrilegious replacement of the Catholic Offertory with a disgusting тαℓмυdic table prayer.
In paragraph one, you completely misconstrue the nature of the debate, so as to divert the conclusion: Although the Prots did/do erroneously hold to an heretical ex opere operantis conception of sacramental grace, they based it upon a continuation of the Jєωιѕн sacraments of the old law, in which the sacraments were truly merely empty signs, containing no grace (the latter being produced only according to the disposition of the recipient). Hence, the Jєωs/Prots believe in sterile sacraments which contain, in and of themselves, no grace, and therefore do not transmit it.
That’s what the two Canons I quote are condemning (as proven by the fact that they are speaking of “the sacraments of the new law,” in contradistinction to the sacraments of the old law).
Conversely, (and note Trent using the following words to rebuke the Prot importation of obsolete Judaic sacramental theology), in “the sacraments of the new law,” if the sacrament is validly produced, the grace inheres, and if the recipient does not erect an obex gratiae (ie., obstacle to grace), he infallibly (“every time”) receives an increase of sanctifying grace.
So when Pfeiffer/Hewko claim the sacrament is validly produced, but no grace transmits to a well-disposed communicant, they are flatly heretical (and anathematized).
Because you err on this fundamental point, you commit a second one in your second paragraph: You directly contradict Trent by speculating in such a way as to put God against Trent. What the Holy Ghost has declared is infallibly the case, Lad says otherwise, effectively pitching God against Trent:
Trent: Grace always passes from a validly confected sacrament to a well-disposed recipient.
Lad: Grace might not pass from a validly confected sacrament to a well-disposed recipient.
If an Eastern Catholic in the state of grace should mistakenly wander into an Orthodox chapel and receive Communion, he surely (infallibly) receives the transmission of sanctifying grace.
Lad can oppose Trent (yet again: Remember, he also wants you to believe the entire Church, with all its popes, saints, doctors, and theologians, has misinterpreted “voto” for 550 years), but he has no power to change it.
His third paragraph, well, par for the course.
Topic: OLHC, CA -- Weist out, Hewko in (Read 3898 times)