Author Topic: The Extraordinary Doctrinal Ineptitude of the Dimond Boys (Read 1092 times)

Caminus · « **Reply #1 on:** June 03, 2010, 12:54:21 PM »

One wonders what kind of traditional sacramental theology they are reading which denies the double consecration of the sacred species. Their opinion is more novel than anything John Paul ever said for it appears to have originated in the imagination of Bob or Fred as they were pulling this opinion out of their...

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** June 03, 2010, 07:10:51 PM »

Yes, Caminus, I see that since you're completely at a loss actually arguing the point about BoD, you've succuмbed -- like Myrna -- to simple ad hominem attacks. I've repeatedly told you that I don't buy about half of the Dimonds' arguments. But that leaves the other half standing. Even Daly admits that most of the passages they cite regarding John Paul II, for instance, are in fact legitimately unorthodox.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** June 03, 2010, 07:13:22 PM »

And, by the way, the question about whether a priest can consecrate one species without consecrating the other remains a highly disputed question. Their argument is weak, but it's not completely outrageous. If the priest deliberately intended to use a vitiated form, that means the priest overall in the Mass wouldn't have the intention to do what the Church does. Unfortunately, most priests think that the NOM that they're saying is in fact what the Church does--which is where this argument falls flat.

Caminus · « **Reply #4 on:** June 03, 2010, 07:26:15 PM »

First of all, it begs the question to assert that the NO is mutilated in such a way as to invalidate the form, let alone the intention of "doing what the Church does." Secondly, it is undisputed that "This is My Body" alone suffices for the conversion of the bread. Even if a priest were to stop there, the bread would be consecrated. Their reasoning has absolutely no foundation in sacramental theology and is in fact quite dangerous. They offer no citations, but just vomit forth whatever comes to their perverted minds, think that they are teaching the world the true Catholic faith when in reality they sound like school children.

Caminus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 03, 2010, 07:28:08 PM »

And ad hominem is quite delicious when it is founded on truth and directed at enemies of Christ our Lord. Of course you wouldn't know anything about that since you accuse Catholics of hating dogma because they adhere to tradition. Nah...nothing there to see, move along.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** June 03, 2010, 07:44:20 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

First of all, it begs the question to assert that the NO is mutilated in such a way as to invalidate the form, let alone the intention of "doing what the Church does."

Well it begs the question in the sense that they've made that case elsewhere and weren't addressing that here. I (partially) agree with them that the English mistranslation of the consecration of the wine renders the validity of the Mass positively doubtful.

Quote

Secondly, it is undisputed that "This is My Body" alone suffices for the conversion of the bread. Even if a priest were to stop there, the bread would be consecrated.

Actually, I recall that not to be so from my seminary days. There were cases in the sacramental theology manuals about the hypothetical case of a priest who, say, dropped dead after consecrating the bread and whether it would be valid. Not a few theologians felt that it wouldn't be.

Quote

Their reasoning has absolutely no foundation in sacramental theology and is in fact quite dangerous. They offer no citations, but just vomit forth whatever comes to their perverted minds, think that they are teaching the world the true Catholic faith when in reality they sound like school children.

I don't think that their argument is that bad. Where it falls flat is where I told you. Let's say a priest were to intend up front to mutilate the words regarding the consecration of the wine so as to render that part invalid. In so intending, he would not be intending to do what the Church does. Where the problem comes in is that the priests who offer the NOM have no such bad intention. So their argument evaporates.

Instead of being so dramatic, can't you just say that their argument is wrong? You're often way too bombastic for your own good.

Caminus · « **Reply #7 on:** June 04, 2010, 12:26:33 AM »

Quote

Actually, I recall that not to be so from my seminary days. There were cases in the sacramental theology manuals about the hypothetical case of a priest who, say, dropped dead after consecrating the bread and whether it would be valid. Not a few theologians felt that it wouldn't be.

Given your propensity for skewing facts, I should probably ask for a citation here. But the example of dropping dead and the case advanced above isn't exactly the same, for the priest is attempting a double consecration and in fact accomplishes the work. The consecration is always presented as two distinct formulae. According to their theory, it would be superfluous to consecrate the wine, thereby destroying the foundation of their misguided criticism in the first place. For if the intention is not vitiated by a mutilated form, then the pronuncation of the words "This is My Body" would suffice to effect the consecration of both if we admitted the inverse as being true with regard to nullification. They essentially argue out of both sides of their mouth.

Quote

I don't think that their argument is that bad. Where it falls flat is where I told you. Let's say a priest were to intend up front to mutilate the words regarding the consecration of the wine so as to render that part invalid. In so intending, he would not be intending to do what the Church does. Where the problem comes in is that the priests who offer the NOM have no such bad intention. So their argument evaporates.

But their argument is that since the NOM form is allegedly mutilated, the intention must also be mutilated as well. The example you cite would result in the consrecration of the bread, but not the wine, thereby negating the sacrifice.

SJB · « **Reply #8 on:** June 04, 2010, 05:35:57 AM »

Quote

Secondly, it is undisputed that "This is My Body" alone suffices for the conversion of the bread. Even if a priest were to stop there, the bread would be consecrated.

And he would sin grievously in stopping there. The fact is that the Church cannot approve a rite in which the consecration of the Precious Blood is invalid.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** June 04, 2010, 06:03:51 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

But their argument is that since the NOM form is allegedly mutilated, the intention must also be mutilated as well. The example you cite would result in the consrecration of the bread, but not the wine, thereby negating the sacrifice.

I don't agree with that. If the priest intended to change and vitiate the words of consecration said over the wine, the priest's intention vis-a-vis the entire Mass would be defective and neither consecration would be valid due to the bad intention of not intending to do what the Church does. You cannot intend not to consecrate the wine properly but intend to consecrate the bread--IMO. That's what the Dimonds are saying, and I agree with them on that--though it's subject to dispute obviously. But saying the NOM doesn't mean that the priest does not intend to do what the Church does, i.e. it's not the same as deliberately changing the form to something different than what the Church has laid out.