Author Topic: The phrase "non-Catholic Christian" (Read 4965 times)

SJB · « **Reply #15 on:** February 11, 2011, 02:07:20 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Moral Theology, Koch-Preuss
I. The efficacy of the Sacraments depends solely on the will of God, and hence all that is required for their valid administration on the part of the minister is power and jurisdiction, proper application of matter and form, and an actual or at least a virtual intention of doing what the Church does.

Quote from: Woywod, commentary on CIC
585. Private Baptism may be given by any one who uses the proper matter and form and has the right intention. As far as possible two witnesses, or at least one, should be present at such a private Baptism, by whom the conferring of Baptism may be proved, (cf. Canon 759.)

If a priest is present he should be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a lay person, a man to a woman, unless decency demand that the woman be preferred, or in case the woman knows better the form and manner of Baptism.

The father and mother are not allowed to baptize their own child except in danger of death if there is no one else at hand who can baptize. (Canon 742.)

I guess I'm missing the point.

Are you assuming I'm arguing with you?

JohnGrey · « **Reply #16 on:** February 11, 2011, 02:13:21 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: JohnGrey
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Moral Theology, Koch-Preuss
I. The efficacy of the Sacraments depends solely on the will of God, and hence all that is required for their valid administration on the part of the minister is power and jurisdiction, proper application of matter and form, and an actual or at least a virtual intention of doing what the Church does.

Quote from: Woywod, commentary on CIC
585. Private Baptism may be given by any one who uses the proper matter and form and has the right intention. As far as possible two witnesses, or at least one, should be present at such a private Baptism, by whom the conferring of Baptism may be proved, (cf. Canon 759.)

If a priest is present he should be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a lay person, a man to a woman, unless decency demand that the woman be preferred, or in case the woman knows better the form and manner of Baptism.

The father and mother are not allowed to baptize their own child except in danger of death if there is no one else at hand who can baptize. (Canon 742.)

I guess I'm missing the point.

Are you assuming I'm arguing with you?

No, not at all. It's just that there was no supplemental writing that I wasn't quite positive.

In addressing the question of intent, the Angelic Doctor states the following concerning heretical ministers:

Quote

But if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (8, ad 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister's faith is made good.

Now, it would seem on the surface that the preceding would argue against a necessity of intent on the part of the minister. However, the final line is clear that it is the character of one acting as a minister of the Church, in persona Christi by virtue of his office as the ordinary minister of the sacrament. A member of a heretical sect by definition does not enjoy the charism imparted by Holy Orders.

Moreover, Thomas Aquinas asserts:

Quote

But some do observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer indeed the sacrament but not the reality. I say this in the supposition that they are outwardly cut off from the Church; because from the very fact that anyone receives the sacraments from them, he sins; and consequently is hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament.

Even in those cases where a performer of the sacrament is outside the bounds of the Church on account of heresy, it may be possible that the sacrament is enacted, but its effect is not conferred.

Jehanne · « **Reply #17 on:** February 11, 2011, 02:51:05 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: JohnGrey
Moreover, you can't compare heresies as being more or less heretical.

That is obviously not true.

Quote
It has been the teaching of the Church since the Fathers that any who deny the slightest degree of dogma is a heretic. There's no difference between a Baptist and a modernist;

There's a huge difference. A Baptist believes in the account of the New Testament, a Modernist does not. That's a huge difference.

Quote
they're both members of a false and perditious religion.

False religions have elements of truth. A Baptist who accepts the account of the Gospels as history has a great deal more truth than a modernist.

Quote
If you could make such an argument, then a modernist would be the greater heretic of the two.

Obviously such an argument can be made, and it turns out you're willing to make it after all.

It is heresy to deny that heretics can have valid Baptisms.

But some Feeneyites have a tendency to try to cast doubt on all such Baptisms. It is definitely a heretical tendency on their part.

Father Feeney, of course, never taught or held to such a view.

Jehanne · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2011, 03:00:15 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

I merely pointed at the Jehanne's position that all baptisms, by virtue of form and matter, are automatically valid is theologically incorrect.

I should have added "intent" to the list. (Ooops.)

SJB · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2011, 07:18:59 PM »

Quote from: JohnGrey

Even in those cases where a performer of the sacrament is outside the bounds of the Church on account of heresy, it may be possible that the sacrament is enacted, but its effect is not conferred.

It would seem that a heretic baptizing an infant (of say, Catholic parents) in danger of death is valid and the effect conferred if the correct matter and form is used. I would think the intention to "do what the Church does" is fulfilled here. In other cases, it is not as clear.

If I'm not mistaken, weren't some converts from heretical sects NOT conditionally baptised when they converted?