The Council of Trent defined that three sacraments, namely: baptism, confirmation, and holy orders can be received only once. However, in in case of reasonable doubt about whether one of those sacraments was validly received, it can be administered conditionally. It mostly happens regarding baptisms. It seems that within the Church, the SSPX is the only organization performing conditional ordinations to NO priests, but this only for particular cases.

This alone proves that if for whatever reason, a sacrament is doubtful, that does not automatically make it invalid. Otherwise, there would not even exist a way to re-administer such sacraments "conditionally" nor would exist Church - approved specific formulas for such events. If that was the case, and a doubtful sacrament were necessarily an invalid sacrament, then the Church would teach that such sacrament must be again received absolutely from the start, but this is not so because of the great gravity of receiving such sacraments twice, as declared in Trent.

Quote from: Cantarella

The Council of Trent defined that three sacraments, namely: baptism, confirmation, and holy orders can be received only once. However, in in case of reasonable doubt about whether one of those sacraments was validly received, it can be administered conditionally. It mostly happens regarding baptisms. It seems that within the Church, the SSPX is the only organization performing conditional ordinations to NO priests, but this only for particular cases.

This alone proves that if for whatever reason, a sacrament is doubtful, that does not automatically make it invalid. Otherwise, there would not even exist a way to re-administer such sacraments "conditionally" nor would exist Church - approved specific formulas for such events. If that was the case, and a doubtful sacrament were necessarily an invalid sacrament, then the Church would teach that such sacrament must be again received absolutely from the start, but this is not so because of the great gravity of receiving such sacraments twice, as declared in Trent.

Why do you parade here in these forums as if you were a learned theologian when in reality you know nothing and are in grave error in so many things? Why do you presume to teach others being in grave error yourself? It is really intolerable to see such a thing. I feel what they call pena ajena seeing such a thing.

You should learn some humility, get off these forums for a while, and go read some actual theological works, instead of pretending to be an arrogant know-it-all here when like I said in reality you know nothing.

It really is embarrassing.

[11] Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed; then Eve. [14] And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: Cantarella

The Council of Trent defined that three sacraments, namely: baptism, confirmation, and holy orders can be received only once. However, in in case of reasonable doubt about whether one of those sacraments was validly received, it can be administered conditionally. It mostly happens regarding baptisms. It seems that within the Church, the SSPX is the only organization performing conditional ordinations to NO priests, but this only for particular cases.

This alone proves that if for whatever reason, a sacrament is doubtful, that does not automatically make it invalid. Otherwise, there would not even exist a way to re-administer such sacraments "conditionally" nor would exist Church - approved specific formulas for such events. If that was the case, and a doubtful sacrament were necessarily an invalid sacrament, then the Church would teach that such sacrament must be again received absolutely from the start, but this is not so because of the great gravity of receiving such sacraments twice, as declared in Trent.

Why do you parade here in these forums as if you were a learned theologian when in reality you know nothing and are in grave error in so many things? Why do you presume to teach others being in grave error yourself? It is really intolerable to see such a thing. I feel what they call pena ajena seeing such a thing.

You should learn some humility, get off these forums for a while, and go read some actual theological works, instead of pretending to be an arrogant know-it-all here when like I said in reality you know nothing.

It really is embarrassing.

Quote from: St Paul's 1st Letter to Timothy, Ch. 2

[11] Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed; then Eve. [14] And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.

Quote from: Nishant

Mith, if we accept your method of proceeding, please delineate for me what constitutes the essential form in the Coptic and Maronite rites, which part signifies the grace of the Holy Ghost (G) and which signifies the specific power of Order (P) conferred. We can begin with the traditional Roman form, in fact, which is "Complete in Thy priest the fullness of Thy ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing.”

Nishant,

If we argue for the integrity of the NREC's essential form based on the legacy of these Eastern rites, it would be on the basis of the Church's traditional acceptance of said rites, as Pius XII taught "and [forms] which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense [of expressing the effects of the sacrament]."

Why does the Church even have such a thing as administering sacraments “Conditionally” if doubtful sacraments are no sacrament at all? Why did the Church make it a sacrilege and why not simply re-administer doubtful sacraments? I'd like these questions answered please.

Stubborn (and any other anti-SV, like Nishant and the even more stubborn than Stubborn ignorant woman-"theologian" Cantarella) really needs to answer what Mithrandylan said here, although I would bet $100 he won't, since he hasn't yet of course.

If you believe with the certainty of faith that Paul VI was [not] a true pope, then you must accept [deny] without question the validity of this rite.

The only sacrament which bears an assumption of validity until proven invalid is marriage.

Any other sacrament is presumed valid if and when the proper form and matter are present.  If there is a doubt to the form and/or matter, the sacrament is doubtful (or invalid) and treated as invalid; and then must be administered either conditionally, absolutely (or not at all in a rare case where the Church rules definitively in favor of validity).

If you think about it, this makes sense.  No one is bound to recognize (for example) a "baptism" administered with what reeks of vinegar, or a "consecration" of a chocolate chip cookie.  Much less are they bound to presume such sacraments as valid until the Church says otherwise.  The presumption of validity depends first on the presence of proper form and matter.  In the case of the NREC, it's the very form of the sacrament which is in question, so it cannot possibly be presumed valid if the form is doubtful.  That's a perfectly circular type of reasoning.

Allow me to draw your attention to the fact that a doubtful sacrament may in fact be valid.  The problem is that "may" be valid is not a good enough level of certainty to presume it to be valid.  That is why I quoted Connell, Prummer and others earlier-- they are drawing our attention to this fact: nothing short of moral certainty satisfies when approaching sacraments.  We cannot approach sacraments under the auspices that they "may" be valid, we can only approach them lawfully under moral certainty that they are valid.

That being said, in this particular case, I don't even think it's correct to say that the NREC "may" be valid.  I think the probability of it's validity is very slim; but even if the probability of it's validity was very likely, so long as it's validity falls short of moral certainty, it cannot be regarded or presumed as valid.  To say the NREC "may" be valid, in my mind, is like saying "I may not die if I dive off of this ten story building".

On the Sacraments in general:
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that a minister,[/b] being in mortal sin,-if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament,-neither effects, nor confers the sacrament; let him be anathema.

Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.

This is the authority on which you rely to contend the NREC is valid?  An authority which admits that there is no coherent and literal consecration, but a "dispersed" and "integrated" succession of thanksgiving, praise and intercession which brings about the Holy Species?  

When he was prepared for the redemptive passion, in the bread which by Him was blessed, broken and divided unto His holy apostles, He gave us His propitiatory Body for life eternal.

Likewise, also in the cup which by Him was signed, sanctified and and given to His holy apostles, He gave us His propitiatory Blood for life eternal.

And with these He added this admonition, saying: So often as You partake of these, make remembrance of My death, My burial and My resurrection until I come.

100% Novus Ordo