Author Topic: Validity of Thuc Bishops questioned yet again..... (Read 13999 times)

curioustrad · « **Reply #105 on:** February 14, 2017, 11:15:25 AM »

I think you fail to distinguish between the act and the intention. Use a parallel case in moral theology - sin is in the intention, not necessarily in the act.

curioustrad · « **Reply #106 on:** February 14, 2017, 11:19:39 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: curioustrad
No. My position is "They must intend to do what the Church intends to do whatever it is even if they don't fully understand. They don't need an explicit intention of remitting sin." What you claim is my postion isn't the Catholic position. I have never held this position. You are characterizing my position falsely.

So articulate in a sentence what they must intend. How would they "implicitly" intend to remit sin? There's no way some pagan could implicitly intend to remit sin.

Sentence: The pagan, would pour water, over the head of the subject, intending to do whatever the subject's Church held the action of pouring water signified.

From which: intention and signification.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #107 on:** February 14, 2017, 11:22:39 AM »

Quote from: curioustrad

I think you fail to distinguish between the act and the intention. Use a parallel case in moral theology - sin is in the intention, not necessarily in the act.

No, I am not failing to distinguish.

We are discussing the OBJECT of the intention required for validity.

I gave an example. Someone saying the words (doing the act) but only intending to be PRACTICING the ceremony and not actually peforming it.

WHAT do I INTEND?

my positon: "I intend to do this thing that the Catholic Church does, this Baptism thing. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo, but I'm doing it to console these people who are distraught." -- VALID

This would be INVALID according to your position.

But then you explain what kind of intention a pagan could have that could result in a valid Sacrament ... based on your position.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #108 on:** February 14, 2017, 11:25:00 AM »

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: curioustrad
No. My position is "They must intend to do what the Church intends to do whatever it is even if they don't fully understand. They don't need an explicit intention of remitting sin." What you claim is my postion isn't the Catholic position. I have never held this position. You are characterizing my position falsely.

So articulate in a sentence what they must intend. How would they "implicitly" intend to remit sin? There's no way some pagan could implicitly intend to remit sin.

Sentence: The pagan, would pour water, over the head of the subject, intending to do whatever the subject's Church held the action of pouring water signified.

From which: intention and signification.

No pagan could ever intend that. Sorry.

curioustrad · « **Reply #109 on:** February 14, 2017, 11:26:16 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: curioustrad
I think you fail to distinguish between the act and the intention. Use a parallel case in moral theology - sin is in the intention, not necessarily in the act.

No, I am not failing to distinguish.

We are discussing the OBJECT of the intention required for validity.

I gave an example. Someone saying the words (doing the act) but only intending to be PRACTICING the ceremony and not actually peforming it.

WHAT do I INTEND? Not to confect a Sacrament

my positon: "I intend to do this thing that the Catholic Church does, this Baptism thing. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo, but I'm doing it to console these people who are distraught." -- VALID No I agree with you

This would be INVALID according to your position.

But then you explain what kind of intention a pagan could have that could result in a valid Sacrament ... based on your position.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #110 on:** February 14, 2017, 11:26:38 AM »

Pagan: "I intend to do this thing that the Catholic Church does, this Baptism thing. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo, but I'm doing it to console these people who are distraught."

I hold this to be valid.

Do you?

curioustrad · « **Reply #111 on:** February 14, 2017, 11:27:17 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: curioustrad
No. My position is "They must intend to do what the Church intends to do whatever it is even if they don't fully understand. They don't need an explicit intention of remitting sin." What you claim is my postion isn't the Catholic position. I have never held this position. You are characterizing my position falsely.

So articulate in a sentence what they must intend. How would they "implicitly" intend to remit sin? There's no way some pagan could implicitly intend to remit sin.

Sentence: The pagan, would pour water, over the head of the subject, intending to do whatever the subject's Church held the action of pouring water signified.

From which: intention and signification.

No pagan could ever intend that. Sorry.

But that's what the Church teaches exactly.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #112 on:** February 14, 2017, 11:27:54 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Pagan: "I intend to do this thing that the Catholic Church does, this Baptism thing. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo, but I'm doing it to console these people who are distraught."

I hold this to be valid.

Do you?

Seems like you just answered.

You cannot possibly hold this to be valid based on the position you articulated. Please explain HOW this can be valid according to your principles."

curioustrad · « **Reply #113 on:** February 14, 2017, 11:30:26 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Pagan: "I intend to do this thing that the Catholic Church does, this Baptism thing. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo, but I'm doing it to console these people who are distraught."

I hold this to be valid.

Do you?

It's valid because they had the intention to do what the Church does - that's enough.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #114 on:** February 14, 2017, 11:37:30 AM »

Quote from: curioustrad

But that's what the Church teaches exactly.

And this teaching of the Church backs my position. That's the entire point.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #115 on:** February 14, 2017, 11:38:39 AM »

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote from: Ladislaus
Pagan: "I intend to do this thing that the Catholic Church does, this Baptism thing. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo, but I'm doing it to console these people who are distraught."

I hold this to be valid.

Do you?

It's valid because they had the intention to do what the Church does - that's enough.

Correct. WHAT the Church does.

He's intending to PERFORM THE CEREMONY and nothing more. So intending to PERFORM THE CEREMONY suffices for validity.

curioustrad · « **Reply #116 on:** February 14, 2017, 12:15:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: Ladislaus
Pagan: "I intend to do this thing that the Catholic Church does, this Baptism thing. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo, but I'm doing it to console these people who are distraught."

I hold this to be valid.

Do you?

It's valid because they had the intention to do what the Church does - that's enough.

Correct. WHAT the Church does.

He's intending to PERFORM THE CEREMONY and nothing more. So intending to PERFORM THE CEREMONY suffices for validity.

No. There are two issues at stake.

1/ Intention: To do what the Church does = perform the ceremony (whatever it signifies)

2/ Signification: What the ceremony signifies the laver of regeneration

If they merely perform the ceremony for the ceremony's sake alone - Nego

If they perform the ceremony for whatever significance that is attached to it - Concedo.

Do they need an explicit understanding of the signification ? - Nego

Must they have confused sense of doing whatever the thing signifies ? Concedo

With these qualifications I accept the case you presented since I believe if fits the criteria.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #117 on:** February 14, 2017, 12:40:14 PM »

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: Ladislaus
Pagan: "I intend to do this thing that the Catholic Church does, this Baptism thing. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo, but I'm doing it to console these people who are distraught."

I hold this to be valid.

Do you?

It's valid because they had the intention to do what the Church does - that's enough.

Correct. WHAT the Church does.

He's intending to PERFORM THE CEREMONY and nothing more. So intending to PERFORM THE CEREMONY suffices for validity.

No. There are two issues at stake.

1/ Intention: To do what the Church does = perform the ceremony (whatever it signifies)

2/ Signification: What the ceremony signifies the laver of regeneration

If they merely perform the ceremony for the ceremony's sake alone - Nego

If they perform the ceremony for whatever significance that is attached to it - Concedo.

Do they need an explicit understanding of the signification ? - Nego

Must they have confused sense of doing whatever the thing signifies ? Concedo

With these qualifications I accept the case you presented since I believe if fits the criteria.

Sorry, but the pagan I cited hypothetically does NOT have the intention of performing what the ceremony signifies. He was not performing it for "whatever significance it had attached to it" but just as an act of kindness to console the people who asked for it. Yet you declared this valid. How?

curioustrad · « **Reply #118 on:** February 14, 2017, 01:00:57 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: curioustrad
Quote from: Ladislaus
Pagan: "I intend to do this thing that the Catholic Church does, this Baptism thing. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo, but I'm doing it to console these people who are distraught."

I hold this to be valid.

Do you?

It's valid because they had the intention to do what the Church does - that's enough.

Correct. WHAT the Church does.

He's intending to PERFORM THE CEREMONY and nothing more. So intending to PERFORM THE CEREMONY suffices for validity.

No. There are two issues at stake.

1/ Intention: To do what the Church does = perform the ceremony (whatever it signifies)

2/ Signification: What the ceremony signifies the laver of regeneration

If they merely perform the ceremony for the ceremony's sake alone - Nego

If they perform the ceremony for whatever significance that is attached to it - Concedo.

Do they need an explicit understanding of the signification ? - Nego

Must they have confused sense of doing whatever the thing signifies ? Concedo

With these qualifications I accept the case you presented since I believe if fits the criteria.

Sorry, but the pagan I cited hypothetically does NOT have the intention of performing what the ceremony signifies. He was not performing it for "whatever significance it had attached to it" but just as an act of kindness to console the people who asked for it. Yet you declared this valid. How?

So you intended the second sentence to negate the first ? Saints alive ! Glory be ! Well I'll be darned ! (So much for Baptism)

Quote

Yeah, yeah, the same crap we always here when someone can't actually argue the point. We're arguing about which theologian(s) are right. So if you don't want to argue, then shut up and get off the thread. It's been duly noted what one or another theologian thinks of the subject.

How could you spend hours poring over those theologians with books everywhere in the library and now arrive at the thought that quoting theologians is so much crap?

Over and out.

Arvinger · « **Reply #119 on:** February 14, 2017, 01:19:55 PM »

Quote from: curioustrad

2/ Signification: What the ceremony signifies the laver of regeneration

If they merely perform the ceremony for the ceremony's sake alone - Nego

Every baptizing pagan performs the ceremony for the sake of ceremony alone, because no pagan believes in the original sin or laver of regeneration - to believe that and intend what the ceremony signifies he would have to convert to Christianity. So, by your criteria, no pagan can ever validly baptize. Yet, the Church teaches a pagan can validby baptize. Thus, performing baptism for the sake of ceremony alone is sufficient for its validity - your position is refuted.