Author Topic: Were most 4th century sacraments invalid? (Read 2012 times)

MiserereMeiDeus · « **on:** August 22, 2013, 06:49:32 PM »

History tells us that almost the entire hierarchy and almost all the priests of the 4th century were Arian heretics. Did they cease to be Catholic? It would seem they would have to have. Are all the priests and bishops ordained and consecrated from the lines of those bishops invalid non-priests and non-bishops? It would seem so. Did they confect nothing, and give only bread and wine to the Faithful? Again, I would guess so. Were their absolutions worthless? Who dares say they weren't? Did countless Catholics go to hell as result of receiving bad sacraments, then and in subsequent centuries? Do the math: the vast majority of priests, bishops and popes since the 4th century couldn't have been real priests bishops or popes according to that line of reasoning. So is that the reality, or is there a flaw in the reasoning, and if so, where?

This isn't just idle speculation, or a twisted joke. This seems to have a real bearing on today's situation, and the arguments of those who have nothing but contempt for "una cuм" Catholics. I'm just trying to figure it out.

Matto · « **Reply #1 on:** August 22, 2013, 06:58:15 PM »

I am no expert, but here is my opinion: Even though most of the Arian priests were heretics, I think they still had a valid Eucharist because they did not change the sacrament, similar to how the "Orthodox" today have a valid Eucharist despite their schism and heresy. The Arians were true priests and bishops because they never changed the sacrament of Holy Orders just as the "Orthodox" are true priests and bishops today.

As far as confession goes, since they were heretics, I think they would have lost jurisdiction so that means that their confessions may or may not be valid, depending on whether or not they had supplied jurisdiction at the time. Let someone who knows more correct me if I am wrong.

Cathedra · « **Reply #2 on:** August 22, 2013, 08:26:55 PM »

Quote from: MiserereMeiDeus

History tells us that almost the entire hierarchy and almost all the priests of the 4th century were Arian heretics. Did they cease to be Catholic? It would seem they would have to have. Are all the priests and bishops ordained and consecrated from the lines of those bishops invalid non-priests and non-bishops? It would seem so. Did they confect nothing, and give only bread and wine to the Faithful? Again, I would guess so. Were their absolutions worthless? Who dares say they weren't? Did countless Catholics go to hell as result of receiving bad sacraments, then and in subsequent centuries? Do the math: the vast majority of priests, bishops and popes since the 4th century couldn't have been real priests bishops or popes according to that line of reasoning. So is that the reality, or is there a flaw in the reasoning, and if so, where?

This isn't just idle speculation, or a twisted joke. This seems to have a real bearing on today's situation, and the arguments of those who have nothing but contempt for "una cuм" Catholics. I'm just trying to figure it out.

Ditto what Matto said.

Just because someone's a heretic doesn't mean the sacraments are invalid.

But just because they are valid doesn't mean they are licit or permissible.

"Whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned".

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #3 on:** August 22, 2013, 10:11:23 PM »

"An excommunicated person who still holds an office to which ordinary jurisdiction is attached, acts illicitly but validly until a condemnatory or declaratory judgment has been passed upon him; thereafter he acts invalidly (c. 2264)."
"A person who is suspended from jurisdiction similarly, acts illicitly but validly before, and invalidly after a condemnatory or declaratory judgment. (c. 2284)."

[A Commentary on Canon Law]

poche · « **Reply #4 on:** August 23, 2013, 04:04:51 AM »

Not everybody was a heretic. St Athanasius was a great saint. So were teh fathers of the desert. St Theophilus wasn't a heretic. Remember Jesus promised to be with us until the end of time.

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #5 on:** August 23, 2013, 11:52:52 AM »

Now then, going back to the parallels between the 4th century and today, if the invalidity doesn't kick in until after a formal "condemnatory or declaratory judgment" (assuming JAM is correct, which I'm not challenging), there seems to be a problem if we have a situation in which the pope is a heretic and hence not pope, and furthermore unwilling to condemn the very same heresy he upholds. Liberius, who excommunicated Athanasius, may have been such a one, and if the sedevacantists are right, we have the same situation with the Conciliar popes. Such a "pope" would let heresy slide, and even if he condemned someone for anything it wouldn't count because he really wasn't pope, at least in the thinking of many on this forum, and very possibly in actual fact. I say possibly because the Church is headless right now, either without a real pope, or at least without one who is doing his job, so there is no one in a position of authority to deal with this crisis--or if there is, he's awfully hard to find True, there are records of earlier de fide pronouncements, etc., but the interpretation of them is hotly contested. To a large extent we're on our own.
The biggest difference I see between the 4th century and now is the change to the Mass and sacraments, but despite the NO being flawed and easily abused, it's not crystal clear (intellectually as opposed to emotionally) that a properly said NO is so evil that the real Church can't possibly have promulgated it. Nor is it crystal clear that any or all the sacraments have all been ruined, despite problems with them.

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #6 on:** August 23, 2013, 08:36:03 PM »

The true Church offers a Sacrifice; the false Newchurch offers a memorial meal that becomes "for us" (their words) the Body and Blood.

The true Church has priests that offer a God-satisfying, sin-cleansing pure oblation. Newchurch offers a nice service and the promise of community with a presider.

Even if Paul the Sick's Mess was a valid Sacrifice of a Propitiatory offering, Newchurch has no bishops or priests to offer it. They have presiders and administrators of ministry.

The question in the 4th century was whether there was a valid Sacramental presence in the Church despite widespread heresy.

Of course there was, because:

Valid priests using

Valid form
+
Valid matter
+
Valid intent

= valid Sacraments.

A presider who is not ordained to offer sacrifice is just a man playing at blasphemous and sacrilegious dress-up games.

Kyrie eleison.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #7 on:** August 23, 2013, 09:13:07 PM »

From my perspective, there are few parallel situations that have occurred historically. The 4th century Arian heresy is a good parallel to our modern situation. Another parallel could be the environment Japanese Catholics found themselves in for about 300 years after the Faith was outlawed in their country. As I recall, Father Fred Schell S.J. once said to me that they maintained their Catholic Faith during those troubled times with Baptisms, true contrition for their sins, and by praying the Rosary.

Jehanne · « **Reply #8 on:** August 23, 2013, 10:02:33 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

"An excommunicated person who still holds an office to which ordinary jurisdiction is attached, acts illicitly but validly until a condemnatory or declaratory judgment has been passed upon him; thereafter he acts invalidly (c. 2264)."
"A person who is suspended from jurisdiction similarly, acts illicitly but validly before, and invalidly after a condemnatory or declaratory judgment. (c. 2284)."

[A Commentary on Canon Law]

Doesn't this canon refute the sede position?

Cathedra · « **Reply #9 on:** August 23, 2013, 10:32:37 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
"An excommunicated person who still holds an office to which ordinary jurisdiction is attached, acts illicitly but validly until a condemnatory or declaratory judgment has been passed upon him; thereafter he acts invalidly (c. 2264)."
"A person who is suspended from jurisdiction similarly, acts illicitly but validly before, and invalidly after a condemnatory or declaratory judgment. (c. 2284)."

[A Commentary on Canon Law]

Doesn't this canon refute the sede position?

NO, because that is referring to a MINOR excommunication.

Public Heretics and apostates lose all offices and jurisdiction.

St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

Will you ever learn anything?

Charlemagne · « **Reply #10 on:** August 24, 2013, 01:58:34 AM »

I would argue that the post-Pius XII claimants never held the office in the first place.

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #11 on:** August 24, 2013, 07:20:32 AM »

It's clear that Roncalli was (or would have been, assuming no loss of office due to heresy) validly ordained as a priest, Bishop and Pope, as were all the claimants until Ratzinger. He was validly ordained as a priest, but was not "installed" as a newbishop administrator until 1977.

Frank the Humble was never validly ordained as anything. He was installed as a presider over memorial meals and then 'elevated' to newbishop administrator long after the rites of Ordination had been done away with by Paul the Sick.

The question remains as to whether Roncalli was a Freemason and manifest heretic BEFORE he became Pope, which would invalidate his elevation to the See of Peter, because a heretic cannot be made Pope.

Many of those issues will be the ones that will have to be laid bare by our next Pontiff, whoever he may be. May Almighty God +bless us with a faithful and true pastor and shepherd of souls who imitates Our Lord, and deliver us from the clutches of these hirelings who devour the sheep and fatten their wallets as they curry favor with the Christ-killing enemies of the Faith.

Kyrie eleison.

Pope St. Pius V, pray for us.

Pope St. Pius X, pray for us.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #12 on:** August 25, 2013, 05:28:10 PM »

Quote from: Cathedra

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
"An excommunicated person who still holds an office to which ordinary jurisdiction is attached, acts illicitly but validly until a condemnatory or declaratory judgment has been passed upon him; thereafter he acts invalidly (c. 2264)."
"A person who is suspended from jurisdiction similarly, acts illicitly but validly before, and invalidly after a condemnatory or declaratory judgment. (c. 2284)."

[A Commentary on Canon Law]

Doesn't this canon refute the sede position?

NO, because that is referring to a MINOR excommunication.

Public Heretics and apostates lose all offices and jurisdiction.

St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

Will you ever learn anything?

What is the difference between a material heretic, a formal heretic, a manifest heretic and a pertinacious public heretic?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #13 on:** August 25, 2013, 06:05:35 PM »

Quote from: MiserereMeiDeus

Quote from: Cathedra
Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie
"An excommunicated person who still holds an office to which ordinary jurisdiction is attached, acts illicitly but validly until a condemnatory or declaratory judgment has been passed upon him; thereafter he acts invalidly (c. 2264)."
"A person who is suspended from jurisdiction similarly, acts illicitly but validly before, and invalidly after a condemnatory or declaratory judgment. (c. 2284)."

[A Commentary on Canon Law]

Doesn't this canon refute the sede position?

NO, because that is referring to a MINOR excommunication.

Public Heretics and apostates lose all offices and jurisdiction.

St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

Will you ever learn anything?

What is the difference between a material heretic, a formal heretic, a manifest heretic and a pertinacious public heretic?

A material heretic is someone who believes something contrary to Church dogma, but does not realize it. An 8 year old who thinks Jesus was brought to Mary by a stork is a material heretic. A material heretic's heresy is no less dangerous, but he is not guilty of the sin of heresy because he would follow what the Church taught if he knew what that was.

A formal heretic is someone who, knowing that the Church teaches X, chooses to believe Y instead.

Manifest and public heretics more or less mean the same thing. It simply means that the heretic is not private in his heresy-- which is obvious, because if he was, he wouldn't be known as a formal heretic! Pertinacity is an attribute of formal heresy, that is to say, one must pertinaciously believe the contrary dogma.

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #14 on:** August 25, 2013, 08:03:11 PM »

I believe there are over 400 excommunications most of them are medicinal, and only a few actually remove you from total membership in the Church. Its a gradual process especially if someone is leaning on dangerous ideas, so Holy Mother Church attempts its best to regain back the lost sheep. If anyone can give the exact amount I would greatly appreciate, this is what I can recall from memory.

+Pax Tecuм+