This reminds me. I received all my Sacraments in the NO. Are they all(bar, presumably Baptism) invalid?
This reminds me. I received all my Sacraments in the NO. Are they all(bar, presumably Baptism) invalid?I definitely want to be conditionally Confirmed.
The use of vegetable oil for Extreme Unction (or its diluted counterpart, "Anointing of the Sick" in the conciliar religion) would almost certainly be invalidating.
In fact, I feel guilty adding in the "almost."
St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the sacrament was instituted by Christ Himself, and that oil properly speaking is olive oil (i.e., Everything else we call oil is so-called merely for its likeness to [olive] oil, but is not truly "oil").
It would be analogous to attempting to confect the Eucharist with Sake (i.e., Japanese rice "wine"): Rice "wine" is not really any wine at all (wine is exclusively derived from the grape), but is merely called "wine" because of its likeness to it.
Here is St. Thomas (Be sure to read at least article 3-4):
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5029.htm#article3 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5029.htm#article3)
Article 4. Whether olive oil is a suitable matter for this sacrament?
Objection 1. It would seem that olive oil is not a suitable matter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) for this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm). For this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) is ordained immediately to the state of incorruption. Now incorruption is signified by balsam which is contained in chrism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03696b.htm). Therefore chrism would be a more suitable matter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) for this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm).
Objection 2. Further, this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) is a spiritual (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14220b.htm) healing. Now spiritual (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14220b.htm) healing is signified by the use of wine, as may be gathered from the parable of the wounded man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) (Luke 10:34 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk010.htm#verse34)). Therefore wine also would be more suitable a matter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) for this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm).
Objection 3. [Conciliar/Paul VI argument] Further, where there is the greater danger, the remedy should be a common one. But olive oil is not a common remedy, since the olive is not found in every country. Therefore, since this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) is given to the dying, who are in the greatest danger, it seems that olive oil is not a suitable matter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm).
On the contrary, oil is appointed (James 5:14 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/jam005.htm#verse14)) as the matter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) of this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm). Now, properly speaking, oil is none but olive oil. Therefore this is the matter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) of this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm).
Further, spiritual (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14220b.htm) healing is signified by anointing with oil, as is evident from Isaiah 1:6 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/isa001.htm#verse6) where we read: ". . . swelling sores: they are not . . . dressed nor fomented with oil." Therefore the suitable matter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) for this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) is oil.
I answer that, The spiritual (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14220b.htm) healing, which is given at the end of life, ought to be complete, since there is no other to follow; it ought also to be gentle, lest hope, of which the dying stand in utmost need, be shattered rather than fostered. Now oil has a softening effect, it penetrates to the very heart of a thing, and spreads over it. Hence, in both the foregoing respects, it is a suitable matter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) for this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm). And since oil is, above all, the name of the liquid extract of olives, for other liquids are only called oil from their likeness to it, it follows that olive oil is the matter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) which should be employed in this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm).
Reply to Objection 1. The incorruption of glory (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06585a.htm) is something not contained in this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm): and there is no need for the matter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) to signify such a thing. Hence it is not necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) for balsam to be included in the matter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm) of this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm), because on account of its fragrance it is indicative of a good name (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12776c.htm), which is no longer necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm), for its own sake, to those who are dying; they need only a clear conscience (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04268a.htm) which is signified by oil.
Reply to Objection 2. Wine heals by its roughness, oil by its softness, wherefore healing with wine pertains to Penance rather than to this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm).
Reply to [conciliar/Paul VI argument] Objection 3. Though olive oil is not produced everywhere, yet it can easily be transported from one place to another. Moreover this sacrament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) is not so necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) that the dying cannot obtain salvation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm) without it."
Paul VI saying the opposite in his promulgation of November 5, 1972:
"Further, since olive oil, which hitherto had been prescribed for the valid administration of the sacrament, is unobtainable or difficult to obtain in some parts of the world, we decreed, at the request of numerous bishops, that in the future, according to the circuмstances, oil of another sort could also be used, provided it were obtained from plants, inasmuch as this more closely resembles the matter indicated in Holy Scripture."
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6ANOIN.HTM (https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6ANOIN.HTM)
PS: They also changed the form of the sacrament.
I definitely want to be conditionally Confirmed.I'd say the risk of having been invalidly baptized in the NO is pretty low...but I could be wrong. In fact I've never known the society to conditionally baptize anyone who had been baptized in the NO.
Hopefully I was validly baptized! Lol
I'd say the risk of having been invalidly baptized in the NO is pretty low...but I could be wrong. In fact I've never known the society to conditionally baptize anyone who had been baptized in the NO.
Where did he say the Chrismal Mass?At the SAJM seminary/the Dominican's chapel.
Yes, when you consider what it takes to make a valid Baptism, I'd say every Novus Ordo Baptism is valid:How in your mind would this apply to Baptist baptisms?
1. Water must be used, holy water preferred (doubtful or invalid: any other liquid)
2. Anyone can perform the ceremony validly, even a layman (even a Freemason, as long as he intends to "do what the Church does".)
3. While pouring the water over the person's head (water must contact the skin), the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
(Invalid: "I baptize you in the name of the Trinity", "Welcome to the club/team/Church!")
Holy Spirit works just as well, being an equally accurate translation of "Spiritus Sancti".
So what, exactly, would Novus priests be doing wrong to make the Sacrament invalid?
How in your mind would this apply to Baptist baptisms?Someone does not need to know (or even believe) all the theology behind a sacrament to "do what the church does". The intent to "do what the church does" is manifested by doing the rite correctly.
I assume point #3 wouldn't make an immersion baptism invalid, though maybe I'm wrong about that. But my question more relates to #2. Is a baptism performed by a minister who believes its just a symbol "intending to do what the Church does?" Why or why not?
Yes, when you consider what it takes to make a valid Baptism, I'd say every Novus Ordo Baptism is valid:I would only question their intention. Granted, I’m very scrupulous, so I have doubts about EVERYTHING.
1. Water must be used, holy water preferred (doubtful or invalid: any other liquid)
2. Anyone can perform the ceremony validly, even a layman (even a Freemason, as long as he intends to "do what the Church does".)
3. While pouring the water over the person's head (water must contact the skin), the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
(Invalid: "I baptize you in the name of the Trinity", "Welcome to the club/team/Church!")
Holy Spirit works just as well, being an equally accurate translation of "Spiritus Sancti".
So what, exactly, would Novus priests be doing wrong to make the Sacrament invalid?
I would only question their intention. Granted, I’m very scrupulous, so I have doubts about EVERYTHING.This is mostly correct, but the baptiser must intend to baptise them in the name of the Christian God. I don't say triune because actually certain non-Trinitarian baptisms such as Arian ones were regarded as valid, so they can misunderstand or belief falsely about God, but these beliefs must emerge out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. This may sound redundant, since people who don't believe even in a heretical version of the Christian God wouldn't say "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", right? But actually it applies to some "Christian" denominations such as Mormons, who do say those exact words, but whose beliefs about God are so divergent and defy so many basic Christian beliefs that it cannot be seen as a mere misunderstanding of God's nature, but as a different religion entirely. Whereas Arians and co. hold heretical beliefs about God, those can be seen as misunderstandings, but the Mormons actually believe in different God(s) entirely, they just call them by the same names. So Mormon baptisms are invalid, despite giving the proper form. See the following link:
I was doing some research on Sacramental intention. What I found was that the minister does not have to “intend to do what the Church intends”, they only have to “intend to do what the Church does”.
Is this correct?
Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of Trinitarian faith, as for example in the case of the Arians.
...
There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity ... God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, ... has a wife ...
As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.
Someone does not need to know (or even believe) all the theology behind a sacrament to "do what the church does". The intent to "do what the church does" is manifested by doing the rite correctly.was rereading this thread and recently read a certain article on 1P5 and another question came to my mind.
For baptism, the form is spelled out in Scripture, so many mainline Protestants do that correctly. Some denominations may not follow or not always follow the specified form sufficiently.
The water signifies cleansing. The Roman rite uses pouring, so it emphasizes that the water needs to flow. But in an immersion baptism, the signification of cleaning is rather difficult to avoid.
usually in baptist baptisms (at the least all of the ones i’ve ever seen) the “minister” recites the form, and then dunks the person in the water right after he finishes talking. is that a potential validity issue since technically the minister isn’t administering water “while” reciting the words?I have two reference manuals for sacramental moral theology.
But the intent must be to baptise in some understanding of the Christian God.The Christian God is not the same as the christian god.
But isn't the 'Chrism Mass' itself a Bugnini innovation? In the Missale Romanum published by Pope Pius V after the Sacred Council of Trent, and thereafter until Bugnini, Holy Oils are consecrated during the sole Mass on Maundy Thursday, not at a separate Mass.Do you have a reference to support that assertion?
Surely 'pre-Bugnini Chrism Masses' per se did not exist. Prior to 1956 in Cathedral churches Pontifical Mass with the Consecration of the Oils were celebrated on Maundy Thursday.I suppose if the last supper mass is in the morning, there wouldn't be much time for another mass.
I suppose if the last supper mass is in the morning, there wouldn't be much time for another mass.Wow! Thank you for that excellent reference! It's great CathInfo has a liturgical scholar amongst its contributors. Do you know whether His Excellency used the Gelasian sacramentary's Chrism Mass?
The Gelasian sacramentary has separate Chrism and Last Supper masses for holy Thursday. They must have merged before Trent.
From Pius XII’s Maxima Redemptions:
7. On Holy Thursday, the Mass of the Chrism is celebrated after Terce, but the Mass of the Lord’s Supper must be celebrated in the evening, at the most suitable hour; not, however, before 5 nor after 8p.m.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11136 (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11136)
Prior to this, there was no separate chrismal Mass:
First, that before the Holy Week reforms of 1955 under Pius XII, there was no separate ritual Chrism Mass to speak of! Some of you liturgy enthusiasts out there already know that, in the rules of the Tridentine liturgy before 1955, all the Holy Week liturgies (and all other Masses through the year except for the midnight Mass of Christmas) were celebrated in the morning. The blessing of oils were performed by the bishop at the usual Mass of the Lord's Supper at the cathedral. Since parish priests would be celebrating the same Missa in Cena Domini at their parishes, there was no notion of gathering the whole presbytery together for one Mass, either.
http://modernmedievalism.blogspot.com/2018/03/hail-holy-chrism.html?m=1 (http://modernmedievalism.blogspot.com/2018/03/hail-holy-chrism.html?m=1)
Do you know whether His Excellency used the Gelasian sacramentary's Chrism Mass?He probably used the Pius XII holy week, no?
Regarding Baptism, Fr. Paul Trinchard (May he RIP) told us at a conference in New Orleans that many dioceses in the U. S. were using manuals with the intention that the child is born into the world which is in the state of original sin, not that the child had original sin. The society reconditionally baptized 3 of my children. I wasn't taking any chances, as you can't get into heaven without it.Oh wow. That... is actually pretty scary.