Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on January 19, 2018, 06:19:47 PM
-
I recently heard an SSPX priest state:
"The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are:
1) Form
2) Matter
3) Intention"
Question: Can anyone tell me what's wrong with that statement?
-
I recently heard an SSPX priest state:
"The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are:
1) Form
2) Matter
3) Intention"
Question: Can anyone tell me what's wrong with that statement?
Not enough information. Are you referring to "transubstantiation" here or the validity of all the Seven Sacraments? In case of Matrimony all the three above could be present but still be invalid b/c of the impediment of age, jurisdiction, first marriage with spouse still living and no annulment,etc. But in general the above criteria sounds like good Catholic sacramental theology.
-
Here's a hint:
There's actually a 4th criteria.
Anyone know what it is?
-
Here's a hint:
There's actually a 4th criteria.
Anyone know what it is?
It must be instituted by Jesus Christ!
-
It must be instituted by Jesus Christ!
Truly, but not what I am looking for.
Another hint:
If you were going to an FSSP Mass, this would be a concern.
-
Truly, but not what I am looking for.
Another hint:
If you were going to an FSSP Mass, this would be a concern.
Gotta be a valid priest.
-
Gotta be a valid priest.
Bingo!
1) Form
2) Matter
3) Intention
4) Valid Minister
In the conversation in which the SSPX priest mentioned the first three criteria, he was responding to a question as to whether or not the faithful could attend an FSSP Mass, and whether it would be valid.
Seems like the 4th criteria is no longer in the SSPX' s radar.
-
Hey Mr Johnson! This is fun. Give us another one.
-
Hey Mr Johnson! This is fun. Give us another one.
OK, in the same vein:
If an FSSP priest was ordained according to the traditional rite, why might one still have reservations about the validity of his sacraments?
-
OK, in the same vein:
If an FSSP priest was ordained according to the traditional rite, why might one still have reservations about the validity of his sacraments?
One might have reservations about the validity of the FSSP priest's sacraments if he himself were ordained by a bishop who was consecrated according to the Novus Ordo rite.
-
seanjohnson - wouldn't this #4 traditionally fall under the category of #2 Matter firstly and #3 Intention secondarily? Because, it is certainly understood that if some layman says the words of consecration, nothing happens, implying the necessity of valid orders. I wasn't at this catechism class, so I cannot comment on the spirit of the session, but not mentioning this # 4 explicitly doesn't necessary alarm me.
I will grant that silence on the particulars concerning this subject(post v2 validity) while at the same time approaching Rome is very dangerous if not impossible to succeed without, that does not mean that accepting the validity of post v2 orders is wrong or a change of core belief. What the sspx needs to do is be open and explanatory about how exactly tradition can have relations with new church. Because, up until this point, the sspx code of conduct for relations with the NO has been practically schismatic(in some ways for good reason). And, that leaves everything in between no mans land, and that is a deadly area, which tradition and the sspx is partly to blame for, because it is inhabited.
Traditions problems do not revolve around validity of orders and their implication. That is an easy one. Traditions problems revolve around the legitimacy of orders, and their implication. I say this because concerning the clergy, the concern is legitimacy. Concerning the universal laity, the concern is validity. Those two statements entail much, and they need to be explained in our catechism classes. However, I would prefer to let the law of prayer establish the law of belief, because I don't much enjoy explaining it.
-
One might have reservations about the validity of the FSSP priest's sacraments if he himself were ordained by a bishop who was consecrated according to the Novus Ordo rite.
Bravo!
-
seanjohnson - wouldn't this #4 traditionally fall under the category of #2 Matter firstly and #3 Intention secondarily? Because, it is certainly understood that if some layman says the words of consecration, nothing happens, implying the necessity of valid orders. I wasn't at this catechism class, so I cannot comment on the spirit of the session, but not mentioning this # 4 explicitly doesn't necessary alarm me.
I will grant that silence on the particulars concerning this subject(post v2 validity) while at the same time approaching Rome is very dangerous if not impossible to succeed without, that does not mean that accepting the validity of post v2 orders is wrong or a change of core belief. What the sspx needs to do is be open and explanatory about how exactly tradition can have relations with new church. Because, up until this point, the sspx code of conduct for relations with the NO has been practically schismatic(in some ways for good reason). And, that leaves everything in between no mans land, and that is a deadly area, which tradition and the sspx is partly to blame for, because it is inhabited.
Traditions problems do not revolve around validity of orders and their implication. That is an easy one. Traditions problems revolve around the legitimacy of orders, and their implication. I say this because concerning the clergy, the concern is legitimacy. Concerning the universal laity, the concern is validity. Those two statements entail much, and they need to be explained in our catechism classes. However, I would prefer to let the law of prayer establish the law of belief, because I don't much enjoy explaining it.
Greetings PG-
No.
All four criteria are distinct, and none of them subsists in any of the others.
For example: A layman can feign a sacrament with valid matter, or a priest can feign a sacrament with invalid matter, etc.
-
seanjohnson - I actually meant to type form instead of matter, but it doesn't make much difference now because on second thought I actually think intention may be more important than form if your number 4 does fall under any category. Do you have an authoritative source proposing that there are four instead of three? Because, from memory, I only recall three being mentioned.
Another concern I have about this is that a number four is not something tangible. Matter can be observed(seen, felt, smelt, tasted and even heard). Form can be observed(heard and seen). Intention can be observed(seen and heard). From all of these, if they are or are not followed, one I image can deduce the validity of the sacrament and perhaps even the minister. Which, is why there would be three criteria, and not four. But, a number four is an invisible mark on the soul. It is definitely different from the other three. And, that may be the reason why the sspx bunches only the three together.
-
seanjohnson - I actually meant to type form instead of matter, but it doesn't make much difference now because on second thought I actually think intention may be more important than form if your number 4 does fall under any category. Do you have an authoritative source proposing that there are four instead of three? Because, from memory, I only recall three being mentioned.
Another concern I have about this is that a number four is not something tangible. Matter can be observed(seen, felt, smelt, tasted and even heard). Form can be observed(heard and seen). Intention can be observed(seen and heard). From all of these, if they are or are not followed, one I image can deduce the validity of the sacrament and perhaps even the minister. Which, is why there would be three criteria, and not four. But, a number four is an invisible mark on the soul. It is definitely different from the other three. And, that may be the reason why the sspx bunches only the three together.
Good Morning PG-
Can you absolve your mother's sins, or confect the Holy Eucharist?
Why not?
You are certainly able to muster proper form, matter, and intent.
But you are not a valid minister of those sacraments.
Hence, criteria #4 is lacking, and the sacraments would not be valid
Many of the manuals speak only of form, matter, and intent because the validity of the minister is presumed.
-
Bingo!
1) Form
2) Matter
3) Intention
4) Valid Minister
In the conversation in which the SSPX priest mentioned the first three criteria, he was responding to a question as to whether or not the faithful could attend an FSSP Mass, and whether it would be valid.
Seems like the 4th criteria is no longer in the SSPX' s radar.
Seems to me that this hasn't been on their radar since they changed their position on the validity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration in 2005 when Ratzinger became "pope".
-
Seems to me that this hasn't been on their radar since they changed their position on the validity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration in 2005 when Ratzinger became "pope".
Agreed.
-
Here are a couple arguments in favor of the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration:
1) http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2551
2) http://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations (Note: This is actually the study of Fr. Pierre Marie, O.P. - Avrille)
Here are a few against the validity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration:
1) http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpCelierWeb.pdf
2) http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf
3) http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NotTruBps1.pdf
4) http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/06/21/saved-by-context-the-68-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-2/
Or, if you are not a reader:
5) http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/06/1968-rite-of-episcopal-consecration-valid-or-no/
Note: Fr. Cekada is a sedevacantist, and (as most know) I do not endorse his position on the issue of the Pope. But the determination of the validity or invalidity of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration is a separate issue, and one which need not be confined to sedevacantist circles.
-
I don't think you can separate out those issues. The pope is the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, if the NREC is invalid or at least doubtful, then the papacy of a man consecrated by it is logically called into question...which is why the SSPX changed its tune in 2005.
-
I don't think you can separate out those issues. The pope is the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, if the NREC is invalid or at least doubtful, then the papacy of a man consecrated by it is logically called into question...which is why the SSPX changed its tune in 2005.
Many would make that very argument.
For myself, the whole matter is so complex and beyond my own comprehension and abilities, that any decision would be rash.
Consequently, I choose to presume the legitimacy of the current/recent Popes until the Church says otherwise, which seems the safest course.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
I would back away from my previous statement (i.e., That the validity or invalidity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration is not strictly a sedevacantist issue) before I would back away from this one.
-
Note: Fr. Cekada is a sedevacantist, and (as most know) I do not endorse his position on the issue of the Pope. But the determination of the validity or invalidity of the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration is a separate issue, and one which need not be confined to sedevacantist circles.
Yes and no. Agree with 2V here. I hold that the Catholic Church could never promulgate an invalid rite of consecration ... that would be contrary to the Church's disciplinary infallibility and overall indefectibility. So, if there's a positive doubt about the validity of this rite, then there's necessarily a positive doubt about the legitimacy of the papal claimant who promulgated it.
-
Many would make that very argument.
For myself, the whole matter is so complex and beyond my own comprehension and abilities, that any decision would be rash.
Consequently, I choose to presume the legitimacy of the current/recent Popes until the Church says otherwise, which seems the safest course.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
I would back away from my previous statement (i.e., That the validity or invalidity of the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration is not strictly a sedevacantist issue) before I would back away from this one.
But even if you entertain the possibility that it may be invalid, then you no longer have certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of these papal claimants ... and certainty of faith is necessary regarding the dogmatic fact of who the pope is. Presumption of legitimacy doesn't suffice. In normal times, Catholics have absolute certainty of faith.
-
All I know is that there's enough doubt here where I would not go to Confession to a priest who was ordained by a bishop consecrated in this rite ... except in extremely dire circuмstances.
-
Bingo!
1) Form
2) Matter
3) Intention
4) Valid Minister
In the conversation in which the SSPX priest mentioned the first three criteria, he was responding to a question as to whether or not the faithful could attend an FSSP Mass, and whether it would be valid.
Seems like the 4th criteria is no longer in the SSPX' s radar.
In the good old days, SSPX generally subjected NO priests to conditional ordination (with one or two notable exceptions from those who refused to submit). Now they take validity for granted and in the interests of not rubbing Rome the wrong way will not even hint that there's any doubt. So they have to drop this piece.
-
But even if you entertain the possibility that it may be invalid, then you no longer have certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of these papal claimants ... and certainty of faith is necessary regarding the dogmatic fact of who the pope is. Presumption of legitimacy doesn't suffice. In normal times, Catholics have absolute certainty of faith.
On the contrary:
It is the dogmatic fact which compels the presumption.
-
All I know is that there's enough doubt here where I would not go to Confession to a priest who was ordained by a bishop consecrated in this rite ... except in extremely dire circuмstances.
Exactly my position.
-
In the good old days, SSPX generally subjected NO priests to conditional ordination (with one or two notable exceptions from those who refused to submit). Now they take validity for granted and in the interests of not rubbing Rome the wrong way will not even hint that there's any doubt. So they have to drop this piece.
Agreed.
-
Bingo!
1) Form
2) Matter
3) Intention
4) Valid Minister
In the conversation in which the SSPX priest mentioned the first three criteria, he was responding to a question as to whether or not the faithful could attend an FSSP Mass, and whether it would be valid.
Seems like the 4th criteria is no longer in the SSPX' s radar.
If you want to call "valid minister" #4, which is generally assumed, you also need to have a #5 "recipient must be in the right state" which is also assumed.
-
If you want to call "valid minister" #4, which is generally assumed, you also need to have a #5 "recipient must be in the right state" which is also assumed.
Except this is about the valid confection of a sacrament, not valid reception.
-
correction
-
Good Morning PG-
Can you absolve your mother's sins, or confect the Holy Eucharist?
Why not?
You are certainly able to muster proper form, matter, and intent.
But you are not a valid minister of those sacraments.
Hence, criteria #4 is lacking, and the sacraments would not be valid
Many of the manuals speak only of form, matter, and intent because the validity of the minister is presumed.
I disagree with you here just like I disagree with +Williamson that satanic mass consecrated hosts are "certainly valid". I cannot muster up proper intent, because the church never intended for laymen to administer those sacraments granted even with proper form and matter, which is also a stretch. Therefore I cannot muster up proper intent. Because, the church requires the sacrament of orders. Valid minister falls under the criteria category of intent.
I mention proper form and matter as also being a stretch, because I have been to many novus ordo masses, and I have observed many liberal novus ordo ministers struggle with proper form to a degree that the occurrence is notable and similar. Many novus ordo ministers seem to have a real problem with getting the form right for what seems to be no apparent reason(other than reading comprehension). It is not like it is in latin. They just cannot even say the words in modern english. It is like cat has got their tongue.
And, then there are novus ordo priests who can get form correct. And, there is also an observable difference between those novus ordo priests who can get the form correct and those who cannot get the form correct. Those who get the form correct try at the very least(sadly in none the less inadequate ways) but in noticeable enough ways to keep with/respect tradition.
-
Except this is about the valid confection of a sacrament, not valid reception.
That wasn't in your question:
"The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are.."
-
On the contrary:
It is the dogmatic fact which compels the presumption.
Then you shouldn't be questioning the validity of a rite given to the Church by the Pope.
-
Then you shouldn't be questioning the validity of a rite given to the Church by the Pope.
Please explain.
-
OK, in the same vein:
If an FSSP priest was ordained according to the traditional rite, why might one still have reservations about the validity of his sacraments?
While I completely agree about #4 and have lived that conviction my whole life and I personally believe there are many invalid NO priests and bishops etc. out there, there are two other trains of thought to consider.
1) The Church, by divine right being the only safeguard, holder and defender of the sacraments in this world, has always and everywhere presumed validity of all the sacraments until or unless proven otherwise. This includes NO consecrations/ordinations, which are of course, the sacrament of Holy Orders.
To presume invalidity without first proving invalidity, is denying the divine prerogative given to the Church to defend, protect and preserve the sacraments till the end of the world. IOW, presuming automatic invalidity means the Church is not defending, protecting or preserving anything at all, not even thin air.
2) If we presume validity as does the Church, then the valid NO consecrations / ordinations are exponentially (infinitely?) more sacrilegious and damaging than if they were invalid. It is this fact, in and of itself, which gives us the right, nay the duty, to completely avoid the entire NO. I know some will not grasp this reality, hence won't understand it this way and instead will insist positive invalidity as if such a thing can even be known, but that is not how it works.
In the grand scheme of things it (validity/invalidity) is actually an academic point because as long as the NO priests and bishops etc. continue in their abominations, we can have no part of it, and this is true whether they are valid or invalid.
-
While I completely agree about #4 and have lived that conviction my whole life and I personally believe there are many invalid NO priests and bishops etc. out there, there are two other trains of thought to consider.
1) The Church, by divine right being the only safeguard, holder and defender of the sacraments in this world, has always and everywhere presumed validity of all the sacraments until or unless proven otherwise. This includes NO consecrations/ordinations, which are of course, the sacrament of Holy Orders.
To presume invalidity without first proving invalidity, is denying the divine prerogative given to the Church to defend, protect and preserve the sacraments till the end of the world. IOW, presuming automatic invalidity means the Church is not defending, protecting or preserving anything at all, not even thin air.
2) If we presume validity as does the Church, then the valid NO consecrations / ordinations are exponentially (infinitely?) more sacrilegious and damaging than if they were invalid. It is this fact, in and of itself, which gives us the right, nay the duty, to completely avoid the entire NO. I know some will not grasp this reality, hence won't understand it this way and instead will insist positive invalidity as if such a thing can even be known, but that is not how it works.
In the grand scheme of things it (validity/invalidity) is actually an academic point because as long as the NO priests and bishops etc. continue in their abominations, we can have no part of it, and this is true whether they are valid or invalid.
Hi Stubborn-
Good post.
Just for clarification as regards my own personal position:
I do not presume invalidity.
Rather, I have a positive doubt regarding the form (which may or may not be invalidating).
But that positive doubt compels me to abstain from the conciliar/indult sacraments, except in case of extreme necessity (when you would have nothing to lose by chancing reception of a doubtful sacrament)
Which is another way of saying: I do not consider them invalid, but doubtful or uncertain.
-
Hi Stubborn-
Good post.
Just for clarification as regards my own personal position:
I do not presume invalidity.
Rather, I have a positive doubt regarding the form (which may or may not be invalidating).
But that positive doubt compels me to abstain from the conciliar/indult sacraments, except in case of extreme necessity (when you would have nothing to lose by chancing reception of a doubtful sacrament)
Which is another way of saying: I do not consider them invalid, but doubtful or uncertain.
Sad to say it, but under the current circuмstances, it is as if we should hope for that which prior to this crisis would be blasphemy - namely, to hope that they are all invalid - so that their sacrileges would be less grievous. But personally, I do not believe that to be the case. I think that God endures the innumerable and abominable sacrileges at the hands of valid clergy for a few sincere souls who might somehow benefit from them. Not sure I'm saying that right but I think you get my drift. I do not agree with +Williamson that attending the NOM can be a help for some people - unless if they wake up to see it for what it is and run from it, but that's not what he meant.
I sometimes think that it is best to consider them all valid so as to have an even greater conviction against the sacrileges they commit, which, being valid clergy, means that the sacrileges and abominations are that much more grievous to Our Lord - and this certainly would fit in this crisis like a glove - and valid clergy scandalizing and sinning all over the place is what would serve the devil best.
At any rate, I don't know where the idea comes from that the SSPX do not investigate or conditionally ordain any NO priest converts any longer. Over the years I have asked that question to many different SSPX priests, the last one I asked was about a year ago I think - and to a man, they all said the same thing - that all the convert NO priests' ordinations are in fact investigated and the men are trained in the traditional priestly formation, then most (not all) get conditionally ordained. To my knowledge, which is mainly based on asking SSPX priests, this has been the same story since the SSPX began.
-
I disagree with you here just like I disagree with +Williamson that satanic mass consecrated hosts are "certainly valid". I cannot muster up proper intent, because the church never intended for laymen to administer those sacraments granted even with proper form and matter, which is also a stretch. Therefore I cannot muster up proper intent. Because, the church requires the sacrament of orders. Valid minister falls under the criteria category of intent.
I was always under the impression that satanic masses are said by validly ordained priests, whether living a double life or fallen away. If a group or individual does not have a priest to consecrate hosts then they steal them. I would bet a validly ordained priest and/or properly consecrated hosts are just about as important to them as they are to us, otherwise their abuses are just meaningless pretend play. They might peddle doubtful priests and sacraments to the rest of us but they aren't going to settle for less than the real thing for themselves. That level of hatred doesn't allow for half measures.
-
I recently heard an SSPX priest state:
"The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are:
1) Form
2) Matter
3) Intention"
Question: Can anyone tell me what's wrong with that statement?
Once again we get more crass “third-rate theology” that only the Johnson can provide.
Let’s take a look at the Angelic Doctor and Eugenius’ Bull to the Armenians:
"In each Sacrament there is required a minister, who confers the Sacrament with the intention of doing that which the Church intends. If any one of these three requirements is lacking, the Sacrament is not brought into being, viz., if there is lacking the due form of the words, or if the matter is not present, or if the minister does not intend to confer the Sacrament." De Articulus Fidei (part ii), St. Thomas Aquinas.
"All Sacraments require three things - the things as matter, the words as form, and the person of the minister to confer the Sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does."Exsultate Deo, Eugenius IV
So it is clear that there is an intrinsic link between minister and intent which is why they’re both considered together as one. It is not possible to have a valid intention – of doing what the Church does – without a valid minister; valid intention necessarily indicates a valid minister (the reverse, however, is not true).
Given that there are readers here who know the Johnson frequents an SSPX Church in St. Paul’s, MN, and there are faithful from that Church who also read CathInfo, and the suggestion in the opening post of a level of ignorance on the part of the priest and his abilities perhaps the Johnson may like to offer an apology for his falsehood and innuendo.
The Johnson Slayer ™
-
At any rate, I don't know where the idea comes from that the SSPX do not investigate or conditionally ordain any NO priest converts any longer.
Look up sspx, Krah, guzman, and connect it with fellays desire to be FSSP part 2, and you will understand.
The SSPX CAN'T conditionally reordain or they will lose their seat at the bargaining table.
-
The Johnson Slayer ™
Another soon to fail "TM"..... Hahahahaha :jester: (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=47720.msg590348#msg590348)
-
Once again we get more crass “third-rate theology” that only the Johnson can provide.
Let’s take a look at the Angelic Doctor and Eugenius’ Bull to the Armenians:
"In each Sacrament there is required a minister, who confers the Sacrament with the intention of doing that which the Church intends. If any one of these three requirements is lacking, the Sacrament is not brought into being, viz., if there is lacking the due form of the words, or if the matter is not present, or if the minister does not intend to confer the Sacrament." De Articulus Fidei (part ii), St. Thomas Aquinas.
"All Sacraments require three things - the things as matter, the words as form, and the person of the minister to confer the Sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does."Exsultate Deo, Eugenius IV
So it is clear that there is an intrinsic link between minister and intent which is why they’re both considered together as one. It is not possible to have a valid intention – of doing what the Church does – without a valid minister; valid intention necessarily indicates a valid minister (the reverse, however, is not true).
Given that there are readers here who know the Johnson frequents an SSPX Church in St. Paul’s, MN, and there are faithful from that Church who also read CathInfo, and the suggestion in the opening post of a level of ignorance on the part of the priest and his abilities perhaps the Johnson may like to offer an apology for his falsehood and innuendo.
The Johnson Slayer ™
In each of these examples it is clearly stated that the third requirement contains two elements: a minister and a proper intention. Whether you take these two together and call them one, or whether you list them separately and call them two is really beside the point, which you obviously missed: either way, the minister has to be part of the list. If he's not, then your list is not complete.
So, if you want to challenge a man you really ought to do a little better than that. A good place to start is to reveal your own identity so the man knows whether he is fighting another man or a troll.
-
Bingo!
1) Form
2) Matter
3) Intention
4) Valid Minister
In the conversation in which the SSPX priest mentioned the first three criteria, he was responding to a question as to whether or not the faithful could attend an FSSP Mass, and whether it would be valid.
Seems like the 4th criteria is no longer in the SSPX' s radar.
SSPX has always left out #4 because they consider priests in the new rite, especially FSSP, to be valid.
This is not new.
-
In each of these examples it is clearly stated that the third requirement contains two elements: a minister and a proper intention. Whether you take these two together and call them one, or whether you list them separately and call them two is really beside the point, which you obviously missed: either way, the minister has to be part of the list. If he's not, then your list is not complete.
So, if you want to challenge a man you really ought to do a little better than that. A good place to start is to reveal your own identity so the man knows whether he is fighting another man or a troll.
Moreover, where did S get the idea that I was speaking about my own priest (i.e., My posts in this thread have been deliberately vague in that respect)?
Has S made a rash judgment, and dragged my priest into this (for which he now owes him an apology)?
-
In each of these examples it is clearly stated that the third requirement contains two elements: a minister and a proper intention. Whether you take these two together and call them one, or whether you list them separately and call them two is really beside the point, which you obviously missed: either way, the minister has to be part of the list. If he's not, then your list is not complete.
So, if you want to challenge a man you really ought to do a little better than that. A good place to start is to reveal your own identity so the man knows whether he is fighting another man or a troll.
No, it is the point; each quote states there only three. No theologian lists four – even your own beloved Cardinal Pohle sees fit to quote Eugenius’ definition – by your logic one could claim there are five Marks of the Church since ‘One’ means not only one Faith but also commune unity, so one can create a list of five if he so wished; the proposition is absurd and you know it.
Moreover, the Johnson clarified with a comment “All four criteria are distinct, and none of them subsists in any of the others.” Which is patently false, intention is inextricably attached to the minister.
“… the minister has to be part of the list. If he's not, then your list is not complete.” Wow! This is Johnson logic. Intent does not exist in its own right, unlike the form and matter (e.g. for baptism, scripture and water), the intent can only exist in the intellect of the minister; that’s pretty darn obvious! And the intent is to do what the Church does and this does not include attempting to arrogate to oneself a power of Orders (contrary to Trent s.7. c.10), hence a valid intent necessarily commands a valid minister.
So, the Johnson’s had another smack down but isn’t humble enough to apologize and admit his error (I know he’s read my post). And then you come here trying to defend his error. Together they both amply highlight why I dislike the Resistance; you’re a band of truth haters. If Johnson was an ‘honourable’ man, as he likes to claim, he would have no problem in admitting his error and, if you were, you’d have now problem with fraternal correction instead of supporting error.
Slayer
p.s. who do you think wrote “This means that, so long as form, matter, and intention suffice to produce a valid sacrament … grace is present.” LOL!!!
-
No, it is the point; each quote states there only three. No theologian lists four – even your own beloved Cardinal Pohle sees fit to quote Eugenius’ definition – by your logic one could claim there are five Marks of the Church since ‘One’ means not only one Faith but also commune unity, so one can create a list of five if he so wished; the proposition is absurd and you know it.
Moreover, the Johnson clarified with a comment “All four criteria are distinct, and none of them subsists in any of the others.” Which is patently false, intention is inextricably attached to the minister.
“… the minister has to be part of the list. If he's not, then your list is not complete.” Wow! This is Johnson logic. Intent does not exist in its own right, unlike the form and matter (e.g. for baptism, scripture and water), the intent can only exist in the intellect of the minister; that’s pretty darn obvious! And the intent is to do what the Church does and this does not include attempting to arrogate to oneself a power of Orders (contrary to Trent s.7. c.10), hence a valid intent necessarily commands a valid minister.
So, the Johnson’s had another smack down but isn’t humble enough to apologize and admit his error (I know he’s read my post). And then you come here trying to defend his error. Together they both amply highlight why I dislike the Resistance; you’re a band of truth haters. If Johnson was an ‘honourable’ man, as he likes to claim, he would have no problem in admitting his error and, if you were, you’d have now problem with fraternal correction instead of supporting error.
Slayer
p.s. who do you think wrote “This means that, so long as form, matter, and intention suffice to produce a valid sacrament … grace is present.” LOL!!!
No, you missed the point:
The SSPX does not want to discuss the matter of the valid minister in relation to the new rite of ordination or episcopal consecration in the era of ralliement.
If someone asks a priest whether they can attend FSSP Masses, and that priest's explanation is that they would be valid with proper form, matter, and intention, this mention of intention does not suffice to address issue of questionable orders, which is a distinct yet indispensable consideration.
Moreover, the books list three criteria not because minister subsists within that of intention, but because the validity of the minister is presumed a priori (i.e., they are discussing what a valid minister must do to confect a valid sacrament).
The fact that an invalid minister (e.g., one ignorant of the invalidity of his orders) can muster proper intent ("to do what the Church does") demonstrates this.
In such a case, the invalid minister will nevertheless have sufficed to satisfy proper form, matter, and intent...without producing a valid Eucharist.
This example clearly demonstrates a fourth criteria (which is normally presumed to exist, and is therefore not included in the usual list of three).
As regards your PS, the statement, like the books, presumes the presence of a valid minister.
-
At any rate, I don't know where the idea comes from that the SSPX do not investigate or conditionally ordain any NO priest converts any longer. Over the years I have asked that question to many different SSPX priests, the last one I asked was about a year ago I think - and to a man, they all said the same thing - that all the convert NO priests' ordinations are in fact investigated and the men are trained in the traditional priestly formation, then most (not all) get conditionally ordained. To my knowledge, which is mainly based on asking SSPX priests, this has been the same story since the SSPX began.
I don't understand what part of such an investigation would lead the SSPX to believe that no conditional ordination was necessary. Have these priests given you the reasons why the SSPX has repeatedly concluded that no conditional ordination was necessary?
-
I don't understand what part of such an investigation would lead the SSPX to believe that no conditional ordination was necessary. Have these priests given you the reasons why the SSPX has repeatedly concluded that no conditional ordination was necessary?
There is only one explanation (which has been the point of this whole thread):
The SSPX no longer harbors positive doubt regarding the rites of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration.
They now accept the form, and so as long as no positive doubt arises regarding intent (or matter), there is no conditional ordination.
In all fairness, the concerns regarding the former are almost irrelevant, since they would only arise in the case of an oddball "ordination" of a priest who was himself ordained in the new rite by a bishop who was ordained in the old rite (i.e., If the bishop isn't a bishop, then the rite of priestly ordination he uses is irrelevant, since he himself is not a valid minister, regardless of proper form, matter, and intention).
-
Then you shouldn't be questioning the validity of a rite given to the Church by the Pope.
You are correct.
-
A doubtful rite (like a doubtful papacy, as in the GWS) is not a dogmatic fact, and therefore not of compulsory acceptance.
-
I don't understand what part of such an investigation would lead the SSPX to believe that no conditional ordination was necessary. Have these priests given you the reasons why the SSPX has repeatedly concluded that no conditional ordination was necessary?
The SSPX has never concluded validity repeatedly, least ways not as far as I know from what I've been told. From what I've been told, most of the converts are conditionally ordained - I do not know what the criteria is or how they make the determination one way or the other, or what the ratio of conditional ordinations actually is.
-
I don't understand what part of such an investigation would lead the SSPX to believe that no conditional ordination was necessary. Have these priests given you the reasons why the SSPX has repeatedly concluded that no conditional ordination was necessary?
At yesterday's sermon, Fr. announced that +Fellay will be at our chapel for Confirmations on Sunday, Feb 4th. He briefly mentioned something about there being a conference, by next week we should know more. But if a conference or whatever happens, I plan to attend if at all possible and for whatever it's worth, I will most assuredly ask him directly about this issue.
-
The SSPX has never concluded validity repeatedly, least ways not as far as I know from what I've been told. From what I've been told, most of the converts are conditionally ordained - I do not know what the criteria is or how they make the determination one way or the other, or what the ratio of conditional ordinations actually is.
Acceptance of NO priests to the SSPX without conditional ordination has been going on since at least 2006, as far as I can see.
In 2015 Catholic candle investigated many priests ordinations. Their list is very good, albeit incomplete. But, you can see several sspx priests who came from the NO and who were not conditionally ordained.
http://docplayer.net/45590928-Catholic-candle-s-list-of-priests-those-who-claim-to-be-priests.html
-
Whenever I'm not sure, I ask the priest who ordained him same as everyone should if they are concerned. I was raised to never assume anything and far as I'm concerned, I don't think anyone ever should. If you're not sure or have doubts, ask - it's painless and only takes 30-40 seconds to put your mind at ease.
-
A doubtful rite (like a doubtful papacy, as in the GWS) is not a dogmatic fact, and therefore not of compulsory acceptance.
If the pope is not doubtful, then the rite is not doubtful.
-
If the pope is not doubtful, then the rite is not doubtful.
If I make it to heaven, I will let Archbishop Lefebvre know his worries were for naught.
-
If the pope is not doubtful, then the rite is not doubtful.
Agreed.
-
If I make it to heaven, I will let Archbishop Lefebvre know his worries were for naught.
If you read what Archbishop Lefebvre actually said and wrote, it's obvious that he considered the V2 Popes to be doubtful.
-
If the pope is not doubtful, then the rite is not doubtful.
This is nothing more than an application of the Church's disciplinary infallibility and indefectibility.
-
Lad said:
This is nothing more than an application of the Church's disciplinary infallibility and indefectibility.
I think, in reality, those that say that Francis is certainly the pope merely say it; however. they don't truly believe it.
-
Lad said:
This is nothing more than an application of the Church's disciplinary infallibility and indefectibility.
I think, in reality, those that say that Francis is certainly the pope merely say it; however. they don't truly believe it.
I completely agree with this. If you ask people if they believe with the certainty of faith that Francis is pope, very few would agree that they do.
-
If the pope is not doubtful, then the rite is not doubtful.
...
If you read what Archbishop Lefebvre actually said and wrote, it's obvious that he considered the V2 Popes to be doubtful.
..
This is nothing more than an application of the Church's disciplinary infallibility and indefectibility.
I think the Archbishop would disagree with your claims about his position, as well as with your reasoning.
1984, Archbishop Lefebvre, Spiritual Conference in Econe, Topic: Sedevacantism and Liberalism
Thirdly, we pointed out that, despite the testimony of Tradition which has been alleged, there are also serious reasons, both doctrinal and historical for us, to doubt that universal laws always and necessarily imply the infallibility of the Church.
I will try and make some time to translate the whole conference.
-
I think the Archbishop would disagree with your claims about his position, as well as with your reasoning.
http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/
-
Samuel quotes Archbishop Lefebvre as saying:
"Thirdly, we pointed out that, despite the testimony of Tradition which has been alleged, there are also serious reasons, both doctrinal and historical for us, to doubt that universal laws always and necessarily imply the infallibility of the Church."
If the Archbishop is correct, then it is not necessarily the case that, "if the pope is not doubtful, then the rite is not doubtful" (as 2Vermont and Ladislaus are contending).
-
http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/
Very impressive.. until you start looking at each of these quotes in their context, then it becomes clear the Archbishop's position from start to finish was : it is possible the pope is no longer the pope, but only the Church can make this judgment. In other words, he was never a sedevacantist himself. Anyone who tries to insinuate the opposite is not being honest.
But, this is beside the point I made. You misrepresented the Archbishop's position on "the Church's disciplinary infallibility and indefectibility".
-
But, this is beside the point I made. You misrepresented the Archbishop's position on "the Church's disciplinary infallibility and indefectibility".
I never cited his view about that, only that he had doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 claimants.
-
I never cited his view about that, only that he had doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 claimants.
Thanks for clarifying that.
I think it is important to stress the fact that "doubting the legitimacy of the pope" is not the same as "being open to sedevacantism". There is a subtle but most important difference between the two, i.e. private judgment, and the Archbishop never crossed that line.
-
Samuel quotes Archbishop Lefebvre as saying:
"Thirdly, we pointed out that, despite the testimony of Tradition which has been alleged, there are also serious reasons, both doctrinal and historical for us, to doubt that universal laws always and necessarily imply the infallibility of the Church."
If the Archbishop is correct, then it is not necessarily the case that, "if the pope is not doubtful, then the rite is not doubtful" (as 2Vermont and Ladislaus are contending).
Yes, ABL, the leader of the R&R, is supporting the R&R position. I'm not sure what that proves.
-
Very impressive.. until you start looking at each of these quotes in their context, then it becomes clear the Archbishop's position from start to finish was : it is possible the pope is no longer the pope, but only the Church can make this judgment. In other words, he was never a sedevacantist himself. Anyone who tries to insinuate the opposite is not being honest.
Actually, most sedevacantists also believe that the Church will have to make a formal declaration to confirm the pseudo papacies in the future.
-
.
Quote from: SeanJohnson on January 20, 2018, 09:52:23 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590221/#msg590221)
.
Quote from: Fanny on January 20, 2018, 09:33:31 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590214/#msg590214)
If you want to call "valid minister" #4, which is generally assumed, you also need to have a #5 "recipient must be in the right state" which is also assumed.
Except this is about the valid confection of a sacrament, not valid reception.
.
That wasn't in your question:
"The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are.."
.
.
Notice: your clarification has been ignored. Interesting.
.
-
Except this is about the valid confection of a sacrament, not valid reception.
.
That wasn't in your question:
"The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are.."
.
.
Notice: your clarification has been ignored. Interesting.
.
Who are you talking to??
-
Thanks for clarifying that.
I think it is important to stress the fact that "doubting the legitimacy of the pope" is not the same as "being open to sedevacantism". There is a subtle but most important difference between the two, i.e. private judgment, and the Archbishop never crossed that line.
But the quotes in the link demonstrate that he WAS open to SVism. Did he ever publicly embrace it as his own position? No. But he often wondered whether or not that could be the case.
-
.
Quote from: Maria Regina on January 19, 2018, 06:26:21 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590121/#msg590121)
One might have reservations about the validity of the FSSP priest's sacraments if he himself were ordained by a bishop who was consecrated according to the Novus Ordo rite.
Bravo!
.
Just to make sure, are you saying that whenever the Rite of Episcopal Ordination is changed, the new one becomes invalid?
.
-
Who are you talking to??
.
Does your screen display the CI member whose post was first quoted (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590262/#msg590262)?
.
-
.
Does your screen display the CI member whose post was first quoted (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590262/#msg590262)?
.
No, it seems I can only quote the most recent response (have been wondering about that; something changed from the olden days?).
-
But the quotes in the link demonstrate that he WAS open to SVism. Did he ever publicly embrace it as his own position? No. But he often wondered whether or not that could be the case.
I'm not sure I would agree that "being open to sedevacantism" = "wondering whether sedevacantism could be the case."
I often wonder if sedevacantism could be the case, but I am definitely not open to it.
-
But the quotes in the link demonstrate that he WAS open to SVism. Did he ever publicly embrace it as his own position? No. But he often wondered whether or not that could be the case.
No, and that is exactly the point. The Archbishop was open to the possibility that the Church one day would make such a judgment, but he was not open to people making this judgment for themselves, which is what today's sedevacantism does.
In other words, he considered it possible that one day "the seat is vacant because the Church has judged the pope to be a heretic".
But he did not consider it possible that today "the seat is vacant because I judge the pope to be a heretic".
-
Very impressive.. until you start looking at each of these quotes in their context, then it becomes clear the Archbishop's position from start to finish was : it is possible the pope is no longer the pope, but only the Church can make this judgment. In other words, he was never a sedevacantist himself. Anyone who tries to insinuate the opposite is not being honest.
But, this is beside the point I made. You misrepresented the Archbishop's position on "the Church's disciplinary infallibility and indefectibility".
Even if he was a sedevacantist, it doesnt mean we have to be. We're not the cult of Archbishop Lefebvre, as some french trads seem to think.
-
Even if he was a sedevacantist, it doesnt mean we have to be. We're not the cult of Archbishop Lefebvre, as some french trads seem to think.
"He that walketh with the wise, shall be wise: a friend of fools shall become like to them." (Proverbs 13:20)
I am happy to walk with the Archbishop.
-
reading prophecies would be very helpful. Chapter 12 of Daniel: the Sacrifice of the Mass will come to an end. How is this to come about? Is it not the New Order? Who put the New Order in place, was it not popes, or those who consider themselves to be pope? vatican I defines pope, in order to have Infallibility.
You will know them by their fruits.
-
I'm not sure I would agree that "being open to sedevacantism" = "wondering whether sedevacantism could be the case."
I often wonder if sedevacantism could be the case, but I am definitely not open to it.
You're not open to something you wonder might be true?
-
Many misunderstandings are based on a lack of proper definition of the terms we use.
Sedevacantism #1 : The Church has judged the pope to be a heretic, therefore the seat is empty.
Sedevacantism #2 : I have judged the pope to be a heretic, therefore the seat is empty.
Both are called sedevacantism, but I am only open to #1 and not to #2.
-
You're not open to something you wonder might be true?
For the reason Samuel stated a couple posts ago (and also because I know better than to trust my own judgment in such a complex issue):
"No, and that is exactly the point. The Archbishop was open to the possibility that the Church one day would make such a judgment, but he was not open to people making this judgment for themselves, which is what today's sedevacantism does.
In other words, he considered it possible that one day "the seat is vacant because the Church has judged the pope to be a heretic
But he did not consider it possible that today "the seat is vacant because I judge the pope to be a heretic".
I doubt there are a dozen men on the planet competent to opine on the matter (and among those, they will probably be on opposite sides).
-
For the reason Samuel stated a couple posts ago (and also because I know better than to trust my own judgment in such a complex issue):
"No, and that is exactly the point. The Archbishop was open to the possibility that the Church one day would make such a judgment, but he was not open to people making this judgment for themselves, which is what today's sedevacantism does.
In other words, he considered it possible that one day "the seat is vacant because the Church has judged the pope to be a heretic
But he did not consider it possible that today "the seat is vacant because I judge the pope to be a heretic".
I doubt there are a dozen men on the planet competent to opine on the matter (and among those, they will probably be on opposite sides).
"It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.”
Note that ABL said "confirmed" (i.e. establish the truth of something previously believed), not declared.
-
For the reason Samuel stated a couple posts ago (and also because I know better than to trust my own judgment in such a complex issue):
"No, and that is exactly the point. The Archbishop was open to the possibility that the Church one day would make such a judgment, but he was not open to people making this judgment for themselves, which is what today's sedevacantism does.
In other words, he considered it possible that one day "the seat is vacant because the Church has judged the pope to be a heretic
But he did not consider it possible that today "the seat is vacant because I judge the pope to be a heretic".
I doubt there are a dozen men on the planet competent to opine on the matter (and among those, they will probably be on opposite sides).
Do you think it is possible that after francis' death, a future pope can declare him a heretic and an anti pope, in turn removing him from any spiritual "una cuм" sense of communion with the church? And, for physical good measure the future pope digs up his body and casts it in the river. I think it is possible. And, I believe francis is the pope. In fact, for good measure, I will mention that I don't believe that a council(imperfect or perfect) can depose a pope.
-
No, it seems I can only quote the most recent response (have been wondering about that; something changed from the olden days?).
.
I have tried 3 different computers and they all display the same screen for that post, which I copy here, below.
Maybe you're using your smart phone to view posts or some other device that only shows a portion of the available message.
.
A - Quote from: Fanny on January 20, 2018, 10:48:26 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590262/#msg590262)
.
B - Quote from: SeanJohnson on January 20, 2018, 09:52:23 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590221/#msg590221)
Quote
.
C - Quote from: Fanny on January 20, 2018, 09:33:31 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590214/#msg590214)
Quote
If you want to call "valid minister" #4, which is generally assumed, you also need to have a #5 "recipient must be in the right state" which is also assumed.
B - Except this is about the valid confection of a sacrament, not valid reception.
.
A - That wasn't in your question:
(A) - "The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are.." [Fanny is quoting here from the OP on pg. 1]
.
.
(My reply) - Notice: your clarification has been ignored. Interesting.
.
.
I removed the quote box formatting so you can see only the straight text - A, B and C are labeled as such so you can see who wrote it.
.
While it's true that I can only quote the most recent response by the "Quote" button, I took the liberty of ADDING two earlier posts to the body of that reply so that the context could be read without having to click on links. Most readers it seems don't bother to click on linked messages or posts, and I can't blame them. It's a pain in the neck to have to RESEARCH everything someone is saying. This new format/platform is highly deficient in this way IMHO.
.
-
"It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.”
Note that ABL said "confirmed" (i.e. establish the truth of something previously believed), not declared.
The opposite proposition is also possible: The hypothesis may never be confirmed by the Church.
Why not wait for the Church to sort itself out, rather than risk being wrong?
A wondering Catholic incurs no culpability for staying put while he wonders, nor does he sin if the Church should later confirm the hypothesis.
On the other hand, if you are wrong, then you are in schism, and will be in a precarious position before the Lord.
This seems (to me, at least) to be the smarter play...kind of like Pascal's Wager.
-
Do you think it is possible that after francis' death, a future pope can declare him a heretic and an anti pope, in turn removing him from any spiritual "una cuм" sense of communion with the church? And, for physical good measure the future pope digs up his body and casts it in the river. I think it is possible. And, I believe francis is the pope. In fact, for good measure, I will mention that I don't believe that a council(imperfect or perfect) can depose a pope.
.
While it is true that happened in the past, I highly doubt it will happen in the future because there are growing environmental rules and concerns that would make throwing a deceased pope's body into any river some kind of international act of war.
.
Of course, never mind that when a jet airliner crashes at sea all hundred or more bodies go down with it. Go figure.
.
As of about 15 years ago there were laws in Switzerland put into effect by which the disposal of a WATCH BATTERY in the common trash would be punishable by a fine of something like $5,000 (five thousand dollars American).
.
-
Many misunderstandings are based on a lack of proper definition of the terms we use.
Sedevacantism #1 : The Church has judged the pope to be a heretic, therefore the seat is empty.
Sedevacantism #2 : I have judged the pope to be a heretic, therefore the seat is empty.
Both are called sedevacantism, but I am only open to #1 and not to #2.
.
Sedevacantism #1 should include the sede vacante condition that occurs every time a sitting pope dies, and such condition continues until a successor pope is elected.
.
Unless, that is, you would side with those who say that we Catholics are NOT "all sedevacantists" every time a pope dies.
.
-
Do you think it is possible that after francis' death, a future pope can declare him a heretic and an anti pope, in turn removing him from any spiritual "una cuм" sense of communion with the church? And, for physical good measure the future pope digs up his body and casts it in the river. I think it is possible. And, I believe francis is the pope. In fact, for good measure, I will mention that I don't believe that a council(imperfect or perfect) can depose a pope.
I might be wrong, but I believe Siscoe/Salza explained that JST/Cajetan did not teach that a council actually deposes the Pope, but rather, that the council would declare the fact of his deposition.
In other words, the first step is the cardinals announcing to the Church that the Pope has become a heretic.
But then here is the debate: Is a second step required?
Bellarmine says no.
JST/Cajetan say yes.
The second step is actually convening a council to declare the fact of the deposition.
If I have this right, they are saying that the pope has deposed himself by becoming a heretic, but retains jurisdiction until the Church announces the deposition to the world from a council.
Someone might want to double check that, but I think that is the argument.
-
I might be wrong, but I believe Siscoe/Salza explained that JST/Cajetan did not teach that a council actually deposes the Pope, but rather, that the council would declare the fact of his deposition.
In other words, the first step is the cardinals announcing to the Church that the Pope has become a heretic.
But then here is the debate: Is a second step required?
Bellarmine says no.
JST/Cajetan say yes.
The second step is actually convening a council to declare the fact of the deposition.
If I have this right, they are saying that the pope has deposed himself by becoming a heretic, but retains jurisdiction until the Church announces the deposition to the world from a council.
Someone might want to double check that, but I think that is the argument.
Here is the article I was thinking of (from memory):
http://trueorfalsepope.com/articles/siscoe/Deposing%20a%20Heretical%20Pope%20-%20Part%201%20-%20CFN.pdf
If you want to save time, it is a 12 page article, and the subject of papal deposition begins near the bottom of p. 5.
-
Towards the bottom of p. 10 in the previously cited article:
"This opinion (which is defended convincingly by John of St. Thomas) avoids the error of Conciliarism by affirming that the Church has no authority over a Pope, nor does the Church herself depose the pope, but only performs the ministerial functions required for the deposition. The ministerial functions consists of those acts which are necessary to establish that the Pope is a pertinacious heretic, issue a declaratory sentence of the crime (rendering him Norotious by a notoriety of law), and then declaring him Vitandus (to be avoided). It is God himself, however, who authoritatively causes him to fall from the Pontificate, but not before the Church herself performing the necessary ministerial functions and establishing the crime."
-
Here is the article I was thinking of (from memory):
http://trueorfalsepope.com/articles/siscoe/Deposing%20a%20Heretical%20Pope%20-%20Part%201%20-%20CFN.pdf
If you want to save time, it is a 12 page article, and the subject of papal deposition begins near the bottom of p. 5.
.
It's good to have this stuff at the ready because we could well be coming to a time when it's used in fact not just in theory.
.
-
.
Quote from: SeanJohnson on Today at 01:42:01 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590668/#msg590668)
No, it seems I can only quote the most recent response (have been wondering about that; something changed from the olden days?).
.
I have tried 3 different computers and they all display the same screen for that post, which I copy here, below.
Maybe you're using your smart phone to view posts or some other device that only shows a portion of the available message.
.
A - Quote from: Fanny on January 20, 2018, 10:48:26 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590262/#msg590262)
.
B - Quote from: SeanJohnson on January 20, 2018, 09:52:23 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590221/#msg590221)
Quote
.
C - Quote from: Fanny on January 20, 2018, 09:33:31 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590214/#msg590214)
Quote
If you want to call "valid minister" #4, which is generally assumed, you also need to have a #5 "recipient must be in the right state" which is also assumed.
B - Except this is about the valid confection of a sacrament, not valid reception.
.
A - That wasn't in your question:
(A) - "The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are.." [Fanny is quoting here from the OP on pg. 1]
.
.
(My reply) - Notice: your clarification has been ignored. Interesting.
.
.
I removed the quote box formatting so you can see only the straight text - A, B and C are labeled as such so you can see who wrote it.
.
While it's true that I can only quote the most recent response by the "Quote" button, I took the liberty of ADDING two earlier posts to the body of that reply so that the context could be read without having to click on links. Most readers it seems don't bother to click on linked messages or posts, and I can't blame them. It's a pain in the neck to have to RESEARCH everything someone is saying. This new format/platform is highly deficient in this way IMHO.
.
.
Perhaps what I wrote above still isn't quite understandable. Here is a version that recounts the posts as they occurred:
.
You (SeanJohnson) said (in the OP):
"The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are.." -- and eventually wrote:
1) Form
2) Matter
3) Intention
4) Valid Minister
.
Then Fanny posted:
If you want to call "valid minister" #4, which is generally assumed, you also need to have a #5 "recipient must be in the right state" which is also assumed.
(Fanny was referring to the recipient of a sacrament being properly disposed to receive it validly.)
.
Then you responded to her post with the following:
Except this is about the valid confection of a sacrament, not valid reception.
.
To which Fanny rejoined as follows:
That wasn't in your question: [your question in the OP was as follows]
"The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are.." [Fanny is correct here, that "confection" is not in the OP.]
.
After many hours of patient waiting for a reply from you (SeanJohnson) I wrote the post:
- Notice: your clarification has been ignored. Interesting.
.
And then you replied to my "notice" by asking,
To whom are you talking? (Actually you had, "Who are you talking to??")
...
...
I'd like to clarify by saying that I found it interesting that Fanny's post that draws attention to the fact that the OP did not distinguish between the confection of a sacrament and its reception. Then you (SeanJohnson) later introduced this distinction as a matter that must have been presumed from the start in your OP, even if you did not take care to pronounce it at the time.
.
Ironically, while your whole "point" in this thread is to criticize the SSPX for failing to make the distinction between a valid minister's intention and the invalid intention of an invalid minister, you have neglected to make the distinction between confecting a sacrament and its reception from the start of this discussion.
.
Then it appeared that perhaps you have a problem viewing posts or that when you want to post a copy of a quote that occurs in the post you are quoting the system deletes the previous post. But if you really want to include it you should be able to by using copy and paste.
.
.
-
.
I have tried 3 different computers and they all display the same screen for that post, which I copy here, below.
Maybe you're using your smart phone to view posts or some other device that only shows a portion of the available message.
.
A - Quote from: Fanny on January 20, 2018, 10:48:26 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590262/#msg590262)
.
B - Quote from: SeanJohnson on January 20, 2018, 09:52:23 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590221/#msg590221)
Quote
.
C - Quote from: Fanny on January 20, 2018, 09:33:31 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590214/#msg590214)
Quote
If you want to call "valid minister" #4, which is generally assumed, you also need to have a #5 "recipient must be in the right state" which is also assumed.
B - Except this is about the valid confection of a sacrament, not valid reception.
.
A - That wasn't in your question:
(A) - "The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are.." [Fanny is quoting here from the OP on pg. 1]
.
.
(My reply) - Notice: your clarification has been ignored. Interesting.
.
.
I removed the quote box formatting so you can see only the straight text - A, B and C are labeled as such so you can see who wrote it.
.
While it's true that I can only quote the most recent response by the "Quote" button, I took the liberty of ADDING two earlier posts to the body of that reply so that the context could be read without having to click on links. Most readers it seems don't bother to click on linked messages or posts, and I can't blame them. It's a pain in the neck to have to RESEARCH everything someone is saying. This new format/platform is highly deficient in this way IMHO.
.
.
Perhaps what I wrote above still isn't quite understandable. Here is a version that recounts the posts as they occurred:
.
You (SeanJohnson) said (in the OP):
"The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are.." -- and eventually wrote:
1) Form
2) Matter
3) Intention
4) Valid Minister
.
Then Fanny posted:
If you want to call "valid minister" #4, which is generally assumed, you also need to have a #5 "recipient must be in the right state" which is also assumed.
(Fanny was referring to the recipient of a sacrament being properly disposed to receive it validly.)
.
Then you responded to her post with the following:
Except this is about the valid confection of a sacrament, not valid reception.
.
To which Fanny rejoined as follows:
That wasn't in your question: [your question in the OP was as follows]
"The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are.." [Fanny is correct here, that "confection" is not in the OP.]
.
After many hours of patient waiting for a reply from you (SeanJohnson) I wrote the post:
- Notice: your clarification has been ignored. Interesting.
.
And then you replied to my "notice" by asking,
To whom are you talking? (Actually you had, "Who are you talking to??")
...
...
I'd like to clarify by saying that I found it interesting that Fanny's post that draws attention to the fact that the OP did not distinguish between the confection of a sacrament and its reception. Then you (SeanJohnson) later introduced this distinction as a matter that must have been presumed from the start in your OP, even if you did not take care to pronounce it at the time.
.
Ironically, while your whole "point" in this thread is to criticize the SSPX for failing to make the distinction between a valid minister's intention and the invalid intention of an invalid minister, you have neglected to make the distinction between confecting a sacrament and its reception from the start of this discussion.
.
Then it appeared that perhaps you have a problem viewing posts or that when you want to post a copy of a quote that occurs in the post you are quoting the system deletes the previous post. But if you really want to include it you should be able to by using copy and paste.
.
.
Sorry Neil, I thought it was obvious.
Apparently it was not.
Mea culpa.
-
Towards the bottom of p. 10 in the previously cited article:
"This opinion (which is defended convincingly by John of St. Thomas) avoids the error of Conciliarism by affirming that the Church has no authority over a Pope, nor does the Church herself depose the pope, but only performs the ministerial functions required for the deposition. The ministerial functions consists of those acts which are necessary to establish that the Pope is a pertinacious heretic, issue a declaratory sentence of the crime (rendering him Norotious by a notoriety of law), and then declaring him Vitandus (to be avoided). It is God himself, however, who authoritatively causes him to fall from the Pontificate, but not before the Church herself performing the necessary ministerial functions and establishing the crime."
This is sspx recognize and resist 101. +Lefebvre provided a replacement/alternative(ministerial functions), explained why(declaratory), and declared the pope and his errors to be avoided(vitandus). Next is the heretical pope resigning or dying and a better/hopefully traditional pope being elected that ends the heretical papacy. That is common sense. I guess you could call the sspx/tradition the imperfect or perfect council. Imperfect would perhaps be tradition as it is(disastrously divided), and perfect council would be early sspx that was unified in representing this cause. It is a fun thought.
They only thing the sspx has not explained is why NO heretical bishops retain their office "legitimately". I think this is why there is a divide between vacantism, sspx, and ecclesia dei. Bad move for the sspx. And, this has nothing to do with validity. I will grant validity to the NO rites. It is legitimacy that I have a problem with. Why does the sspx una cuм local bishops? The sspx does not have "authority" over local bishops, but a heretic outside of a pope does not have authority over anyone, especially a traditional catholic. I think local bishop una cuм is one of our biggest flaws. Fix it, and you throw vacantists a bone, and makes bones of ecclesia dei. Problem solved.
-
"It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.”
Note that ABL said "confirmed" (i.e. establish the truth of something previously believed), not declared.
Hypothesis : a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Catholics should not base their actions upon a mere hypothesis that may or may not one day be confirmed by the Church.
It is also interesting that I could not trace that quote to it's original source. I would have liked to verify the author, the translation and the context.
-
Sorry Neil, I thought it was obvious.
Apparently it was not.
Mea culpa.
.
Apology accepted! Now, go in peace, my son.................. (that was the punch line)
.
I don't suppose it's unreasonable to overlook a detail like that. After all, you were thinking about the validity of the priest's ordination and secondarily about the validity of the bishop's consecration. Of course you were. But you specifically were keeping those topics mute so as to make the "Catechism Class" lesson more exciting -- or, was it, more obfuscated? Well, whatever the case, the whole point was that the question was more challenging when these details were omitted, wasn't it?
.
I still find it glaringly ironic that when the SSPX commits the grave error of glossing over a detail (such as the presumed validity of priestly orders and/or episcopal consecrations) they get hammered with a CI thread that inadvertently commits a closely related error.
.
The principal difference on the surface is, when SeanJohnson is faced with the exposition of shall we say, hypocrisy, he saves himself by apologizing for the oversight (which he apparently made while trying to make a thread more interesting) but the SSPX doesn't seem to be capable of apologizing for anything. Do they?
.
-
.
Quote from: 2Vermont on Today at 04:02:43 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catechism-class/msg590728/#msg590728)
"It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.”
Note that ABL said "confirmed" (i.e. establish the truth of something previously believed), not declared.
.
Hypothesis : a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Catholics should not base their actions upon a mere hypothesis that may or may not one day be confirmed by the Church.
It is also interesting that I could not trace that quote to it's original source. I would have liked to verify the author, the translation and the context.
.
Sedevacantists are somewhat consistent in staking their claim on the "previously believed-ness" of their hypothesis.
.
-
.
Why does the sspx una cuм local bishops?
I think local bishop una cuм is one of our biggest flaws.
Fix it, and you throw vacantists a bone, and makes bones of ecclesia dei.
.
How does anyone una cuм someone else?
.
What is a "vacantist?"
.
How does fixing it make bones of ecclesia dei?
-
.
Apology accepted! Now, go in peace, my son.................. (that was the punch line)
.
I don't suppose it's unreasonable to overlook a detail like that. After all, you were thinking about the validity of the priest's ordination and secondarily about the validity of the bishop's consecration. Of course you were. But you specifically were keeping those topics mute so as to make the "Catechism Class" lesson more exciting -- or, was it, more obfuscated? Well, whatever the case, the whole point was that the question was more challenging when these details were omitted, wasn't it?
.
I still find it glaringly ironic that when the SSPX commits the grave error of glossing over a detail (such as the presumed validity of priestly orders and/or episcopal consecrations) they get hammered with a CI thread that inadvertently commits a closely related error.
.
The principal difference on the surface is, when SeanJohnson is faced with the exposition of shall we say, hypocrisy, he saves himself by apologizing for the oversight (which he apparently made while trying to make a thread more interesting) but the SSPX doesn't seem to be capable of apologizing for anything. Do they?
.
Hi Neil-
In the past, you and I have had trouble communicating.
We are having that trouble again.
My previous response to you (i.e., my apology and mea culpa) was my attempt to be conciliatory and move on.
Truth is, I really have no idea what the hell you are talking about, and haven't for the last couple posts.
Pax tecuм.
-
..
How does anyone una cuм someone else?
.
What is a "vacantist?"
.
How does fixing it make bones of ecclesia dei?
Don't forgive me for not adopting trad ambiguity, because I am not sorry. And, this is not a response to your childish questions.
-
Hi Neil-
In the past, you and I have had trouble communicating.
We are having that trouble again.
My previous response to you (i.e., my apology and mea culpa) was my attempt to be conciliatory and move on.
Truth is, I really have no idea what the hell you are talking about, and haven't for the last couple posts.
Pax tecuм.
.
To be honest, I beg to differ. Because I'M not having "that trouble again."
.
I can understand your words just fine. And I know I'm using standard English.
.
Is this your way of pretending not to recognize the same language that you speak?
.
Has anyone ever suggested to you that your behavior reminds me a lot of Bishop Fellay's behavior?
.
Hey, maybe you've spent so much time studying him you're really learning more than you had bargained for.
.
-
Don't forgive me for not adopting trad ambiguity, because I am not sorry. And, this is not a response to your childish questions.
.
Childish questions, eh --- so for you, to "una cuм" someone is the height of ___________________ (fill in the blank).
.
Is there a correct answer or not? Where is the "ambiguity" in that?
.
Maybe you and SeanJohnson have more in common than you had realized --- with +F.
.
-
Lord, that Your Church on earth may have Your consolation!
(http://static.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2016/02/17/427027-410716-afp-pope-francis-ed.jpg)
The ministerial functions consists of those acts which are necessary to establish that the Pope is a pertinacious heretic, issue a declaratory sentence of the crime (rendering him Norotious by a notoriety of law), and then declaring him Vitandus (to be avoided).
-
Hypothesis : a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Catholics should not base their actions upon a mere hypothesis that may or may not one day be confirmed by the Church.
It is also interesting that I could not trace that quote to it's original source. I would have liked to verify the author, the translation and the context.
It comes from a text written by Archbishop Lefebrve in Econe, "Answers to Various Burning Questions". I can't seem to locate the text online. It is interesting that it's not on the SSPX website though.
The issue being discussed here wasn't sedevacantism per se. It was about ABL and what he said/wrote about it.
-
It comes from a text written by Archbishop Lefebrve in Econe, "Answers to Various Burning Questions". I can't seem to locate the text online. It is interesting that it's not on the SSPX website though.
The issue being discussed here wasn't sedevacantism per se. It was about ABL and what he said/wrote about it.
That's why I would have liked to verify whether it was indeed the Archbishop who wrote that quote, and if he did, whether the translation is correct, and if it is, whether the context may be important. I have seen some sedes happily "construct" quotes by the Archbishop before, trying to make him say the opposite of what he really said.
-
I don't think this was yet posted. But, I did not read back to check.
Here is denzinger # 695 - "All these sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing as the church does: if any of these is lacking the sacrament is not fulfilled."
-
I completely agree with this. If you ask people if they believe with the certainty of faith that Francis is pope, very few would agree that they do.
How do you quantify that notion? Did you go to Novus Ordo La La Land and take an anonymous survey?
-
If you want to call "valid minister" #4, which is generally assumed, you also need to have a #5 "recipient must be in the right state" which is also assumed.
Wouldn't "recipient must be in the right state" fall under Intention, just as the priest conferring the Sacrament must fall under Intention?
-
Wouldn't "recipient must be in the right state" fall under Intention, just as the priest conferring the Sacrament must fall under Intention?
Both are assumed. They do not fall under anything.
Mr. Johnson is incorrect to claim there are 4.
My point was, if he claims a #4 then he must claim a #5.
-
Except this is about the valid confection of a sacrament, not valid reception.
.
That wasn't in your question:
"The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are.."
.
.
Notice: your clarification has been ignored. Interesting.
.
Yes.