CathInfo.com

Quote from: Neil Obstat

… If you have a Mass where everything appears fine, the candles are lit and the linens are white and the altar boys kneel in reverence while the Priest raises the host, and so on -- if the Priest does NOT intend to do what the Church does in the Consecration and has no intention whatsoever to confect transubstantiation of the Eucharist, the effect will be that no Sacrament takes place, and all the faithful who line up for Holy Communion will in fact receive a wafer of bread but not the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Whatever graces they receive via their good will and desire is another topic, but they receive objectively nothing from the host that is placed on their tongues, other than the physical nutrients of the wafer's ingredients, wheat flour and water.

Because it's plain what Neil is getting at, I take no pleasure in saying what follows, but the simple fact is that the sort of ordinary-language use of the word intention that the quoted passage employs is just not the one that orthodox theology from Aquinas down to the present day—even including such a towering modernist (i.e., unorthodox) figure as Schillebeeckx—has in mind. In the context described, "proper intention," "an intention to do as the Church does," must be assumed ipso facto by the priest's use of the words and by his performance of the prescribed liturgical actions in the manner called for by the rubrics. Any insistence that validity required one to know an intrinsically unknowable interior state was rejected by Aquinas as a condition that God in His beneficence could not impose on His Church. That is, His beloved children are entitled to have confidence in the salvific effect of the actions of those of His priests whose outward conduct comports with rubrical norms.

Like I said, there is more.

In his sermon just before the Consecration, this priest mentioned that the host represents Jesus "symbolically" and the Mass is a meal in commemoration of His life, death and resurrection.  The priest said that he's not here to magically change anything, and this Mass is intended for the "pastoral care" of the assembly.  Finally, he reminded everyone that God is everywhere, so certainly He is here with us today.

After this Mass, one of the attendees who had heard this sermon approached this priest and asked him if he believes the host at Mass becomes the Real Presence of Our Lord, and the priest frankly replied, "No, I do not.  And neither should you.  The host is bread and a mere symbol of God's presence all around us, and nothing more.  The real presence you're asking about is a figment of your own imagination, quite possibly rooted in some medieval fable of mysterious other-worldly power."

There goes your "intrinsically unknowable interior state."

The point is, if the priest openly STATES that he does not intend to do at his Mass what the Church has always done at Mass, why should we think his Mass is valid?  Why should we think that his Mass is the Mass of the Church? --just because it takes place in a building that says "Catholic Church" in the sign box outside?  

And if he wanted to be really honest, he would have an announcement at the very beginning of Mass, before any readings or prayers in the sanctuary, a kind of introduction for everyone to hear, and he would say that he makes no pretense of confecting the Eucharist.  Furthermore, he could announce that there shall be no exclusion of non-Catholics for anything --- including Communion.

After hearing such an announcement before Mass, are the listeners not apprised of what is about to take place, so as to have no doubts, and to conclude that this is not going to be a Catholic Mass, even though the sign in the box outside says "Catholic Church" in it?


P.S.  Once again, "there is more..."

.

It takes very little, Neil, doesn't it, to prod you to revert to form and resume prancing about like a damn fool?

Do you seriously think that withholding essential information is a winning strategy in a discussion or argument? Or do you think that I am the only one who notices that none of the claims advanced in your churlish reply were present in your earlier comment, which had all the earmarks of a hypothetical case? Frankly, absent chapter and verse, I'm by no means sure that anything you wrote in the reply is even corroborable. Your record as a peddler of hot air could fill as many pages as War and Peace.

Even assuming that every word you've written correctly reports actual events—and that's a big assumption—I wouldn't accept your diagnosis of invalidity even if my life literally depended upon it. Substantially more evidence than hearsay is required just for a start. Then and only then might the case be presented for judgment to, at a minimum, a properly formed priest, though far, far better and more reliable would be the opinion of a sacramental theologian.

You fail to make the hurdle no matter how much the bar is lowered. In short, no one has good reason to accept that one and only one conclusion is to be drawn from your ramblings.

The bottom line is that the entirety of your commenting on this thread has been off topic and, as so often, tiresomely narcissistic. And when, oh when, are you going to stop preceding and following your irrelevancies with a three- or four-line space and a placeholding period? Do you think your comments are Rembrandts or Vermeers in need of a frame to display them at their best!?!

.

I commend Sean Johnson for having the persistence and dedication to take on all these specific points along the way, because I think it's important to chronicle the wayward actions of +Fellay over the years, for the record if not for present purposes at hand.  

As for me, I lose my incentive to delve into all those details when I see a pattern of behavior in the S.G. that indicates a different purpose in mind than that of the Founder, ABL.  The Archbishop was not afraid to oppose the Modernism of Newrome in order to stand firm in the traditions handed down to him, whereas the current Superior has been steadily bending toward making peace with an unconverted Rome, with a litany of excuses as to why that's not objectionable.  

The thing that distinguishes Newrome from pre-Conciliar Rome is Vat.II, and ABL was aware of that.  But for whatever reason, ABL never came down hard on the invalidity of the false Council, per se, and I suppose he had his reasons, one of which might be that he had been there so he would be partially responsible for what had happened there.

This whole topic of answering a priest who is wont to defend the wayward actions of +Fellay skirts the problem of whether Vat.II should be recognized or abandoned.  While it's true that we do not have the authority to pass judgment on what the Church has apparently accepted as an Ecuмenical Council, still, we can raise the arguments against it just as we can continue to practice the Faith intact as it was in 1955 before the excrement started to hit the air flow generator.

.