From Sean....
2) Doubt exists because of the impossibility of ascertaining the satisfaction of the 4 elements necessary for a valid sacrament.
See this article from Fr. Peter Scott in 2007, which expresses my opinion EXACTLY:
http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained
and he continues two pages later...........
Is that last (bolded) line sinking in?
It directly contradicts Fr. Scott (who worries that the new priests, not knowing whether they are celebrating a sacrifice or a meal, may not have the right intention)......
Fr. Scott's position seems very close to forming the same "negative doubt" he previously stated was inadmissible ("I wonder if the priest has the proper intention? After all, we can no longer deduce it by external utterances.). According to Billot, that concern is completely beside the point.
And to recall the Archbishop:
These young priests will not have the intention of doing that which the Church does, for they will not have been taught that the Mass is a true sacrifice. They will not have the intention of offering a sacrifice. They will have the intention of celebrating a Eucharist, a sharing, a communion, a memorial, all of which has nothing to do with faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Hence from this moment, inasmuch as these deformed priests no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, their Masses will obviously be more and more invalid."
So which is it Sean? Do you agree with Fr. Scott or not? Do you disagree with the Archbishop? You are entitled to disagree with them, but I would prefer that you be honest about it if you do.
Here is what Fr. Scott says on a negative doubt
"A negative doubt is a doubt that is not based upon any reason"
But what you're missing here Sean is that THERE IS A REASON to doubt the INTENTION TO DO WHAT THE CHURCH DOES.
Topic: Rule Violator #2: JPaul (Read 20974 times)