Author Topic: Universal doubtful intention (Read 7512 times)

Boru · « **Reply #210 on:** **Today** at 01:11:20 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 12:45:38 PM

You are missing this - the Church did not establish the matter, rather the Church learned it through Apostolic tradition, which means from God, through St. James - just as Trent said. As such, popes do not have the authority to do what PPVI did.

After all you wrote, you write this?! You have totally contradicted your former post. Gosh.

I repeat: After Christ instituted the Form and Matter of Baptism and the holy Eucharist, He conferred his power and authority to St. Peter. You speak of Apostolic tradition as if it were separate from the Church. They are one and the same. It was these apostles, these first bishops of the Church, that mandated the Matter and Form of the five other sacraments. And what they have liturgically mandated, a future St. Peter can modify as long as the traditional sense of doing what the Church intends is maintained.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #211 on:** **Today** at 01:17:32 PM »

Quote from: Boru on Today at 01:11:20 PM

You speak of Apostolic tradition as if it were separate from the Church. They are one and the same.

No, no, no!!! Apostolic Tradition is not simply Church Authority. It is on the same level as infallible Scripture.

Protestants believe in "Scripture Alone". The Church says, "no, it's Scripture + Tradition".

You are completely ignoring Sacred/Apostolic Tradition, as 1 of the 2 foundations of the Church.

Church authority is not Scripture. And it's not Tradition. Church authority is a 3rd category.

Stubborn · « **Reply #212 on:** **Today** at 01:22:32 PM »

Quote from: Boru on Today at 01:11:20 PM

After all you wrote, you write this?! You have totally contradicted your former post. Gosh.

I repeat: After Christ instituted the Form and Matter of Baptism and the holy Eucharist, He conferred his power and authority to St. Peter. You speak of Apostolic tradition as if it were separate from the Church. They are one and the same.

Apostolic tradition is the rule of the Church, without that, each successive pope could have done what PPVI and V2 did for the last 2000 years so that by now, there would be no Church at all.

Quote

It was these apostles, these first bishops of the Church, that mandated the Matter and Form of the five other sacraments. And what they have liturgically mandated, a future St. Peter can modify as long as the traditional sense of doing what the Church intends is maintained.

No, you are stuck in a rut here. It was not these first bishops that mandated the Matter etc., it was God Himself who REVEALED it to them. This is the Divine Revelation from Scripture that you cannot get into your head. IOW, God told St. James to use Olive Oil, St. James told the Church to use Olive Oil because that is what God told him to tell the Church to use.

Boru · « **Reply #213 on:** **Today** at 01:50:33 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 12:45:38 PM

You are missing this - the Church did not establish the matter, rather the Church learned it through Apostolic tradition, which means from God, through St. James - just as Trent said. As such, popes do not have the authority to do what PPVI did.

Perhaps Michael Davies can explain it better than I:

"The Council of Trent declares that the Church has always possessed the power - in the dispensation or administration of the Sacraments - to determine or to change those things which she judges to be more expedient for those receiving them...An exception is made with regard to the substance of a Sacrament which the Church has no power to alter...The question immediately arises as to what belongs to the substance of a particular Sacrament...(If Our Lord) instituted it generally (in genere) he left it to the supreme authority of His Church to decide the particular signs which should signify and effect the sacramental grace. When Christ instituted a Sacrament in specie (specifically) as regards either matter or form, the Church has no power to change them." - The Order of Melchisedech, Appendix 1.

In short, the substance of a Sacrament is what Christ has instituted specifically.

Baptism and Holy Eucharist were instituted by Christ specifically. The other five Sacraments were instituted generally via His Apostolic Church.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #214 on:** **Today** at 01:53:02 PM »

3 Parts of Church Authority:

1. Scripture -- Divine origin, WRITTEN down, from God.
2. Apostolic Tradition -- Divine origin, ORALLY passed down to Apostles from Christ.
3. Church infallibility/rulings -- Church decisions, separate from above.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #215 on:** **Today** at 02:02:19 PM »

Quote from: Boru on Today at 01:50:33 PM

Baptism and Holy Eucharist were instituted by Christ specifically. The other five Sacraments were instituted generally via His Apostolic Church.

The Apostolic Church, to use your term (which is incorrect), is SEPARATE from the post-Apostolic Church.

Apostolic Church = Apostolic Tradition = Divine Revelation. This ended with the death of St John the Apostle. All things coming from Apostolic Tradition = infallible. From Christ. Cannot be changed.

The post-Apostolic Church is from death of St John to now.

----

In regards to the NECESSITY of olive oil, there are 2 proofs (at least).
1. St James says it in Scripture (i.e. infallible and unchanging). THE CHURCH CANNOT CHANGE SCRIPTURE.
2. St James is part of Apostolic Tradition (i.e. infallible and unchanging). THE CHURCH CANNOT CHANGE APOSTOLIC TRADITION.
3. Trent confirms this, when it quotes SCRIPTURE and St James. TRENT CANNOT (and did not) CHANGE Scripture or St James' teaching.

Paul 6 is wrong and has no authority to make this change. No pope can change Scripture, nor Tradition.

Stubborn · « **Reply #216 on:** **Today** at 02:39:42 PM »

Quote from: Boru on Today at 01:50:33 PM

Perhaps Michael Davies can explain it better than I:

"The Council of Trent declares that the Church has always possessed the power - in the dispensation or administration of the Sacraments - to determine or to change those things which she judges to be more expedient for those receiving them...An exception is made with regard to the substance of a Sacrament which the Church has no power to alter...The question immediately arises as to what belongs to the substance of a particular Sacrament...(If Our Lord) instituted it generally (in genere) he left it to the supreme authority of His Church to decide the particular signs which should signify and effect the sacramental grace. When Christ instituted a Sacrament in specie (specifically) as regards either matter or form, the Church has no power to change them." - The Order of Melchisedech, Appendix 1.

In short, the substance of a Sacrament is what Christ has instituted specifically.

Baptism and Holy Eucharist were instituted by Christ specifically. The other five Sacraments were instituted generally via His Apostolic Church.

The substance of the sacrament is [blessed] Olive Oil. How is this not obvious I do not know. But all that was left up to the Church to establish, was the sacrament's ritual while using that oil.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #217 on:** **Today** at 03:10:43 PM »

Christ instituted Holy Orders.
Holy Orders has matter and Form.
Therefore, Christ instituted Holy Order's matter and form.

Matter only is not a sacrament.
Form only is not a sacrament.

What matter did Christ create, then, for Holy Orders? If you're saying He didn't create/decide on the matter, then you're saying He didn't create the sacrament.

Benedikt · « **Reply #218 on:** **Today** at 03:51:58 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 12:52:21 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis 2025-08-18, 10:52:21 AM
Apostolic Tradition is SEPARATE from church authority. That’s the part you’re missing.

Apostolic Tradition = divine revelation = from Christ, who instructed the Apostles. This is infallible and unchangeable.

After the Apostles died, THEN we have 100% church authority.

You guys keep ignoring Apostolic Tradition's unique status.

Apostolic Tradition must be distinguished: some of it is divine Revelation (unchangeable), and some of it consists of Apostolic customs and ecclesiastical prescriptions (changeable in necessity). Olive oil falls into the latter. That is why +Pius XII teaches, “The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments… but the Church does have power over those things which it has established” (Sacramentum Ordinis, 42).

St. Thomas Aquinas also makes this clear: while olive oil is prescribed for Confirmation, in necessity another oil can suffice, since the Church’s prescription is not the essence of Christ’s institution (ST III, q.72, a.2 ad 4). Apostolic usage makes olive oil proper and ordinary, but not essential for validity. To confuse Apostolic discipline with divine Revelation is precisely the mistake that leads to denying the Church’s authority to regulate sacramental practice.

And here is why the Novus Ordo is positively doubtful: by altering traditional rites, formulas, and even the ordinary prescriptions surrounding sacramental matter, it introduces uncertainty about whether the substance instituted by Christ is preserved intact. This directly violates +Pope Pius V’s perpetual decree in Quo Primum (1570), which bound the Roman Rite to remain unchanged. When innovation touches what the Church has always prescribed, Catholics cannot be certain that Christ’s own institution is safeguarded. That inherent uncertainty is exactly what constitutes positive doubt, and it is why the Novus Ordo cannot be trusted as certainly valid.

Angelus · « **Reply #219 on:** **Today** at 04:36:20 PM »

Quote from: Benedikt on Today at 03:51:58 PM

St. Thomas Aquinas also makes this clear: while olive oil is prescribed for Confirmation, in necessity another oil can suffice, since the Church’s prescription is not the essence of Christ’s institution (ST III, q.72, a.2 ad 4). Apostolic usage makes olive oil proper and ordinary, but not essential for validity. To confuse Apostolic discipline with divine Revelation is precisely the mistake that leads to denying the Church’s authority to regulate sacramental practice.

Benedikt, you have misread St. Thomas. Here is what he said (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q72.A2):

The objection states that olive oil can be replaced with any type of oil as matter of the Sacrament:

Quote

Obj. 3: Further, oil is used as the matter of this sacrament for the purpose of anointing. But any oil will do for anointing: for instance, oil made from nuts, and from anything else. Therefore not only olive oil should be used for this sacrament.

In his response, St. Thomas explains why that opinion (Obj. 3) is wrong:

Quote

Reply Obj. 3: These properties of oil, by reason of which it symbolizes the Holy Spirit, are to be found in olive oil rather than in any other oil. In fact, the olive-tree itself, through being an evergreen, signifies the refreshing and merciful operation of the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, this oil is called oil properly, and is very much in use, wherever it is to be had. And whatever other liquid is so called, derives its name from its likeness to this oil: nor are the latter commonly used, unless it be to supply the want of olive oil. Therefore it is that this oil alone is used for this and certain other sacraments.

The red underlined part above is what you are misinterpreting. The Latin is clear: "nisi in supplementum apud eos quibus deest oleum olivarum" [except to supplement in case of a shortage of olive oil]. This means that another oil can be added to olive oil, but the olive oil must be the base oil used in order for the "matter" of the Sacrament to be valid.

If you look at the response to Obj. 4, it confirms my interpretation. St. Thomas is saying that even though olive oil is not found in all parts of the world. It is "enough" that it is possible to send it easily when needed. The reason for this being a non-problem is that the Sacrament of Confirmation is not necessary like the Sacrament of Baptism. Therefore, if people have to wait for this Sacrament because the oil has not arrived, it is no big deal.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #220 on:** **Today** at 04:39:24 PM »

Quote from: Benedikt on Today at 03:51:58 PM

Apostolic Tradition must be distinguished: some of it is divine Revelation (unchangeable), and some of it consists of Apostolic customs and ecclesiastical prescriptions (changeable in necessity). Olive oil falls into the latter.

That's what we're debating. I think olive oil is part of divine revelation.

Quote

St. Thomas Aquinas also makes this clear: while olive oil is prescribed for Confirmation, in necessity another oil can suffice, since the Church’s prescription is not the essence of Christ’s institution (ST III, q.72, a.2 ad 4).

I don't know what you've read, but St Thomas says olive oil is essential.

Article 2. Whether chrism is a fitting matter for this sacrament?

Objection 3. Further, oil is used as the matter of this sacrament for the purpose of anointing. But any oil will do for anointing: for instance, oil made from nuts, and from anything else. Therefore not only olive oil should be used for this sacrament.

St Thomas' Reply to Objection 3. These properties of oil, by reason of which it symbolizes the Holy Ghost, are to be found in olive oil rather than in any other oil. In fact, the olive-tree itself, through being an evergreen, signifies the refreshing and merciful operation of the Holy Ghost.

Moreover, this oil is called oil properly, and is very much in use, wherever it is to be had. And whatever other liquid is so called, derives its name from its likeness to this oil: nor are the latter commonly used, unless it be to supply the want of olive oil. Therefore it is that this oil alone is used for this and certain other sacraments.

Benedikt · « **Reply #221 on:** **Today** at 05:35:32 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 04:39:24 PM

Quote from: Pax Vobis 2025-08-18, 2:39:24 PM
That's what we're debating. I think olive oil is part of divine revelation.

I don't know what you've read, but St Thomas says olive oil is essential.

Article 2. Whether chrism is a fitting matter for this sacrament?

Objection 3. Further, oil is used as the matter of this sacrament for the purpose of anointing. But any oil will do for anointing: for instance, oil made from nuts, and from anything else. Therefore not only olive oil should be used for this sacrament.

St Thomas' Reply to Objection 3. These properties of oil, by reason of which it symbolizes the Holy Ghost, are to be found in olive oil rather than in any other oil. In fact, the olive-tree itself, through being an evergreen, signifies the refreshing and merciful operation of the Holy Ghost.

Moreover, this oil is called oil properly, and is very much in use, wherever it is to be had. And whatever other liquid is so called, derives its name from its likeness to this oil: nor are the latter commonly used, unless it be to supply the want of olive oil. Therefore it is that this oil alone is used for this and certain other sacraments.

Pax Vobis, I appreciate your zeal for safeguarding tradition and the sacraments. At the same time, we must distinguish between olive oil’s normative, symbolic role and the divine institution itself. St. Thomas notes that olive oil is the proper matter because of its symbolism and customary use, yet explicitly allows other oils in necessity (“unless it be to supply the want of olive oil”). This aligns with +Pius XII, who teaches that the Church cannot alter the substance instituted by Christ but does have authority over what she has established (Sacramentum Ordinis, 42). Olive oil is therefore proper and ordinary, but not unchangeably essential, and recognizing this fully respects both tradition and the Church’s authority.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #222 on:** **Today** at 06:29:46 PM »

Angelus already explained the Latin. It cannot be 0% olive oil. Olive oil has to be the base and then add others.

Ps. You are assuming Paul6 gave a darn about what Pius XII said. Paul6 did whatever he wanted. He was a heretical modernist from hell.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #223 on:** **Today** at 06:55:32 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 06:29:46 PM

Angelus already explained the Latin. It cannot be 0% olive oil. Olive oil has to be the base and then add others.

Ps. You are assuming Paul6 gave a darn about what Pius XII said. Paul6 did whatever he wanted. He was a heretical modernist from hell.

As I've mentioned, there are different "paradigms" for understanding the Crisis. At the top level, somehow, not necessarily meaning the papal claimants themselves, but at the top level, reporting to Satan himself most likely, are the conscious destroyers. Now, whether some or all of the papal claimants were conscious destroyers or whether they were dupes, pawns, blackmailed (ala Epstein), or just useful idiots, where the true controllers of "Deep Church" pulled their strings and told them what to do ... we don't know and won't know until the Church has been restored.

This was not by accident, not some "grass roots" trend leading to a gradual loss of faith (except to the extent I'll lay out in one moment), but an "enemy hath done this". This was CLEARLY by design, as the Masonic fingerprints are all over this abomination. They couldn't have done a better job of wrecking the Church had Satan himself orchestrated the whole thing ... which means that ... Satan himself orchestrated the whole thing, probably along the lines of Pope Leo XIII's vision.

Below the conscious destroyers you may have some evil men in it because they believe in some alleged agenda, e.g. the ideals of Masonry, really believing in that ideology, and not quite aware that the real agenda is an evil intent to destroy the Church. Then below them you have people who sign on to the agenda, even if they don't really believe in it all THAT much, but don't mind the damage either ... for the motivation of getting money or power or other rewards for themselves. Then you have useful idiots, and these are the ones whose minds have been contaminated over time.

Normally, a healthy Body of Christ, would have never let a Montini pass Go ... but would have driven him out of the Vatican with pitch forks and torches, tarring and feathering him. But since the Church's "immune system", her resistance to heresy, had in fact been weakened over decades and centuries of attacks, via Modernism, 99% of them just "went along" with the Montinian agenda, at least at the "useful idiot" level or else at the level of just go along and don't make waves and what can we do.

Boru · « **Reply #224 on:** **Today** at 08:09:31 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on Today at 04:36:20 PM

Benedikt, you have misread St. Thomas. Here is what he said (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q72.A2):

The objection states that olive oil can be replaced with any type of oil as matter of the Sacrament:

In his response, St. Thomas explains why that opinion (Obj. 3) is wrong:

The red underlined part above is what you are misinterpreting. The Latin is clear: "nisi in supplementum apud eos quibus deest oleum olivarum" [except to supplement in case of a shortage of olive oil].
but the olive oil must be the base oil used in order for the "matter" of the Sacrament to be valid.

If you look at the response to Obj. 4, it confirms my interpretation. St. Thomas is saying that even though olive oil is not found in all parts of the world. It is "enough" that it is possible to send it easily when needed. The reason for this being a non-problem is that the Sacrament of Confirmation is not necessary like the Sacrament of Baptism. Therefore, if people have to wait for this Sacrament because the oil has not arrived, it is no big deal.

Bebedikt's assessment is correct. I'm basically repeating what he says in a slightly more expansive way.

The part that I high-lighted - may I ask, does St. Thomas Aquinas teach this (and if so where) or is this your personal opinion?

The following in the Summa is under the tile: Whether Chrism (oil) is a fitting matter for this sacrament (Confirmation):

Hoc etiam oleum proprie dicitur oleum, et maxime habetur in usu ubi haberi potest=
Moreover, this oil is called oil properly, and is very much in use, wherever it is to be had.

Quilibet autem alius liquor ex similitudine huius oleum nominatur, nec est in usu communi, nisi in supplementum apud eos quibus deest oleum olivarum. Et ideo hoc oleum solum assumitur in usum huius et quorundam aliorum sacramentorum =

However, any other liquid named after the similarity of this oil (meaning a similar oil to Olive Oil) is not in common use except when supplementing among those deficient in olive oil.

This similar oil is not in common use = inferring it is sometimes used.
But is more commonly used as a supplement when Olive Oil is deficient.

The very fact that other similar oils were allowed by the Church supports Pope Pius XII, who teaches that the Church cannot alter the substance instituted by Christ but does have authority over the substance that the Church has mandated (Sacramentum Ordinis, 42)

St. James merely states 'oil' which St. Thomas Aquinas states means the native oil, that is, olive oil. Yet, here we see that similar plant based oils being commonly used as well. Regardless of how they were used, they were used. According to your reasoning, all those early sacraments were invalid.

Reply to objection 4 refers specifically to Confirmation. As it is not as essential as Baptism, one can wait a while for the preferable Olive Oil to be got.
However this reply could not be applied to Extreme Unction and indeed, given the title, it only applied to Confirmation. So what did the Church fathers use when Olive Oil was lacking? Or did they let people die without the Sacrament while waiting for the post?

Author Topic: Universal doubtful intention (Read 7512 times)

Boru

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Pax Vobis

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Stubborn

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Boru

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Pax Vobis

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Pax Vobis

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Stubborn

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Pax Vobis

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Benedikt

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Angelus

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Pax Vobis

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Benedikt

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Pax Vobis

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Ladislaus

Re: Universal doubtful intention

Boru

Re: Universal doubtful intention