Author Topic: +Lefebrve and withholding jurisdiction (Read 1991 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** September 06, 2020, 11:56:09 AM »

Quote from: Struthio on September 06, 2020, 09:41:54 AM

The Roman and Universal Inquisition (Pope Alexander VIII, December 7, 1690, Errors of the Jansenists) condemned the following proposition:

For more details see Joseph Pohle: The sacraments : a dogmatic treatise.

The topic was discussed on CI: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/are-novus-ordo-baptisms-valid-57051/

As you know, I agree with TKGS on this matter.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #11 on:** September 06, 2020, 12:47:05 PM »

Well, how do we reconcile Struthio’s evidence with the knowledge that the Church always presumes that the intention is good if the form is done correctly? There is one other piece of evidence in Struthio’s favor and that is the Church’s practice of conditional sacraments in cases where the minister admits a defective intention. So maybe that’s the answer? If there is no evidence of a defect before, during or after then not only is the sacrament presumed valid but it is in fact valid. By definition a sacrament confers the grace which it signifies. So if there is no evidence of a defect in the signification then the grace was in fact conferred. But I agree with Struthio that we can never have metaphysical certainty on the validity of any sacrament. What if there was a defect but no one noticed? We just have to trust that Our Lord will make sure we receive everything necessary for our salvation.

Tradman · « **Reply #12 on:** September 06, 2020, 01:53:15 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on September 06, 2020, 12:47:05 PM

Well, how do we reconcile Struthio’s evidence with the knowledge that the Church always presumes that the intention is good if the form is done correctly? There is one other piece of evidence in Struthio’s favor and that is the Church’s practice of conditional sacraments in cases where the minister admits a defective intention. So maybe that’s the answer? If there is no evidence of a defect before, during or after then not only is the sacrament presumed valid but it is in fact valid. By definition a sacrament confers the grace which it signifies. So if there is no evidence of a defect in the signification then the grace was in fact conferred. But I agree with Struthio that we can never have metaphysical certainty on the validity of any sacrament. What if there was a defect but no one noticed? We just have to trust that Our Lord will make sure we receive everything necessary for our salvation.

The Church presumes that the intention is good if the form follows. Canon 209 states that the sacraments are always conferred even by the excommunicated priests.

1983 Code of Canon Law

Supplied jurisdiction canon 209 plus

Even if the words are flubbed, as with the recent Fr. Pfeiffer ordinations, St. Thomas assures us that verbal defects of the words are covered by the Church. This should encourage Catholics to the point that we can hold that Masses throughout the world, (dare say NO Masses) unless obviously defective, with obvious deformity, like communion with Doritos, are valid, and efficacious. Christ intends to feed His sheep and has done so despite the disdain of certain trads. No denying all defects will be accounted for but Christ dominates with grace, and overcomes defects of men for the sake of men.

TKGS · « **Reply #13 on:** September 06, 2020, 02:42:30 PM »

After reading the portion of Struthio's reference by Joseph Pohle, I note that he gives two theories. The first one is essentially what I have said and the second one is the one that says that no one can ever know any sacrament is valid because we cannot know a person's internal intentions. I didn't see his evaluation as to which theory is the correct theory.

In any event, when a minister's announced heretical doctrine (i.e., in the case of the referenced Jansenists) is publicly known and the individual's public understanding of what he is doing is not what the Church does, then the sacrament is not valid. Archbishop Lefebvre did not hold (as far as I have ever heard) a public heretical doctrine in regards to the sacraments so his administration of those sacraments are valid. Whether they were licit is another matter entirely and is not relevant to the topic.

Struthio · « **Reply #14 on:** September 06, 2020, 03:10:19 PM »

Quote from: TKGS on September 06, 2020, 02:42:30 PM

I didn't see his evaluation as to which theory is the correct theory.

Just read on. He explains how your opinion was condemned and proves that it can't be true.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: +Lefebrve and withholding jurisdiction (Read 1991 times)

Ladislaus

Re: +Lefebrve and withholding jurisdiction

Clemens Maria

Re: +Lefebrve and withholding jurisdiction

Tradman

Re: +Lefebrve and withholding jurisdiction

TKGS

Re: +Lefebrve and withholding jurisdiction

Struthio

Re: +Lefebrve and withholding jurisdiction