Another Primitive Faith question....

If the priest himself does not believe in Transubstantiation, it would seem to me that the INTENT would be completely lacking. The ONLY way I could understand "the minimal amount of intent" being present would be if the Sacrament of Holy Orders bestowed upon the priest would be adequate.

But even that takes quite a stretch of understanding.


Peace,
~VOW

Vow -

I am talking about a priest is in full - visible - union with Rome. I am talking about a Roman Catholic Priest. I am not talking about a Priest outside of Rome.

So if your pastor denies the real presence - in private - and still says mass because he has to - because he is afraid to leave the church - he follows proper form and matter - do you believe that the sacrament happens?

The church will say yes - and I say yes - the faith of the priest does not effect the validity of the sacrament.

There is an old concept, Ecclesia supplet:

Where the faith is lacking, the Church supplies.

Fr. Rob

To Polycarp:

The church will say yes - and I say yes - the faith of the priest does not effect the validity of the sacrament.

Click to expand...

So it is upon the strength of the Holy Orders that minimal intent is provided, then?

I can understand that. Because as a representative of Jesus, the OFFICE of Priest is the one who performs the consecration, who hears the confession, who exercises the absolution. The MAN inside the vestments merely animates the office.

Because, in actuality, NOBODY is worthy enough to stand in place of Jesus.



Peace be with you,
~VOW

Originally posted by Polycarp
So you are saying that the faith of the priest limits God's ability to give His grace.

Click to expand...

Just as a man is capable of committing murder, an act that is clearly against God's wishes, a priest can frustrate the sacraments by refusing to do what the Church does.  Therefore, my answer to your question is "Yes" and is affirmed by the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa and the Council of Trent.

Originally posted by Polycarp
I was never taught what you stated by any priest, bishop or seminary professor. I have never even read a book which stated what you are saying here.

Click to expand...

You never read the Summa?

Originally posted by Polycarp
The position of the Catholic church, that I have been taught is just what I have stated - that the priest's holiness or lack thereof does not change the effectivness of the sacrament.

Click to expand...

This is true, this is Donatism, but even if the priest isn't sinful, if he abjectly refuses to administer the sacrament, the sacrament will not be performed.  Such an example is clearly evident in the case of improper matter or improper form, intent is just harder to prove.  If a priest performed the consecration over a loaf of Wonder Bread, does transubstantiation occur?  No, it does not.  Are you then telling me that the priest cannot frustrate God's grace?  Is proper matter useful?  Necessary?  You yourself said Christ established the form and matter.

Originally posted by Polycarp
I was taught in seminary in my class on the sacraments that proper form/matter indicated at least minimal intent and that transubstantiation happend.

Click to expand...

And I'm telling you that not two months ago I was involved in a huge debate over this very issue and I argued exactly what you just said, only to be told by a priest that this is not the case.  That as a layman I could rest assured that if proper matter/form were present that the intent was there, but that the fact of the matter is, since I cannot know the priests own thoughts, I could never know but I ought not to worry about it because God will nto deny His graces to those who seek them.

Originally posted by Polycarp
Knowing that there are priest who are bitter and who remain in the church because they have no where to go bothered me - until I was taught that the priest's faith does not alter the effectivness of the sacrament - provided that the proper form and matter are used.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is not true.  I can go back and re-ask this question OF A PRIEST and show you that you are incorrect if you'd like.

Originally posted by Polycarp
I do not know where you heard that - but please study further. You will find that you are quite off base from the teachings of the Church.

Click to expand...

 

If you say so, but I have discussed this very issue on Steven Ray's "Catholic Convert" forum and I can go back through the archives and show you that what I thought was true (which is what you are professing) is wrong, and I can also go back to Fr. Joe Horn's site and get his response to me that likewise proves that your stance (proper matter and form  = minimal intent) is not necessarily true.

I refer you to the following post I made awhile back on Steven Ray's Catholic Convert board:

 

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/200203/19664.html

 

Fr. Joe Horn draws his answer from the writings of St. Catherine of Siena, a Doctor of the Church, perhaps you've heard of her... if not having had actually studied her writings.

 

PS: You may rejoice in the fact that this was one of the few times I've ever been wrong on an issue.  You might want to bookkeep it for posterity.

For those who do not wish to hop to another forum, allow me to quote the post which deals specifically with the issue at hand:

 

I had originally asked:

Is it possible that the priest can will himself to not internally intend to perform a sacrament while on the exterior follow the proper form and thereby dupe the entire congregation, thereby making the entire sacrament invalid?



Fr.Joe Horn replied:

Oh boy, I hate to even talk about this, because it's so nightmarish, but you asked for it, so here goes.

Saint Catherine of Sienna discusses exactly the case you mention here. She was dealing with a priest who was in the state of mortal sin, and didn't want to receive the Eucharist sacrilegiously, so he secretly INTENDED for the transubstantiation NOT to occur, thinking that he thus personally avoided sacrilege while the congregation would be none the wiser nor denied grace (see above).

 

St Catherine concluded (and the Church teaches, and Canon Law states) that such an abominable act is morally FAR WORSE than receiving the Eucharist unworthily.

 

Bottom line: YES, a priest CAN render the Eucharist invalid by specifically INTENDING for the transubstantiation NOT to occur. This is called "simulating the sacrament" but (unless revealed by the priest) cannot be known to anybody else, since it is done in secret. Since it is not only a horrible sin but also a violation of strict Church law, it carries severe ecclesiastical penalties. Therefore, no priest should EVER be accused of such a thing without positive proof. Oof! Even writing about that subject wrings me out emotionally! I hope the above proves helpful to you.

Originally posted by jukesk9
The thing with Christianity more so than any religion is that we are able to have a personal relationship to God. Jesus holds out his arms to welcome us in prayer. Why would you want to turn from him and instead speak with someone else? <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/frown.gif" border=0>

Stormy,

Where did I say anything about turning from God and speaking with someone else?&nbsp; Again, you don't understand Catholicism.&nbsp; We don't turn from God.&nbsp; We're asking others for prayer along with our own prayers to God through Christ.&nbsp; If you feel that asking others to pray for you is turning from God, don't ask your friends to pray for you and don't ask your pastor to do the same.&nbsp; Just you and God.&nbsp; And, if you can, show me in the Bible the words "personal relationship with God."&nbsp; Thanks and God bless....

Click to expand...

Jukes,

I think what Stormy is saying(at least this is how I feel about it) is:

If you found yourself LITERALLY/PHYSICALLY in the very presence of Jesus, if He were to appear to you in the room you are sitting in right now, would you speak directly to Him?

I believe that when I pray, I am spiritually in the presence of Jesus. To not speak directly to Him, would be like ignoring the fact that He is there.

nyj: wouldn't that be a case of the sacrament being illicit on the part of the priest, but not invalid on the part of the communicant?

"Most Protestants, taking their lead from Luther's disastrous insistance that everyone can interpret the Bible for himself, would say that the individual does."

So then I am anathema because I don't do what Rome says, no questions asked?

nyj -

St. Thomas was not infalable - nor Catherine of Siena, nor this priest that you are refering to.

Please provide proof from Canon Law, the Cathechism, or any papal/conciliar writings stating your position.

I am gathering proof that you are in error and will post it tomorrow.

Note - my proof will come from Canon Law - The Cathechism - various papal and conciliar documents. Also note that these will be official Catholic teachings.

Originally posted by jukesk9
Auntie Belle Um,

Nice point BUT if you believe that, then there is no need for you to have others to pray for you--IMHO. If Jesus was standing before me along with Mary, yes, I'd go to Him directly. Then I'd pull her aside and ask her to pray for me as well.

Click to expand...

Mental images can be fun! I see Mary, you, and myself, all on our knees before Jesus. Heads bowed, we are all praying to Him.

Jukes, I understand and respect your prayers to Mary, because I know they are to be forwarded to Jesus.

But if everytime I wanted to send you a PM, I sent it to Wols and asked Wols to forward it to you, after a while Wols would lose patience with me, and tell me to send the PM's directly to you! j/k

Just started a new thread dealing with the Form/Matter/Intent topic.

Also, with regards to the express question about the Minister's faith vs. the Validity of the Sacrament, the point of view expressed in the Anglican / Primitive Episcopal Articles of Religion is:

Article 26: Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.


Please note that is is provided for the sake of discussion, and is not a reflection of the formal doctrinal teachings of the Church of Rome or those Diocese in communion with her.

Fr. Rob

From time to time and in one place or another, there are priests and even higher ranking members of the Church of Rome (and in most denominations) who don't even believe that God exists.

Actually, there doesn't seem to be much wrong with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as Rome declares its definition.

However, the definitions provided by some members of the Church of Rome, and believed by most protestants would, if valid, be a major problem.

>>>>"Most Protestants, taking their lead from Luther's disastrous insistance that everyone can interpret the Bible for himself, would say that the individual does."<<<<

So then I am anathema because I don't do what Rome says, no questions asked?

Click to expand...

Wow. Now that was a conclusion jump worthy of a liberal Washington activist.

Did I say anything about Protestants being pronounced anathema for interpreting the Bible for themselves? I did not.

To the best of my knoweledge, there are no official anathemas current against any Protestants, and the last ones that were issued were 450 years ago, and they were not issued because said Protestants were interpreting the Bible for themselves. They were issued because said Protestants were apostate Catholics who rejected the authority of their own Church.

Yes, I did say that Luther's insistance that everyone could interpret the Bible for themselves was disastrous. Why? Because nobody can agree on what the proper interpretation is, and thus we have 20,000 Christian denominations.

Where in all this did I say that you are anathema because you reject what Rome says, Jeff????

Sheesh.

Actually, it is true. Everyone CAN interpret the Bible for himself. Just look at the number of people who come up with different conclusions. It is definite that the Bible has been interpreted by a vast number of someones. (although, to be strictly accurate, those references to "interpret" should have both "re" and "mis" in front of the word.)

The Bible is written in language that can be readily understood for the most part by the average 12 year old, according to Micro-soft Word's assessment of such things. (Personally, I think that Micro-soft Word over-estimates the capabilities of the average 12 year old.) I would put it at no more than a 14 year old's comprehension level.

However: Problems DO arise with interpreting the Bible properly because teachers of the Bible insist on teaching people what it says (according to the teacher's point of view, anyway). Students are not shown how to read the Bible (or any other reference text, come to that). And given that the teacher is often one who also does not know how to examine the Bible for himself, but relies on "authorities" who have a penchant for complicating simple issues, the teacher's understanding is often deficient anyway.

In teaching people to understand scripture, only one approach will give each a uniform understanding indepently of each other and of the teacher - and that is a properly organised reading comprehension test format. Initially in multiple choice answer style, then in open question style. Once students have grasped the concept, they are able to devise their own valid reading comprehension tests, which, the teacher assessing them, will make it possible for the students to learn properly what the Biblical declarations on any given topic are - regardless of how complex the passage under review might be.

Side benefit of this approach for high school students is that they often come to improved terms with their ordinary studies.

Thunderchild -

That was un-called for - let's learn to love as Christ commands us to love.

Click to expand...

OK - What is it that I did this time?