tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post7614611033016075309..comments2023-08-19T23:23:19.849+10:00Comments on Sentire cum Ecclesia: An email from a ReaderSchützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-14730813413640250502009-03-14T02:39:00.000+11:002009-03-14T02:39:00.000+11:00Flying Judas in the aviary, oh, holy living cheese...Flying Judas in the aviary, oh, holy living cheeseballs, I wasn't to do that, pardon me all to hell, is it not standard that the CELEBRANT of a sacrament need only intend to do what the Church does even if he isn't altogether clear on what that is?<BR/><BR/>It's about the text, not the priest.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-51604635117426120852009-03-13T19:05:00.000+11:002009-03-13T19:05:00.000+11:00PE,Now I'm more confused than ever! I thought you...PE,<BR/><BR/>Now I'm more confused than ever! I thought you were saying that the intent was the issue?<BR/><BR/>Please, I would appreciate it much if you could clarify this (and of your charity omit the "Judas H. Pope's" and whatever other perfervid exclamations you would otherwise tourettishly interject).Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17387698013828199070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-37209320242704019102009-03-13T16:51:00.000+11:002009-03-13T16:51:00.000+11:00So, what are you saying when you claim the intent ...So, what are you saying when you claim the intent can't be there? That the form militates against the possibility of such an intention? I don't think so, and if you want to maintain that, you would have to go further and say why you say that.<BR/><BR/>And by the way, keep in mind you have said this against both the Novus Ordo and the Extraordinary Form.Kiranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15869694933362233326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-45700563982020837502009-03-13T16:25:00.000+11:002009-03-13T16:25:00.000+11:00The intent to do what the Church does, even if wha...The intent to do what the Church does, even if what the Church does is imperfectly understood by the intender, is sufficient re intent in sacramental validity.<BR/><BR/>Thus, the novus ordo does not, because no rite can, require a greater degree of intent on the part of the priest.<BR/><BR/>Again, what I am saying has nothing to do with what is going on with the priest.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-81116011633773494312009-03-13T16:00:00.000+11:002009-03-13T16:00:00.000+11:00"it is impossible due to its revisionism to state ..."it is impossible due to its revisionism to state with certainty that intent is present when it is celebrated. And therefore, assuming one understands this, full animadversion being necessary, a sin in which to participate."<BR/><BR/>I know someone else who holds this (though a little more consistent being a Catholic). But I am yet to see a why either from him or from you. Whatever the original intention of the reformers has been (and I should say here, as an indication of where I stand, that I attend Mass said according to the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, which you attack elsewhere, every day so far as I can), why should that necessarily and so profoundly affect the intentionality of the actions of the priest?<BR/><BR/>epurbi: over the cityKiranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15869694933362233326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-64618011236046889032009-03-13T07:34:00.000+11:002009-03-13T07:34:00.000+11:00PE,Many, many thanks - I think I now understand yo...PE,<BR/><BR/>Many, many thanks - I think I now understand you!<BR/><BR/>So it's a question (you wearing your former Catholic hat for the moment) of intent: the N.O. in your view (qua former Catholic) requiring a much greater degree of formal intent on the part of the celebrating priest.<BR/><BR/>(Praying, say, the old Formula of Intention before Mass - would that suffice? Ego volo celebrare Missam, etc.?)<BR/><BR/>I get this, but I thought that the only needed intent was/is "to do as the Church does" - so a priest who didn't believe in transsubstantiation (golly, imagine that) would still confect the Sacrament, however unworthily on his part, since by his going to the altar, etc. he would be doing as the Church does.<BR/><BR/>Again, qua Catholic, what's wrong with that as a very basic intent?Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17387698013828199070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-40209056746765697912009-03-13T02:52:00.000+11:002009-03-13T02:52:00.000+11:00What? Past Elder more than a bit provocative? Gr...What? Past Elder more than a bit provocative? Great Judas in the forum, am I not known throughout my home turf, the Lutheran blogosphere, for my placid and altogether irenic tone! Just ask Pastor Weedon!<BR/><BR/>Now, as to your not being catholic, ie not a member of God's church, I say no such thing at all. Not that God, you, or anyone else should give a royal, noble, or commoner crap what I think in that regard, just since it came up. From your background as stated in these comments, it would seem you were either baptised by water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost with the intent of joining you to Christ's church by the Roman Catholic Church or in their judgement another body which correctly baptises (it would seem a part of the Anglican Communion). Therefore I would have no reason to question that you are a member of God's church.<BR/><BR/>As to the Sacrifice no longer being valid within the Church -- by "Church" you would seem to mean the Catholic Church -- that is not what I said.<BR/><BR/>What is now called the Tridentine Rite is hardly the only possible ordo missae in the (Catholic) Church. Its chief virtue is that it corrects the valid objections of the Reformers to the liturgical laxity of their time by ensuring that matter, form and intent will be present in each and every Mass rather than the laxity cited or the subsequent errors of the Reformers re the nature of the Mass.<BR/><BR/>Or so I was taught, before I was taught that it was a late mediaeval straight-jacket into which the "Church" cast the Mass in an extreme reaction to the situation of the time, regretable then and unnecesary now, from which, coupled with the advances since in knowledge of apostolic and patristic worship, we are now thankfully delivered by a novus ordo missae, more fully in harmony with the nature of the Mass and indeed accomplishing the desired reform of the Mass of Pius V more fully than was possible at that time.<BR/><BR/>Sound good? I tried to buy it for a long time, until, tired of constantly having to look past the "excesses" nearly universal and impose this Platonic ideal on nearly every reality one experiences, I studied the typical Latin of the novus ordo itself.<BR/><BR/>Whereupon it revealed itself as a high church Protestant service in full retreat from what specifically the "Church" had intended to make inescapable, whose only validity could be in that it was celebrated by clergy properly ordained to confect it.<BR/><BR/>So, in a Catholic context, I do not say the movus ordo is sacramentally invalid, but rather that it is impossible due to its revisionism to state with certainty that intent is present when it is celebrated. And therefore, assuming one understands this, full animadversion being necessary, a sin in which to participate -- to which I add immediately, full animadversion apparently hardly ever the case, or even possible due to the similarly faulty catechesis from the nouvelle theologie revisionists who crafted this new lex orandi to effect in worship what their new lex credendi did in teaching.<BR/><BR/>These latter-day traditores have not repented of their deeds, and indeed (that was fun -- deed, indeed!) persist in them, most recently in the outrageous motu which proclaims a thing and its denial two forms of the same thing, the former being allowed on condition of recognising the latter. Therewith the comparison with the Donatists ends, the traditores of that time having repented and seeking reintegration, the traditores of our time completely unrepentant, handing over to history Catholic faith and teaching and handing on to us a most foul parody of it.<BR/><BR/>I will stop there, to divorce this point from my later faith history and underscore that if I were to lose my "Lutheran" faith entirely -- because of which Faith I might add I am now able to see Christ's church present in both the post and pre Vatican II Catholic Church -- I would still hold to what is expressed above, which preceded my current faith by years, and in no case involve myself with the post-conciliar "Catholic Church".<BR/><BR/>inchally: measured by inches, as opposed to feetally or yardally.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-22056374340691895472009-03-12T12:48:00.000+11:002009-03-12T12:48:00.000+11:00I am sorry for being petulant, PE, but sometimes y...I am sorry for being petulant, PE, but sometimes you are more than a bit provocative. I don't mind even if you call me not a catholic, i.e. not a member of God's Church, but being told that the Sacrifice is no longer valid within the Church (as you did in your comments regarding the EF and the NO) is a bit much.Kiranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15869694933362233326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-49289333157806836942009-03-12T12:43:00.000+11:002009-03-12T12:43:00.000+11:00My point, PE, is that if you disagree with Catholi...My point, PE, is that if you disagree with Catholics because they are not the Church, that is fine by me. Or at least, I can disagree validly. If you keep attacking the post-conciliar Church, then you are in quite a different position.Kiranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15869694933362233326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-67337176213878558292009-03-12T12:42:00.000+11:002009-03-12T12:42:00.000+11:00I shall restrain myself to quoting:"there are trad...I shall restrain myself to quoting:<BR/><BR/>"there are traditores in our time, yes, but unlike those of old, they have not handed over Scripture to Roman Imperial authorities who outlawed them, but handed over Catholic doctrine and worship to history and outlawed it, being the only Imperial functionaries extant now, though lately allowing, in good Imperial custom, its local observance so long as one does not deny their religion."Kiranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15869694933362233326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-89968715953140330372009-03-12T00:28:00.000+11:002009-03-12T00:28:00.000+11:00I did. That's why I wonder if you understand what...I did. That's why I wonder if you understand what the issues were re Donatism, since you seem to find them comparable to why I am not Roman Catholic.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-43230608484417387442009-03-11T17:24:00.000+11:002009-03-11T17:24:00.000+11:00PE, see above.PE, see above.Kiranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15869694933362233326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-75369942041665095742009-03-11T14:16:00.000+11:002009-03-11T14:16:00.000+11:00Do you have the slightest idea what Donatism is?Do you have the slightest idea what Donatism is?Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-7027581471259744232009-03-11T13:19:00.000+11:002009-03-11T13:19:00.000+11:00PE, you hold it against an extension of their sacr...PE, you hold it against an extension of their sacramental ministry. Or rather, you do until you are pushed at which point you go back and attack the concept of Church. If only you would stick to arguing for the invalidity of Catholic ecclesiology without throwing imputations against Vatican II, then one could argue with you on a different basis. If you continue speaking about Vatican II as some kind of great apostacy, one would be justified in calling you a Donatist.Kiranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15869694933362233326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-81550924337877844902009-03-10T11:56:00.000+11:002009-03-10T11:56:00.000+11:00What you completely leave out of acoount, for whic...What you completely leave out of acoount, for which your analogy fails, is why there was opposition to the ordination of Caecilianus by Felix, and then by extension, any validity to any sacramental action by traditores who repent.<BR/><BR/>As I hold nothing remotely like that Why against the bishops and popes of Vatican II or since, the analogy becomes, to borrow a term, needless argumentation.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-77803634978528145022009-03-10T09:17:00.000+11:002009-03-10T09:17:00.000+11:00Christine, I didn't ask you not to post here, I wa...Christine, I didn't ask you not to post here, I was asked why I responded ("If you think I am wasting your time, may I suggest the sliding bar to the right of the combox to skip over my comments, or even better, a wheel mouse."), and I responded back. The thing is that I don't in the least mind a heated argument, or an exchange of texts. What I do dislike is going round and round in the same circle of self-justification, which I can do just as well as anybody else, but which is particularly pointless. At any rate, I wasn't speaking to you.<BR/><BR/>Donatism (and I wrote an honours thesis on Augustine's theology of Grace, and so ought to know a thing or two about it as does <A HREF="http://www.blameless.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=184&Itemid=9" REL="nofollow">this webpage, spelling-mistakes and all</A>) is quite a complicated thing containing many strands. Mainly, it was a group of people (mostly in Northern Africa) claiming the invalidity of sacramental ministrations by ministers descended from a particular Bishop who was accused (by people who were themselves guilty of what they accused Felix of Apthunga who was probably not himself guilty of anything more than being a little clever - but that is a different story for a different time) of being a traditor - one who handed over the sacred books. Hence they concluded the invalidity of sacramental Holy Orders descended from Felix. Now, as the fourth century wore on, the issues were rendered even more complicated. What it amounted to, and what Augustine objected in them was a separation from the Church of God, in a false conviction of their own purity. This is part of the background too, for the writing of the City of God, and Augustine's ecclesiology. Now, the analogy between PE and the Donatists is as good as any analogy ever was. He holds himself justified in being separated from the Church of God because (he claims) the Church has somehow moved away from itself. I don't know how much more Donatist one can get without holding to the necessity of rebaptism.<BR/><BR/>predram: What one ought to have before one engages in needless argumentation.Kiranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15869694933362233326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-91707474447061005842009-03-10T00:45:00.000+11:002009-03-10T00:45:00.000+11:00Kiran, a little refresher (and you are a "medieval...Kiran, a little refresher (and you are a "medieval historian", right?)<BR/><BR/>Donatism was the error taught by Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae that the effectiveness of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister. So if a minister who was involved in a serious enough sin were to baptize a person, that baptism would be considered invalid.<BR/><BR/>Your definition is a tad off.<BR/><BR/>PE and I have been posting here far longer than you, Kiran. If David wants us to stop I'm sure he'll let us know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-58647221357139454912009-03-09T18:13:00.000+11:002009-03-09T18:13:00.000+11:00Good riddance to skeptics and suspicious types too...Good riddance to skeptics and suspicious types too!Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17387698013828199070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-46712781050237808252009-03-09T17:00:00.000+11:002009-03-09T17:00:00.000+11:00No, I did not ask you why you respond to me. I wa...No, I did not ask you why you respond to me. I was you who said I was wasting your time, to which I suggested two easy ways to avoid my comments, and you who said that due to the extent of my comments you feel bound to address them as you would abuse shouted in front of your house, to which I commented that if you find it abuse to point out how the RCC regarded with suspicion, to say the very least, what it now regards as normative, the answer to that may lie within yourself. I did not ask what that answer is, nor speculate upon it.<BR/><BR/>Separating oneself from the Church -- whether "the Church" is the RCC as implied being another question -- is hardly unique to or characteristic of Donatism, nor are there any parallels between the reasons the Donatists did and said what they did and what is happening to-day.<BR/><BR/>Oh well.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-25761112968512977742009-03-09T13:52:00.000+11:002009-03-09T13:52:00.000+11:00PE, you asked me why I respond to you, and I have ...PE, you asked me why I respond to you, and I have told you. More than that, I can't be expected to do. Your donatism lies in the fact that you have separated yourself from the Church, and believe yourself to be in the right, nor that the Church persists or can be recovered. <BR/><BR/>berid: What PE ought to be in relation to evidence.Kiranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15869694933362233326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-16407348561829579172009-03-09T11:57:00.000+11:002009-03-09T11:57:00.000+11:00Kiran, if the someone else whose blog this is want...Kiran, if the someone else whose blog this is wants me not to comment here, he will say so and I will not comment here.<BR/><BR/>It is his "home", not yours. As to your finding the things to which I have referred, pointing to that what is now normative Catholicism was considered foreign to Catholicism by the RCC or to that the Donatist controversy is not at all comparable to the RCC's current situation, like abuse, that is a problem whose answer may lie in yourself.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-3819673910048869172009-03-09T10:07:00.000+11:002009-03-09T10:07:00.000+11:00PE, the problem is that you clog up a lot of space...PE, the problem is that you clog up a lot of space on someone else's blog. So, one feels on the one hand bound to respond to you, and wishes one didn't have to do so. It is like having someone yelling abuse at you in front of your own home. One can't walk away.Kiranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15869694933362233326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-21857254061055701662009-03-07T13:31:00.000+11:002009-03-07T13:31:00.000+11:00I've never heard of a Lutheran working a miracle, ...<I>I've never heard of a Lutheran working a miracle, or being the beneficiary of one.</I><BR/><BR/>We fully accept the miracles that the Lord worked. But we now walk by faith, not by sight. Remember what He told those who clamored for signs in the New Testament. None would be given save for the sign of Jonah.<BR/><BR/>Tongues of the Maccabees indeed. And probably my left foot! <BR/><BR/>We experience a miracle in every Holy Baptism and every Holy Communion.<BR/><BR/>The credulity of Catholics is simply amazing. I am so glad to leave all this behind.<BR/><BR/>ChristineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-43694721422500119872009-03-07T11:39:00.000+11:002009-03-07T11:39:00.000+11:00That's what Christ promised all right -- you'll kn...That's what Christ promised all right -- you'll know they were teaching right if I preserve their tongue and vocal chordsPast Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-57887142068464761872009-03-07T08:52:00.000+11:002009-03-07T08:52:00.000+11:00Good point, Lee - indeed, he's now Blessed John Sc...Good point, Lee - indeed, he's now Blessed John Scotus (if you trawl through the archives over at Fr Finigan's blog "The Hermeneutic of Continuity", you'll find a link through to the Archdiocese of Cologne's website, where they give the proper readings and prayers for his Mass and Office).<BR/><BR/>This reminds me of a Dominican I know: he told me that when he was in Cologne (not for WYD), he visited their Priory there, and as a special privilege was allowed to wear at his Mass a chasuble originally used by St Albert the Great, 800 years earlier.<BR/><BR/>And in an adjacent church were the tongues of the Maccabeean martyrs - an interesting class of relics, tongues; at St Anthony of Padua's shrine at Bologna, where he died, there are two side chapels, containing the only incorrupt parts of his body: his tongue and his vocal chords, whereby he did preach the pure word of God, the veracity of his doctrine being attested to by this standing miracle of their preservation.<BR/><BR/>I've never heard of a Lutheran working a miracle, or being the beneficiary of one.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17387698013828199070noreply@blogger.com