FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Nobody is Crying
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
The use of a rite of the Church demonstrates by itself the intention to do what the Church does.  It's objective and visible--we're not called to investigate everyone's formation or guess what people are thinking.  If a Catholic priest were to change the substance of the rite on his own accord in a way that obviously demonstrated he was intending to do something different than what the Church does, then you might have doubts (this is what happened when the line of Anglican Orders were broken--men who otherwise would have used the Catholic Church's rite used a different one for the purpose of not ordaining sacrificing priests--they later changed it back, but the line of succession had been broken).

(note, the above applies to Catholics. The intention to do what the Church does is judged even more broadly for non-Catholics, since they may be presumed wrong about which is the right Church. But as long as they are intending to do what Jesus' Church does--even if they don't know the actual effects of what His Church actually does or which is his actual Church--it's still the right intent.  This is why marriages by Catholics outside the Church are considered invalid, but marriages by Protestants are not--a Catholic entirely refusing the Church's rites for the sacraments in their substance is presumed to not intend to do what the Church does).
(06-06-2013, 04:55 PM)Unum Sint Wrote: [ -> ]This sounds like liturgical Donatism.

Though I understand what you are saying about the NO one can not draw the conclusion that because of the intent of the celebrant the Sacrament is made invalid or ineffective.

No; the Donatists maintained that the mere sinfulness of a man, particularly traitors, rendered the Sacraments invalid. This is not my position.

The celebrant has to have the intent to confer the Sacrament.

This is better elucidated here:
And gets really technical here:

If the intention for Transubstantiation is not present, I cannot see how one engages in a valid Mass. I am not required, to my knowledge, to believe that every Mass is valid as celebrated, but valid as promulgated. Certainly I cannot believe that the NO is licit in its subjective celebration, despite the objective liceity in its celebration per the rubrics. I find, in the NO, a chaotic dualism wherein I am both horrified that Our Lord is abused and disrespected, and simultaneously have doubt as to whether or not I am even receiving Our Lord if I present myself for Holy Communion-- for whatever reason I am unable to make the TLM (a rare to never occurrence).

Why? Because I do not trust NO priests. I do not trust their formation, doctrinal beliefs, or their intent. Why? Because i do not trust the hierarchy at large which produced them, and who shepherd the laity from which they came. Why? Because they have given me no reason to do so, because they speak like Protestants and do not seem to hold to orthodoxy, court heresy, and overall seem to project a belief that one does not have to be Catholic.

It's a tough position, but it's the way it is. I don't wish to engage in something which would place me under anathema, so I'll just bow out now and continue to research, pray and hope I am led to the position which is best and true. That said, I can only assist at the TLM lest I doubt. So, instead of wonder if the Mass is invalid or not, I just shall keep with what I know and believe to be good since it is not the product and production of dubious men.
Pages: 1 2