FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments (/showthread.php?tid=49184)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Re: Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - jovan66102 - 09-27-2011

(09-26-2011, 09:39 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: The point is that (as I understand it) people are free to believe that babies go to limbo, go to heaven or burn.  So if you argue one way or the other it basically is just arguing theology and not dogma.

While limbo is an acceptable theological opinion, I have seen absolutely nothing in any teaching of the Church that leaves the option open that unbaptised infants go to heaven! That's why I opt for believing in limbo.


Re: Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - K3vinhood - 09-27-2011

(09-27-2011, 12:58 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(09-26-2011, 09:39 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: The point is that (as I understand it) people are free to believe that babies go to limbo, go to heaven or burn.  So if you argue one way or the other it basically is just arguing theology and not dogma.

While limbo is an acceptable theological opinion, I have seen absolutely nothing in any teaching of the Church that leaves the option open that unbaptised infants go to heaven! That's why I opt for believing in limbo.

Exactly, it doesn't make any sense.

Christ wasn't kidding around when he says Baptism is necessary to enter his kingdom.

Melkite, you can have a negative view of Augustine, but Chyrsostom and others held the same view.

The unbaptized are completely dead to God.


Re: Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - Mithrandylan - 09-27-2011

(09-27-2011, 02:15 AM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(09-27-2011, 12:58 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(09-26-2011, 09:39 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: The point is that (as I understand it) people are free to believe that babies go to limbo, go to heaven or burn.  So if you argue one way or the other it basically is just arguing theology and not dogma.

While limbo is an acceptable theological opinion, I have seen absolutely nothing in any teaching of the Church that leaves the option open that unbaptised infants go to heaven! That's why I opt for believing in limbo.

Exactly, it doesn't make any sense.

Christ wasn't kidding around when he says Baptism is necessary to enter his kingdom.

Melkite, you can have a negative view of Augustine, but Chyrsostom and others held the same view.

The unbaptized are completely dead to God.

Kevin, then what makes you think He was kidding in the other thread where He says that sins against the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven? 

When do we decide when God is kidding or not?


Re: Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - K3vinhood - 09-27-2011

(09-27-2011, 02:23 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Kevin, then what makes you think He was kidding in the other thread where He says that sins against the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven? 

When do we decide when God is kidding or not?

The quote was expanded upon in that thread, no saint that I know of has ever said there are sins which one can commit, seek true forgiveness for, and be denied forgiveness. Church teaching clearly says one can be forgiven of any sin he is sorry for. Let's keep that discussion in that thread, but Christ certainly wasn't kidding around there either.

Baptism is required for salvation according to Christ himself, if there's any evidence to the contrary then it can be debated, but I certainly don't see anything anywhere which allows for the unbaptized to enter heaven.

Once again:
St. Augustine (On the Soul, Book III) Wrote:If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.



Re: Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - INPEFESS - 09-27-2011

(09-24-2011, 02:57 PM)Jesse Wrote: I just finished reading Malachi Martin's book "Hostage to the Devil."  One of his cases involves a possessed priest.  This priest would regularly change the words of the sacraments in Latin.  He would baptize in the name of the sky, earth, and water.  For the consecration, he would say, "this is my tombstone" or "this is my sexuality."  He would absolve in the name of the lord of light, or the name of the sky, earth, and water.  He said that since it was in Latin, he was never really caught, though one of his assistance heard him say at Mass, "The Lord of light be with you."

My question is this:  how does God view those who received such sacraments?  Obviously a child baptized in the name of sky, earth, and water has received an invalid sacrament.  Yet the priest was possessed.  Does God supply, as it were, the grace of the sacrament?  Or, take confession for example.  Since the intention of the faithful was to confess and receive absolution, is absolution granted despite the priest mucking it up?

My gut feeling says that charity trumps all and God is not going to damn a faithful Catholic who, through no fault of their own, received an invalid sacrament from a possessed priest.

The book didn't say, but I wondered if the parish, after the exorcism, contacted all the parishioners who received sacraments from this priest and told them about it.  I would want to be conditionally "re-"baptized if I found out my priest had been possessed.

Thoughts?

Pax,
Jesse

Though I am by no means an expert on the subject, please allow me to reference one:
St. Thomas Aquinas Wrote:Objection 2. Further, we read of some being forgiven their sins without confession, e.g. Peter, Magdalen and Paul. But the grace that remits sins is not less efficacious now than it was then. Therefore neither is it necessary for salvation now that man should confess.

Reply to Objection 2. Although we do not read that they confessed, it may be that they did; for many things were done which were not recorded in writing. Moreover Christ has the power of excellence in the sacraments; so that He could bestow the reality of the sacrament without using the things which belong to the sacrament.

Summa Theologica, Supplementum Tertiae Partis, Question 6, Article 1, Reply to Objection 2.

In my opinion, yes, the grace of the sacrament is still conferred if one is not culpably ignorant of the reception of invalid sacraments.


Re: Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - INPEFESS - 09-27-2011

(09-26-2011, 01:02 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(09-25-2011, 11:55 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: I highly doubt the sacraments would be valid, but I would think that God would likely step in and give those who were properly disposed to receive these "sacraments" the grace from them.  I don't think they'd be hung out to dry, so to speak.

No, silly, why would God step in and do that for them?  He has no such mercy for babies who die unbaptized with only Original Sin on their souls.  That's why we have Limbo.  Why would God show such mercy to the undeserving wretch who mistakenly dies in both Original and Actual Sin, if he is unwilling to show such mercy on infants?  Limbo is the outermost ring of hell.  Perhaps these souls go to the second most outer ring of hell?

This is a reasonable objection. I hope my answer can help to resolve the apparent contradiction.

The difference is that, in the first case, unbaptized infants can not use their free will to intend to receive the sacraments. Hence, they do not merit its effects. In the second case, however, the soul who freely cooperates with God's grace to choose to receive the sacraments, but does not know that they are invalid, has positively chosen to respond to God's grace. Because he is invincibly ignorant as to the validity of the sacrament, no fault can be found in his execution of his free will.

The unborn infant must freely choose to serve God with his own free will in order to enjoy eternal life in the presence of God, but because he is unable to use his free will no fault is found in him. As a result, he is born into perfect natural happiness and suffers only the privation of the unmerited presence of God. The soul who has reached the age of reason, however, has freely chosen to serve God via the free co-operation of his will, and his invincible ignorance of the invalid sacrament cannot be counted against him.

The unborn infant glorifies God's goodness by being a testament to His justice while the soul who unknowingly receives an invalid sacrament glorifies God's goodness by being a testament to His mercy. They both glorify God and give testament to His goodness to equal degrees, though in different ways. Each soul, having perfect understanding of (and resignation to) this after death, finds no displeasure in the means by which God has chosen that they should give Him glory.


Re: Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - Stubborn - 09-27-2011

The whole thing is this - the priest is possessed by the devil right? Well, would the devil in the priest confect a valid or an invalid sacrament?

I would say that the wording is wrong on purpose and for a reason - to be certainly invalid. Obviously the devil's intention is invalidity by mockery.

Whoever received those sacraments simply did not know they did not receive sacraments. Their ignorance cannot and will not change that. 

*IF* for some reason God decided to accept the obvious invalid sacraments as being valid, we cannot know or even say suggest that God does a thing - all we can say for sure is that per the teachings of the Church, those sacraments were absolutely  invalid.




Re: Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - Melkite - 09-27-2011

(09-27-2011, 12:47 AM)K3vinhood Wrote: The Fathers of the Church along with the Gospel shows that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

God could apply the graces of Baptism in the womb or in some other way as God can do anything, but we can't just assume he does that, the Fathers seem to think that he does not.

That's very true.  But use your brain for a minute.  God sent his only Son to die for us, so that we wouldn't have to.  That says something about his character.  He could let us all burn in hell, BUT HE DOESN"T WANT US TO.  He would rather die on a cross when he doesn't deserve it, and he would rather we continually spit in his face and beat him by our post-baptismal sins, but come back to him in earnest after each time, as long as we actually come back to him.  He offers baptism and confession so that any adult sinner who actually chooses to sin can come back to him at any time, avoiding his own spiritual death, and God willingly bears the insult because he loves each and every one of us so much he'd rather repeatedly bear the insult of tens of billions of souls than lose just one of them to hell.

But for infants, if they die prior to baptism, we can only hope that God somehow applies baptismal grace to their souls.  But you say the Fathers believed he didn't.  Now, match it up with the character of God with us.  If God will bend over backwards to save us who repeatedly throw mud in his face, often times at the exact same time we are professing to his face our undying love for him, how much more would he do so for someone who, through no fault of their own, was conceived into a condition over which they were given no choice whatsoever?  If God is immutable, his character doesn't change, than the only logical conclusion is that of course God makes a way possible to save those infants.

But the Fathers believed he didn't.  If he doesn't, that means he shows mercy and compassion to the most undeserving, but has neither for the most deserving.  Now, we do know also from Scripture about God's character that he likes to make the first last and the last first.  This would fit into that, but scripturally the first that he made last were those who arrogantly thought they deserved to be first, and those last that he made first were those who humbly recognized their imperfections - so it's possible this doesn't apply to infants who have no control over their situation.  But, if God shows mercy on us but refuses to show the same mercy on unbaptized infants, he IS fickle.  This is one of those few either/or situations in Catholicism.  Either you believe God would save such infants, or you don't.  But if you don't, you necessarily believe in a fickle God.  There is no way for you to avoid that latter conclusion.


Re: Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - Melkite - 09-27-2011

(09-27-2011, 02:15 AM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(09-27-2011, 12:58 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(09-26-2011, 09:39 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: The point is that (as I understand it) people are free to believe that babies go to limbo, go to heaven or burn.  So if you argue one way or the other it basically is just arguing theology and not dogma.

While limbo is an acceptable theological opinion, I have seen absolutely nothing in any teaching of the Church that leaves the option open that unbaptised infants go to heaven! That's why I opt for believing in limbo.

Exactly, it doesn't make any sense.

Christ wasn't kidding around when he says Baptism is necessary to enter his kingdom.

Melkite, you can have a negative view of Augustine, but Chyrsostom and others held the same view.

The unbaptized are completely dead to God.

I'm not going to make any rash decisions, I definitely want to look into this myself and do a proper research project.  But if this is in fact the teaching of the Church, I may have to seriously re-consider going Orthodox.


Re: Possessed Priest and Valid Sacraments - Melkite - 09-27-2011

(09-27-2011, 03:12 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: This is a reasonable objection. I hope my answer can help to resolve the apparent contradiction.

The difference is that, in the first case, unbaptized infants can not use their free will to intend to receive the sacraments. Hence, they do not merit its effects. In the second case, however, the soul who freely cooperates with God's grace to choose to receive the sacraments, but does not know that they are invalid, has positively chosen to respond to God's grace. Because he is invincibly ignorant as to the validity of the sacrament, no fault can be found in his execution of his free will.

The unborn infant must freely choose to serve God with his own free will in order to enjoy eternal life in the presence of God, but because he is unable to use his free will no fault is found in him. As a result, he is born into perfect natural happiness and suffers only the privation of the unmerited presence of God. The soul who has reached the age of reason, however, has freely chosen to serve God via the free co-operation of his will, and his invincible ignorance of the invalid sacrament cannot be counted against him.

The unborn infant glorifies God's goodness by being a testament to His justice while the soul who unknowingly receives an invalid sacrament glorifies God's goodness by being a testament to His mercy. They both glorify God and give testament to His goodness to equal degrees, though in different ways. Each soul, having perfect understanding of (and resignation to) this after death, finds no displeasure in the means by which God has chosen that they should give Him glory.

I hate having to say this to you because you are truly a respectable, kind and polite person.  But this idea of salvation based on merits is a clear example of what happens when someone relies solely on scholasticism, stripped of any attachment to a mystical understanding.  Vetus, I'll save you the time of typing your cliched response, no, I'm not condemning scholasticism in and of itself because I prefer to be eastern over Catholic, but rather when it is basically idolized and goes beyond what it is necessary for, namely, anchoring mysticism in reality so that theology doesn't become a mere fantasy.  INPEFESS, it's clear from the Gospel that Christ didn't require merits to show mercy, he showed it beforehand.  And to mix it in with the predestination argument, if God can't grant heaven to someone just because, but has to wait for someone to merit it, is he not bound?  Does he not lose a portion of his sovereignty?  Baptized man doesn't really control his salvation, but is elect by God irrespective of his choice, because God must be sovereign, but the exact opposite is true with unbaptized infants, God is bound by the situation they are in and can do nothing because they haven't merited it. 

At any rate, what I had intended to get at was that the Gospel shows Christ granting mercy to whomever he wants irrespective of merits.  Salvation by merit is a theological construct that is popular in Latin theology because medieval Latin theologians had the tendency to abandon mysticism and go for an ultramontane Scholasticism of sorts.  It was overstretched above and beyond its proper use.  Limbo is just the logical conclusion of such an overstretched scholastic paradigm.  Salvation by merit is a theological construct contrary to the Gospel.