Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians
We are supposed to assume that the use of correct form and matter signify the priest's intent to do what the Church does.  This is all the intent that is required.
Reply
(09-16-2011, 03:34 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 03:25 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 03:23 PM)dan hunter Wrote: I know of several good orthodox priests who offer the NO Mass the way the Church wants them to.
They offer the NO the way I have seen the HF offer it.
Their sermons have been about the Sacrifice of Mass and all points of Faith as taught in the Catechism of Trent and the Pius X catechism.
I am very certain, though I could be wrong, that these priests have the right intention.

Of course, there are exceptions. No-one ever agued that there aren't any real Catholic priests left in the conciliar establishment.

But the system is fashioned so that these priests disappear in the long run.
If true, why do you think so?

Because the Novus Ordo was fashioned with the end of true Catholicism in mind. At least, its architects have been honest enough to admit it.

The principles upon which the Novus Ordo rests are false and have been condmned by the Church in the past. Its faith is alien to the faith of the Church. Its fruits are rotten. The impact it has had on the faith of clergy and laity alike during these last decades has been absolutely devastating. The Church today is barely recognisable.

The question is not why I think so but rather why you think it isn't so. It's about time Christians wake up and smell the coffee: they have been duped.
Reply
(09-16-2011, 03:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: We are supposed to assume that the use of correct form and matter signify the priest's intent to do what the Church does.  This is all the intent that is required.

Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.

It's perfectly legitimate to doubt the intent of priests formed in the conciliar system. And if they happen to openly profess heresy, more so.
Reply
(09-16-2011, 03:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: We are supposed to assume that the use of correct form and matter signify the priest's intent to do what the Church does.  This is all the intent that is required.
So the Church teaches that Intention springs from correct Form and Matter?

I always wondered this since I learned about Intention: What if the priest does not believe that what he is doing at Mass is re-presenting Christs Sacrifice in an unbloody manner, but instead believes that what he is doing is only presiding at a communal meal?
If he still says the right words of Consecration, but has the wrong intentions, maliciously or from ignorance, is the Mass still valid?
Reply
(09-16-2011, 03:26 PM)Jesse Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 02:54 PM)Stubborn Wrote: If I cannot attend the NO because of what it is, then the same goes for the rest of you.

This is the arrogance of which I was speaking earlier.


Sorry if it sounds arrogant - but the truth often times comes out that way. And I don't need the authority to know right from wrong and call wrong wrong when it happens.

Just because "everyone's doing it" does not make it any less wrong - sorry if that sounds arrogant as well.

Our Lady of Fatima says souls fall into hell like snowflakes - that shows us ignorance condemns. IMO, too many people are just flat out too freaking lazy to do what they are supposed to do (seek the truth) when they see something amiss within their own faith - and *that* can send them to hell - sorry if that sounds arrogant too.

Too many people choose to go to the NOM and all it's horrors under the guise of obedience without regard to their faith. They can claim that "it must be ok because the pope says it or the church made it" or whatever other excuse they feel comfy saying - all the while denying the atrocity of the evil thing that replaced the true Mass and faith - sorry if that sounds arrogant, it is simply the truth in plain english.

Again, this is a Trad forum and if what I said sounds arrogant or like I'm conceited - sorry, that's not my intention and will continue to not be my intention from now on. 






Reply
(09-16-2011, 03:40 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 03:34 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 03:25 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 03:23 PM)dan hunter Wrote: I know of several good orthodox priests who offer the NO Mass the way the Church wants them to.
They offer the NO the way I have seen the HF offer it.
Their sermons have been about the Sacrifice of Mass and all points of Faith as taught in the Catechism of Trent and the Pius X catechism.
I am very certain, though I could be wrong, that these priests have the right intention.

Of course, there are exceptions. No-one ever agued that there aren't any real Catholic priests left in the conciliar establishment.

But the system is fashioned so that these priests disappear in the long run.
If true, why do you think so?

Because the Novus Ordo was fashioned with the end of true Catholicism in mind. At least, its architects have been honest enough to admit it.

The principles upon which the Novus Ordo rests are false and have been condmned by the Church in the past. Its faith is alien to the faith of the Church. Its fruits are rotten. The impact it has had on the faith of clergy and laity alike during these last decades has been absolutely devastating. The Church today is barely recognisable.

The question is not why I think so but rather why you think it isn't so. It's about time Christians wake up and smell the coffee: they have been duped.

What evidence is there that those who designed the NO had the goal of the end of Catholicism?  What are these alleged principles on which it rests?  How do you know that the things you attribute to the NO were actually caused by it and not by countless other changes in society?  The Anglican "church" has had very similar things happen in it without a V2 or NO.  We live in a time of massive secularization and much of what we see can be explained by that.  Clinging to these over-simplified answers that you use is not being awake and aware.
Reply
(09-16-2011, 03:44 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 03:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: We are supposed to assume that the use of correct form and matter signify the priest's intent to do what the Church does.  This is all the intent that is required.

Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.

It's perfectly legitimate to doubt the intent of priests formed in the conciliar system. And if they happen to openly profess heresy, more so.
We can't be completely sure though.
We might have good reason, but we do not know for certain, So we should cautiously trust them, if unsure, and fully trust Almighty God and fling ourselves like children upon His Mercy.
Reply
(09-16-2011, 03:53 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 03:44 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 03:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: We are supposed to assume that the use of correct form and matter signify the priest's intent to do what the Church does.  This is all the intent that is required.

Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required.

It's perfectly legitimate to doubt the intent of priests formed in the conciliar system. And if they happen to openly profess heresy, more so.
We can't be completely sure though.
We might have good reason, but we do not know for certain, So we should cautiously trust them, if unsure, and fully trust Almighty God and fling ourselves like children upon His Mercy.

How can you walk into a situation like that then presume God will be merciful to you?
Reply
(09-16-2011, 03:45 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 03:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: We are supposed to assume that the use of correct form and matter signify the priest's intent to do what the Church does.  This is all the intent that is required.
So the Church teaches that Intention springs from correct Form and Matter?

I always wondered this since I learned about Intention: What if the priest does not believe that what he is doing at Mass is re-presenting Christs Sacrifice in an unbloody manner, but instead believes that what he is doing is only presiding at a communal meal?
If he still says the right words of Consecration, but has the wrong intentions, maliciously or from ignorance, is the Mass still valid?

Intention is not the same as belief.  This can be seen most clearly in the Sacrament of Baptism.  Heretics and non-Christians can validly baptize even though they have no understanding or correct beliefs concerning the Sacrament.  They need only intend to do what the Catholic Church does by baptism.  
Reply
(09-16-2011, 03:56 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 03:45 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 03:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: We are supposed to assume that the use of correct form and matter signify the priest's intent to do what the Church does.  This is all the intent that is required.
So the Church teaches that Intention springs from correct Form and Matter?

I always wondered this since I learned about Intention: What if the priest does not believe that what he is doing at Mass is re-presenting Christs Sacrifice in an unbloody manner, but instead believes that what he is doing is only presiding at a communal meal?
If he still says the right words of Consecration, but has the wrong intentions, maliciously or from ignorance, is the Mass still valid?

Intention is not the same as belief.  This can be seen most clearly in the Sacrament of Baptism.  Heretics and non-Christians can validly baptize even though they have no understanding or correct beliefs concerning the Sacrament.  They need only intend to do what the Catholic Church does by baptism.  

In addition the miracle of Lanciano, in which the the Eucharist visibly turned into flesh, happened when the celebrant doubted the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)