Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses?
tradmaverick Wrote:it has always been the teaching of the church that heretics can administer valid sacraments - unless they specifically declare their intention to only give an external sign...and not the sacrament.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains why this is so, in discussing the following objection (S.T. III, Q. 64, Art. 8, obj. 2):
Quote:one man's intention cannot be known to another. Therefore if the minister's intention were required for the validity of a sacrament, he who approaches a sacrament could not know whether he has received the sacrament. Consequently he could have no certainty in regard to salvation

To this, St. Thomas replies (ibid., reply obj. 2):
Quote:On this point there are two opinions. For some hold that the mental intention of the minister is necessary; in the absence of which the sacrament is invalid: and that this defect in the case of children who have not the intention of approaching the sacrament, is made good by Christ, Who baptizes inwardly: whereas in adults, who have that intention, this defect is made good by their faith and devotion.

This might be true enough of the ultimate effect, i.e. justification from sins; but as to that effect which is both real and sacramental, viz. the character, it does not appear possible for it to be made good by the devotion of the recipient, since a character is never imprinted save by a sacrament.

Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament.

In short, we can know that we have received the sacrament if <i>we</i> don't express a contrary intention, unless the <i>minister</i> does express a contrary intention, in which case we can know the sacrament isn't valid. In no event are we left in uncertainty, at least in principle.

Quote:The same can be the case with the New Mass, and this even if the priest still believes in the Real Presence. He could have a contrary intention to that of the Church. This would be the case if his intention explicitly refuses offering a true sacrifice, the unbloody renewal of Calvary, and explicitly considers that it is to be only a meal and a commemoration of the Last Supper. Such an intention would be directly contrary to the intention of doing what the Church does. We do not know how often this happens, but it is very reasonable to believe that it is a common occurrence. Consequently, there are probably many celebrations of the New Mass, by priests who are convinced of Modernist theories, that are invalid.

This quotation uses language in a highly misleading way, and actually contradicts the teaching of St. Thomas set forth above. In the text from St. Thomas, what is "expressed" by the minister must be the same as what is thereby <i>made known</i> to the recipient; otherwise the whole basis of his teaching on this point--the need for certainty regarding the sacraments--would be overthrown. But in the quotation just above, it is conjectured that a priest's "intention explicitly refuses" offering a true sacrifice, etc., although we "do not know how often this happens." Since we <i>would</i> know if the priest <i>said so,</i> the notion here must be that a priest's so-called "explicit," but actually <i>undisclosed,</i> contrary intention can invalidate a sacrament without the recipient knowing it. This is exactly the error that St. Thomas explodes.

Quote:This is one reason that we cannot have anything to do with the New Mass. However, the more universal reason is that it is insulting and injurious to Almighty God and to Our Lord Jesus Christ, even if it happens to be valid." -

Wow, good thing "" has not been divinely appointed as the supreme arbiter of what is and what isn't injurious to Almighty God and to Our Lord Jesus Christ!

God bless you!

Don McMaster

Messages In This Thread
Re: Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses? - by McMaster - 04-23-2009, 08:11 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)