Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses?
#80
(04-23-2009, 08:11 PM)McMaster Wrote:
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 <A HREF="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm#III" Target="_blank">Modernist</A> 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.

Alright I can see your point there, the language does seem to indicate that as you say. But you could read another way, if you take the parts ive highlighted there, you could read it that he was saying that explicit meant public and expressed publicly. I think thats what he may have meant, but your right the language is too vague and on first glance it does seem to imply the error already above condemned.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses? - by tradmaverick - 04-24-2009, 07:29 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)