UNIQUE DELINQUENCY, Prts I & II
#1
The following are the two most recent columns of "Dinoscopus":  The correspondence of Bishop Richard Williamson.


ELEISON  COMMENTS  CXXIV : UNIQUE  DELINQUENCY I

In order to highlight once more the unique delinquency of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), two weeks will not be too many to reply to a reader's reasonable objection to the argument of "Eleison Comments" of three weeks ago (Oct. 31). That argument maintained that the sacramental Rites of the Newchurch, introduced in the wake of the Council, are of a nature to invalidate the Church's sacraments in the long run, because they were designed by their ambiguity to erode the Minister's sacramental Intention, without which there can be no sacrament.

The reader objected with the Church's classic teaching that personal failings of the sacramental Minister, even his lack of the Faith, can be made up for by the Faith of the Church in whose name he is administering the sacrament (cf. Summa Theologiae, 3a, LXIV, 9 ad 1). Thus - classic example - a Jew who has no Catholic faith at all can nevertheless validly baptize a dying friend so long as the Jew both knows that the Catholic Church does something when it baptizes, and means to do that thing that the Church does. This Intention to do what the Church does he shows by saying the words and performing the actions laid down in the Church's Rite of baptism.

Therefore, argued our reader, the Newchurch may have corrupted the Minister's Catholic faith, but the Eternal Church will make up for any lack of his faith, and the sacraments he administers will still be valid. To which the first part of the reply is that if the Newchurch's sacramental Rites attacked only the Minister's faith, the objection would be valid, but if they also undermine his sacramental Intention, then there will be no sacrament at all.

Another classic example should make the point clear. For water to flow down a metal pipe, it does not matter if the pipe is made of gold or lead, but for the water in either case to flow, the pipe must be connected to the tap. The water is sacramental grace. The tap is the main source of that grace, God alone. The pipe is the instrumental source, namely the sacramental Minister, through whose action flows from God the grace of the sacrament. The gold or lead is the personal holiness or villainy of the Minister. Thus the validity of the sacrament does not depend on the personal faith or unfaith of the Minister, but it does depend on his connecting himself to the main source of the sacramental grace, God.

This connection he makes precisely by his Intention in performing the sacrament to do what the Church does. For by that Intention he puts himself as an instrument in the hands of God for God to pour the sacramental grace through him. Without that sacramental Intention he and his faith may be of gold or lead, but he is disconnected from the tap. It remains to be shown next week how Vatican II was designed and is liable to corrupt not only the Minister's faith, but also any sacramental Intention he may have.
                                       
Kyrie eleison.   
London, England




ELEISON COMMENTS CXXV: UNIQUE  DELINQUENCY  II

Last week's "Eleison Comments" promised to show that Vatican II was designed to invalidate the Church's sacraments by introducing sacramental Rites whose deliberate ambiguity would in the long run ("after 50 years", said Cardinal Lienart on his death-bed) corrupt the Ministers' indispensable sacramental Intention. But Vatican II will have to wait till next week. This week we need to take a closer look at the mechanism of human intention to understand how a sacramental Minister needs in his head a fundamentally sane idea of what the Church is and does.

When a human being intends something, or intends to achieve some goal, he must beforehand have in his head an idea of the goal he wants to achieve. In fact nobody can go for any goal without first having in his head an idea of it, and he can only go for his goal through the idea he has of it. But ideas inside his head may or may not correspond to reality outside his head. If his idea corresponds to reality, he can achieve his goal. If it does not, he may achieve his idea but he cannot achieve his goal.

Take for instance a family father who intends to make his children happy, but whose idea of how to do that is to relax all discipline in the home. Alas, indiscipline makes children unhappy, not happy, so when the father relaxes the discipline, he achieves the relaxation but not the children's happiness. He achieved his idea but not the reality, because his idea was disconnected from the reality.

Now for a sacrament to be valid, the Minister (bishop, priest or layman) must intend "to do what the Church does", as explained last week, in order to put his instrumental action under the prime action of God, lone source of all sacramental grace. So before he administers the sacrament, he must have an idea of "what the Church does", which requires a prior idea of what the Church is. Then if his ideas of what the Church is and does do not correspond to the Catholic realities, how can he intend to do what the true Church does, and so how can he administer true sacraments ?  If he really thinks the Church is a sort of Club for Believers in Being Nice, that Mass is their community picnic and Baptism the rite of initiation into their Club, he may achieve the picnic and initiation, but never Catholic Mass or Baptism.

Now one may object that he has the implicit Intention of doing "what the Church does and has always done", but the sacramental Intention may remain insecure. For instance, ever since the Newchurch's "hermeneutic of continuity" there is to be no break interpreted between the Catholic Church and the Newchurch, or between Mass and picnic, it must all be interpreted as only a harmonious development ! So the intention to celebrate Mass excluding a picnic or to enjoy a picnic excluding Mass are meant to be both the same intention to bring about a "Mapicniss" ! Such a "hermeneutic" can reconcile any things at all which are in reality irreconcilable !  But can anyone with such a "hermeneutic" in his head confect in reality valid sacraments?  As Americans say, "Go figure !"  God alone knows.

Here is why there is almost hopeless confusion throughout the Church. What will it take to bring the churchmen back to cats being cats and not dogs, and to dogs being dogs and not cats ?  A cataclysm !
                               
Kyrie eleison. 
London, England
Reply
#2
What practical measures are there to take in order to reverse this problem? 

We have the spiritual aspects well known to us, prayer, sacrifice, rosaries etc. 

But when we put our God-given reason to work, which aspect of the sinking ship do we shore up? 

If we take that analogy, when a ship is sinking, you have to plug the holes and bail the ship out. 

The nasty seawater in the ship is bad thinking.  It is pouring into the ship because there are holes in the hull.

Those holes were bored in by the enemies of the Church on practical levels and the major problem in the Church both pre and post Conciliar has been that we have denied the truth of our history.  We've allowed the enemies of the Church to set the premise upon which the Church stands. 

It's the ideas and false accusations of the world that have to be fought against with new force.

We need to defend the history of the Church against the false accusations on

The hierarchy and the value of hierarchical leadership.

The value of two distinct genders in nature.

The contributions of the Church towards the flourishing of civilization.

The truth about the Crusades

The truth about the Inquisition

The truth about the Church and it's relationship to Judaism.

The truth about truth itself. 

The truth about the first Catholics in the Americas

the truth about the Anti-Catholicism promulgated by enemies of the Church. 

We live in a world where the enemies of the Church do the best they can to stimulate the emotions of people and create biases in lieu of actual reason. 

So, how do we in practical ways cut through that fog of emotion and bring the populace to the point of questioning their false assumptions? 

All of these goals I've suggested are intended to be directed to winning back Catholics who are already at least nominally in the Church. 


Reply
#3
To further expound on the subject's intrigue,  Fr Peter Scott, SSPX, penned an interesting article in the Sept.'07 Angelus on the matter of "Re-ordination"...
How in light of BXVI's Motu Proprio, more and more priests ordained in the new rite are turning to the traditional Mass.
However, some Catholics question the validity of their (new-rite) ordination and hesitate to receive the sacraments from them.
Explaining that investigation is needed and each case is different, Fr. goes on to list some principals that form the basis of decision and helpful guidance.

Especially helpful is his insight into the instruction of Aquinas regarding the Catholic's obligation toward valid sacraments:

When it concerns the validity of the sacraments, we are obliged to follow a “tutiorist” position, or safest possible course of action.

We cannot choose a less certain option, called by the moral theologians a simply probable manner of acting, that could
place in doubt the validity of the sacraments, as we are sometimes obliged to do in other moral questions. If we were able
to follow a less certain way of acting, we would run the risk of grave sacrilege and uncertainty concerning the sacraments,
which would place the eternal salvation of souls in great jeopardy. Even the lax “probabilist” theologians admitted this
principle with respect to baptism and holy orders, since the contrary opinion was condemned by Pope Innocent XI in 1679.

Innocent XI condemned the position that it is permissible in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned….
Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders. (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)

Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent conferring of sacraments.
One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things necessary for eternal salvation.
The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the
Church. They do not want to share modernist, liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests
ordained in such rites, for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters.
Reply
#4
Thanks for the post, +W on it again
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)