Mysterious priest performs miracle at site of Mercedes crash
(08-12-2013, 10:46 AM)Unum Sint Wrote:
(08-12-2013, 10:19 AM)Tim Wrote: Here's a little more on the Sacraments. St. Thomas says God is not bound by them !

1) God has the power to remedy this lack of grace even without a Sacrament.
St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa II. 68.2.c. wrote that God "is not bound to the
visible sacraments."

tim

Indeed I am surprised that anybody would think that God can be "bound" to anything at all.

My understanding is that He is bound to the Good, to His own Nature, etc. He can't make a rock so big He can't lift it, as they say :P
Reply
(08-12-2013, 04:41 PM)Tim Wrote:
(08-12-2013, 10:19 AM)Tim Wrote: Here's a little more on the Sacraments. St. Thomas says God is not bound by them !

1) God has the power to remedy this lack of grace even without a Sacrament.
St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa II. 68.2.c. wrote that God "is not bound to the
visible sacraments."

tim

1) Based on the fact no one reported a Penetential component, nor Viaticum, I think, and what very few facts, it was an Angel who anointed the young woman.

2) It has been bandied about that if God Almighty sent an Angel to administer a sacrament we'd have no reason for hope. St. Thomas said that ain't so.

tim

Tim, I haven't been through this whole thread, so undoubtedly missed the relevant stuff, but can you explain what is meant by 2) in your post? How is it that if God sent an Angel to administer a sacrament we'd "have no reason for hope"? What's that about?
Reply
(08-11-2013, 12:17 PM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(08-11-2013, 07:28 AM)Tim Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 06:54 PM)OldMan Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 02:04 PM)Tim Wrote: Priests on earth, are the only ones that can confect the Eucharist, except Jesus Who is the High Priest and Victim. If the Angel brought it from Earth then he took it from a Tabernacle. There is no restriction on God Almighty and the Angels are His Messengers.

tim

Then let's consign the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church to the trash heap. Oh yeah, the NO already did.

Where does Sacramental Theology say it can Restrict Jesus Christ, Who has been given all power in Heaven and on Earth. Have you ever heard of a miracle ? That means done by God Almighty outside of the way we do it.

tim

If God actually does act in ways that revelation has said he wouldn't, then on what basis have we any hope?

Nevermind, Tim! Found it...

So, DevoutChristian, you're saying that God has to reveal to us everything He does? That if He does something He hadn't mentioned earlier it somehow takes away our "hope" How so? I don't get it at all. In fact, I'd say the opposite:  that if God were bound by the rules He set down for us, we should have less hope. If He can't arrange for Sacraments to be given (say be the ghost of a priest), or without any visible means at all, then there's no hope for those who die without the Sacraments. But we know from Church teaching that that's not the case. The Sacraments are gifts to us, what He commands us to do -- but there are ways "around" most of them, the ones normally needed for salvation. Confession, for ex.:  if no priest is around, a perfect act of Contrition suffices. The Eucharist:  spiritual Communion exists.  Baptism: if you're in a desert without water but truly desire Baptism, there's Baptism of Desire. If such weren't the case, Catholics should be terrified of going to deserts, of being any distance away from a priest, and so forth. But that's not how He designed things. He gave us His Church and the Sacraments, as gifts and means to make our lives easier, as media of grace -- but if we're not in the circumstance of being able to partake of the Sacraments, all is not lost. I see that as much more full of "hope" than whatever it could possibly be that you're thinking of.
Reply
(08-13-2013, 08:56 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(08-13-2013, 07:46 PM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(08-13-2013, 07:45 PM)In nomine Patris Wrote: And you have just attempted to put limitations on God.

That's what the nominalists said about the realists.

Whatever nominalists say or said about realists, and vice versa, God isn't bound by His own Sacraments. He gave them to us as media of grace, but is in no way limited to giving us grace by those means, or bound by the form, matter, and ministers of the Sacraments He gave us. That doesn't make the Sacraments any less important or any less what He commands us to do, either.

I was arguing against the idea that God would consider a sacrament to be valid even if it was invalid according to the Divine law which he established, I didn't address the issue of grace being conferred extrasacramentally.

(08-13-2013, 10:26 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(08-11-2013, 12:17 PM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(08-11-2013, 07:28 AM)Tim Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 06:54 PM)OldMan Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 02:04 PM)Tim Wrote: Priests on earth, are the only ones that can confect the Eucharist, except Jesus Who is the High Priest and Victim. If the Angel brought it from Earth then he took it from a Tabernacle. There is no restriction on God Almighty and the Angels are His Messengers.

tim

Then let's consign the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church to the trash heap. Oh yeah, the NO already did.

Where does Sacramental Theology say it can Restrict Jesus Christ, Who has been given all power in Heaven and on Earth. Have you ever heard of a miracle ? That means done by God Almighty outside of the way we do it.

tim

If God actually does act in ways that revelation has said he wouldn't, then on what basis have we any hope?

Nevermind, Tim! Found it...

So, DevoutChristian, you're saying that God has to reveal to us everything He does? That if He does something He hadn't mentioned earlier it somehow takes away our "hope" How so? I don't get it at all. In fact, I'd say the opposite:  that if God were bound by the rules He set down for us, we should have less hope. If He can't arrange for Sacraments to be given (say be the ghost of a priest), or without any visible means at all, then there's no hope for those who die without the Sacraments. But we know from Church teaching that that's not the case. The Sacraments are gifts to us, what He commands us to do -- but there are ways "around" most of them, the ones normally needed for salvation. Confession, for ex.:  if no priest is around, a perfect act of Contrition suffices. The Eucharist:  spiritual Communion exists.  Baptism: if you're in a desert without water but truly desire Baptism, there's Baptism of Desire. If such weren't the case, Catholics should be terrified of going to deserts, of being any distance away from a priest, and so forth. But that's not how He designed things. He gave us His Church and the Sacraments, as gifts and means to make our lives easier, as media of grace -- but if we're not in the circumstance of being able to partake of the Sacraments, all is not lost. I see that as much more full of "hope" than whatever it could possibly be that you're thinking of.

All of those cases you mention are cases of the grace of a sacrament being applied without the sacrament itself occurring. In none of those examples does a sacrament per se occur without a proper minister. As for the assertion that God doing as he said he would would reduce our hope, on the contrary, do we not have greater hope in such a situation (let's use the case of a person dying without being able to confess a mortal sin as an example) due to the fact that we know that perfect contrition suffices for the forgiveness of a mortal sin, than we would if this was only speculation.
Reply
(08-13-2013, 10:41 PM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(08-13-2013, 08:56 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(08-13-2013, 07:46 PM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(08-13-2013, 07:45 PM)In nomine Patris Wrote: And you have just attempted to put limitations on God.

That's what the nominalists said about the realists.

Whatever nominalists say or said about realists, and vice versa, God isn't bound by His own Sacraments. He gave them to us as media of grace, but is in no way limited to giving us grace by those means, or bound by the form, matter, and ministers of the Sacraments He gave us. That doesn't make the Sacraments any less important or any less what He commands us to do, either.

I was arguing against the idea that God would consider a sacrament to be valid even if it was invalid according to the Divine law which he established, I didn't address the issue of grace being conferred extrasacramentally.

(08-13-2013, 10:26 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(08-11-2013, 12:17 PM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(08-11-2013, 07:28 AM)Tim Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 06:54 PM)OldMan Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 02:04 PM)Tim Wrote: Priests on earth, are the only ones that can confect the Eucharist, except Jesus Who is the High Priest and Victim. If the Angel brought it from Earth then he took it from a Tabernacle. There is no restriction on God Almighty and the Angels are His Messengers.

tim

Then let's consign the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church to the trash heap. Oh yeah, the NO already did.

Where does Sacramental Theology say it can Restrict Jesus Christ, Who has been given all power in Heaven and on Earth. Have you ever heard of a miracle ? That means done by God Almighty outside of the way we do it.

tim

If God actually does act in ways that revelation has said he wouldn't, then on what basis have we any hope?

Nevermind, Tim! Found it...

So, DevoutChristian, you're saying that God has to reveal to us everything He does? That if He does something He hadn't mentioned earlier it somehow takes away our "hope" How so? I don't get it at all. In fact, I'd say the opposite:  that if God were bound by the rules He set down for us, we should have less hope. If He can't arrange for Sacraments to be given (say be the ghost of a priest), or without any visible means at all, then there's no hope for those who die without the Sacraments. But we know from Church teaching that that's not the case. The Sacraments are gifts to us, what He commands us to do -- but there are ways "around" most of them, the ones normally needed for salvation. Confession, for ex.:  if no priest is around, a perfect act of Contrition suffices. The Eucharist:  spiritual Communion exists.  Baptism: if you're in a desert without water but truly desire Baptism, there's Baptism of Desire. If such weren't the case, Catholics should be terrified of going to deserts, of being any distance away from a priest, and so forth. But that's not how He designed things. He gave us His Church and the Sacraments, as gifts and means to make our lives easier, as media of grace -- but if we're not in the circumstance of being able to partake of the Sacraments, all is not lost. I see that as much more full of "hope" than whatever it could possibly be that you're thinking of.

All of those cases you mention are cases of the grace of a sacrament being applied without the sacrament itself occurring. In none of those examples does a sacrament per se occur without a proper minister. As for the assertion that God doing as he said he would would reduce our hope, on the contrary, do we not have greater hope in such a situation (let's use the case of a person dying without being able to confess a mortal sin as an example) due to the fact that we know that perfect contrition suffices for the forgiveness of a mortal sin, than we would if this was only speculation.

OK, I think I understand your point -- i.e., either a Sacrament was offered properly in terms of matter and form, etc., or it was not.  I think that's true, if that's the point you're making. I think the point that others, and I, were making is that God can take an invalidly offered Sacrament, one offered in good will, and confer His graces nonetheless. In other words, say a not very well educated Catholic were in the desert with his newborn son who was very ill. There's no water around, so he baptizes the infant using sand. Does the Sacrament occur? Not according to form and matter; but the graces could nonetheless be conferred in spite of a Sacrament that's invalid in se, or at least according to form and matter.

Actually, there's a story about this, from St. John Moschos, who lived around 550 to 610 A.D -- which story doesn't make His command for us to be baptized any less important; it just shows His mercy.:



Abba Palladios told us he had heard one of the fathers whose name was Andrew (whom we also met) say:

When we were in Alexandria, Abba Andrew at the eighteenth mile post told us saying:

As a young man I was very undisciplined. A war broke out and confusion reigned so, together with nine others, I fled to Palestine. One of the nine was a fellow with iniative and another was a Hebrew. When we came into the wilderness, the Hebrew became mortally sick, so we were in great distress, for we did not know what to do for him. But we did not abandon him. Each of us carried him as far as he was able. We wanted to get him to a city or to a market town so that he should not die in the wilderness. But when the young man was completely worn out and was brought to the point of death by hunger and a burning fever, by utter exhaustion and a raging thirst from the heat (in fact he was about to expire), he could no longer bear to be carried.

With many tears, we decided to abandon him in the wilderness and go our way. We could see death from thirst lying in store for us. We were in tears when we set him down in the sand. When he saw that we were going to leave him, he began to adjure us, saying: ‘By the God who is going to judge both the quick and the dead, leave me not to die as a Jew, but as a Christian. Have mercy on me and baptise me so that I too may depart this life as a Christian and go to the Lord.’ We said to him: ‘Truly brother, it is impossible for us to do anything of the sort. We are laymen and baptizing is bishops’ work and priests.’ Besides, there is no water here.’ But he continued to adjure us in the same terms and with tears, saying: ‘Oh, Christians, please do not deprive me of this benefit.’

While we were most unsure of what to do next, the fellow with initiative among us, inspired by God, said to us: ‘Stand him up and take off his clothes.’ We got him to his feet and with great difficulty and stripped him. The one with initiative filled both his hands with sand and poured it three times over the sick man’s head saying: ‘Theodore is baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’, and we all answered amen to each one of the names of the holy, consubstantial and worshipful Trinity.

The Lord is my witness, brethren, that Christ, the Son of the living God, thus cured and reinvigorated him so that not a trace of illness remained in him. In health and vigour he ran before us for the rest of our journey through the wilderness. When we observed so great and so sudden a transformation, we all praised and glorified the ineffable majesty and lovingkindness of Christ our God. When we arrived at Ascalon, we took this matter to the blessed and saintly Dionysios, who was bishop there, and told him what had happened to the brother on the journey.

When the truly holy Dionysios heard of these things, he was stupefied by so extraordinary a miracle. He assembled all the clergy and put to them the question of whether he should recognize the effusion of sand as a baptism or not. Some said that, in view of the extraordinary miracle, he should allow it as a valid baptism; others said he should not. Gregory the Theologian enumerates all the kinds of baptism. He speaks of the Mosaic baptism, baptism in water, that is, but before that of baptism in a cloud and in the sea. ‘The baptism of John was no longer Judaic baptism, for it was not only a baptism in water, but also unto repentance. Jesus also baptised, but in the Spirit, and this is perfection. I know also a fourth baptism: that of martyrdom and of blood. And I know a fifth: the baptism of tears.’ ‘Which of these baptisms did he undergo?’, asked some, ‘so that we might pronounce on its validity?

For indeed the Lord said to Nicodemus: Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven (Jn. 3:5).’ To this, others replied: ‘But indeed they were baptised, as Clement, the author of the Stromates, testifies in the fifth book of Hypotyposes. In commenting on the saying of the Apostle Paul, he opines: I thank God that I baptised none of you (1 Cor. 1:14) that Jesus is said to have baptised none but Peter; Peter to have baptised Andrew; Andrew, James and John, and they the others.’ When they had said all this and much more beside, it seemed good to the blessed Bishop Dionysios to send the brother to the Holy Jordan and for him to be baptised there. The fellow with iniative he ordained a deacon.
Reply
(08-14-2013, 02:01 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(08-13-2013, 10:41 PM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(08-13-2013, 08:56 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(08-13-2013, 07:46 PM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(08-13-2013, 07:45 PM)In nomine Patris Wrote: And you have just attempted to put limitations on God.

That's what the nominalists said about the realists.

Whatever nominalists say or said about realists, and vice versa, God isn't bound by His own Sacraments. He gave them to us as media of grace, but is in no way limited to giving us grace by those means, or bound by the form, matter, and ministers of the Sacraments He gave us. That doesn't make the Sacraments any less important or any less what He commands us to do, either.

I was arguing against the idea that God would consider a sacrament to be valid even if it was invalid according to the Divine law which he established, I didn't address the issue of grace being conferred extrasacramentally.

(08-13-2013, 10:26 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(08-11-2013, 12:17 PM)devoutchristian Wrote:
(08-11-2013, 07:28 AM)Tim Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 06:54 PM)OldMan Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 02:04 PM)Tim Wrote: Priests on earth, are the only ones that can confect the Eucharist, except Jesus Who is the High Priest and Victim. If the Angel brought it from Earth then he took it from a Tabernacle. There is no restriction on God Almighty and the Angels are His Messengers.

tim

Then let's consign the sacramental theology of the Catholic Church to the trash heap. Oh yeah, the NO already did.

Where does Sacramental Theology say it can Restrict Jesus Christ, Who has been given all power in Heaven and on Earth. Have you ever heard of a miracle ? That means done by God Almighty outside of the way we do it.

tim

If God actually does act in ways that revelation has said he wouldn't, then on what basis have we any hope?

Nevermind, Tim! Found it...

So, DevoutChristian, you're saying that God has to reveal to us everything He does? That if He does something He hadn't mentioned earlier it somehow takes away our "hope" How so? I don't get it at all. In fact, I'd say the opposite:  that if God were bound by the rules He set down for us, we should have less hope. If He can't arrange for Sacraments to be given (say be the ghost of a priest), or without any visible means at all, then there's no hope for those who die without the Sacraments. But we know from Church teaching that that's not the case. The Sacraments are gifts to us, what He commands us to do -- but there are ways "around" most of them, the ones normally needed for salvation. Confession, for ex.:  if no priest is around, a perfect act of Contrition suffices. The Eucharist:  spiritual Communion exists.  Baptism: if you're in a desert without water but truly desire Baptism, there's Baptism of Desire. If such weren't the case, Catholics should be terrified of going to deserts, of being any distance away from a priest, and so forth. But that's not how He designed things. He gave us His Church and the Sacraments, as gifts and means to make our lives easier, as media of grace -- but if we're not in the circumstance of being able to partake of the Sacraments, all is not lost. I see that as much more full of "hope" than whatever it could possibly be that you're thinking of.

All of those cases you mention are cases of the grace of a sacrament being applied without the sacrament itself occurring. In none of those examples does a sacrament per se occur without a proper minister. As for the assertion that God doing as he said he would would reduce our hope, on the contrary, do we not have greater hope in such a situation (let's use the case of a person dying without being able to confess a mortal sin as an example) due to the fact that we know that perfect contrition suffices for the forgiveness of a mortal sin, than we would if this was only speculation.

OK, I think I understand your point -- i.e., either a Sacrament was offered properly in terms of matter and form, etc., or it was not.  I think that's true, if that's the point you're making. I think the point that others, and I, were making is that God can take an invalidly offered Sacrament, one offered in good will, and confer His graces nonetheless.

That was the point I was making. What I objected to was that it seemed that some people were saying that God would actually condone an invalid sacrament itself, or would make it be per se a valid sacrament.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)