Philosophical consideration of Eucharistic Consecration
#18
(03-14-2017, 10:06 PM)In His Love Wrote:
(03-14-2017, 09:18 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 09:51 PM)In His Love Wrote:
(03-13-2017, 09:21 PM)yablabo Wrote: Blood is not valid matter for a baptism, regardless of circumstance or intention.
Yes it is.

"[Saint] Emerentiana, a Roman virgin and the foster-sister of the blessed Agnes, while she was still a Catechumen, burning with faith and charity, rebuked the idol-worshippers who were full of fury against the Christians, whereupon a mob assembled and stoned her. Praying in her torment at the grave of Saint Agnes, and having been baptized in her own blood, so generously shed for Christ, she gave up her soul unto God."

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.ca/2008/01/s...yites.html

Your comment is an example of a logical fallacy; it's a change in supposition.  We're discussing sacraments, not analogous terms.
I'm not sure if you're a Feeneyite or if I'm misunderstanding your position. I just wanted to clarify, in case it's the former, that blood will work for Baptism depending on the situation. Water is the ordinary means.

Thank you for your response.

To clarify, I am not a "Feeneyite"; I find Fr. Feeney's history and the St. Benedict Center reprehensible. 

Also, to clarify, blood is not proper matter for the sacrament of Baptism, and using it cannot effect what the sacrament effects.  It's taught infallibly by Pope Eugenius IV that: "All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected."  The only matter for the sacrament of Baptism is water. 

Two problems with posing the martyrs of the early Church as a proof that blood is a valid matter for the sacrament of Baptism: (1) this sacrament was not required to effect Justification until the promulgation of the Gospels, (2) neophytes were also classed amongst the catechumenate.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss philosophical input regarding my original proposition that the priest only consecrates what is before him on the altar and not what he has separated to the side.  If you have any authoritative sources, or insight to share, I would be glad to know it.

-- Nicole
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Philosophical consideration of Eucharistic Consecration - by yablabo - 03-17-2017, 12:38 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)