It’s the fact that the change in wording suggests to the RCC a positive contrary intention not facere quod facit ecclesia that renders the ordinal incapable of transmitting valid orders, in their reasoning. Had the Pontifical been used, or (for whatever reason), use been made of any of the dozen or so historical rites which share a similar form with the ordinal, rather than a new rite constructed, the issue would not arise.
I understand that, but I still don’t see why it wouldn’t apply to baptism. And at one time it did–conditional baptism, which now seems to be something that extremely cautious or conservative priests recommend, was once the most generous approach to Protestant (including Anglican!) baptisms.
The Rite of baptism is applied in the same way the rite of Holy Orders. The Sacrament works Ex opere Operato (from the work being worked) However, it is the catholic church’s posistion that in order for a sacrament to effacacious it must be done in the manner of what the church intends to do and not what the Church believes that the sacraments also brings.
Amen, Amen to that.
Faith in the Eucharist has nothing to do with receiving Christ as far as the reality of Christ being present is concerned in the Sacred Species, although you can be excused for thinking so if you have attended the New Mass of the Catholic Church. Under the Old Mass the priest genuflected after the Consecration, then raised the Host, then geuflected again. This was a clear manifestation of the Catholic belief that Chist was present before the raising. The New Mass allows the ambiguity to occur that only after the raising when the people have seen the Host that then Christ becomes present by the Faith and or acclamation of the people, an idea that appeals to many Protestants and heretically minded Catholics. So the teaching is that Christ is present by the words of the priest “This is my Body”, in whatever language this is said by a validly ordained priest who intends to Consecrate, not the Faith of those present.
Contarini; My main objection to the RC position (other than the practical said:
If I had to lay money on it, I’d bet that Edwin is more than familiar with Aquinas.
And matter, form, intent and minister, at that. I doubt that anything here is going to be a surprise to him, any more than my comment to him on *faciendi quod facit ecclesia *and positive contrary intent was.If I had to lay money on it, I’d bet that Edwin is more than familiar with Aquinas.
Many Protestant churches that baptize infants do not consider baptism to confer regeneration (this is particularly characteristic of the Reformed position–the Methodists are as usual mushy; John Wesley arguably never abandoned a belief in the baptismal regeneration of infants, and a “higher” view of baptism has made a comeback in modern Methodism; but this is not the view maintained by 19th-century Methodist theologians). However, I don’t see why this is an issue only for infants. The Baptist pastor who baptized me certainly did not think he was doing anything more than publicly acknowledging my commitment to Christ. My own views on the subject were beginning to change at that point, and it’s hard to remember exactly how far along I was, but I don’t think I would have held anything close to the Catholic view.
Well no, nothing in the “New Mass” gave me that impression. I’m quite aware of the Catholic view, and I myself do not think that my faith causes Christ to be present. I was simply stating that I believe Christ is present in the Eucharists I receive–I think He is present even for those who do not believe it.
If you are going to question Anglican orders on the grounds that Barlow wasn’t a real bishop, that’s a separate issue. I was addressing the question of intention only.
I’ve read a good deal of Aquinas, including significant portions of his discussion of the sacraments (mostly the Eucharist). I am currently working my way slowly through the Summa in Latin, but currently haven’t yet gotten out of the parts I have already read in English (I’m only on Question 13 of Part 1 on the Divine names, one of the sections I was already very familiar with).
To get an understanding of what the Reformers’ intent was a good source is “Archbishop Cranmer on the True and Catholic Doctrine and Use of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.”
I’ve already mentioned the issue of baptism (though I suspect you may take a more jaundiced view of Protestant baptism than is common in contemporary Catholicism). JJ2011’s post raised some interesting issues, but I suppose the real question is whether Protestants have in fact “rewritten the baptismal rite” and what would count as an essential rewriting of the same. The baptismal rite by which I was baptized was, as far as I can remember after 15 years, as follows:
In the event of a reunion, there would certainly be no objection to future consecrations involving bishops of undisputed validity. I for one would agree that it is arrogant to object even to a conditional re-ordination. The problem is that we naturally balk at saying that we have no so far been receiving the true Body and Blood of Christ when we receive the Eucharist.
I don’t see a lot of force in the arguments saying that it was infallible, and of course most Catholics today hold a rather minimal view of infallibility, generally limiting it to the 21 Ecumenical Councils and the two ex cathedra Marian dogmas. My own view is that the Church is indefectible, and therefore infallible when error would constitute apostasy. That certainly does not seem to me to be the case with regard to a judgment concerning the orders of another Christian body.
I’m not a big fan of Manning, though I mostly know him as a foil to Newman, whom I admire greatly and with whose ideas I have been wrestling for years. I was particularly impressed by his demolition of the notion of the “undivided” early Church which is central to much high-church Anglicanism–I was struck by how much his picture of early Christianity foreshadowed the 20th-century emphasis on its “diversity,” although of course Newman’s ideological conclusions were directly opposed to those of most contemporary scholars who speak in this way.
I appreciate and enjoy its fruits, but I think its basic historical and ecclesiological suppositions were deeply flawed, and I think Newman’s later criticisms of it were essentially accurate.
The huge gap between ideal and reality. But then that’s a problem with human beings in general, isn’t it?
Whether you are validly baptised or not is a question I would leave to an expert. I suspect you are. But were you to become a Catholic, you would be asked where I go to Church to do a bit of abjuring before the champagne was popped.
I, of course would differ.
I will be quite frank, and say that if I were to question AC, I do not know whether I would be a heretic or merely disobedient. I think that I would definitely be suspect of heresy.
If you talking of the scandals which have plagued the Catholic Church in the last 40 years, and the behaviour of the clergy at large in many countries, especially Germany, then I sadly agree.
