Help settle argument-valid transubstantiation in other churches

[dochawk]

if you follow the in-depth (and higher level) discussions specifically on ordinations, it’s not the same standard as Baptism or the Eucharist.

As I understand it, the CodE lost orders before it changed the form to an invalid one, in its adoption of the protestant notion of the bishops as administrators/managers, rather than indispensable apostolic successors.

 

[annad347]

@Gorgias, I understand the point you made… but it still doesn’t prove that doesn’t prove Luther meant to turn from the Church just stop the abuse from the Pope that was in authority at the time.

Which goes back to my original question, if the Pope is abusing his power, are we supposed to accept the abuse or should we do something?

St Pope John Paul II went to confession each and every single day . Yes… we’re all sinners; yes… Jesus gave authority to Peter (a sinner!); yes… this divine authority, by definition, when given to a human, is present in a sinner.

St Pope John Paul II is an exception to the point I’m trying to make, he personally understood the need to be right with God before performing any of his Sacramental duties. Peter, lets not go there, the man is a saint… but he was directly chosen by God to have divine authority, so him being a sinner was never an issue.

Actually, being a sinner isn’t the issue now that I’m thinking about it. Its how, how is it possible, someone who never should never have had the power of “divine authority” to begin with, can receive it from God, or have it passed down to him?

In this point it doesn’t matter what Martin Luther did, he’s out of the equation… it just about the person who is abusing his power, the person who lies, cheats his way into the position of authority, someone who was put there by sin, how can that person have “divine authority” over the Sacraments of the Church when he never have been in power?

 

[Ignatius]

No, there are several. A valid priesthood with Apostolic Succession is necessary for confection of the Eucharist, so only Orthodox, and a few splinter groups in schism from The Catholic Church have the ability to confect the Eucharist. None except the Catholic Church use the transubstantiation term.

 

[Gorgias]

it still doesn’t prove that doesn’t prove Luther meant to turn from the Church just stop the abuse from the Pope that was in authority at the time.

How does abandoning the Church “stop the abuse from the Pope”? That’s like watching a loved one getting beat up and saying “I’m going to stop this by just walking away”…!

Which goes back to my original question, if the Pope is abusing his power, are we supposed to accept the abuse or should we do something?

The thing is… the Church did do something – it’s called the “counter-reformation”! They addressed the improper actions, took steps to improve the formation of priests and the theological understanding of the people. And they did it all without leaving the Church.

Its how, how is it possible, someone who never should never have had the power of “divine authority” to begin with, can receive it from God, or have it passed down to him?

How do you know that they “should never have had” the office of pope? All we can say is “they did a really bad job of being pope”. On the other hand, if things hadn’t come to a head with their poor leadership, then they may never have been fixed at all!

can that person have “divine authority” over the Sacraments of the Church when he never have been in power?

You’re making a claim you’ll never be able to prove. You can show he exercised the office poorly, but you’ll never be able to show he should have never been there in the first place.

 

[Dovekin]

if you follow the in-depth (and higher level) discussions specifically on ordinations, it’s not the same standard as Baptism or the Eucharist.

As I understand it, the CodE lost orders before it changed the form to an invalid one, in its adoption of the protestant notion of the bishops as administrators/managers, rather than indispensable apostolic successors.

Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII’s papal bull on Anglican Orders, is sharply focused on the Edwardine Ordinal. It is the defects of that ordinal that motivate the decision to reject Anglican Orders. When it gets to the question of interior disposition it even says:

The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do ( intendisse ) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.
Apoatolicae Curae 33

As I said, innovations like this from “higher level discussions” make me suspicious of the people who make them. I do not understand why anyone would presume to judge Anglican Orders before the rite changed, based solely on the internal mind and intent. Leo XIII says the Church does not do that.

 

[annad347]

How does abandoning the Church “stop the abuse from the Pope”? That’s like watching a loved one getting beat up and saying “I’m going to stop this by just walking away” …!

Never easy, but sometimes it’s the only way to help… and praying what you’re doing is the right thing. Like when a social worker can do nothing but watch an abused wife return to her husband. You fight in other ways… pray its enough and the women survives long enough to get the help she needs.

The thing is… the Church did do something – it’s called the “counter-reformation”! They addressed the improper actions, took steps to improve the formation of priests and the theological understanding of the people. And they did it all without leaving the Church.

Thank God.

You keep saying the Church as if it’s the same as The Catholic Church, is it? I’m thinking the Church is the universal catholic church, which Luther didn’t leave… and the Catholic Church is church that excommunicated Luther.

How do you know that they “should never have had” the office of pope? All we can say is “they did a really bad job of being pope”. On the other hand, if things hadn’t come to a head with their poor leadership, then they may never have been fixed at all!

Only by what has been written in history books… but you are right, maybe it was God’s will for those people to be in power as a test from God. I believe God sometimes allows bad things to happen so good can come from it… so we turn back to Him.

You’re making a claim you’ll never be able to prove. You can show he exercised the office poorly, but you’ll never be able to show he should have never been there in the first place.

Well it can be, if its discovered they used ill means to gain the title, but like I said above it could have been God’s will for them to be in power, to show His power.

So, does that mean divine authority is given to the title, not the person?

 

[Gorgias]

sometimes it’s the only way to help… and praying what you’re doing is the right thing. Like when a social worker can do nothing but watch an abused wife return to her husband.

Except that this is the wrong example. In that case, the example would be if the social worker says “I’m going to help this woman by ceasing to be a social worker.” See? It doesn’t add up.

You keep saying the Church as if it’s the same as The Catholic Church, is it?

It is.

I’m thinking the Church is the universal catholic church, which Luther didn’t leave

Except that he did. The Catholic Church was the “universal catholic church”… and he decided to leave it and justify himself in his own eyes.

So, does that mean divine authority is given to the title, not the person?

Interesting way of looking at it…!

 

[annad347]

Except that he did. The Catholic Church was the “universal catholic church”… and he decided to leave it and justify himself in his own eyes.

now I understand. The Catholic church believes they have divine authority to perform the Sacraments, like the Eucharist, because they were the “universal catholic church”.

Lutherans church believes any church built on the foundation of Jesus as the head is part of the “universal catholic church” so they also perform the Sacraments in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

That’s how I’m understanding it.

Interesting way of looking at it…!

… is it right?

 

[Gorgias]

The Catholic church believes they have divine authority to perform the Sacraments, like the Eucharist, because they were the “universal catholic church”.

I would say it as “because Christ gave the Church that authority.”

Lutherans church believes any church built on the foundation of Jesus as the head is part of the “universal catholic church”

Did Jesus say that? Does the Bible say that? Did the apostles teach that?

… is it right?

I think I would say that the authority is a charism of the office, and not of the person, per se. So… yeah?

 

[Jmschell]

As a former Lutheran and convert to Catholicism, we were taught that communion is a representation of Jesus only. The Eucharist is not in the Lutheran vocabulary. They believe that it would be “killing Christ” again and again, etc.

 

[GKMotley]

There can be varying types of higher levels, I suppose.

Apostolicae Curae found two related objections to the validity of Anglican orders, from the point the supposed invalid form on the Edwardine Ordinal was used. The form of the consecration/ordination rite was judged invalid, due to not mentioning the power of the priesthood to offer the sacrificial Mass. But this in itself was not uncommon, in liturgical rites which the RCC does recognize as validly conveying valid orders, other things being equally valid. So the question of valid intent was directly intertwined with that of the liturgical form.

Valid sacramental intent is, as Apostolicae Curae says, an interior condition of the sacramental minister, and not necessarily subject to positive examination or judgment. The minimum required for valid sacramental intent is for the minister to intend facere quod facit ecclesia, to intend to do what the Church intends, in the action. Since intent is interior, valid intent is normally assumed, if all other aspects of the sacramental action (minister, form, matter, subject) are themselves demonstrably valid. However, if there is some external aspect that permits a judgment of the intent, permitting a determinatio ex adiunctis, that may permit a judgment of invalid intent. In the logic of Apostolicae Curae, that was the use of the Ordinal. Given the circumstances in which the Ordinal was written, and by whom, it was assumed that the intent of anyone who used that form sacramentally was (by determinatio ex adiunctis) considered sacramentally invalid. Thus, through the joined questions of form and intent, each leading to a determination of invalidity, the orders were declared invalid.

Anglicans, of course, have a different view of the matter (and the form and the intent).

The customary recommendation: Fr. J.J. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID.