Must We Believe All VCII Documents?

[itsjustdave1988]

continued …

Furthermore, you are either in a state of grace or you are not, meaning that you are either in a state of mortal sin, or you are not.

The article continues…

(1) Conditions for valid reception

(a) The previous reception of Baptism (by water) is an essential condition for the valid reception of any other sacrament. Only citizens and members of the Church can come under her influence as such; Baptism is the door by which we enter the Church and thereby become members of a mystical body united to Christ our head (Catech. Trid., de bapt., nn.5, 52).

(b) In adults, for the valid reception of any sacrament except the Eucharist, it is necessary that they have the intention of receiving it. The sacraments impose obligations and confer grace: Christ does not wish to impose those obligations or confer grace without the consent of man. The Eucharist is excepted because, in whatever state the recipient may be, it is always the body and blood of Christ (see INTENTION; cf. Pourrat, op.cit., 392).

(c) For attention, see above, VI, 6. By the intention man submits himself to the operation of the sacraments which produce their effects exopere operato, hence attention is not necessary for the valid reception of the sacraments. One who might be distracted, even voluntarily, during the conferring, e.g. of Baptism, would receive the sacrament validly. It must be carefully noted, however, that in the case of Matrimony the contracting parties are the ministers as well as the recipients of the sacraments; and in the sacrament of Penance, the acts of the penitent, contrition, confession, and willingness to accept a Penance in satisfaction, constitute the proximate matter of the sacraments, according to the commonly received opinion. Hence in those cases such attention is required as is necessary for the valid application of the matter and form.

(2) Conditions for the Licit Reception

(a) For the licit reception, besides the intention and the attention, in adults there is required:

• for the sacraments of the dead, supernatural attrition, which presupposes acts of faith, hope, and repentance (see ATTRITION and JUSTIFICATION);
• for the sacraments of the living the state of grace. Knowingly to receive a sacrament of the living whilst one is in the state of mortal sin would be a sacrilege.

(b) For the licit reception it is also necessary to observe all that is prescribed by Divine or ecclesiastical law, e.g. as to time, place, the minister, etc. As the Church alone has the care of the sacraments and generally her duly appointed agents alone have the right to administer them, except Baptism in some cases, and Matrimony (supra VI, 2), it is a general law that application for the sacraments should be made to worthy and duly appointed ministers. (For exceptions see EXCOMMUNICATION.) (ibid)

Either you meet the conditions for validity and licitness or you do not.

You ought to note that the article states, "For the licit reception it is also necessary to observe all that is prescribed by Divine or ecclesiastical law, e.g. as to time, place, the minister, etc. " Consequently, Holy Communion may be validly but is never licitly received by one who is not in a state of grace. Furthermore, Holy Communion may be validly but is never licitly received within the SSPX Mass.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Albert,

Additionally, the schismatic ministers such as those within the SSPX can administer the sacraments validly but do so sinfully.

3) Heretical or Schismatic Ministers

The care of all those sacred rites has been given to the Church of Christ. Heretical or schismatical ministers can administer the sacraments validly if they have valid Orders, but their ministrations are sinful (see Billot, op.cit., thesis 16). Good faith would excuse the recipients from sin, and in cases of necessity the Church grants jurisdiction necessary for Penance and Extreme Unction (see EXCOMMUNICATION: V, Effects of Excommunication).

“Good Faith” above means the sinful ministers are acting in invincible ignorance. (cf. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Good****Faith)

Even if they act sinfully but with invincible ignorance, the actions of the SSPX ministers are objectively sinful. Their sin is material sin while not necessarily formal sin. (cf. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sin)

Either way you look at it, receiving the sacraments from an SSPX priest is a participation in either material or formal sin. I don’t find that very traditional either, and is certainly not conducive to my disposition to validly and licitly receive the Sacraments.

 

[deogratias]

Additionally, the schismatic ministers such as those within the SSPX can administer the sacraments validly but do so sinfully

Not all the sacraments are even valid. The Mass and the Eucharist is valid but ilicit. The absolutions given by SSPX Priests are generally not valid. They lack the proper faculties required under the Laws of the Church.

The Code of Canon Law says:
Can. 966 §1 For the valid absolution of sins, it is required that, in addition to the power of order, the minister has the faculty to exercise that power in respect of the faithful to whom he gives absolution.

§2 A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself, or by a concession issued by the competent authority in accordance with can. 969.

This means that any priest can absolve if there is danger of death: the law itself gives the valdily ordained priest the faculty to absolve.

SSPX priests do not have faculties to hear confession or absolve sins so this means this sacrament is not only invalid but also is ilicit…

 

[albert_cipriani]

itsjustdave1988:

Can you please cite a source.

My source is a Catholic journal. Your source, the 1909 Catholic Encycleopedia, (on Sacraments) is even better. Your source and my source concur: the sacraments confer grace in and of themselves, but how much of that grace we actually receive is contingent upon our disposition.

If you’re bored or daydreaming the grace may be very little. If you are predisposed to not believe or even doubt the de fide dogma of the sacrament, not only do you receive no grace whatsoever, you commit a mortal sin.

We do not receive any sanctifying grace ex opere operantis from Sacraments.

Correct yourself by re-reading your own citations. It states that we ourselves are the principal agents responsible for the graces we receive from the sacraments and that the sacraments themselves are the instrumental agents. I quote: “It is well known that Catholics teach that the sacraments are only the instrumental, not the principal, causes of grace.”

To illustrate, a gun may be the instrumental cause of a murder, but the murderous finger on its trigger was the murder’s principal cause. In short, tho it’s God’s action alone that confers sacramental grace upon us, how much grace we actually receive depends upon our disposition. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Albert,

You said:

Correct yourself by re-reading your own citations. It states that we ourselves are the principal agents responsible for the graces we receive from the sacraments and that the sacraments themselves are the instrumental agents. I quote: “It is well known that Catholics teach that the sacraments are only the instrumental, not the principal, causes of grace.”

Errrrrrrrr… no.

The article states that the sacraments are the instrumental cause of grace, but that GOD ALONE is the principal cause of the sacraments. “An instrumental cause produces an effect, not by its own power, but by a power which it receives from the principal agent” (ibid). The Sacraments receive no effect from the recipient. Nowhere does it say that the recipient in any way is any kind of efficient cause of grace. The article specifically denies what you yourself asserted, that Sacraments confer grace *ex opere operantis. *

Let me quote the article for you… It says “God alone is the principal cause of the sacraments.” Nowhere in the article does it state that the amount of grace we receive is dependent upon our degree of piety, nor anything human. In fact, it states: “**All admit that the sacraments of the New Law cause grace ex opere operato, not *ex opere operantis.” ***The article also states: "Ex opere operato", i.e. by virtue of the action, means that the efficacy of the action of the sacraments does not depend on anything human, but solely on the will of God"

So, your assertion that the Sacraments confer grace ex opere operantis is absolutely false. If your “Catholic journal” says otherwise, please provide verifiable proof.

The Sacraments are always efficacious toward santification if received validly and licitly. Always. That means that the Eucharist validly and licitly received remits all venial sins. No degree of piety on man’s part or lack thereof either adds to or detracts from sanctification, so long as the all the conditions for validity and lict reception are met. God’s grace santifies without dependence upon anything human, but solely by the power of God.

The necessity of proper disposition is a condition, not a cause, for the validity and licit reception of the sacraments. Disposition is a yes or no state, not likened to degrees of piety.

A superabundance of piety does not add to the amount of grace received by the Sacraments because the Sacraments are always supersubstantial in their efficacy toward confering sanctification, so long as the conditions for validity and licit reception are met. The lack of proper disposition, can be an obstacle to the reception of **ANY **grace from the Sacrament. This is not the same as ex opere operantis as you have asserted.

The article explicitly says"Dispositions are required to prepare the subject, but they are a condition (conditio sine qua non), not the causes, of the grace conferred."

You asserted:

The Church teaches that in the reception of the Sacraments, grace enters the soul in two ways. The first is ex opere operato, or by virtue of the work performed. The second is called ex opere operantis, which is to say, by virtue of the disposition of the recipient.

This is absolutely incorrect and directly contrary to the article cited above.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Albert,

Now, if you meant that all who validly and licitly receive the Sacraments are renewed in the spirit and are truly called and are just, yet may recieve differing gifts of the Holy Spirit, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Spirit distributes to everyone as he wills, and according to each one’s own disposition and cooperation, then I agree. This is what the Council of Trent asserts (cf. Denzinger 799). However, that’s not the same as asserting that the grace of the Sacraments are conferred *ex opere operantis, *is it?

All who receive the Sacraments validly and licitly are made just by the grace of God, but not all the just receive the same heavenly gifts.

 

[albert_cipriani]

itsjustdave1988:

The Sacraments receive no effect from the recipient. Nowhere does it say that the recipient in any way is any kind of efficient cause of grace.

How do you square that with this, quoting from your article:

Neither can it be claimed that the phrase adopted by the council [of Trent, that is *ex opere operato

] does away with all dispositions necessary on the part of the recipient, the sacraments acting like infallible charms causing grace in those who are ill-disposed.
I think the confusion is over all the technical theological terms being flung around. Let’s go to the source material, Dr. Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (pg. 330)and Denzinger #799:

“The measure of the grace effected ex opere operato even depends on the grade of the subjective dispostion. We receive grace according to the measure given by the Holy Spirit as He wills and ACCORDING TO EACH ONE’S OWN DISPOSITION AND CO-OPERATION.”

You wrote and I agree:

No degree of piety on man’s part or lack thereof either adds to or detracts from sanctification, so long as the all the conditions for validity and lict reception are met. God’s grace santifies without dependence upon anything human, but solely by the power of God.

Notice, however, the equivocation. Our arguement is over grace, not sanctification. The Church distinguishes between sanctifying graces and actual graces. The sanctifying graces of a sacrament (e.g., the remission of venial sins as you pointed out) either happens or does not happen depending upon our disposition. As you say, it’s digital. But the actual graces are not. They come in degrees relative to the degree of our disposition.

If you insist upon our disposition being irrelevant to ALL the graces we receive at the Eucharistic sacrament, then why don’t you focus on baseball when receiving? Why bother being particularly pious during those divine moments if the spiritual results are the same? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Albert,

You ask how to “square” this statement:

The Sacraments receive no effect from the recipient. Nowhere does it say that the recipient in any way is any kind of efficient cause of grace.

with this statement:

Neither can it be claimed that the phrase adopted by the council [of Trent, that is *ex opere operato

] does away with all dispositions necessary on the part of the recipient, the sacraments acting like infallible charms causing grace in those who are ill-disposedThe difference is one of “direction” – the recipient does not contribute to the sacrament, but the converse is not true. The state of the recipient does condition the graces received from the sacrament. That is, if I am in mortal sin I receive no graces from any sacrament save Anointing of the Sick and Reconcilliation (both of which will forgive sins). In fact, if I receive while in mortal sin I make things worse for myself.

Deacon Ed

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Albert,

Here’s a simple yes or no question for you, since you’ve shown that you have Ludwig Ott’s reference. Does Dr. Ott contend the grace of the Sacraments are in any way conferred ex opere operantis as you have previously stated? If so, what page? Please provide the quote if you please.

Because I believe he asserts that the grace is conferred SOLELY as ex opere operato, right? Even if the measure depends upon the grade of the subjective disposition (as a condition, not an effect). What is the principal effect or agent of the Sacraments, God alone or God plus something other than God?

 

[albert_cipriani]

Deacon Ed:

The difference is one of “direction” – the recipient does not contribute to the sacrament, but the converse is not true.

I think you’re saying what I’m saying. “Direction” is about as imprecise as some of the other words we’ve been using, but your meaning and mine seem the same.

So long as we understand that the sacraments are not vodoo, that they are not incantations that magically cause things to happen independent of our disposition or free will, then we are in agreement. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Now then … back to the initial point…

The attention of the recipient has no bearing on the efficacy of the Sacrament. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Sacraments previously cited above states: “**By the intention man submits himself to the operation of the sacraments which produce their effects exopere operato, hence *attention is not necessary for the valid reception of the sacraments. One who might be distracted, even voluntarily, during the conferring, e.g. of Baptism, would receive the sacrament validly.” ***

This means that the piety of the recipient does not make the Sacrament more or less efficacious. Yes, the subjective disposition and cooperation prepares the believer (or the lack of the same creates an obstuction) as a condition for the reception of grace in proportional measure in accord with Divine providence. However, even a distracted recipient recieves the full effect of the Sacrament when it is received validly and licitly.

Reaching back again to the initial implication, the valid and licit reception of the Holy Eucharist of the Tridentine Liturgy is no more or less sanctifying than the valid and licit reception of the the Eucharist of the Pauline Liturgy, or any other approved Catholic Liturgy. The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is present in each, and as such, confers grace efficaciously ex opere operato.

Thus, I should have no “grave fear” by assisting in any Catholic Mass which is celebrated in accordance with the established liturgical norms. On the contrary, since the SSPX is ALWAYS illicit, it is always a material sin when celebrated. No matter how meticulous the non-incardinated priest celebrates the Mass, he does so sinfully. Those who minsiter and assist in such a Mass may be relieved of the guilt of there material sin if they act in “good faith,” that is, with invincible ignorance. Nonetheless, assisting in an SSPX Mass is ALWAYS a material sin. More likely than not, the sin is due to defiance, or affected or vincible ignorance, which is indeed a formal sin.

 

[albert_cipriani]

itsjustdave1988:

Albert,Here’s a simple yes or no question for you. Does Dr. Ott contend the grace of the Sacraments are in any way conferred ex opere operantis as you have previously stated?

Yes. Refer to page 330:

“It must be stressed that the Catholic teaching of the efficacy of the Sacraments ex opere operato must in no wise be interpreted in the sense of a mechanical or magical efficacy. THE OPUS OPERANTIS IS NOT EXCLUDED. On the contrary, in the case of the adult recipient it is expressly demanded (c.f. Denzinger 849)”

However, your mechanistic view of sacramental grace is an accurate characterization of infant baptism. For an infant is not capable of a disposition and necessarily excludes the possiblity of opus operantis. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[albert_cipriani]

Dear Dave,
I’ve answered your questions. Yet you continue to ignore mine. Now you are repeating yourself. How about answering me:

If you insist upon our disposition being irrelevant to ALL the graces we receive at the Eucharistic sacrament, then why don’t you focus on baseball when receiving? Why bother being particularly pious during those divine moments if the spiritual results are the same?

– Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[itsjustdave1988]

albert cipriani:

Yes. Refer to page 330:

Nice quote. That opus operantis is necessary (as a condition) does not mean that the grace is conferred *ex opere operantis. *Let’s continue with the sentence immediately after the quote you provided …

… Nevertheless the subjective disposition of the recipient is not the cause of grace, it is merely an indispensable pre-condition of the communication of grace (causa dispositiva, not causa efficiens). The measure of the grace effected ex opere operato even depends upon the grade of the subjective disposition. D 799.

Sounds a lot like what I’ve been asserting. The grace is never effected ex opere operantis, but always effected ex opere operato.

Thus, Ott states pg 346: "in the Sacraments of the Living [e.g. Holy Communion], the obstacle to grace is a consciousness of grievous sin, the necessary disposition is the state of grace. " As such, according to Dr. Ott, I receive the Eucharist with “moral worthiness” whenever I receive the Eucharist absent of consciousness of grievous sin.

So, no grievous sin, no obstacle. No obstacle, the grace effected *ex opere operato *is completely efficacious toward to end of the Sacrament. It doesn’t matter what the specific approved liturgy is, but only that the recipient validly and licitly receives of the Holy Eucharist.

“The validity and the efficacy of the Sacrament is independent of the minister’s orthodoxy and state of grace.” (Ott, pg. 342)

 

[albert_cipriani]

itsjustdave1988:

So, no grievous sin, no obstacle. No obstacle, the grace effected ex opere operato is completely efficacious toward to end of the Sacrament.

You continue to repeat yourself and ignore my question. Adding boldface to your words changes nothing.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

albert cipriani:

If you insist upon our disposition being irrelevant to ALL the graces we receive at the Eucharistic sacrament …

I don’t. I insist that it is irrelevant to the efficacy of the Sacrament of Holy Communion itself. So, my level of piety does not make a Tridentine Mass any more or less efficacious than a Pauline Mass.

If you remember correctly, you were asserting “grave fear” by attending Pauline Mass. Since the Eucharist of the Pauline Mass is just as efficacious as the Eucharst at a Tridentine Mass or any other Catholic Liturgy, “grave fear” is unreasonable.

then why don’t you focus on baseball when receiving? Why bother being particularly pious during those divine moments if the spiritual results are the same?

As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, “By the intention man submits himself to the operation of the sacraments which produce their effects ex opere operato, hence attention is not necessary for the valid reception of the sacraments” (ibid). In context, this paragraph is referring to all the Sacraments accepting Penance and Marriage.

Neither is attention a condition for worthy and fruitful reception according to Dr. Ott.

Consequently, if I am thinking of baseball, I neither effect the validity or the fruitful reception of the Eucharist.

So why don’t I think about baseball voluntarily distracting myself? Because that is not what the Spirit is prompting me to do, and I ought to always cooperate with the grace of God.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

albert cipriani:

You continue to repeat yourself and ignore my question. Adding boldface to your words changes nothing.

I’m just curious if your pride will allow you to admit when you are incorrect. If you still insist the Sacraments confer grace ex opere operantis, then I have my answer.

When you asserted that “we ourselves are the principal agents responsible for the graces we receive from the sacraments,” I should have ended the conversation with my favorite icon:

 

[albert_cipriani]

itsjustdave1988:

So why don’t I think about baseball voluntarily distracting myself? Because that is not what the Spirit is prompting me to do, and I ought to always cooperate with the grace of God.

Wow. That’s pure Protestantism. It’s the converse of Flip Wilson (of “Here come da judge” fame) saying "The Devil made me do it!"

Well, I’m glad for two things, you did finally answer my question and you don’t willfully distract yourself during Communion. The question, and especially your answer, should lead you to where I fear you are unwilling to travel, that the Eucharist does not automatically fill us with graces, that our disposition to those graces are the gatekeepers of those graces.

But you’re right about one thing, I misspoke when I wrote: “we ourselves are the principal agents responsible for the graces we receive from the sacraments.” God is the principal agent of all graces, but we are the agents principally responsible for how many graces we receive. That’s what I was attempting to say and I thank you for calling that erroneous attempt to my attention. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic