Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomyris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GKC said:
No, only intent would possibly be violated; the intent facere quod facit eccelsia. An invalid subject would not necessarily say anything about the validity of the form or the matter.

We’ll assume for the sake of the example that the minister is also valid.
Click to expand...
Yes, without passing judgement one could see how a potential argument could be framed along the lines of the intent of churches which ordain women. Even if that were a correct determination, it would still leave, for instance, as I know you well recognise, those churches in the Anglican Continuum.
 
GKC said:
No, only intent would **possibly **be violated; the intent facere quod facit eccelsia. An invalid subject would not necessarily say anything about the validity of the form or the matter.

We’ll assume for the sake of the example that the minister is also valid.
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine any possibility that “intent” would not have been violated. Surely the bishop who ordains in this circumstance demonstrates a very different understanding of Holy Orders than the Christian Churches traditionally have had.

The question I would have is whether is whether a bishop’s willingness to ordain an invalid subject now, is evidence of lack of proper intent in all future ordinations by him, even with valid subjects. I don’t think intent can be improper in 2014, but then proper in 2015, when it happens that all the subjects are valid; unless there was evidence of a total change in mind in the meantime.
 
Picky_Picky said:
Yes, without passing judgement one could see how a potential argument could be framed along the lines of the intent of churches which ordain women. Even if that were a correct determination, it would still leave, for instance, as I know you well recognise, those churches in the Anglican Continuum.
Click to expand...
Remember, the relevant sacramental intent, in the question, is the intent of the minister in the sacramental action. In this case, no one would have to look into the murky interior issues of the minister’s sacramental intent, using something to serve as a determinatio ex adiunctis, as was the case with Apostolicae Curae. An invalid subject would answer the question straight off.

Yes, it would leave the Continuum open, as far as this line of argument goes. But since the relevant intent is the sacramental intent of the minister in the action, it would leave a lot of unanswered questions about any Church possessing (or professing to possess) valid orders, but which begins a shift to invalid subjects. Murky waters.

GKC
 
I personally prefer to straddle the line between the Augustinian/Cyprianic views on “validity”. Any sacrament performed outside the visible Church should be viewed as possibly askew, and need at least a conditional repeat. If nothing else, this will guarantee proper form, intent, and matter with no question.

Again, just my opinion.
 
commenter said:
I can’t imagine any possibility that “intent” would not have been violated. Surely the bishop who ordains in this circumstance demonstrates a very different understanding of Holy Orders than the Christian Churches traditionally have had.

The question I would have is whether is whether a bishop’s willingness to ordain an invalid subject in January is evidence of lack of proper intent in all future ordinations by him, even with valid subjects.
Click to expand...
Intent would not be considered. The subject would answer the question, without making determination of the interior state of the minister. Done deal.

Your 2nd para is an interesting point and one I have considered. I think a pattern would be necessary, said pattern being the determinatio ex adiunctis.

IMO.

GKC
 
SyroMalankara said:
I personally prefer to straddle the line between the Augustinian/Cyprianic views on “validity”. Any sacrament performed outside the visible Church should be viewed as possibly askew, and need at least a conditional repeat. If nothing else, this will guarantee proper form, intent, and matter with no question.

Again, just my opinion.
Click to expand...
A “valid” position, and one that a number of Orthodox, of various persuasions, would strongly endorse.

GKC
 
GKC said:
No, only intent would possibly be violated; the intent facere quod facit eccelsia. An invalid subject would not necessarily say anything about the validity of the form or the matter.

We’ll assume for the sake of the example that the minister is also valid.
Click to expand...
Females are valid matter? How so when only men may be ordained according to Church teaching?
 
Randy_Carson said:
Females are valid matter? How so when only men may be ordained according to Church teaching?
Click to expand...
No, females are not matter at all, nor are males. Matter, with respect to the sacrament of orders, is the imposition of hands. SACRAMENTUM ORDINIS.
 
GKC said:
No, females are not matter at all, nor are males. Matter, with respect to the sacrament of orders, is the imposition of hands. SACRAMENTUM ORDINIS.
Click to expand...
So, if a validly ordained priest, using the correct words of the mass and with full intent, attempts to consecrate some cheesecake, what is the defect?
 
Randy_Carson said:
So, the ordination of women fails one of Kjetilk’s four criterion?
Click to expand...
I think there are three questions here (GKC will correct me).

Q1: Are women valid subjects for ordination as priests? If the answer is “yes” then this branch of the discussion stops. If the answer is “no”, then no woman has valid priestly orders, and:

Q2: If a valid bishop carries out the ordination of an invalid subject, are his subsequent ordinations tainted with invalidity, even if they are of valid, male, subjects? If the answer is “yes”, then:

Q3: If a church permits as a matter of doctrine and order the ordination of women, are all its ordinations invalid, including those where a valid bishop, who is in an all-male succession, and who has never ordained a woman, ordains a valid male subject?

Ponderous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top