I don’t know if people who do great evil ever do know that they’re doing wrong. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t still influenced by demons. Hitler himself said he was doing God’s work, nevertheless his works were demonic:
And this is precisely the Augustinian view. Roman/Western/Latin Catholicism does not follow the Cyprianic view, and neither does it follow the Donatist view (not suggesting Orthodox are Donatists, I know they’re not).HomeschoolDad:
If God “can do whatever He wills”, don’t we apparently already know what God willed? He willed a Sacrament of Holy Orders which from the beginning was built on valid form, matter, and intent. These are the rules He apparently approved and established, and never was it heard in the 2000 year history of Catholicism that someone with a valid ordination would be un able to confect the Eucharist - even when they’re apparently in mortal sin.
This is just one of those hoary old stories that float around within Catholicism, often the result of private revelations, which no one is obliged to accept. It strikes me as similar to the old story about how the nun told her students in religion class about the boy who made the Sign of the Cross irreverently and was punished by losing the use of that arm, supposedly it withered up. Sometimes these stories are loosely based in fact, sometimes they are “urban legends” (“my sister’s dentist’s cousin’s mother saw Elvis buying a jelly donut at 7-Eleven”), and sometimes, they might even be made up out of whole cloth, by someone with a vivid imagination or with less benign motives.HomeschoolDad:
Then I’d wonder why He wouldn’t just do that any time anyone would have received unworthily. After all, He’s not impinging on their free will - He has the power to go where He pleases, and so it’s entirely dependent on His will and not someone else’s.
Yes, true - so that would seem to be a problem for Augustinian Westerners who would conclude that the heretic should have no obstacle to confecting the Eucharist.
medium rare, please!
there appears to be movement in Rome slowly turning more from the Augustinian view of orders and towards the Cyprianic view. So ask me in six or seven centuries
Maybe after his right arm withered up, the nun would allow the boy to use his left arm to make the sign of the cross? Reverently, of course.
It sounds to me like something that kids might have made up as a horror story around the campfire at a Catholic youth event or something, and then it took on a life of its own. Just one guess.HomeschoolDad:
Maybe after his right arm withered up, the nun would allow the boy to use his left arm to make the sign of the cross? Reverently, of course.
Can’t afford Ruth’s Chris. Probably have to be at the Sahara Hotel restaurant. (I hope they didn’t butcher that place too much, I loved their faux-Moroccan ambiance before they went nuts and remade everything. Heard Louis Prima’s daughter perform there. I floated the idea with my son today of getting a camper, taking a cross-country trip, getting both of us Planet Fitness memberships so we could hunt one down and use their showers daily, and staying at a hotel every few nights for comfort’s sake.)
I was thinking about this just today. It takes an awfully ultramontane streak, and an awfully strict take on papal primacy, even so much as to suggest that the Churches of the East lost all their apostolic authority once the schism took place.
Is it solemnly defined Catholic teaching (de fide), or even dogma itself, that the Augustinian view is absolutely, unalterably true, and that the Cyprianic view is error??HomeschoolDad:
there appears to be movement in Rome slowly turning more from the Augustinian view of orders and towards the Cyprianic view. So ask me in six or seven centuries
Not clear what you mean by this. We contend that the heretic does, indeed, “have no obstacle” to confecting the Eucharist. I’d prefer he didn’t do that, I do not bless or approve what he does, but if he celebrates the Mass, intending to “do what the Church does”, then in the Catholic Augustinian view, yes, it is a valid sacrament.HomeschoolDad:
Yes, true - so that would seem to be a problem for Augustinian Westerners who would conclude that the heretic should have no obstacle to confecting the Eucharist.
We do also believe in God’s ultimate mercy, and that “grace overflows its banks”. No, technically speaking, they did not receive sacraments, but they acted in good faith, they thought they had received them, and it is horrifying to think that Almighty God would have withheld needed graces (even if they were not the same as the ex opere operato graces of a valid sacrament). I don’t think the most severe Catholic sedevacantist or even a Jansenist would go so far as to deny that.
It may not be obvious from the article because of the use of the word Orthodox, but of the eastern churches with valid Holy Orders are the Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox churches and Eastern Orthodox churches.
Exactly, HSD, that’s what I’m saying - that’s the very problem. Because that means he’d be preparing the Eucharist at the table of demons. And from there come all the other manifold problems I mentioned, not least of which are that it makes no sense scripturally or logically.
And yet, there’s no guarantee, and much room for fear given what we know about mortal sin. There is only a giant uncertainty. Don’t you think there’s something fundamentally wrong about such a system?
Contemporary Catholic ecclesiology regards material heretics — though that’s precisely what they are — as “separated brethren” who retain many elements of sanctification. Just cutting to the chase, the Church has in a very real sense “expanded the boundaries of the Church” to include even confessions that explicitly reject Rome. (I’ve mused before how the KJV Baptist pastor down the road would react if I’d tell him “hey, don’t know if you’re aware of this or not, but you’re in a kind of communion, however imperfect it may be, with the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, because you, too, confess the name of Christ Jesus”. That would be interesting. Nice guy, but I can’t imagine he’d say “man, I sure am glad to know that! Takes a load off my mind!”, no, to paraphrase Vincent Vega, his reaction would be just a little bit different…) Therefore we wouldn’t regard a valid Eucharist confected by material heretics or even schismatics as being exactly “a table of demons”. I think I’m in the best traditions of post-Vatican II ecclesiology when I say that. And I’m a pretty hard-shell traditionalist, so hold me to what I just said. (I’ll welcome correction from any reader who finds my explanation to be lacking.)HomeschoolDad:
Exactly, HSD, that’s what I’m saying - that’s the very problem. Because that means he’d be preparing the Eucharist at the table of demons. And from there come all the other manifold problems I mentioned, not least of which are that it makes no sense scripturally or logically.
Not in the least. The God I confess is “big enough” to “fill in the gaps” in a way that does not compromise the sanctity or salvation of His children. And isn’t Orthodoxy far more concerned with where grace is, rather than where it is not? Does not Orthodoxy profess that such “little gaps” can be healed without going strictly “by the book”, as in the case of non-Orthodox clergy who embrace Orthodoxy being received by “vesting” (or whatever the word is) rather than by re-ordination per se? Can Almighty God perform His own economia just the same as a bishop or priest can? Regardless of what differences Catholicism might have with Orthodoxy, I think she could scarcely profess anything else.HomeschoolDad:
And yet, there’s no guarantee, and much room for fear given what we know about mortal sin. There is only a giant uncertainty. Don’t you think there’s something fundamentally wrong about such a system?
That is highly interesting. Iconographically, heretics at Ecumenical Councils (who were trying to spew their false beliefs) are depicted with demons whispering into their ears. It’s always been a firm part of tradition - at least to us - that heretics were demon-inspired. But from reading your paragraph, I guess there’s a different approach in the RCC (you mention “separated brethren” et al).
Yes, that is how our system works, but we were talking about the Western (Roman Catholic) system, because it’s precisely that which I think is concerning. I understand you believe God can disregard the rules, but at least in the system He apparently instituted, there is no ambiguity: they’d be in unabsolved mortal sin, and thus in hell. But again, I understand you think the black-and-white rules would be disregarded here (even though, again, there’s no guarantee)
The original heretics, perhaps. Their descendants, who were born into that material heresy, do not know it is heresy, most of them having a “blind spot” that they will likely never get past — those are the Christians we refer to as our “separated brethren”.HomeschoolDad:
That is highly interesting. Iconographically, heretics at Ecumenical Councils (who were trying to spew their false beliefs) are depicted with demons whispering into their ears. It’s always been a firm part of tradition - at least to us - that heretics were demon-inspired. But from reading your paragraph, I guess there’s a different approach in the RCC (you mention “separated brethren” et al).
Almighty God is bigger than the Church, either in the East or in the West. I don’t think the Catholic West is as rigid as you characterize it. At least since Vatican II, we’ve been bending over backwards to emphasize God’s Mercy rather than His Justice — in practice, we let a lot of things slide (many, many people rarely if ever going to confession, practicing birth control while receiving communion, Friday penance virtually unknown, and so on), really much more than we should. Though it does not bind in faith to believe, we have a very widespread devotion to the Divine Mercy, which comes from the private revelations from a simple Polish nun. So we may be inching closer to the Orthodox view, and I am assuming you would have no issue with that. Within fairly broad bounds, I know I don’t. I don’t think the Pope and the bishops do either.HomeschoolDad:
Yes, that is how our system works, but we were talking about the Western (Roman Catholic) system, because it’s precisely that which I think is concerning. I understand you believe God can disregard the rules, but at least in the system He apparently instituted, there is no ambiguity: they’d be in unabsolved mortal sin, and thus in hell. But again, I understand you think the black-and-white rules would be disregarded here (even though, again, there’s no guarantee)
The expression of antiquated concepts here on CAF has always been something that was a little surprising to me. Not only that, but I usually do not know how to respond other than to say something along the lines of “the Church doesn’t think that way (anymore)”.
That is a very good and excellent question. Addressing it deserves a more thorough response than I am prepared to give…especially since it is an effort that will disappear in 48 hours.
More than surprising to me, they evoked a profound sadness.