Sacramental Realism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Juxtaposer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Juxtaposer

Guest
When Augustine was trying to settle the dispute with the Donatist church and the Christians who fled from persecution by saying something to the effect of, “Neither the heart of the administrator or the receiver of a Sacrament matters. Only that the correct words are spoken [in order for a Sacrament to be received]”, was he talking about all Sacraments in general? My theology teacher told me about this, and he didn’t quote Augustine. Does anyone know where I could find Augustine’s exact words?
 
No, but it is correct. A Sacrament is effective when the proper Form , Matter and Intent are used. It does not matter the condition of the minister or recipient. However the disposition of the soul of the recipient will determine the amount and effect of the Grace received.
 
Here’s the reason I ask. I was listening to a native American’s story who lived during the time the Franciscan’s had a strong presence in California. The story goes something like this:
Code: 
 One day I was gather food on the shores with my family.  My family suddenly ran from me, leaving me on the beach.  I looked around in fear and saw two mean on horses riding toward me.  I tried to run from them, but could not.  They tied my hands and made me run behind them, sometimes dragging me, all the way back to where they came from.  When we arrived there was a man from my tribe there who spoke their language.  He told me to do whatever the men told me to do or they would kill me.  I worked hard manual labor for these men for several months.  One day they had me eat salt and splashed water on me.  Then the man from my tribe told me I was now a Christian.
Now I ask you: was this man really baptized? Did he receive all baptismal graces? He didn’t even know what Christianity was. I bet he even had his own religion. However, according to Augustine as I understand him this was completely legitimate I’m aware that Augustine was not the definer of truth, so does anyone know what the official Church teaching on this is?
 
“One day they had me eat salt and splashed water on me. Then the man from my tribe told me I was now a Christian.”

Eating salt and splashing water does not describe a proper form of Baptism! However I think that there might have been more to it.

Now I ask you: was this man really baptized?

Possibly or even likely?

Did he receive all baptismal graces?

If Baptized he received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and forgiveness of Original Sin at least.

“He didn’t even know what Christianity was. I bet he even had his own religion. However, according to Augustine as I understand him this was completely legitimate I’m aware that Augustine was not the definer of truth, so does anyone know what the official Church teaching on this is?”

No it was not legitimate. It was illicit, an abuse of the Sacrament. But never the less may have been effective. Forced conversion of an adult who protests would always be wrong.

To me it brings up the sad situation that there are so many people who have died without Baptism and because of this, may not enter into the beatific vision of God in Heaven.
 
40.png
Juxtaposer:
Here’s the reason I ask. I was listening to a native American’s story who lived during the time the Franciscan’s had a strong presence in California. The story goes something like this:
Code: 
 One day I was gather food on the shores with my family.  My family suddenly ran from me, leaving me on the beach.  I looked around in fear and saw two mean on horses riding toward me.  I tried to run from them, but could not.  They tied my hands and made me run behind them, sometimes dragging me, all the way back to where they came from.  When we arrived there was a man from my tribe there who spoke their language.  He told me to do whatever the men told me to do or they would kill me.  I worked hard manual labor for these men for several months.  One day they had me eat salt and splashed water on me.  Then the man from my tribe told me I was now a Christian.
Now I ask you: was this man really baptized? Did he receive all baptismal graces? He didn’t even know what Christianity was. I bet he even had his own religion. However, according to Augustine as I understand him this was completely legitimate I’m aware that Augustine was not the definer of truth, so does anyone know what the official Church teaching on this is?
Click to expand...
Well, you got to ask yourself this question… is a newborn baby a christian and does he/she receive the grace conferred in baptism?

That child may grow up to reject any form of christianity but he/she was baptized with water and the word father, son and holy ghost… You tell me… is he baptized… I would say yes…
 
Would you tell me then, that this man’s original sin and sin committed up to that point was forgiven? The difference between the infant and this man is that he had the capacity to understand and choose, whereas an infant of course does not. If you tell me that all baptismal graces were received, you’re telling me that Augustine was correct. I have to tell you that this troubles me. If this is the case, why then don’t you force everyone to be baptized? I’m sure they’d thank you for it if they knew what was happening. Again, can anyone point me to where I could find the official Church teaching on this?
 
I think you are mixing two things here: 1. The reception of the Sacrament validly. 2. The reception of Graces associated with the Sacrament.

“Would you tell me then, that this man’s original sin and sin committed up to that point was forgiven?”

Without a doubt Yes, if validly Baptized.

“The difference between the infant and this man is that he had the capacity to understand and choose, whereas an infant of course does not. If you tell me that all baptismal graces were received, you’re telling me that Augustine was correct. I have to tell you that this troubles me. If this is the case, why then don’t you force everyone to be baptized?”

I didn’t compare this to infant Baptism because they are two totally different situations. I never said all Baptismal graces were received. The reception of Graces is dependent on the disposition of the soul of the recipeant. The reception of the Sacrament is not. In this case the man may have had his sins forgiven and his soul marked with the sign of Baptism but received no other benefit.

I’m sure they’d thank you for it if they knew what was happening. Again, can anyone point me to where I could find the official Church teaching on this?

This would be found in the principle of “ex opere operato”.
 
Br. Rich SFO,
Would I be correct to say then, that the native American from the story did in fact receive grace, however, since he had no idea what was happening, he was unable to put that grace to use? Are you telling me that not ALL possible grace was received? I’m just trying to clarify here. Also, my little rant about infant Baptism was in response to space ghost’s comparison.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
This is correct.
Click to expand...
Therefore, in the case of Baptism, would I be right to say that the Sacrament justifies but does not sanctify?
 
I can just picture Christ sitting there laughing at us trying to judge something which we have no possibility of judging. At the moment of his Baptism the man whould have been Justified and Sancified. The Sacrament if properly administered would have been totally effective and the man at that instant as St. Paul describes would have been a “New Creation” .
 
I was just reading the catechism of the Catholic Church, and came across this:

“Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.” 1128

I suppose this settles it (well, this aspect of the issue anyway). I had previously thought that there was a difference in what the lay believed and the canon law. One more stumbling block removed.
 
Now I’m confused. Augustine says the disposition of the priest doesn’t matter when it comes to the validity and efficacy of the sacraments (right? please correct me if I misinterpreted Augustine) But I was told awhile ago that if a priest is saying Mass and doesn’t intend to consecrate the bread and wine (let’s imagine he’s an apostate but stays a priest because he’d be out of a job otherwise) that is he doesn’t believe in the Eucharist, and has no intention of consecrating the elements, then the bread and wine DO NOT become Jesus. The priest has to intend to do what the Church teaches happens at Mass - if not the sacrament doesn’t happen. Can anyone help me out here?
 
40.png
Minerva:
Now I’m confused. Augustine says the disposition of the priest doesn’t matter when it comes to the validity and efficacy of the sacraments (right? please correct me if I misinterpreted Augustine) But I was told awhile ago that if a priest is saying Mass and doesn’t intend to consecrate the bread and wine (let’s imagine he’s an apostate but stays a priest because he’d be out of a job otherwise) that is he doesn’t believe in the Eucharist, and has no intention of consecrating the elements, then the bread and wine DO NOT become Jesus. The priest has to intend to do what the Church teaches happens at Mass - if not the sacrament doesn’t happen. Can anyone help me out here?
Click to expand...
Who told you that? That’s totally bogus. The disposition of the priest makes no difference. One more thing; Augustine isn’t the author of truth. If he were, we’d all be predestined.
 
40.png
Minerva:
Now I’m confused. Augustine says the disposition of the priest doesn’t matter when it comes to the validity and efficacy of the sacraments (right? please correct me if I misinterpreted Augustine) But I was told awhile ago that if a priest is saying Mass and doesn’t intend to consecrate the bread and wine (let’s imagine he’s an apostate but stays a priest because he’d be out of a job otherwise) that is he doesn’t believe in the Eucharist, and has no intention of consecrating the elements, then the bread and wine DO NOT become Jesus. The priest has to intend to do what the Church teaches happens at Mass - if not the sacrament doesn’t happen. Can anyone help me out here?
Click to expand...
There is a difference between “Disposition” of the priests soul and his “Intention” to celebrate a Sacrament. The Priest may be in grave Mortal sin, which is what many of the early fathers address. A priest may personally not believe that the bread and wine change into the Body and Blood of Christ. However the Consecration still takes place.
 
Jux,

I’d rather not say who because the person sometimes posts on CAF.

Brother Rich,

I meant the intention of the priest - I know that even a priest in unrepentent mortal sin can consecrate the Eucharist. What I meant is a priest who says the words of consecration but does not intend to actually consecrate the elements - all he intends to do is say words that to him are meaningless. This other person said in a case like that there’s no Eucharist. It would seem Augustine would agree. But is this incorrect?
 
40.png
Minerva:
Jux,

I’d rather not say who because the person sometimes posts on CAF.

Brother Rich,

I meant the intention of the priest - I know that even a priest in unrepentent mortal sin can consecrate the Eucharist. What I meant is a priest who says the words of consecration but does not intend to actually consecrate the elements - all he intends to do is say words that to him are meaningless. This other person said in a case like that there’s no Eucharist. It would seem Augustine would agree. But is this incorrect?
Click to expand...
That is a very thin line. If he does not intend to Consecrate then no Consecration takes place. However if he only has doubts, even “manifest doubts”, those doubts that he has expressed to others, he may still validly Consecrate. If a priest takes bread and is thinking this really does nothing. However the Church says it does and the people believe it does, so I’ll say the words, give them Communion and go home. He intends to turn the bread into the Body of Christ even though he himself does not believe that any change takes place. That is my opinion. Only his Bishop could determine the validity or invalidity of that Consecration.
 
Wasn’t there a time in the history where the practice of kidnapping infidels was deemed ok, for the sake of Baptizing them into the Church? I think the notion/intent was good – ie for the salvation of their souls. maybe someone could correct me on this fact, or impression…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top