Cathedral Damaged In Apparent Anti-Gay Exorcism

Star Tribune ^ | November 24, 2004 | Herón Márquez Estrada

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

See??!

LOL

[arkady_renko]

No - Judas left the first mass early. He did not partake in the Eucharist.

Not according to Luke 22:14-22. All 12 were there. All 12 partook.

A_R

[Domestic Church]

"And, the Eucharist is not "blessed"; it is "consecrated."

Once upon a time in my childhood I was taught about the Blessed Sacrament. The term was used daily in catechesis. Of course we were taught about the Consecration but there never was any dispute about It being Blessed.

[sinkspur]

This intention need not necessarily be of the sort called actual. That would often be practically impossible. It is enough that it be virtual.

This means that a priest can make the intention once, to "do as the Church does for the rest of my priesthood," and that suffices for intention for the rest of his priesthood.

That is, in fact, what most priests do.

[sinkspur]

You run to your "daddies" like a schoolgirl.

I assume you have no evidence to support your contention that the Ottaviani retraction was phony.

That's exactly what I thought.

[thor76]

This would seem to uphold what I have been saying - that the minister of the sacrament MUST have the necessary intention to confect the sacrament with the intention of the mind of Christ - and hence of the church.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

My daddies? I don't run to anyone for protection, least of all from you. I am more than capable of taking care of myself. I had to be.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - Read down the thread for more information on this incident, and what provoked it. More information on the Rainbow Sash "Catholics". (there's a lot of info on the thread as well.)

The "gay" rights pushers have plans that have been in the works for 30 years. It will take a concerted, courageous and strong effort to turn this around. It won't be easy, it'll take sacrifice.

But what is our alternative? Their game is "two steps forward and one step back" and conservatives have gone along with the tactic.

Result? "Gay" marriage in Massachusetts, ThugMayor Noisome allowed thousands of homosexuals to have "marriage" licenses in SF, GLSEN in schools across the US, a non-stop attack on the BSA, homosexual adoptions or using surrogate parents, and much more.

Let me and ItsOurTimeNow know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

[murphE]

"This means that a priest can make the intention once, to "do as the Church does for the rest of my priesthood,"

But what if he changes his mind and no longer wishes to do this? What if he becomes an apostate or heretic somewhere down the line?

[sinkspur]

This would seem to uphold what I have been saying - that the minister of the sacrament MUST have the necessary intention to confect the sacrament with the intention of the mind of Christ - and hence of the church.

He does not have to express his intention each and every time, however. He may do it "virtually," meaning that he can express it once at the beginning of his priesthood and, as long as he never retracts his intention, it holds for the remainder of his priesthood.

"To do as the Church does" is the intention.

[Jaded]

mark

[sinkspur]

But what if he changes his mind and no longer wishes to do this? What if he becomes an apostate or heretic somewhere down the line?

If he expressly retracts his intention, then the Eucharist is invalid.

But, he can become an apostate, a heretic, or a notorious sinner, and his Mass and consecration is still valid.

The worthiness of the minister does not affect the validity of a sacrament.

[thor76]

Neither habitual nor interpretative intention in the minister will suffice for the validity of the sacrament

It seems somebody has forgotten this line....

And if our priest becomes a heretic/apostate it is possible for his consecrations to be valid in theory, but as a practical reality they may not be. If he does believe in the mass as sacrifice, and cannot project the intention of hte church upon the sacrament.....it dont work!

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

**WARNING** Traddie publications. Automatically false by virtue of the sources < /s >

(3) Some have claimed that Cardinal Ottaviani in a 17 February 1970 letter “retracted” his position on the New Order of Mass. There is, however, a large body of circumstantial evidence which indicates that, if the Cardinal did indeed sign the letter, his signature was obtained fraudulently. The circumstantial evidence all points to the Cardinal’s secretary, Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni, as the culprit. Msgr. Agustoni, who played an important role in formulating the Ordo Missae which the Intervention so strongly condemned, had the motive and the opportunity to do the deed.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/Ottav%20Enduring%20Value.htm

--

A purported letter of February 17, 1970, supposedly with the Cardinal's signature, was adduced to prove the story. However, by that date it is known that the Cardinal, then 80, was totally blind and would not have known what he was signing when presented with the purposed letter by his secretary, Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni. [Ed. Agustino was later made Bishop, then Cardinal, by John Paul II]

Now it has come to light that this Agustoni [Ed. and his brother, Fr. Luigi Agustino] was a member of the Consilium which that fabricated the "New Mass" and which the Arch-Architect of the New Order service, Hannibal Bugnini, led. At the time, Jean Madiran, the editor of the respected French journal Itineraires, publicly accused Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal's signature by fraud. As a result, Agustoni was fired as the Cardinal's secretary.

So, it seems that Agustoni insinuated his way into becoming the Cardinal's secretary and in that position created a fraud in an attempt to undermine the Cardinal's public document, which questioned the validity of the New Order service, by a phony "retraction," which Agustoni had himself written with others. In any case, co-author Antonio Cardinal Bacci and the Roman theologians never "retracted," in any manner, shape, or form the devastating document, which they courageously published.

http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/ottavianiintervention.html

--

You will also note, Cardinal Bacci and the other theologians never recanted.

[dsc]

"See??!"

Whether it's Michael Moore or a theological liberal, liberals all argue the same way using the same ploys. It makes them terribly predictable.

[arkady_renko]

First of all, I did not deny the validity of the Novus Ordo consecration. That is a complicated matter. I questioned whether a transubstantiation occurs every time, and whether a validly confected Eucharist bestows as many graces as a traditional consecration.

Well I think this is a terrifying statement, Deborah. What in the world are you getting at? That Jesus Christ is MORE present in a 'traditional' consecration? Is Christ divided? He is either present, or He isn't. Whether grace is received has a lot to do with the spiritual state of the receiver, doesn't it?

Reminds me of my old Pentecostal days - sing enough songs and get swaying real good and then the Holy Spirit is REALLY, REALLY present. Not like in those old, stuffy Baptist churches...

Respectfully, this lay Catholic thinks you may have some bad theology going on there Deborah.

A_R

[sinkspur]

And if our priest becomes a heretic/apostate it is possible for his consecrations to be valid in theory, but as a practical reality they may not be. If he does believe in the mass as sacrifice, and cannot project the intention of hte church upon the sacrament.....it dont work!

Wrong. This is heresy. If the priest has expressed the intention to "Do what the Church does" and never retracted it, his internal disposition is incidental. Sinner, apostate, heretic..his words of consecration confect the sacrament. It is Christ who acts, not the priest.

You need to learn some elementary sacramental theology, thorski. Your ignorance is showing.

[dsc]

"Run to your daddies?"

For what? You've already pimp-slapped him completely around the block twice. The only reason he's still standing is that he doesn't have the capacity for shame.

Looks to me like you ought to be asking sinky, "Who's your daddy?" in between rhetorical slaps.