Posted on 11/24/2004 9:25:38 AM PST by wallcrawlr
Thank you for posting that! You saved me a lot of verbiage, and made points similar to my own using some very good, concise language. Thanks!
Read #158. Your hero, Thomas Aquinas, weighs in definitively.
Perhaps you are demanding absolute certainty, and are not allowing for the assurances that Christ gave His Church, to be with us always. And, that whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven.
except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament. (St. Thomas, Summa theologiae, III q. 64 a. 8)
Nay, St. Thomas is one of the bases for my argument. This above snippet, as well as the whole quote prove my point, and say exactly what I was saying.
The contrary must be "expressed." That rarely or never happens, thorski. Your argument is the equivalent of a million-to-one longshot.
See, we have these Novus Ordo types who cannot and will not face reality, nor accept the teachings of the church - even when proof lies before them.
It is vital to their agenda that there never be a discussion of the possibility - never mind the reality - that a large number of NO masses are said invaldly....either on acount of lack or proper sacramental intention, a validly ordained priest, or the rite of the mass used. Also liturgical abuseswhich would make an otherwise potentially valid mass invalid.
This is the elephant in the middle of the living room which cannot be discussed - at all.
Equally vital to their agenda - is that nothing be done to correct these things.
"That is a sinister attempt to undermine the Mass celebrated universally for 35 years."
There's nothing sinister about that.
Any way you slice it, the NO has been and continues to be a liturgical disaster.
That said, I am very grateful to gbcdoj for posting those quotations from Aquinas. They have set my mind at rest on a subject that's been bothering me for some time.
From those we can reason that, even if a priest has formally (but privately) renounced his intention at a black mass, unless he does so publicly the Church supplies his defect.
Even if he intends to fail of the Transubstantiation for the purpose of depriving the faithful, unless he announces this publicly the Church supplies his defect.
And, of course, if he intends to steal the Eucharist for black masses, he must perform the Transubstantiation or he's only stealing wafers.
Any way it falls out, unless the priest *publicly* renounces his intention, the Church supplies his defect and the faithful receive the Sacrament.
This is in line with Descarte's demonstration that God is not an evil deceiver. To allow a priest to deceive the faithful when they have come to receive the Sacrament would put God in cahoots with evil deception.
"Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?"
God will not allow the faithful at Mass to be given a wafer when they have asked Him for the Sacrament. TIB.
I feel better now. Thanks, gbcdoj.
And *that* said, we're still left with the reality that the NO is liturgically inferior, a far superior rite is available, and there is absolutely no excuse for demanding the use of the inferior rite, or even allowing people to persist in it out of sloth.
So, you attend your "superior" rite, and we lowlifes will continue to attend the Mass celebrated by Pope John Paul II.
hippies give me the creeps. YOU give me the creeps.
haha! When I first read about him , I said "theres no Pius XIII". The guys a joke. I laugh at him.
Good. My goal in life is to give everybody "the creeps." That will prevent being taken for granted.
yes, but today's church has intentionally sailed away from thomistic philosophy in favor of humanism.
"So, you attend your "superior" rite, and we lowlifes will continue to attend the Mass celebrated by Pope John Paul II."
Reading skills, sinky.
"...there is absolutely no excuse for demanding the use of the inferior rite, or even allowing people to persist in it out of sloth."
Acknowledging the legitimacy and legitimate authority of the Holy Father does not require us to believe him infallible in all things. Only God is infallible in all things, and he allows us humans to make our own mistakes, when we insist on it.
John Paul II has been wrong about some vital issues for his entire Papacy and before, and as you will remember we have had some indications that he's now, finally, beginning to suspect that.
OHHH..... I DONT KNOW !!!!! Do you spend your whole life on FR (not that thats a bad thing)? Do you have a job?
So say you. However, John Paul II does not agree with you.
I'll stay with the Pope.
I do. I've been on vacation the last three days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.