Posted on 01/28/2005 11:07:21 AM PST by ultima ratio
Nonsense. Albert Einstein once said "Why do I need to know it, if I know where to find it?"
Did you even know that there was a St. Fulgentius of Raspe before you read it in one of his posts?
Stop spreading your erroneous interpretation of "intention."
You would have us all beleive that it is impossible for a priest to offer an invalid Novus Ordo Mass......even if he were a blatent heretic who specificly denies the churches teachings on Transubstantiation from the pulpit!!!
Yes, it is theorhetially possible for a heretic to say a valid mass..........but this would require that he consciously project the sacramental intention which the church has.......which he vehemently denies. It ain't gonna happen, in all probability!
This is why the Church in a smarter age formally and forcibly REMOVED heretical priests from public ministry.......because of the danger of promulgating error/heresy, and of the danger of invalid and blasphemous sacraments.
The priest must have the correct intention to celebrate a valid mass. That intention is NOT implicit in the Novus Ordo Mass. He must make more of an effort in this regard then in the TLM.
If a Catholic knows from what a priest says that he denies that the mass is sacrifice.......and that he denies transubstantiation, or does not believe in it, then that Catholic has no business going to his mass. And should NOT receive communion from such a priest - as it may not be the real thing.
If the priest is an apostate/hetrodox.......find another priest!
For the benefit of lurkers, this is absolutely not true. If the priest celebrates the Mass, he is presumed to have the intent. PERIOD! No "conscious projection" is required. That is absolute nonsense.
The priest must have the correct intention to celebrate a valid mass. That intention is NOT implicit in the Novus Ordo Mass. He must make more of an effort in this regard then in the TLM.
This is also totally untrue. If the priest does what the Church does, intent is presumed!
You and others are wrong in your interpretation of "intent," and it is important that any confusion be cleared up, immediately.
I never said anyone was excommunicated. I said it was heretical to hold that no graces flow outside of the remnant Church, let alone to say no graces flow from within the Church (which you dub as "Novus Ordo").
If the shoe fits... I have never claimed any authority to excommunicate anyone.
"but cut and paste is not "informed"."
Using authoritative documents of what the Church teaches to refute your points time after time IS being faithful to the Church--your personal opinions which conflict with Church teaching notwithstanding.
"but cut and paste is not "informed"."
Using authoritative documents of what the Church teaches to refute your points time after time IS being faithful to the Church--your personal opinions which conflict with Church teaching notwithstanding.
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.