Posted on 08/08/2005 2:41:43 AM PDT by bornacatholic
See, you cannot even fabricate my position very well. I didn't say no one had speculated on the topic.
It's amazing to watch you try and fabricate your own position after the fact.
"wild speculation" is what you actually stated. So either way, St. Thomas is guilty of "wild" speculations.
I said, "My own view is ultimately, God will save whom He wants and would more likely send an Angel to instruct and baptize before allowing such a loose interpretation of his doctrine to be true."
You said, "It does not seem clear to me that Angels can administer the Sacraments, nor is there anything in history or theology to lend credence to such wild speculation." (#170)
So to clarify, I said my view was that an Angel could be sent to administer the sacrament of Baptism (that is the speculation)
You said,
1) It's not clear to you that Angels can administer Sacraments
2) There is nothing in history of theology that lends credence (belief) to the "wild" speculation that an Angel might be sent to instruct and Baptise.
I pointed to the fact that St. Thomas did "wildly" speculate on whether Angels can administer Sacraments. Baptism by the way, is one of the 7 Sacraments and the only sacrament that virtually anyone can perform because it is necessary for salvation.
St. Thomas Aquinas flatly rejects the supposition that God allows angels to perform sacramental rites: "Therefore they are not ordained ministers in the things that appertain to God, i.e. in the sacraments."
This is so simple, it's amazing that you just won't admit it. Are ordained ministers the only persons capable of baptizing? Let me save you the trouble of looking it up. Answer: No.
Aquinas's "on the contrary" as I explained before and you didn't want to deal with it was in reply to the objections which made a corollary between the heirarchical state of Angels and the ordained state of priests.
His official answer by the way is right below that with "I answer that..."
In which he says.
As stated above (3; 62, 5), the whole power of the sacraments flows from Christ's Passion, which belongs to Him as man. And Him in their very nature men, not angels, resemble; indeed, in respect of His Passion, He is described as being "a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2:9). Consequently, it belongs to men, but not to angels, to dispense the sacraments and to take part in their administration.
But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; SO NEITHER DID HE BIND HIS POWER TO THE MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH SO AS TO BE UNABLE TO GIVE ANGELS POWER TO ADMINISTER THE SACRAMENTS. AND SINCE GOOD ANGELS ARE MESSENGERS OF TRUTH; IF ANY SACRAMENTAL RITE WERE PERFORMED BY GOOD ANGELS, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VALID, because it ought to be evident that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels [See Acta S.S., September 29]. But if demons, who are "lying spirits," were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as invalid.
So, in black and white Aquinas has wildly speculated that Angels might administer Sacraments validly. Contrary to your misleading statement. He has not flatly rejected the idea. He has even appealed to history.
So, in Aquinas alone we have an instance of theology and history which "wildly speculates" that an Angel might administer a sacraments validly.
Ironically, you can't disagree with Aquinas on this because he rests it on his argument for Baptism of Desire and Blood as well.
On the other hand, I can disagree with Aquinas on BOD and BOB because my point is only that the administration of Sacraments by Angels has been speculated on in theology and history. My own position rests on the fact that a Baptizer only need be a "person".
And consequently St. Thomas lends credence to my "wild" speculation because he did the same thing centuries before me.
The administration of Holy Communion is not the confection or performance of a sacrament.
But we are talking about the administration of a sacrament not the confection or "performance???" of a sacrament.
Is Holy Communion a Sacrament or not? Is the administration of Holy Communion the administration of a Sacrament or not? We aren't talking about confecting the Sacrament. And it's irrelevant to Baptism which does not require ordination.
Holy Communion is the only sacrament which can be given apart from a complete sacramental rite which confects a sacrament, because it is the only sacrament which is an objective object that may be put in a place and reserved or carried about. Therefore, it is not surprising to find Angels able to administer it, as at Fatima.
So that is not an Angel administering a Sacrament? Administering, not confecting. which is exclusive to ordination.
Nothing was (or is) accomplished in giving Holy Communion other than the Angel giving a thing to a person. The Angel did not bless or perform an act which imparted grace from the very operation of the act.
So, sanctifying grace is not imparted in the reception of communion? I don't think so.
Also, in the events of Fatima the only physical occurance (possibly, this isn't necessarily proven) was the granting of Holy Communion.
It's not rejected by the Church and the Church leans towards the physicality of the event in its approval.
The image of the chalice and the dripping of blood were mental visions impressed on the soul of the seers to impart spiritual truths and not physical realities - Our Lord is not bleeding in heaven, therefore the seers certainly did not see real blood from the wounds of Christ,
Not necessarily. They may have seen the actual images from circa 34 ad. through some kind of window in time. Since that spiritual reality is Eternal, the visions they saw may have been the reality.
nor does God call physical objects into and out of existence to perform miracles.
On what do you base this? Manna from Heaven, loaves an fishes, images on tilmas, organs appearing, tumors disappearing etc.
Since the chalice vanished after the vision, it is clear it was not a material object.
Not necessarily. It could very well have been a true chalice transported by the Angel from somewhere else.
It may have also been the case that they received a spiritual vision of receiving Holy Communion, and not a physical reality.
It's treated as the official first Holy Communion for one of the children. So, it's considered real.
It certainly seems difficult to understand how the actual precious blood would be held in a chalice that is nothing but a mental vision.
That's a faith problem. If Angels can physically heal people, move solid objects, destroy cities. They can certainly find a way to transport a real chalice.
Concede what?
Concede that there are examples in history and theology speculating that Angels can administer sacraments validly.
You failed to provide an example of any theologian or doctor who says that Angels will come an minister Baptism to a person to whom it is wanting by remediless necessity.
I don't need to. That wasn't what I stated. My first words were...."My own view is..." I guess you didn't get that part.
That was your wild claim entirely unheard of before you to avoid admitting the truth of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.
I have admitted the truth about Baptism of Blood and Desire. They are speculations never defined by the Church, their are variants and contradictions on the speculations from multiple Fathers and Doctors and ultimately it leads to Rahner's "anonymous Christian".
You also failed to povide an example of any theologian or doctor who teaches that Angels will come to men of Good Will not only to instruct them in truths of the faith but also to baptize them.
As I pointed out St. Thomas speculated on the possibility of it. I'm doing the same. Actually St. Thomas was more liberal than I'm willing to be on the matter. You are making the pointless statement that an Angel will catechize when there is no impediment to him also Baptizing. You are stating after all of the things that St. Raphael did, that he can't Baptize someone. It's utterly silly. Baptism is the most accessible of all the Sacraments in terms of administering because it is the most necessary. But that's not good enough, some want to make it an option and a metaphor. Trent: true and natural water is necessary.
Lastly, you still fail to admit as a proof against your wild assertion that in every single historical instance of angels catechizing the unevangelized in a preparation for the Gospel, there are no known instances of them administering sacramental Baptism.
As I pointed out, I can speculate. St. Thomas speculates two possibilities on the Baptism of the Apostles. There is no historical proof for either of them. So therefore, the Apostles weren't Baptized? C'mon. You are just embarassing yourself.
Instead, as in the well known examples in the annals of the mission such as that of Bl. Junipero Serra and his bell-ringing call, the angels always direct those they catechize to await the coming of the missionaries so that they might receive actual Baptism.
Why didn't the Angels just tell them to wish for it? Why bother the missionaries? It might be too far for them. If a man is in the vicinity and the Angel can lead him or transport him there, that would be the greater good, since the Baptizer would share in the merit of his act of baptizing. The Angel would not, already being in the presence of the beatific vision. So, the Angels would act accordingly. In the case of no saint or missionary being appropriately placed in God's providence, the Angel would act alone. This would be reasonable in the instance that the presence of the Angel's act may provide the impetus for the will of the person to be Baptized to accept the Baptism whereas he may reject a human's instruction. As in the case of St. Paul's conversion. He needed extraordinary measures to convert.
You have seven days to decide whether you like Angelqueen better than FR. If you come back, knock of the personal insults. If Angelqueen is so much better to your liking, and you are unable to modify your behavior, give serious thought to staying over there.
This personal fight with Gerard.P has gone on long enough; it's over. Drop it.
I''ll thrown in $100.00 on "the under" 48 hours :)
With immense pleasure!
Most people would realize that my comments were directed to Gerard.P, understand that I am not talking to them, and go on with their business. I've no doubt that Gerard.P knows exactly what I meant; everyone else remains unaffected.
Please forgive me if I'm dense or something, but I had to ask for clarification sake:
I read the post to which your warning refers (402) and could not find any "personal insults," as I understand the term. I saw "You are just embarrassing yourself," and "it's utterly silly" (what he said, not what he is). Are these the "insults" that got your attention (or that irritated someone else so much that they complained to you unnecessarily or whatever)?
Therefore, I have to wonder what kind of comments are construed as such, in order that I might be aware of what offends your sense of appropriate material for FR. Are reasoned discussions somehow prohibited? Could you please identify the "personal insults" to which you refer?
The offending post was pulled. Drop it.
can't all catholics just get along?
From the outside looking in, it might seem that Catholics having a heated discussion are not "getting along." But if they are truly Catholic, they are having something like an intellectual skirmish, not disagreeing over anything really essential to the Faith. When the overseer of such discussions is truly Catholic, he is able to correct the specific error and peace immediately settles on the scene. When he is not, all he can do is pronounce an end to the discussion, because he does not perceive the cause of the discord, nor is he likely to care about correcting error. For doing so would eventually bring him to the point of correcting his own error. People generally don't like to face their own shortcomings.
What you are seeing sometimes, is a heated exchange peppered with assertions of someone or someone else who does not know the Faith well enough, and is confused. There is a lot of confusion going around these days.
Some of those confused souls spread poison in their words because they believe they are an authority, but they are mistaken. The devil has sown his seed far and wide, and the good grain grows mixed with the other stuff. It takes a skilled farmer to know the difference and how to deal with the problem. At some point divine intervention is necessary to separate the good grain from the bad...
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.