[Blogger]

Your case, as it seemed to me, for saying the Church was not what we say it is (not agreeing or disagreeing with your statement of its "being an Institution to Rome) was that the guys there were a disgrace. That's why I characterized it the way I did.
My "Case" was predicated upon trying to get into the heads of those who believe in the efficacy of sacraments and it stemmed from some things Kolo said about the sacraments as well as something I read on another thread about Alexander VI not really being all that bad of a guy. It had to do with the heart condition of the person participating in the sacrament. Can someone (in your view) still be taking part in the sacramental system with a heart that is anti-Christ? Again, I'm trying to get into your-all's thinking. I am not making a statement on my own views concerning sacraments other than I believe in ordinances not sacraments.

So what does the church look like? Is it folks that repeat the right formulas and perform the right rituals but live like sinners the rest of the time? Or, is it people who trust Christ with their very lives?

See that sounds like it depends on the works of the people. Or - Okay, or you're saying it doesn't bear the fruits one would expect a Church to bear? So the fruits don't make Church but they diagnose Church? That's more interesting.
Considering that a person's trust of Christ is due to the work of the Holy Spirit drawing, making alive to, and giving faith to people who will be saved - it (salvation) isn't a human work nor is it dependent upon human works. Since Scripture does indicate that a truly saved person will produce good works as the fruit of their faith, then yes - a lack of the fruits of the Spirit in one's life can certainly be diagnostic. As Jesus said, "by their fruits you shall know them." That doesn't mean we will be perfect, but you should see some evidence. If a pope is having orgies in the Vatican and parading his illegitimate children around making one into a cardinal, the fruit of that person, no matter how well they performed the sacrament of the Eucharist, is pretty rotten through and through.

Church was not, and is not, the hierarchy. In the worst, most upside down case - of which I'll grant Alexander was a probably example, if they administer and celebrate the sacraments and do not corrupt the teaching when they teach, the rest of their lives are not so important.
You haven't followed where I was coming from. It seems you think I am making a Donatist argument. It's just the opposite. I'm not talking about the sacraments validity in relation to the faithful if administered by a bad priest. I'm talking about the sacrament's validity to that priest. If Adolf Hilter enters a church, being a Catholic, and takes the sacraments with perfection in form- are those sacraments efficacious to Hitler?

I don't know if you're ordained, as your fellowship reckons ordination, but I used to think I was ordained, and while I tried, mostly failed, to be a good example and all, I never thought being ordained conveyed especial mojo, in a general sense. I was just as liable to be a horse's patoot as the next guy, I just was in more trouble when I failed.
That is pretty much what we believe concerning ordination. It doesn't make a person any less human, it just puts them in a position of leadership where they are held more accountable.

YES, it is more than desirable for the clergy to be conspicuously virtuous, but it's not of the essence. And in bad times, it's the essence that will count. That's what the argument against Donatism comes down to to me.
That's why I was trying to convey that what I was speaking was not Donatism. It wasn't the efficacy of the sacrament based upon the condition of the priest; rather, efficacy of the sacrament based upon the condition of the participant.

If the Church is, as we maintain, NOT a human institution, we would look for the fruits maybe in unexpected places?
Which is why I specifically stated that the church was not the institution in Rome but the followers of Christ. It isn't a building (though we all call them churches). It isn't a hierarchical structure. It isn't something that a Pope heads up (seeing the spiritual condition of quite a few popes one wouldn't want to say Satan led the church). Rather, it is that group of all true believers everywhere who have Christ as their Savior.

When Luther left the Roman Institution, he did not leave Christianity. He connected with true Christianity as depicted by the apostles and others in Scripture. He was FAR FROM a perfect individual. But his hope was in Christ. He found God in spite of the muck and mire in the church, and left a rich theological heritage behind.

[Mad Dawg]

Wow, one has to work on several levels at once.

Someone who does not intend to receive Christ (let's take Hitler as our - somewhat mythical - example)
EITHER does not receive Christ, but as Cranmer (high Receptionist doctrine, IMHO) said, gets in a whole heap of trouble for abusing the sign of so great a thing"
OR receives Christ as Judge. We don't know what that's like but we bet he won't like it.

Does that answer the question?

There's got to be a formal intention. Assume I was validly ordained. Then put me in a liturgics class demoing the conventional ceremonies around the consecration. And there's bread and wine. I say the words, I have the stuff, I'm validly ordained. But this is not worship, this is a demo, so no sacrament there.

I'm unclear on the rest, but there's a kind of mutatis mutandis for the laity. I knew a guy who got Baptized because he thought a girl he was putting the moves on would dig it. But during the pre-baptismal conversations, God graciously messed up his life. But let's assume that hadn't happened and his adult participation in the Sacrament was without any intention but simply to advance his campaign on the hottie. While we can't say what God will or will not do, and he IS full of surprises and NOT a tame lion, there is no assurance that the sacrament was efficacious. And the bottom line is that if the same guy came to me some years later, persuasively repentant and with good testimony I would entertain the possibility of baptizing him "all over again". I would probably end up NOT baptizing him, on the grounds that his current state of grace reached back in time and validated his baptism (and might even be evidence of its validity and efficaciousness.)

IS that at least clear?

As a quibble, wasn't the "By your fruits" thing about prophets? But in general, yeah. Only problem is some fruits are slow ripening. Rough soil, bad summer, and the jalapeno plant only yields one or two peppers and waits until September to do it. So I'm not going to judge til the harvest is in. What I learned in the vineyard was some years you get way fewer grapes, but those fewer grapes have a higher brix and make better wine.

But Yeah yeah yeah to if I trust (or anyone trusts) God, it was God all along.

You haven't followed where I was coming from
One of my skills is getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. People keep me around so they can figure out which the right end is. It's the one I'm not holding.

I'm talking about the sacrament's validity to that priest. If Adolf Hitler enters a church, being a Catholic, and takes the sacraments with perfection in form- are those sacraments efficacious to Hitler?

Rephrase? What if we had a telegram from God (notarized) saying Adolf Hitler was validly ordained priest, before he turned into a monster.
Then, after turning falling full foul into sin, he celebrates Mass with, oh, some good Catholic as his altar boy. Both of them communicate. Did anybody receive all the benefits that sacrament has to offer after adjusting for their capacity (not regarding moral influence on capacity)?

Wow, is THAT a great question! I'm going to run it by a priest I know. My money is that the altar boy assuredly received the Body and Blood of our Lord. Valid priest, valid stuff, the right words, the right intention on the part of the altar boy.

But I could be wrong. And I have no clue what Adolph got - except I KNOW he got in BIG trouble. Communicating when in a state of mortal sin (And you have every reason to know that the Church thinks you're in that state) is NOT good at ALL.

I think, and this is the weakest expression I can come up with: Say I"m having a bad day. I have made a confession and have managed to avoid committing murder since then. But right now I wouldn't trust God any further than I could throw Him. I slouch up to the altar saying to God and myself,"I don't know what I'm doing, but I am here doing what better and happier people than I intend me to do, what the Church intends me to do." I think that's a valid intention. But it's very formal, like programming with pointers: I intend obedience and conformity to the Church's teaching and am taking this sacrament because I want whatever it is that the Lord and His Church promise, but right now I don't know what that is; I'm just a blind beggar here." To me that's as valid as can be.

So the problem with out fantastic example is WHY in heaven's name would hitler do that? And good old fornicating Alexander: maybe when he wakes up -- and remember they didn't have Alka-Selzer back then -- and feels just incredibly awful, and he groans his way into his vestments and into the chapel ... who knows what he intended then? (And of course there are cultural issues. It has taken a long time for us Christinas to act like Christians. it wasn't that long ago that we thought slavery was permissible and expected a lot of men of a certain class to have mistresses, if they could afford to maintain them: Marriage for economics and heirs, mistresses for love. Cranmer was married before he broke with Rome. It didn't seem quite so awful then as it seems now.

I don't think Luther left Christianity. He was, as I am, forsworn. He and I both think we left corruption and falsehood for truth. We passed each other going opposite directions. He made out better than I did. (I have skin in this game, don't forget.) I think he left the plene esse for some lesser being of the Church. I always hope and trust that God is merciful and the benefits of His promise far over-reach my opinions. But I think we CERTAINLY have the sacraments in all their fullness, while I am not certain about Lutherans (though certain of God's mercy.) For the rest, I already know we have a different ecclesiology.