[Blogger]

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)
Actually, he is a pretty good example. My understanding is that he and his sister were heavily involved in the Catholic church and at least early on he wanted to be a priest. He later became apostate. But, that helps make the point. Hitler was a baptized Catholic from a Catholic home that actually went so far as to get a special papal dispensation so that his close-kin parents could marry one another.

There's got to be a formal intention
I think we are still heading down the wrong path a little bit but we'll get back to that. (The path that I was thinking about.

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.)
So if some Militant muslim were to mockingly get baptized and later become a Christian, you would consider his previous baptism valid?

IS that at least clear?
I think I understand where you are coming from to this point.

As a quibble, wasn't the "By your fruits" thing about prophets?
It was both a statement concerning the prophets and a general statement concerning all "trees". Matthew 7:15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

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.
I think some fruit is so rotten that it is safe to judge it. Adolf Hitler, for example, had some excessively putrid fruit. In spite of his earlier upbringing, his statements indicate that he was not a Christian. Others may just be a bit backslidden and after a little thwacking from the Lord (Pastor Charles Stanley once spoke of how God prunes the Christian - and said, sometimes you can just hear him sharpening the shears)the life will turn around. Sometimes, the person is truly a Christian but gets so warped around the axel that God's chastisement means taking them home (if Ananias and Sapphira were truly Christians, they would be an example of this as would Christians who took the Lord's supper in an irreverent way).

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.
True. You dont' rule out God's hand on anyone's life; but sometimes it is better for the health of the body to be rid of the rotten fruit.

You haven't followed where I was coming fromb 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.
That's okay. I knew that point would be hard to follow. Donatism, as I understood it, believed that the folks who had renounced Christ during persecution should not be lifted up as ministers now without rebaptism, etc., I haven't looked that one up recently, but that is what is sticking in my head. I am not talking about the minister, but the laity. I'm also not talking about one who left the church, but one who is in the church like Hitler was a practicing Catholic externally, but has a life with horrific fruits. Alex VI was another example of someone who had a certain external persona but inward was rotten. Would that person, unrepentant over the "secret things" in their lives still experience any efficacious quality in the Sacraments. Again, I believe in two ordinances personally and not in Sacraments, but I'm just inquiring to understand your point of view better.

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.
Actually, I think it has been answered in regards to the Donatists. That will be my guess as to what he will say. And the good altar boy need not be present for it to work this way since the efficaciousness was deemed to be in the sacrament rather than the person administering the sacrament. My question wasn't regarding this one. It was just the opposite. A sinful person taking a sacrament, one who is not saved yet outwardly appears Catholic, is there any efficaciousness in that sacrament in the view of RCs?

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.
Hitler would have still been a valid priest after he had done and said all that he had done and said?????

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.

What if he hadn't gone to confession? What if, like Alex VI, he had just had an orgy in the Vatican and then turns right around to go say mass before adoring followers? He is doing what he is doing because it is what he does as Pope. But, his heart is very far from God indeed. For the Pope, in this case, not the people, what happens? I think you will say he's in big trouble.

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.
Well, and the church was an arm of the aristocracy in those days. The Second sons all joined it to get a certain amount of wealth and power for the family. They couldn't inherit the land. That was Son #1's job. So, be a priest. That's how the Borgias even got there. It wasn't piety, but greed.

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 am glad to hear you say some of this, though I'll disagree with you on the last. Most of the time, though, Catholics just froth at the mouth when one says Luther.

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.
I believe God did a new work at a time when Christianity threatened to become a corpse. It looked different from the old work, yet it gets its heartbeat from Scripture. Yes, there is much disagreement. But I appreciate a civil discussion between the two groups. I don't believe that Rome's doctrine of salvation and Luther's are the same. And, I believe Luther got it right. But that doesn't mean I think that all Catholics got it wrong. As a matter of fact, I know several who I believe show all the fruits of having gotten it right. You'll notice that I mainly concentrate on Salvation with Catholics. Salvation by grace through faith alone is what I believe Scripture teaches. That faith is a faith that will work. But the works are the effect and not the cause of being saved. As a former Protestant, I'm sure you recognize that well. On that essential, I find the striving worthwhile because it is THAT important. On some of the other things which are less essential, we can cordially disagree. And on a lot of essentials we have unity which is cool. We both believe in the trinity and the virgin birth for example. So, may the Holy Spirit continue to lead us all into all truth.

[Mad Dawg]

First, if you haven't, you should at least skim the Divine Comedy. Lots of Popes in hell. The notion of vicious Popes is not some huge problem for us. Now for the rest of my response:

And the good altar boy need not be present for it to work this way since the efficaciousness was deemed to be in the sacrament rather than the person administering the sacrament.

I was trying to set up a situation where the priest was vicious and there was a congregation of "virtuous" people. The altar boy wasn't there to make the consecration happen. The priest is, ceteris paribus, all we need for the consecration. The question is the range of the effect of the insufficient intention of the priest. If Leo the whatever can say Anglican orders are invalid because of defective intention, then, we are coming close, but without crossing the line, to saying the worthiness of the minister affects the validity of the Sacraments.

If one party to a marriage clearly demonstrates (but NOT to the other party) that he is only getting married because it might get him a spot on American Idol, there is no marriage, and the other party loses.

So if one party to a sacrament, Hitler the celebrant, has a potentially deficient intention, we can see how it might affect another party. So what if Alexander the luxurious has a deficient intention when he ordains. (I'm trying to do your work for you.)

Most of the time, though, Catholics just froth at the mouth when one says Luther. All Catholics? The majority of Catholics? Cahtolic Academics?

This would go better if we could stay on track. Am I just supposed to absorb this blow and ignore it, or what. Shall I say,"Most Protestants monomaniacally foam at the mouth as a matter of principle?" so that we can be "even"?

In any case, foaming at the mouth has nothing to do with it. I'm angry at Luther, if it comes to that, but we weren't talking about my anger but about 'where the "esse" of Church is'. And since evidently the thesis needs to be restated every few minutes, I still think the plene esse is to be found in the Institutions of the RCC and the EO, and, assuredly a lesser esse among other ecclesial assemblies where baptism in the name of the Trinity is performed.

But the works are the effect and not the cause of being saved. As a former Protestant, I'm sure you recognize that well.

WHY do we have to do this? I recognize that as a current Catholic even MORE than I did as a Protestant. I think I have a richer and deeper understanding of what that means and of how it's true, and how ecen so feeble attempt at a life in Christ as I am able to manifest has mometns when one feels like a gazelle (instead of a dork? - subtle biblical joke there.).

Can we look at the argument again? Is it part of the rules that one can say no more than 150 words or so before was has to take another lick at the Catholics? If so, include me out. I'll talk theology with just about anybody. I don't play Mexican Stand-down. It's fruitless and boring.

IN general, I think we know that there were some rather splendid scoundrels in high positions in the Church. But I do not think we have enough data to know either way about the every day RC in the parishes and pews. If i may take myself as an example, while the Episcopal Church was crumbling around me and demonstrating that not only were its orders invalid but they didn't give a hoot whether they were valid or not -- or even Christian or not -- I drew from Cranmer, Hooker, Herbert, Lewis, and yes Luther and Calvin and even a very little Zwingli (as well as Augustine and Aquinas, et al.) enough good that finally I packed up my pension and threw it overboard, left Ur of the Anglicans and travelled down the fertile crescent to the Tiber. Pipes rusty to the point of crumbling still can deliver good water.

SO clearly I don't think the plene esse left the RCC in the early 16th century. But I can appreciate the argument, to a certain extent.