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.