Apteka Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Is Christ "really" among us today? By Regis Scanlon, OFM CAP Full article: http://www.cfpeople.org/apologetics/page51a043.html Summary: (1) For the Sacrament of the Eucharist to take place (i.e. for the transubstantiation to occur) the priest's intention must be inline with the Church (2) Many priests have adopted the heretical concepts of "transignification" and "transfinalization" (3) Any priest who believes this (2) is not ministering to the sacrament with the Church's intention, and therefore it's questionable that the transubstantiation occurs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apteka Posted September 21, 2013 Author Share Posted September 21, 2013 We can't assume anything anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) I will refrain for the time being from voting in the poll since it structurally follows a more Western take on the Eucharist. Now from a Western Scholastic viewpoint, it is desirable when a priest celebrates the Eucharist that he have an actual intention, but a virtual intention will suffice for the confection of the sacrament. As far as the object of the intention is concerned, the priest only needs to have an intention to do what the Church does, which is why the priest does not have to even "believe in God or in Christ, in the institution of the Church or in the Roman Church," [1] for the Eucharist to be celebrated validly. Again, this is according to the Scholastic / Manualist theology of the pre-conciliar Roman Catholic Church. I do not know if this is still the case, because the Roman Church has changed a lot of its theological teachings in the post-conciliar period. Notes: Nicholas Halligan, O.P., The Administration of the Sacraments, (New York: Alba House, 1962), page 13. Edited September 21, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apteka Posted September 21, 2013 Author Share Posted September 21, 2013 Can a priest do what the Church intends with the Eucharist if they believe in "transignification"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) Can a priest do what the Church intends with the Eucharist if they believe in "transignification"? I think that he can, at least that would seem to be the position held by the Manualists. Edited September 21, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 I think, again according to the Manualists (and probably the Scholastics too), that a priest who is a heretic - no matter the heresy - can validly celebrate the Eucharist, but his celebration would be illicit, and he would personally sin mortally in confecting the Eucharist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apteka Posted September 21, 2013 Author Share Posted September 21, 2013 I think, again according to the Manualists (and probably the Scholastics too), that a priest who is a heretic - no matter the heresy - can validly celebrate the Eucharist, but his celebration would be illicit, and he would personally sin mortally in confecting the Eucharist. But how does a person who has fundamentally different views about the Eucharist and nature of the mass bear the same intention as the Church? Fr Regis Scanlon's position is that it's questionable, which is rather terrifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 But how does a person who has fundamentally different views about the Eucharist and nature of the mass bear the same intention as the Church? Fr Regis Scanlon's position is that it's questionable, which is rather terrifying. I can't give you an answer. Heck, Rome itself has become less consistent on these things. I was surprised by Rome's rejection of Mormon baptism, because although I agree that Mormonism is heretical, that has not be enough in the past for the Roman Church to reject the baptism of a particular group. Arians didn't believe in the Trinity and yet the Roman Church would have argued that Arian baptism was valid. I only skimmed through Fr. Scanlon's article, so I will re-read it later more closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Is this idea of transignification common? I mean... if you choose a more conservative parish, does that suggest priests there would follow transubstantiation? I attend an FSSP parish so I'm sure there they have the right belief on the Eucharist. :) I read this quote by Pope Paul VI: "Nor is it allowable to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent stated about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, speaking rather only of what is called "transignification" and "transfiguration," or finally to propose and act upon the opinion according to which, in the Consecrated Hosts which remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ Our Lord is no longer present. Everyone can see that the spread of these and similar opinions does great harm to the faith and devotion to the Divine Eucharist. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apteka Posted September 21, 2013 Author Share Posted September 21, 2013 Is this idea of transignification common? According to Fr Scanlon, "United States theologians favor transignification" and... "While this theory of transignification has thoroughly permeated theology in the United States" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AugustineA Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 I can't give you an answer. Heck, Rome itself has become less consistent on these things. I was surprised by Rome's rejection of Mormon baptism, because although I agree that Mormonism is heretical, that has not be enough in the past for the Roman Church to reject the baptism of a particular group. Arians didn't believe in the Trinity and yet the Roman Church would have argued that Arian baptism was valid. I only skimmed through Fr. Scanlon's article, so I will re-read it later more closely. I'm too sleepy to dig into this. But I have to say dude, Mormonism is WAYYY alien to Christianity. It's perhaps the most polytheistic faith on earth. Like each good mormon will become a god and get his own planet kinda polytheistic. I get that ruling on baptism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 I'm too sleepy to dig into this. But I have to say dude, Mormonism is WAYYY alien to Christianity. It's perhaps the most polytheistic faith on earth. Like each good mormon will become a god and get his own planet kinda polytheistic. I get that ruling on baptism. I am quite familiar with Mormonism. I read the majority of the sermons of the Mormon "prophets" back in the 1980s in a 26 volume set of books entitled "The Journal of Discourses." So yeah, I am familiar with the Adam / God doctrine; the idea that God the Father was a man from another star system called Kolob, who later became a god; that Jesus and Satan are actually brothers born as spirit children of God the Father and one of his many heavenly wives; and the blood atonement doctrine, and many other fanciful theories. My only point was that the most recent decision of the CDF rejecting the validity of Mormon baptism was based on the fact that Mormons do not believe in the Holy Trinity, and yet the Church continues to say that an atheist can validly baptize a person in an emergency even though he does not believe in God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AugustineA Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 I am quite familiar with Mormonism. I read the majority of the sermons of the Mormon "prophets" back in the 1980s in a 26 volume set of books entitled "The Journal of Discourses." So yeah, I am familiar with the Adam / God doctrine; the idea that God the Father was a man from another star system called Kolob, who later became a god; that Jesus and Satan are actually brothers born as spirit children of God the Father and one of his many heavenly wives; and the blood atonement doctrine, and many other fanciful theories. My only point was that the most recent decision of the CDF rejecting the validity of Mormon baptism was based on the fact that Mormons do not believe in the Holy Trinity, and yet the Church continues to say that an atheist can validly baptize a person in an emergency even though he does not believe in God. 26 volumes is a fair bit of reading. Is it really strictly based on their rejection of the holy trinity? I'm not doubting, just like wow.. interesting. Is it on the Vatican website? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 26 volumes is a fair bit of reading. Is it really strictly based on their rejection of the holy trinity? I'm not doubting, just like wow.. interesting. Is it on the Vatican website? Yes, the Responsum ad Dubium on the invalidity of Mormon baptism is on the Vatican website, as is the doctrinal explanation, which can be summarized as saying that the Mormon doctrine of the Trinity diverges so completely from that of the Catholic Church that the intention of the minister to do what the Church does cannot be presumed to be present, or at least that is a general summary of the reasoning that is given for the Responsum. Nevertheless - as I indicated in another post - the baptism of the Arian heretics, and other groups that denied the full divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit (and thus the doctrine of the Trinity), has traditionally been accepted as valid, and yet their Trinitarian heresy seems no worse, but perhaps a bit less far-fetched, than that of the Mormons. I did find the rejection of Mormon baptism interesting, and I do not have a problem with it, but that is probably because as an Eastern Catholic I do not accept the Augustinian view of the sacraments, which has - at least until quite recently - been the dominant theory in the Latin Church. Responsum ad Dubium on Mormon Baptism Explanation of the Responsum ad Dubium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarysLittleFlower Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 According to Fr Scanlon, "United States theologians favor transignification" and... "While this theory of transignification has thoroughly permeated theology in the United States" oh :( I wish there was more detail... like what most priests believe, etc. I wonder what it's like in Canada. I hope the more conservative priests believe in transubstantiation. I'm quite certain the priests are my parish do - they are FSSP and their seminary is really orthodox - but I hope other priests are taught about transubstantiation not transignification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts