A long time ago Malachi Martin spoke on the Art Bell show and said something very chilling. (I am paraphrasing here) He said that if people understood what was happening in the church they would flock to the church in prayer and seeking confession and that the confessionals would be overflowing. I think like MM did that a sizeable minority in the church are obviously in apostasy. However, I do not think that this is a majority of the church as yet but I do believe that these men hold great positions of power and influence. The problem we have today however (although it is getting better) is that so few inside the Church are willing to actually speak out against their errors. Because of the positions of these apostates inside the hierarchy of the church they would quite easily persecute those who defend the truth and cover it all up. They deny that Christ is present in the Eucharist or that he was the Son of God and teach instead the Freemasonic belief that he became God. It will be no wonder when they claim that man can become or is God in the flesh. They are sick sick puppies. It is classic liberation theology and it is no wonder that it aligns itself to communist ideology as the greatest social order.
I agree it is best not to sweat these things. It is jarring when one first learns the intention of the priest is necessary for any sacrament. There is a quote from a saint (I forget who) that one can never truly be sure they have received a valid sacrament. So yes this is something we must trust in God to provide and I truly believe He will. He never will leave someone genuinely looking without recourse.
My source was not one person, but the teaching of the Church. Though a man may be drawn away from the right path, the teaching of the Church as a whole cannot be wrong. I agree it is an unsettling thought. So is Hell though.
Yes, it is a rabbit hole and we can't go down it. That is what I meant by ramifications. I am sorry I offended you, Praetorian. But I wish you had not posted this. I know you are offended at being called a heretic. I did not call you a heretic, though. But I DID like the tone and the content of Josephite's post. I am taking the Lord at His Word that He will never forsake me. I trust that means in the Sacraments as well. I am now closing the door to this rabbit hole. Jesus, I trust in You. Jesus, I put this thread under Your Precious Blood.
Dolours asked me to clarify what the Church taught on the subject. So I answered her. That's all. I'm truly sorry you found it uncomfortable. That was obviously not my intent. I honestly had no idea some people would be that upset at finding this out.
Just chill. It is probably a moot point anyway since we most likely will not be able to get to a priest in the future if all this continues.
Sean, you're the last person I would call a heretic. I told you before I considered you a rock. I've never had any reason to change my opinion.
The Catechism states that Christ can work through an unworthy minister as long as there is right matter and form - CCC1584: Since it is ultimately Christ who acts and effects salvation through the ordained minister, the unworthiness of the latter does not prevent Christ from acting.76 St. Augustine states this forcefully: As for the proud minister, he is to be ranked with the devil. Christ's gift is not thereby profaned: what flows through him keeps its purity, and what passes through him remains dear and reaches the fertile earth. . . . The spiritual power of the sacrament is indeed comparable to light: those to be enlightened receive it in its purity, and if it should pass through defiled beings, it is not itself defiled.77
Thanks DeGaulle. I try very hard to post solid info in this confusing time. If anything I always err on the side of caution.
Yes. Thank you Garabandal. This goes along with what I posted. The personal sinfulness of the minister does not affect the validity of the sacrament at all.
Don, we must be careful here. Very careful. We do not have the means to know these men. We can only see and judge the actions and words of men, but we cannot be certain of their intentions. I'm as bad as anyone for criticising the deeds and words of certain men of The Church, right to the top. However, I couldn't dare say any of them, no matter how vile their words, deeds or opinions, is guilty of sacriligiously invalidating a Mass through evil intentions. A bishop might promote the most wicked heresy, such as homosexual married priests, but his Mass could be perfectly licit. Despite his wicked errors, he might be sincere, at least in this. As I understand it, only God can know these things. I cannot conceive of any external sign that would betray such an attitude, at least with the certainty that would be required in such a gravely evil matter. I'm afraid Christ will have to sort them out. We must place all our trust in the Sacred Heart, and in His Body on Earth, which is His Church, that it will not, cannot degenerate down this worm-hole.
And you're right. I have the comfort here of knowing that, if I go off track, there are solid people like yourself to grab me back by the scruff of my neck. I have learned an awful lot from this discussion, although I was absent from most of it because I had a surprisingly busy Summer Sunday in practice. I think I finally realise what the Sin Against the Holy Ghost might consist of. And it chills me to the bone.
Right Intent basically means the priest follows what the Church demands -- in terms of the words or the formula laid out by the Church. The correct rubric so to speak. It has therefore nothing to do with inner disposition.
Not just saying the words aloud, but also having the inner intent. I posted the links earlier in the thread from the Catholic Encyclopedia and also EWTN. Also if it makes anyone feel more at ease I did write in my earlier posts that this is the most common view of theologians today, but that theologians used to think that the priest only had to say the correct words aloud and inner intent didn't matter. So if you wish to hope for that to be true that is okay.
I've been thinking... you know the old saying- Liar, liar, pants on fire, I mean I know God you wouldn't do that, buttttt.... 5 Hail Marys for me
I was a little confused, then. What I meant as a priest who deliberately intended somehow not to confect the Eucharist, through apostasy, atheism or such, while pretending to do so. In other words their inner disposition. Just shows the essential importance of getting the terms right in such nuanced discussions.
No it has nothing to do with inner intention! All that is required is the intention of at least doing what the Church does - that is in outward form following the rubric. Here is how Pope Leo XIII teaches this truth: The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.
