Thread: Validity of the Eucharist and the Intention Board: Ecclesiantics / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008508
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
In response to Enoch:
quote:
Is that view widely held in Canada? As Betjemaniac tactfully hints, such a take is incompatible with Article XXVI. It's also spectacularly incompatible with any sense of sacramental assurance.
I don't know if it is widely held in Canada, but what I understand is that "intention" here does not refer to belief in a specific theology of the Real Presence. "Intention" in the validity of the Sacrament is the intention to consecrate.
As in if a minister has no intention to consecrate, and thinks that his job is just to say pretty words over ordinary bread and wine, and there is nothing special about it, then the sacrament is not valid. An example would be if a fictional communion service was being filmed on tv played by actors: the intention is a dramatic performance, therefore, there is no sacrament.
Article XXVI refers to the moral unworthiness of the minister not affecting the validity, not about the lack of intention on the part of the minister.
For a sacrament to be valid:
Right matter= bread and wine
Right formula= Our Lord's Words of Institution
Right Intention = the Intention to Consecrate.
[ 08. August 2017, 19:56: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Yeah, but what do you mean by consecrate. Presbyterians consecrate all sorts of things. They/We mean by that set aside for God's purposes. That reading would not imply anything about eucharist theology held by the celebrant.
Jengie
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Is this an intramural discussion, or are outsiders welcome? (Lutherans don't do intention.)
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I just checked my copy of the Book of Common Order and it certainly appears that the Church of Scotland generally holds that consecration is what takes place during the celebration of Holy Communion. That would seem to satisfy the criteria of intent, even by the stricter standard you set. I would stand by my belief that intent to "do what the church does" is sufficient.
[ 08. August 2017, 20:29: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Is this an intramural discussion, or are outsiders welcome? (Lutherans don't do intention.)
How do Lutherans differentiate then, as stated above, between a real communion service and one acted in a play?
And going back to the OP, what other thread did this discussion come from?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Is this an intramural discussion, or are outsiders welcome? (Lutherans don't do intention.)
How do Lutherans differentiate then, as stated above, between a real communion service and one acted in a play?
We don't. Which is why you will never find a Lutheran play-acting communion.
Seriously, from your (probable) perspective, it gets worse, because we also don't have any strictures on the person performing it, so long as that person is a believer. By the priesthood of all believers, a Christian three-year-old could validly celebrate the Lord's Supper so long as he had the words of institution and the elements of bread and wine. You'd better believe I kept an eye on LL when he began imitating Daddy (a Lutheran pastor).
Fortunately, his chosen "elements" were usually popcorn and whatever drink was nearest (with "Take, eat" uttered in a menacing tone as he mashed the popcorn into our lips). ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
If he'd ever managed to put the whole thing together properly we would have felt obliged to consume it reverently.
This also holds for baptism, which is much easier to administer without entirely and soberly meaning to (because the words are shorter and the element available everywhere). There have been cases reported where a couple of boys playing in a ditch on the side of the road have managed one to baptize the other, and the church has accepted that as a valid sacramental act.
I quite like living in a church where even the children are sacramentally "dangerous." It seems to me rather typical of the way God acts, doing the unexpected and turning the world upside down.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We don't. Which is why you will never find a Lutheran play-acting communion. . . . By the priesthood of all believers, a Christian three-year-old could validly celebrate the Lord's Supper so long as he had the words of institution and the elements of bread and wine. You'd better believe I kept an eye on LL when he began imitating Daddy (a Lutheran pastor).
Fortunately, his chosen "elements" were usually popcorn and whatever drink was nearest (with "Take, eat" uttered in a menacing tone as he mashed the popcorn into our lips). If he'd ever managed to put the whole thing together properly we would have felt obliged to consume it reverently.
This also holds for baptism, which is much easier to administer without entirely and soberly meaning to (because the words are shorter and the element available everywhere). There have been cases reported where a couple of boys playing in a ditch on the side of the road have managed one to baptize the other, and the church has accepted that as a valid sacramental act.
I quite like living in a church where even the children are sacramentally "dangerous." It seems to me rather typical of the way God acts, doing the unexpected and turning the world upside down.
I've heard of RC kids play-acting Mass using Necco wafers as hosts. Of course Necco wafers are to candy as real communion hosts are to bread; they've been sold since the Civil War and I'm not sure any new ones have been made since then.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
We had an episode a few years ago that was both shocking and amusing (really weird emotional combo). Our senior English-speaking pastor, who should have known better, decided to do a talk on the Lord's Supper for about two dozen kids ages six through ten. He actually handed out grape juice and wafers (unconsecrated) and proceeded to retell the story of Christ's institution, also repeating the words of institution themselves as part of the story--which of course the kids all have memorized and recognize, as they hear them every Sunday.
Well, what would you make of it? At least half the children were convinced this was a valid celebration, and it may well have been, for how close he came, and how ready God is to honor the faith of little ones. I reckon at least a dozen kids took communion for the first time that day--you should have seen the faith and awe and joy shining from their faces.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For a sacrament to be valid:
Right matter= bread and wine
Right formula= Our Lord's Words of Institution
Right Intention = the Intention to Consecrate.
In my tradition we honestly don't see a sacrament to be "valid" or not. But, if we did, it would surely be posited in terms of the attitude of the person receiving the sacrament rather than the one offering it.
And even in your tradition, haven't you left out something about the "context" in which Communion is offered, whether in a church service or in a home?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For a sacrament to be valid:
Right matter= bread and wine
Right formula= Our Lord's Words of Institution
Right Intention = the Intention to Consecrate.
In my tradition we honestly don't see a sacrament to be "valid" or not. But, if we did, it would surely be posited in terms of the attitude of the person receiving the sacrament rather than the one offering it.
And even in your tradition, haven't you left out something about the "context" in which Communion is offered, whether in a church service or in a home?
Why would that matter?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I don't know - that's why I'm asking! Would Communion be valid if (say) an Anglican priest just happened to have a Communion set about their person and, on the spur of the moment, offered the Eucharist to anybody sitting on their No.19 bus?
In our circles there is a tendency to think of Communion as a corporate act, hence it is sometimes considered better for a minister to take another person with them when administering Communion in a home, so that there are at least three people present in the room instead of just the two. I don't actually "buy" that myself!
[ 09. August 2017, 06:54: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For a sacrament to be valid:
Right matter= bread and wine
Right formula= Our Lord's Words of Institution
Right Intention = the Intention to Consecrate.
With respect, I don't think this is the traditional understanding.
Right matter= bread and wine. Tick.
Right formula= Our Lord's Words of Institution
I am not so sure: haven't the Roman Catholics, who hold fast to the traditional understanding, recognised the validity of one of the oriental orthodox liturgies which does not contain the dominical words?
Missing: Right Celebrant: a validly ordained priest.
Right Intention = the Intention to Consecrate. I don't think this is what is required. Is it not rather that the celebrant should have the intention to do what the true church does when it celebrates the eucharist? It doesn't matter whether the celebrant is mistaken (!) in his understanding of what the true church intends, or even mistaken in his understanding of which the true church is.
I think I read somewhere that St Robert Bellarmine is the standard authority on this stuff.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For a sacrament to be valid:
Right matter= bread and wine
Right formula= Our Lord's Words of Institution
Right Intention = the Intention to Consecrate.
With respect, I don't think this is the traditional understanding.
Right matter= bread and wine. Tick.
Right formula= Our Lord's Words of Institution
I am not so sure: haven't the Roman Catholics, who hold fast to the traditional understanding, recognised the validity of one of the oriental orthodox liturgies which does not contain the dominical words?
Missing: Right Celebrant: a validly ordained priest.
Right Intention = the Intention to Consecrate. I don't think this is what is required. Is it not rather that the celebrant should have the intention to do what the true church does when it celebrates the eucharist? It doesn't matter whether the celebrant is mistaken (!) in his understanding of what the true church intends, or even mistaken in his understanding of which the true church is.
I think I read somewhere that St Robert Bellarmine is the standard authority on this stuff.
Which is why, to loop back as the person that introduced it to the discussion, we come back to Article XXVI. It is indeed about moral fitness/rightness, but how are the congregation to determine that, or to make a window into the soul of the celebrant? They can't. So, right words, properly ordained celebrant = valid. Otherwise we're really saying, if validity of the sacrament is important, that we can't be sure anyone's receiving it. Which is clearly untenable.
Intent is clearly important *for the minister* and the sake of their integrity and soul, but for their congregation? Not sure the minister's intent is as important.
Essentially trust in God to sort it all out later - which is what the Article says.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Is it not rather that the celebrant should have the intention to do what the true church does when it celebrates the eucharist? It doesn't matter whether the celebrant is mistaken (!) in his understanding of what the true church intends, or even mistaken in his understanding of which the true church is.
I completely agree and this is the key bit for me - but then, I can swallow Tract 90...
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
In my tradition we honestly don't see a sacrament to be "valid" or not. But, if we did, it would surely be posited in terms of the attitude of the person receiving the sacrament rather than the one offering it.
Wasn't this Cranmer's position as well? IIRC, for him the moment of consecration was the moment of faithful reception.
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on
:
I fear to enter this thread, but as it was a spin-off from one that I started, I will shut my eyes and jump in.
There is much use here of the word 'valid'. My question is 'Valid to whom or what?'
Is it valid to a Church Canon Law?
To a tradition?
To the presider?
To the receiver?
(I prefer these two identifiers because celebrant can mean both?)
And lastly but most importantly, to God?
I think the answers to the first four questions are going to be Yes for all sorts of people and traditions.
(Personally, I wonder if God has a preference or a standard form of Holy Communion or Ordained Ministry - I doubt it. So a lot of different activities may be valid to God)
What exactly was Jesus 'instituting' when he said 'as often as you do this, do this in remembrance of me' ?
What did the early New Testament followers of The Way do?
I'll put on my blast helmet and retire to the bunker!
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Valid, to me, simply means that it falls within the bounds of what Jesus intended when he commanded "do this in remembrance of me". I trust that the Church (of God, to draw us back to the other thread ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) has preserved what is essential (and probably a great deal more besides), and furthermore I trust that God can indeed offer the benefits associated with the sacrament in a whole multitude of ways and times and places, the limits of which I do not know. I find the formula "we know where the church *is*; we do not know where the church *is not*" to be helpful. In so far as I have the option I will worship and participate in the sacrament of Holy Communion in the manner I understand the Church to have preserved since the time of Christ, not knowing precisely which parts are essential or non-essential (or even if it is a meaningful question to ask). At the same time if I find myself in a setting that departs from that manner, I will trust in God that he can provide any lack.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
Is it valid to a Church Canon Law?
To a tradition?
To the presider?
To the receiver?
(I prefer these two identifiers because celebrant can mean both?)
And lastly but most importantly, to God?
I think the answers to the first four questions are going to be Yes for all sorts of people and traditions.
Er ... we don't have Canon Church law. (Don't have Canons, actually).
But I can see what you're driving at.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
There is much use here of the word 'valid'. My question is 'Valid to whom or what?'
Is it valid to a Church Canon Law?
To a tradition?
To the presider?
To the receiver?
(I prefer these two identifiers because celebrant can mean both?)
And lastly but most importantly, to God?
"Valid" is a technical term used by folks at the catholic end of the spectrum; a sacrament is valid if it's not a mere facsimile I s'pose. In other words God has done what he has promised to do in the rite.
It has nothing to do with Canon or any other Law: I think "licit" would be the word used by RC people to cover conformity with Canon Law, probably "legal" by CofE folk.
None of the tradition, the presider, the recipient get (in the traditional explanation) any say about validity: that's externally discernible from proper matter, proper minister, proper form.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
In our circles there is a tendency to think of Communion as a corporate act, hence it is sometimes considered better for a minister to take another person with them when administering Communion in a home, so that there are at least three people present in the room instead of just the two. I don't actually "buy" that myself!
I'd say that from a Reformed/Presbyterian perspective, the corporate nature is key to any understanding of "validity" (though I don't think we typically speak in terms of "validity").
It is the Church that celebrates the Eucharist, so in order for it to actually be the Eucharist it must be an act of the Church, not of an individual or even a group of individuals. This is why in our understanding, neither acting in a play nor the group of kids "playing church" would be "valid" Eucharists. Neither is an act of the Church.
This is also why we rejected "private masses," and why we required that a minister celebrating Communion with the sick or home-bound always be accompanied by an elder and, if possible, others from the church attend. Now that we allow communion of the sick from, essentially, reserved elements, the requirement is that the elements be taken by at least 2 deacons and/or elders.
The minister presides not because he or she is validly ordained per se, but because he or she has been authorized by the Church generally and the congregation in question specifically to preside on its behalf. But even so, the minister cannot preside unless the Church (in our case, acting through the Session of the congregation) has authorized the celebration. (Ditto baptisms—except in emergencies, a minister cannot baptize a person unless the church through the Session has first authorized the baptism.)
I'd add that I do think most of my tribe would question the "validity" of a Eucharist if most of the baptized present didn't eat and drink.
So tl/dr: For us I think what makes a Eucharist "valid" is that
— the Church (typically in its local expression)
— takes bread and wine (and yes, we are a little more flexible than some on what constitutes bread and wine),
— sets them apart (consecrates them) with prayer,
— relates them, either within that prayer or outside it, to the words of Jesus, and
— eats and drinks.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I've heard of RC kids play-acting Mass using Necco wafers as hosts. Of course Necco wafers are to candy as real communion hosts are to bread; they've been sold since the Civil War and I'm not sure any new ones have been made since then.
I've heard of RC priests using Necco waters as "practice hosts" for children preparing for First Communion.
Given that I'm one of those rare people who'd choose a Necco water—especially a clove one—over chocolate any day, I can only imagine the disappointment experienced when those children first taste an actual communion wafer.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't know - that's why I'm asking! Would Communion be valid if (say) an Anglican priest just happened to have a Communion set about their person and, on the spur of the moment, offered the Eucharist to anybody sitting on their No.19 bus?
Yes - whyever not? It would be irregular, and one could reasonably ask whether one could approach the occasion with the proper reverence on the No. 19, but there's nothing to make it invalid.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
What have you got against the 19 bus? It's not as if it's the 82 or 86 after all.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Missing: Right Celebrant: a validly ordained priest.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't RC sacramental theology classify the celebrant as part of the "matter"?Of course, most people here aren't RC, so this isn't terribly important.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Missing: Right Celebrant: a validly ordained priest.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't RC sacramental theology classify the celebrant as part of the "matter"?Of course, most people here aren't RC, so this isn't terribly important.
I believe this is correct. It is certainly the case in Orthodox Churches that the ordained priest is part of the matter. Also an antimenson, a magical cloth that each priest is given by his bishop upon being posted to a spot in that bishop's diocese. If the bishop takes it back, the priest is not able to serve a valid Eucharist.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Missing: Right Celebrant: a validly ordained priest.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't RC sacramental theology classify the celebrant as part of the "matter"?Of course, most people here aren't RC, so this isn't terribly important.
Must do a bit of revision! Thanks.
(I think "right celebrant" or "right president" is important to most of the spectrum, although understandings of "right" and what s/he actually does vary. But it may be that for many failure on this test only leads to illicitness and not invalidity.)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In response to Enoch:
quote:
Is that view widely held in Canada? As Betjemaniac tactfully hints, such a take is incompatible with Article XXVI. It's also spectacularly incompatible with any sense of sacramental assurance.
I don't know if it is widely held in Canada, but what I understand is that "intention" here does not refer to belief in a specific theology of the Real Presence. "Intention" in the validity of the Sacrament is the intention to consecrate.
As in if a minister has no intention to consecrate, and thinks that his job is just to say pretty words over ordinary bread and wine, and there is nothing special about it, then the sacrament is not valid. An example would be if a fictional communion service was being filmed on tv played by actors: the intention is a dramatic performance, therefore, there is no sacrament.
Article XXVI refers to the moral unworthiness of the minister not affecting the validity, not about the lack of intention on the part of the minister.
For a sacrament to be valid:
Right matter= bread and wine
Right formula= Our Lord's Words of Institution
Right Intention = the Intention to Consecrate.
As it was my comment that seems to have provoked this thread, I feel I suppose I ought to respond, but I was busy most of yesterday. I suspect what others have said is going to be more interesting than anything I have to say.
I'd agree with most of that EXCEPT
quote:
if a minister has no intention to consecrate, and thinks that his job is just to say pretty words over ordinary bread and wine, and there is nothing special about it, then the sacrament is not valid.
That is seems to me in conflict both with what you then go on to say about a fictional service being acted by actors - though I do think actors need to be careful not to overstep the mark - and your saying,
quote:
that "intention" here does not refer to belief in a specific theology of the Real Presence.
The sentence I've disagreed with, seems to be reintroducing a version of that by the back door. Do you therefore mean that if a minister appears to be consecrating with seriousness but is personally at the strictly memorialist end of the spectrum, then it doesn't work?
Besides, the faithful would unequivocally be protected by Article XXVI if the a celebration were by a minister who was an out and out unbeliever, a Dawkinsist, whatever judgement he or she might be laying up for themselves on the Last Day. It would be odd to argue that there is an intermediate zone where they were not protected if the minister honourably had too different a Eucharistic theology from yours.
I'm with Betjemaniac on this. It seems to me that if there is the outward and visible sign of a celebration, then that is an intention to consecrate. The laity have no control over what their priest does or does not believe or whether he or she gets the words right. They are not expected either to try to make windows into the celebrant's soul nor to check that the celebrant is doing it right, and abstain if they think he or she has made a mistake, left some words out or whatever. That is the celebrant's responsibility, for which he or she is answerable.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
The sentence I've disagreed with, seems to be reintroducing a version of that by the back door. Do you therefore mean that if a minister appears to be consecrating with seriousness but is personally at the strictly memorialist end of the spectrum, then it doesn't work?
Let me try to clarify, my belief is that the right intention of the Celebrant is what you word as "consecrating with seriousness." A poster in this thread referred to the definition of consecration as "setting apart for God's purposes." My intention was that a minister may be a memorialist, may believe in transubstantiation, may have whatever her personal belief in what happens to the eucharistic elements. All that the mass requires is that the priest intends to set the elements apart for God's purposes.
I'm remembering the precise context of this teaching in seminary, it was referring specifically to the importance of manual gestures in the act of presiding. In touching the bread, in lifting the cup, in performing the sign of the Epiclesis, the minister is assuring the congregation her intention that what she is performing with them is a holy act. No one can decipher intention, but one can discern intention through manual gestures that a person performs, which is what my teacher was trying to convey in speaking of worship being an embodied experience.
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on
:
I'm finding this all rather frustrating because there seems to be a lot of reference to articles and directions from various Church denominations (understandable, I suppose).
We are all seem to be saying that it is valid if it is done in accordance with our Church's constitution/ Canon / Articles / Institutes etc, whatever your tradition defines.
What about a scenario where a group of Christian friends, from different churches and backgrounds, have had a meal together around which they were engaged in a Bible Study on the Last Supper. Through the evening there is teaching, sharing, questioning, praying, confession and forgiving. There is a real sense of fellowship in the presence of Jesus together.
At the end of the study (and the meal)someone suggests that they take some of the leftover bread and some wine together, 'in remembrance of Jesus'. This seems to flow from the study and also the sense of Holy fellowship that has taken place. A simple prayer of thanks and blessing is said, and everyone shares in bread and wine.
I'm interested to know your view (not necessarily your church's view) of what has happened? Is it Eucharyst or Outrage or something in between? What do you think God thinks of what happened?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I'm confused. If you don't believe anything happens, why do you care if people from other traditions believe that the same nothing happens that you believe happens?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
I'm interested to know your view (not necessarily your church's view) of what has happened? Is it Eucharyst or Outrage or something in between? What do you think God thinks of what happened?
I've no doubt that people can be blessed through such an activity. Whether it is truly the Holy Eucharist I leave up to God. I doubt he has any objections.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
I'm finding this all rather frustrating because there seems to be a lot of reference to articles and directions from various Church denominations (understandable, I suppose).
We are all seem to be saying that it is valid if it is done in accordance with our Church's constitution/ Canon / Articles / Institutes etc, whatever your tradition defines.
Well, sure. Those of us with some kind of rules that define what is necessary for a Eucharist believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist (and there are various different ideas of what that actually means) if those rules are followed.
But it's not that these are the private rules that out church committee came up with one weekend - they are our church's beliefs about what is required for a Eucharist to happen. And if we think there are specific details we have to get right (actual bread and wine, ordained priest, etc.) then we're going to write them down in whatever we call our central list of rules, because the Eucharist is rather important.
And mostly, you'll find people thinking that if we follow these rules, we can be assured of the Eucharist. If we don't follow the rules - well, we don't know what happens.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
What about a scenario where a group of Christian friends, from different churches and backgrounds, have had a meal together around which they were engaged in a Bible Study on the Last Supper. Through the evening there is teaching, sharing, questioning, praying, confession and forgiving. There is a real sense of fellowship in the presence of Jesus together.
At the end of the study (and the meal)someone suggests that they take some of the leftover bread and some wine together, 'in remembrance of Jesus'. This seems to flow from the study and also the sense of Holy fellowship that has taken place. A simple prayer of thanks and blessing is said, and everyone shares in bread and wine.
I'm interested to know your view (not necessarily your church's view) of what has happened? Is it Eucharyst or Outrage or something in between? What do you think God thinks of what happened?
It would neither be the Eucharist nor an outrage. It seems to me that it would be a beautiful act of piety and filial bonding among Christian friends - an agape feast, perhaps.
Apart from anything else, we know it couldn't possibly be the Eucharist as they would have just had a meal.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I can only imagine the disappointment experienced when those children first taste an actual communion wafer.
It almost takes more faith to believe wafers are bread than to believe they're the Body of Christ.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I can only imagine the disappointment experienced when those children first taste an actual communion wafer.
It almost takes more faith to believe wafers are bread than to believe they're the Body of Christ.
Tangent - When in the West did the bread used at the Eucharist become wafers? Were wafers adopted in one place before others? Did the Vatican ever encourage their adoption? Were they the norm before the Reformation?
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I can only imagine the disappointment experienced when those children first taste an actual communion wafer.
It almost takes more faith to believe wafers are bread than to believe they're the Body of Christ.
Tangent - When in the West did the bread used at the Eucharist become wafers? Were wafers adopted in one place before others? Did the Vatican ever encourage their adoption? Were they the norm before the Reformation?
Are you asking about the adoption of wafers specifically or unleavened bread in general?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
Apart from anything else, we know it couldn't possibly be the Eucharist as they would have just had a meal.
I was under the impression that the Eucharistic fast was a matter of discipline rather than the validity of the sacrament. Otherwise one assumes that the first Eucharist was invalid!
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on
:
Arethosemyfeet posted:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister: Apart from anything else, we know it couldn't possibly be the Eucharist as they would have just had a meal.
I was under the impression that the Eucharistic fast was a matter of discipline rather than the validity of the sacrament. Otherwise one assumes that the first Eucharist was invalid!
Exactly my point about validity. Who says 'it couldn't possibly be a Eucharist'?
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
Arethosemyfeet posted:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister: Apart from anything else, we know it couldn't possibly be the Eucharist as they would have just had a meal.
I was under the impression that the Eucharistic fast was a matter of discipline rather than the validity of the sacrament. Otherwise one assumes that the first Eucharist was invalid!
Exactly my point about validity. Who says 'it couldn't possibly be a Eucharist'?
I suppose an analogy could be given to marriage.
Suppose two people with no witnesses, make vows to each other in a garden shed on a Sunday evening. They then announced to each other that they are "married".
Spiritually, they can of course believe that they are married, in the eyes of God. But the law does not. For a change in the legal identity of the two persons to become spouses, there must be actions that enable public recognition, (i.e. in a public setting, marriage license, the presence of witnesses). The law doesn't give a horse cahoots if the couple claims that they are spiritually married, if they do not comply with the criteria, it is not a legally valid marriage.
There are many social gatherings, many encounters where God is present. But in order for a gathering to be a Eucharist, there must be demonstrable criteria that other people can recognize. Why for example, does a dinner date with my spouse not count as a eucharist? There is wine, there is bread, and there is the prayer of grace. The church doesn't recognize this as eucharist, even though of course, God is present in a dinner date between two married people.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I think this leads us back to the question of intent. If the hypothetical house group is intending to fulfil Christ's command at the last supper, then there is the possibility that God accepts it as that (and therefore it is the Eucharist). If there is no such intention then I can't see how it could be, otherwise anything could be the Eucharist, and we'd have no way of knowing.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
I'll aim to be clearer next time I try to inject a bit of humour into a thread.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Unleavened bread has been used at the eucharist in the Latin church since the early days of Christianity. It was considered to be the type of bread used at the Last Supper. It also doesn't have so many crumbs when broken.
The Eucharistic bread did not have to be circular in form but again it often was from at least the second century of the Christian era
In time there came to be smaller circles baked specifically for the communion of the laity. Again the practical reason for this was to avoid breaking up of the bread used by the priest.
Of course it may be, and it is encouraged to a certain extent ,that a large Host should be broken up by the priest for distribution to the laity.
Again for practical purposes it is simply easier to keep smaller hosts of equal size in a ciborium.
the Hosts are circular
The word 'Host' started to be used when people started to recognise the eucharist not only as a thanksgiving meal but also as a sacrifice. Host in this sense means Victim.
It is thought,though may not be true, that the Hosts are circular to remind us of coins or money
which is a currency of exchange.
In Rome there is a particular church known as Santa Maria in Ara Coeli, built nearby the earlier
temple of Juno Admonitrix. It was also right beside the place where the Romans made coins and from Admonitrix we have mint,money,Muenze,moneda,moneta,monnaie and no doubt,' many' others.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Unleavened bread has been used at the eucharist in the Latin church since the early days of Christianity.
I don't know enough to counter this, but if unleavened bread were indeed used in the Latin church since earliest times, would it have been anything other than a minority usage within that context?
Only, everything I have been taught suggests that it did not begin to become widespread or gain acceptance in the west until around the 8th century, and did not become universal Latin practice until some centuries later.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
The fact that use of unleavened bread has been more or less mandatory in the Latin church since the 8th century is indicative that it would have been used long before that, especially with the connection between the eucharist and the Last Supper and the Passover Meal. Not everyone sees the Last Supper as a Passover Meal, however.
It is difficult to say just how widespread almost anything of a liturgical nature was in the very early centuries of Christianity.
What we see in pictures in the Roman catacombs may indicate activities which were practised no wider than these Roman catacombs.
Although the use of unleavened bread is certainly now mandatory for a 'licit' celebration of the Roman rite, the Latin Church does not in any way dispute the validity of a celebration using leavened bread. There have been occasions when Latin rite priests have been given permission to use leavened bread.
And of course the Latin Church recognises the validity of other rites using leavened bread in full communion with the Latin Church.
We have at least one priest in this diocese who celebrates regularly in both the Byzantine rite and the Latin rite, using the appropriate bread for each of the rites.
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on
:
Anglican Brat posted:
quote:
I suppose an analogy could be given to marriage.
The analogy doesn't work because marriage needs to be recognised by an earthly state so that parental, property and inheritance implications can be defined and protected by a law of the state. This is regardless of any particular community's specific view on marriage. Thus we have the situation in the UK where many people believe they are in a 'common law' relationship - as good as married but have never had a civil or religious wedding. Then something happens, one of the couple dies, and inheritance may go to their legal next of kin, not necessarily the widowed partner. (This is why, in most non-established churches in the UK as well as pubs, hotels, conference centres etc, marriages are conducted by licence, with a Registrar or (approved person) present.)
In the case of the Eucharist, I maintain there is no such state legal requirement, only rites and practices as laid down by church institutions. It matters not a fig to anyone outside a particular church institution whether there is a priest, or if he or she says the right words in the right order, with the right intent, wearing the right clothing, and even the right amount of alcohol (I understand in the CofE it has to be 'fortified' wine).
I don't deny that it matters to those within the church institution who think these things are important. However, since there are so many different church traditions who celebrate Eucharist is so many different ways, I think God might just find all of them valid. Thus it seems to be a human construct which deems 'this is how it should be done'.
(IRC There is another thread where an example is given of a practice which became tradition then became canonised. Along the lines of a cat which regularly wonders throughout the meeting, causing the convener to ask for it to be put out of the room. This happens so often that the convener begins to start the meeting with 'Has the cat been shut out of the room?' The cat dies, but the question has now become habitual, and finally enters canonical liturgy. A ridiculous example, but illustrates the way we can end up doing and saying some of the things we do in the effort to be 'valid')
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
anything could be the Eucharist, and we'd have no way of knowing.
Reminds me of what the nuns used to tell us in Sunday school: If a priest happened to be walking by a bakery, and looked in the window, and spoke the words of institution as he did, then every loaf of bread in that bakery would become the Body of Christ.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And if he walked past the off-licence ...?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
There is another thread where an example is given of a practice which became tradition then became canonised. Along the lines of a cat which regularly wonders throughout the meeting, causing the convener to ask for it to be put out of the room.
No, no, no, please do get your liturgy right: the cat has to be tied up somewhere. So, when it finally goes to the great cattery in the sky, a new cat has to be bought specifically for tying up before the service begins. (One wonders what happens if the cat - as they do - goes AWOL just at that precise moment?) Thes things matter, you know! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[ 12. August 2017, 10:31: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
anything could be the Eucharist, and we'd have no way of knowing.
Reminds me of what the nuns used to tell us in Sunday school: If a priest happened to be walking by a bakery, and looked in the window, and spoke the words of institution as he did, then every loaf of bread in that bakery would become the Body of Christ.
Unless they were selling rye bread
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on
:
Baptist Trainfan wrote
quote:
No, no, no, please do get your liturgy right: the cat has to be tied up somewhere. So, when it finally goes to the great cattery in the sky, a new cat has to be bought specifically for tying up before the service begins. (One wonders what happens if the cat - as they do - goes AWOL just at that precise moment?) Thes things matter, you know!
I rest my case!
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on
:
In my tradition, the service opens with the solemn words "Has the cat been removed from the sanctuary?"
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
For those interested in Aquinas's take, here is what he says in De Articulis Fidei (which gets carried over almost verbatim into the decrees of the Council of Florence): quote:
The seven Sacraments have some things which they all hold in common, and some things which are proper to each one. That which is common to all the Sacraments is that they confer grace. It is also common to all the Sacraments that a Sacrament is made up of words and physical acts. And so also Christ, who is the Author of the Sacraments, is the Word made flesh. And just as the flesh of Christ was sanctified, and has the power of sanctifying because of the Word united to itself, so also the Sacraments are made holy and have the power of sanctifying through the words which accompany the action. Thus, St. Augustine says: "The word is joined to the element, and the Sacrament is made."[10] Now, the words by which the Sacraments are sanctified are called the form of the Sacraments; and the things which are sanctified are called the matter of the Sacraments. Water, for example, is the matter of Baptism, and the holy chrism is the matter of Confirmation.
In each Sacrament there is required a minister, who confers the Sacrament with the intention of doing that which the Church intends. If any one of these three requirements is lacking, the Sacrament is not brought into being, viz., if there is lacking the due form of the words, or if the matter is not present, or if the minister does not intend to confer the Sacrament.
So minister is something distinct from form and matter, and intention sort of gets folded into minister.
[ 12. August 2017, 14:26: Message edited by: FCB ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
The analogy doesn't work because marriage needs to be recognised by an earthly state so that parental, property and inheritance implications can be defined and protected by a law of the state.
That's a tautology. Marriage has to be recognized by the state so that the state recognizes marriage.
Do you think marriage has any meaning outside its state formalities?
quote:
In the case of the Eucharist, [..]
I don't deny that it matters to those within the church institution who think these things are important. However, since there are so many different church traditions who celebrate Eucharist is so many different ways, I think God might just find all of them valid. Thus it seems to be a human construct which deems 'this is how it should be done'.
And there's the crux of the matter. Yes, God might find all of them valid. That's different from "God does find all of them valid".
Everyone believes that their version of the Eucharist "works". They don't necessarily believe the same about someone else's version.
Some of us think that when the Most Blessed Sacraments are consecrated, an actual change happens. Whether that change happens or not is not a cultural construct - it's a fact. Now, we don't have an objective way of observing that change, so we rely on our traditions, the teachings of our church, and God's promise that if we do X, Y, and Z then that change happens.
Does it happen with X and Y, but not Z? What about X, A, B, and C? We don't know. This is different from "Thus it seems to be a human construct which deems 'this is how it should be done'."
And sure, it's possible that any combination of A, B, C, X, Y, or Z is OK with God. But thinking it's possible is different from thinking it is necessarily true.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
For those interested in Aquinas's take, here is what he says in De Articulis Fidei (which gets carried over almost verbatim into the decrees of the Council of Florence): quote:
The seven Sacraments have some things which they all hold in common, and some things which are proper to each one. That which is common to all the Sacraments is that they confer grace. It is also common to all the Sacraments that a Sacrament is made up of words and physical acts. And so also Christ, who is the Author of the Sacraments, is the Word made flesh. And just as the flesh of Christ was sanctified, and has the power of sanctifying because of the Word united to itself, so also the Sacraments are made holy and have the power of sanctifying through the words which accompany the action. Thus, St. Augustine says: "The word is joined to the element, and the Sacrament is made."[10] Now, the words by which the Sacraments are sanctified are called the form of the Sacraments; and the things which are sanctified are called the matter of the Sacraments. Water, for example, is the matter of Baptism, and the holy chrism is the matter of Confirmation.
In each Sacrament there is required a minister, who confers the Sacrament with the intention of doing that which the Church intends. If any one of these three requirements is lacking, the Sacrament is not brought into being, viz., if there is lacking the due form of the words, or if the matter is not present, or if the minister does not intend to confer the Sacrament.
So minister is something distinct from form and matter, and intention sort of gets folded into minister.
Am I correct in saying that the RCC considers the bride and groom the ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony? So, based on the quote above, that would make Matrimony the only one of the Seven Sacraments where the ministers are also part of the matter.
In Orthodoxy, though (please correct me if I am wrong), I believe the priest is the only minister of matrimony and not the bride and groom.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
The analogy doesn't work because marriage needs to be recognised by an earthly state so that parental, property and inheritance implications can be defined and protected by a law of the state.
That's a tautology. Marriage has to be recognized by the state so that the state recognizes marriage.
Do you think marriage has any meaning outside its state formalities?
Did you miss the part where Felafool talked about parental, property, and inheritance implications under the law?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
In Orthodoxy, though (please correct me if I am wrong), I believe the priest is the only minister of matrimony and not the bride and groom.
This is correct. As near as I can tell the switch to making the couple the ministers of the sacrament in the RCC was to leave an "out" for annulment -- find something one of the people did wrong and you can say the couple was never really married in the first place. Part of the mindfuck that is annulment.
[ 13. August 2017, 01:57: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
If annulment of marriage is, as Mousethief tells us,'mindfuck',does this mean that a bride or groom who have gone through a ceremony of marriage in front of an appropriate minister of the Orthodox Church are for ever married,even if it turns out that at least one of them had not really given consent to the marriage,or iuf one of them had not really understood who they were being married to ?
Would annulment of a civil marriage by state authorities also be classified as 'mindfuck' ?
I'm intrigued as I have never come across the word 'mindfuck' before and not quite sure what it means.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
Oh, isn't it exciting!
(Sits back in the front row with fried chicken.)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I am not happy with this notion of the intention of the minister.
What if s/he is going through the motions that day, having presided at two other celebrations that day already and now has a mind on auto-pilot?
What about those going through a crisis of faith, not sure what they believe any more?
What about the priest who no longer believes but is staying put until retirement in a year’s time?
I am happier with the corporate intention of the gathered community to ‘do what the church doe’.
For me, that is full-blown transubstantiation and pleading/offering the sacrifice of Christ to the father.
For others in my community that is to make memorial.
And what about this ‘validly ordained’ notion?
I normality expert an episcopally ordained priest but I aware that the URC has a high view of presbyteral ministry and doesn’t allow any old Tom Dick or Mary to preside.
I cannot say that their Eucharists are invalid.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
In my tradition, the service opens with the solemn words "Has the cat been removed from the sanctuary?"
Presumably chanted in the Tritone or Diabolus in Musica
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am not happy with this notion of the intention of the minister.
...
I aware that the URC has a high view of presbyteral ministry and doesn’t allow any old Tom Dick or Mary to preside.
I cannot say that their Eucharists are invalid.
Excellent post. But what about Baptists etc. where - especially in the absence of a minister - a locally well-respected lay leader may preside?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
If annulment of marriage is, as Mousethief tells us,'mindfuck',does this mean that a bride or groom who have gone through a ceremony of marriage in front of an appropriate minister of the Orthodox Church are for ever married,even if it turns out that at least one of them had not really given consent to the marriage,or iuf one of them had not really understood who they were being married to ?
Would annulment of a civil marriage by state authorities also be classified as 'mindfuck' ?
I'm intrigued as I have never come across the word 'mindfuck' before and not quite sure what it means.
In this case it means pretending not to allow divorce, while actually allowing divorce. It's dishonest and self-deceptive.
The Orthodox allow up to two remarriages, with explicit permission of the bishop. Thus we don't try to pretend we're not allowing divorce and remarriage, we come right out and admit it. The RCC pretends they're not really allowing it, by doing this "annulment" thing -- "well they really weren't married in the first place he he he he." Which has been worked out by making the couples the ministers of the sacrament rather than the priest. You can find lots of things wrong about the couples' preparedness, intentions, and so forth, that you wouldn't be able to find wrong about the priest. Thus giving you a plethora of "reasons" to annul the marriage.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I understand that for pastoral reasons the Orthodox church allows people to marry more than once while a previous spouse is still living.
However,if I had been more or less forced under duress to go through a ceremony of matrimony presided over by an Orthodox priest (or deacon ?) or if I had gone through a ceremony of marriage with someone who I thought was someone else,would I just go to the priest and say 'I don;t want any mindfuck about an annulment,I'll just try again with number two ? Okay ?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I understand that for pastoral reasons the Orthodox church allows people to marry more than once while a previous spouse is still living.
However,if I had been more or less forced under duress to go through a ceremony of matrimony presided over by an Orthodox priest (or deacon ?) or if I had gone through a ceremony of marriage with someone who I thought was someone else,would I just go to the priest and say 'I don;t want any mindfuck about an annulment,I'll just try again with number two ? Okay ?
Well duress is not allowed in an Orthodox marriage, although like anything that's sinful it definitely shows up from time to time. But you have it right that remarriage is a matter of ekonomia, a bending of the rules when it is better for the person/people involved than sticking strictly to the rules would be, in the eyes of the bishop (or more than one, if it's a tricky case and they want a "second opinion"). What would happen in any one instance is beyond my ability to forecast; one would set the facts before the bish, and the bish would figure it out. If your priest is going to bat for you, and you're a good little churchgoer, the odds are better (as you can imagine).
In the case of my own remarriage it involved two priests, two bishops, and a passel of kids. One important consideration was the difficulty of raising four kids as a single parent versus as a spouse in a loving marriage. Gushy romantic "but I wuv him" feelings were low on the list of considerations, except inasmuch as one barometer (of several) of the likelihood that the second marriage would be calm and loving and successful. It all sounds rather utilitarian, frankly, but I couldn't be any happier with the outcome.
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on
:
Leorning Cniht wrote
quote:
That's a tautology. Marriage has to be recognized by the state so that the state recognizes marriage. Do you think marriage has any meaning outside its state formalities?
I agree it is a tautology, because I do think marriage has meaning outside its state formalities. Didn't you yourself suggest that there might be a 'spiritual' dimension to marriage?
So a 'common law' marriage may well be a marriage in every sense except it is recognised by neither the state or possibly any religious group.
I don't believe that either the state or the church 'own' marriage - they can merely ratify it on their own terms, so that everyone involved knows where they stand. Not only does it mean that parenthood, property and inheritance are clearly defined, but it says to the community that these two are joined to each other, so hands off and respect the relationship.
Doesn't Jesus quote the OT about leaving parents and cleaving to another?
Doesn't the Apostle Paul write about two people becoming one flesh? Neither of these imply a religious service or a registrar.
Going back to the OP, a valid (or more correctly, legal) eucharist is a similar construct of an institution, in this case a particular church. As has been elequently argued by others, this means that people in different traditions can clearly recognise that what is happening is, according to a particular tradition, a valid eucharist.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Mousethief I appreciate the fact that you took time to explain your own personal situation. It certainly helps me to understand where you are coming from in describing the Annulment process in the Catholic church as 'mindfuck'.
However my question was about the annulment of marriage in the Orthodox Church.
Here in the UK a civil marriage can be annulled if the conditions of marriage have not been met.
One of these would be the non- consummation of the marriage ceremony in intimate sexual contact.
Our discussions here are about the validity of the eucharist.For Catholics marriage also is a sacrament,on a par with the eucharist. For the marriage to be valid certain conditions have to be met. One of these would be consent to the marriage freely given. Another would be the status of the contracting parties, that they are free (in the eyes of the Church) to marry and that one of them is male and the other female.
Are there no conditions to be met in an Orthodox marriage ceremony, failing which the marriage could be annulled ?
Let me give you an example of one of the spouses pretending to be of the other sex.If in effect a 'same sex' marriage ceremony was carried out without the priest being aware, would it still count as a valid marriage,because the priest had solemnised it ?
I appreciate the Orthodox principle of ekonomia which can be used with regard to the other sacraments also.
In the Annulment process the (Catholic) Church tries to remain true to the idea of marriage being a lifelong contract, but wherever possible to release those who may have entered the marriage state without giving full consent and assent to the teachings of the Church.
If 'mindfuck' means,as I found in an on-line dictionary, 'intentional destabilisation,confusion and manipulation of the mind of another person,this is certainly not the aim of the Annulment process.
It is possible that it may be in some cases a result of it,but one could say that of all religious, and indeed civil injunctions, which seek to limit the absolute freedom of individuals
to do whatever they want to, without thinking of God or neighbour.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Tangent alert
Interesting reflections on marriage. It's a subject the CofE has got itself tied up in knots in over the years, and there isn't a great deal of consistency of opinion. Perhaps it's pay-back for the role of divorce in the break with Rome in the C16.
History would suggest that it has never been the view of the CofE, either before the Reformation or since, that it is of the nature of things that the presence of an ordained priest is essential by the law of God - even in the period between 1753 and 1836 when virtually all marriages had to take place in the established church after due calling of banns etc.
If a couple are married at civil law, whether married in church or before a registrar, then the couple are married. That's it. They are just as married, even if the marriage is one which the church deprecates, possibly regards as sinful, and which some clergy won't fully recognise. That also means the couple owe the obligations of marriage to each other. There is no concept of a civil marriage being some sort of marriage-lite with fewer obligations or that is less permanent.
For this reason, a couple who are already married to each other legally cannot get married in church. The service is a blessing. That is just as much so even if for both of them, it is a first marriage.
I've heard things are different in countries where church weddings do not have legal effect, but it's possible that may only apply if the church wedding takes place on the same day as the registrar's one.
In English law, consent of both parties is an essential for a marriage. However, virtually no weddings are actually dissolved for duress. There's no concept of psychological non-consummation, or failure fully to appreciate the full nature of the marriage commitment. A person of sound mind who goes through a wedding ceremony other than drugged or with a gun pointing at them, will be taken to have understood what they are doing and meaning what they have said.
I think I'm right in saying that those ecclesial communities which do not require the couple expressly, individually and separately to say they take each other (i.e. consent) as part of their ceremony are required to include it if they want to be authorised in England and Wales to carry out marriages at all.
A marriage without the consent of one of the parties is void, a non-event, just as much as a bigamous marriage or an under age one. So such a marriage can be annulled. Theoretically, as it has never happened, doesn't need to be. I don't think though that a registrar or a clergy person would marry someone to someone else, though, without a court decree that the marriage had been annulled.
Marriages can also be annulled if they haven't been consummated, but in those cases, the marriage exists legally until set aside. The CofE, though, in those cases does treat the parties once annulled as never having been married.
Otherwise, a marriage only comes to an end by death or divorce.
[ 14. August 2017, 11:50: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It has been found in the past that no marriage took place. But never after a man and woman got married and lived as man and wife for 20 years and had three children. Deciding after 20 years that such a couple isn't "really" married because the woman now wants out and had her fingers behind her back 20 years ago isn't the kind of lie you'll find in Orthodoxy.
If one of the twain was already married, if they weren't a man and a woman, if the priest has been defrocked, then the Church would say no marriage took place.
Living "as brother and sister" (without sex) has a long and honored history in Orthodoxy. It certainly wouldn't be grounds for determining that no marriage took place.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am not happy with this notion of the intention of the minister.
...
I aware that the URC has a high view of presbyteral ministry and doesn’t allow any old Tom Dick or Mary to preside.
I cannot say that their Eucharists are invalid.
Excellent post. But what about Baptists etc. where - especially in the absence of a minister - a locally well-respected lay leader may preside?
My view is probably inconsistent.
I don’t think lay celebration by a Baptist is ‘valid’ but then the Baptists don’t believe in Eucharistic sacrifice or the real presence.
However, I do accept lay celebration in the MCC because its members have been rejected by mainline churches.
I also accept Methodist communion because it is the fault of the C of E that the Bishop of London wouldn’t ordain presbyters for them.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
For this reason, a couple who are already married to each other legally cannot get married in church. The service is a blessing. That is just as much so even if for both of them, it is a first marriage.
I've heard things are different in countries where church weddings do not have legal effect...
Countries such as the UK.
The situation you describe refers only to those churches (i.e. the Church of England and the Church of Scotland) whose clergy are ex officio registrars for the purposes of marriage. Everywhere else, church marriage and civil marriage are discrete things, (except in the cases of individual congregations where someone has applied to be a special person to register marriages).
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Not sure just how correct the above statement is,at least with reference to Scotland.
In the olden days banns of marriage called in a Church of Scotland place of worship counted as acceptable by the state.Marriages by a Church of Scotland minister could be conducted anywhere.This made a Church of Scotland wedding popular not only by those who wished a Church of Scotland religious wedding,but also by those who wanted to be married on the top of a mountain etc.
Banns of marriage for other ceremonies either civil or in other places of religious worship had to be placed in a registrar's office.
Clergy of many,but not all othere religious groups ,could and can solemnise marriages in the name of the state,as long as state conditions were and are fulfilled i.e. a certain form of words to be used and the couple free to marry in the eyes of the state.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
sorry,Scrumpmeister,I thought that you were referring in your post ONLY to clergy of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.
I see now that you gave these bodies only as examples of authorised clergy.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
I was under the impression that in England at least, it's the Anglicans and Quakers alone who don't require registrars - and I seem to recall that Jews don't either for religious weddings, but could be wrong.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by leo:
[qb] I don’t think lay celebration by a Baptist is ‘valid’ but then the Baptists don’t believe in Eucharistic sacrifice or the real presence.
That only works if you believe that there are separate categories to "lay" and "priest." In a similar manner to belief about SMM, the people in the pews have rather different views about the lay/clerical issue than the denominational teaching suggests.
IME most people will accept that the Eucharist is a Eucharist provided they understand the mystery they are sharing in.
I believe in real presence but perhaps not in the sense you do. Even in your own denomination you are in a minority if you see the Eucharist wholly in sacrificial terms -- it's a part of course but there's much more to it than a one thread event. If you see it just in those terms then it is as reductionist as a reformed memorial service.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I was under the impression that in England at least, it's the Anglicans and Quakers alone who don't require registrars - and I seem to recall that Jews don't either for religious weddings, but could be wrong.
No Baptists and Methodists don't either - al least the rule are there to facilitate that. It usually means the local congregation finding a couple of people to act as Registrars for their fellowship. Sometimes the minister is one but I chose not to be - that way I can focus on the service.
The only difference is that, instead of Banns, the couple's details are posted at the local Registry office for 28 days. This satisfies the law which asks for a public notice for all weddings -- this is overcome by the CofE who do the same but it is called "Banns."
There's a lot of confusion/mystique/error around marriage. In essence any venue whether religious or secular has to allow for a prescribed form of words which, when spoken, form the marriage contract. Signing the Register seals the legal process. Whatever else you may do/say - providing it doesn't contradict what you've done with the usual "forms" is mere window dressing in the eyes of the state.
One more thing. Contrary to what many people believe, there's no such thing as common law marriage. You are either married according to the procedures adopted by statute or you are not married at all whatever else you may say or believe. It causes massive headaches where money and property is concerned.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I cannot say that their Eucharists are invalid.
A Eucharist cannot be invalid if you are doing what the church does.
The big question of course is - which church?
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Not sure just how correct the above statement is,at least with reference to Scotland.
In the olden days banns of marriage called in a Church of Scotland place of worship counted as acceptable by the state.Marriages by a Church of Scotland minister could be conducted anywhere.This made a Church of Scotland wedding popular not only by those who wished a Church of Scotland religious wedding,but also by those who wanted to be married on the top of a mountain etc.
Banns of marriage for other ceremonies either civil or in other places of religious worship had to be placed in a registrar's office.
Clergy of many,but not all othere religious groups ,could and can solemnise marriages in the name of the state,as long as state conditions were and are fulfilled i.e. a certain form of words to be used and the couple free to marry in the eyes of the state.
The Scottish statutory Registers of Marriages in let's say 1870--1930 provide ample evidence of this. On the same page you'll find "After Banns according the forms of the Established Church of Scotland", "... forms of the Free Church of Scotland","... forms of the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland","... forms of the Episcopal Church of Scotland", "... forms of the Roman Catholic Church". Or the rarer "by declaration before witnesses"---for which the Registrar required the warrant of the Sheriff-Substitute before he could register it. The place where the wedding was celebrated was almost never (among presbyterians) a church, unlike the episcopalians and catholics.
But I don't think banns had to be called in the parish church; there's evidence that Glasgow ministers would haul the happy couple out into the busy street, call the banns, and then marry them at once. And of course banns in Scotland were, by long-standing abuse, called just once: the formula ended "... of which full and final proclamation is hereby made."
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
My view is probably inconsistent.
I don’t think lay celebration by a Baptist is ‘valid’ but then the Baptists don’t believe in Eucharistic sacrifice or the real presence.
However, I do accept lay celebration in the MCC because its members have been rejected by mainline churches.
I also accept Methodist communion because it is the fault of the C of E that the Bishop of London wouldn’t ordain presbyters for them.
Yes, Leo, I agree. I think that view is inconsistent.
Broadly, it seems to me that there are two approaches to this which make sense within themselves. Either
1. The power to consecrate is transmitted by ordination to the priesthood in apostolic succession. So any Eucharist celebrated by a person who is validly so ordained is valid - even if for some other reason it is irregular. But any Eucharist celebrated by someone who is not so ordained is only a pretence.
Or
2. A Eucharist takes its validity from the context where it happens, from being celebrated in accordance with the custom of the ecclesial community in which it takes place. So in the RCC it must be celebrated by a Catholic priest. In a Baptist Church it must be celebrated in whatever way the Baptist Church authorises. Provided it does, then it would only be invalid, to you, if conducted by an ecclesial community which you do not recognise as being part of the Body of Christ.
Both views are found within Christendom, though some holders of view 1 think holders of view 2 are deluding themselves if they think they are within Christendom.
However, I don't think one can pick and choose between the two, primarily believing in 1. but giving a free pass to some in 2 but not others.
I know their ground is called Lord's but when did the Marylebone Cricket Club start celebrating Holy Communion?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Presumably in 1883 when they began venerating the Ashes as a remembrance of the death of English cricket?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Re. Communion: I don't think Baptists would ever talk in terms of a celebration being "valid" or not. We might moan at the way it's been done or say that it was done "properly", but that's not quite the same thing.
A bit of a rumpus blew up in the URC Eastern Synod a few years ago. You need to understand that the rubric at that time was that Communion could be celebrated by Ministers or, "in emergency", by lay people who Synod had duly authorised to do so in the relevant congregation.
Problem was that there were very few ministers; also many congregations had built up relationships with lay preachers who were not "duly authorised" yet led Communion. Mostly coming from a former Congregational background, they weren't bothered at all by this.
One retired Minister, still very active in an ecumenical situation, flagged up the situation as not being right, and pushed for regularisation. Technically he was correct but a lot of folk felt that this was unnecessary. Things did get tightened up but I suspect some "unofficial" Communion still goes on.
On a wider canvas, the whole issue of Authorised Lay People and Communion is being looked at by the denomination as the fall in ministerial numbers has caused something of a crisis in this area.
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on
:
Am a Church of Scotland minister. When I conduct a wedding I am not acting as Registrar. Before I may conduct the ceremony the couple have to have a schedule issued by the registrar, who has gathered from them all the relevant information, including that they are free to be married to each other, and in whose premesis (usually in the window) the notices of forthcoming marriages have been displayed - sometimes not very prominently. This is one reason why in Scotland we don't ask if anyone has any objections - the time for that is past!
After the ceremony, or as part of it if I want, that's up to me as minister, we sign the schedule which then has to be returned to the registrar within 3 working days for the marriage to be legal and the marriage certificate to be issued. This is how it works for all the churches, including those groups like the Brethren who apply for one of their members to have a license for a day to conduct a religious ceremony.
And yes, I can conduct said ceremony anywhere, though I discourage standing by waterfalls (too noisy) or indeed outside at all (pretty risky in terms of weather and midges, though on a good day we have just decided to go out!)
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
As American piskie says many, if not indeed most
Church of Scotland weddings in the periods up to the 1940s would have rarely been conducted in a church. They would often be fairly quiet affairs at the manse (minister's house) with a family gathering afterwards.Otherwise they might have been held in a hotel.
Since the man and woman were responsible for the marriage,the commonlaw husband and wife or marriage by habit and repute would often be recognised as a marriage, even without the presence of a clergyman. This would go back to the pre-Reformation and continued Catholic understanding that the man and woman are the 'ministers of the sacrament'
This would also go back to the time when the state did not have any civil marriage ceremonies.
I think that it is from this common enough Scottish custom of marriage not taking place in a church that a similar custom was and possibly is quite widespread in Presbyterian circles in the USA.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Since the man and woman were responsible for the marriage,the commonlaw husband and wife or marriage by habit and repute would often be recognised as a marriage, even without the presence of a clergyman.
Would that count though in legal matters: eg the distribution of effects and property after death? That's the problem EM flagged up earlier.
In the country I lived in in Africa, there was "tribal" marriage, recognised by local society but not legally, and "civil" marriage. Church "weddings" had n legal significance and were really only blessings of the latter.
The Church I served strongly encouraged to get legally married, not for moral reasons, but so that the wife would be protected if her husband were to die. Otherwise his relatives would come along, take possession of everything and send her (and the kids) back to her own family. On one occasion at least, local Christians formed a cordon around a bereaved lady's house to prevent this happening.
[ 18. August 2017, 15:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
'irregular' marriages witnessed by a third party were recognised legally in Scotland till 1940.
Marriages recognised as such 'by habit and repute' have not been recognised in law in Scotland since 2006.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I cannot say that their Eucharists are invalid.
A Eucharist cannot be invalid if you are doing what the church does.
The big question of course is - which church?
The church universal i.e. catholic and apostolic i.e. with episcope, usually in the form or bishops.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
the whole issue of Authorised Lay People and Communion is being looked at
If a bishop authorises lay people, then it's kosher. Like a temporary ordination.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
when did the Marylebone Cricket Club start celebrating Holy Communion?
MCC =- Metropolitan Community Church
Posted by Roman Cataholic (# 18736) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
the whole issue of Authorised Lay People and Communion is being looked at
If a bishop authorises lay people, then it's kosher. Like a temporary ordination.
A temporary ordination? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Hebrews 7:17
[ 18. August 2017, 18:29: Message edited by: Roman Cataholic ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I cannot say that their Eucharists are invalid.
A Eucharist cannot be invalid if you are doing what the church does.
The big question of course is - which church?
The church universal i.e. catholic and apostolic i.e. with episcope, usually in the form or bishops.
Hmmm, I can go with the first but not with the second and third. With a catholic understanding, Eucharist in a Baptist church is perfectly licit as Baptist are part of the universal church being Trinitarian and Christocentric.
You have a rather peculiar reason for including the Eucharist at a MCC church as being licit. Since when did being excluded by other churches be the sole reason why you might be acceptable to God?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
the whole issue of Authorised Lay People and Communion is being looked at
If a bishop authorises lay people, then it's kosher. Like a temporary ordination.
The URC doesn't have Bishops, and it's local Synods who authorise lay presidents. In practice the churches send the names of people whom they (via a decision at Church Meeting) wish to authorise. A list is then prepared and made known before a Synod meeting, and a vote taken en bloc. I've not known a name ever being questioned. Authorisation is only for a limited period (?a year) and then has to be renewed.
The wider "looking at" is being done by Mission Council and General Assembly.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If a bishop authorises lay people, then it's kosher. Like a temporary ordination.
If a bishop can authorise a lay person to celebrate and that makes it kosher, then that's clearly placing ones's understanding of validity in approach No 2.
I'm as good as certain that the CofE doesn't envisage any situation under which a bishop could authorise a lay person to celebrate without their being ordained to priest's orders first. As far as the CofE is concerned, to meet the requirements of approach No 2, a person has to meet the requirements of 1 first.
However, it seems to me that to say that an ecclesial community is only part of the Body of Christ if it has bishops or some other form of government that quacks like an episcopos still poses a number of invidious questions. What is it about the way the Methodist Church, which in England emphatically does not have bishops, and the MCC, which is a denomination I don't know anything about, manage their affairs that means they quack, while the Baptist Union only clucks?
I'm as aware as the rest of us that there has been a tendency in church history to enshrine true catholicity in adhering to a form of church government that those seeking to fence it approve of. It is though difficult objectively - rather than merely for purposes of rhetoric - to accept the idea that the mechanisms of ecclesiastical administration are really of the essence of the faith in the way that belief in the Trinity and acknowledging the centrality of the lordship of Christ are.
I'd actually prefer it if a person were to say
'I'd really rather have approach 1, but that with the sad divided state of Christendom, I accept that approach 2 has to be right. Otherwise I'd be forced to regard too many other people's Eucharists as tref, and I accept that they clearly aren't'.
But once one does that, I don't see how one can then decide according to one's own subjective criteria that some Eucharists are kosher but others tref rather than by accepting that what governs this is whether it is celebrated in accordance with the disciplines of the ecclesial community in which it happens.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I think that it is best not to concentrate on whether a eucharist is valid or not.If it is 'valid' for the participants then it is a way for them to experience God's grace.
As a Catholic I experience God's grace during the celebration of a Catholic eucharist,but I am more than happy to believe that others experience exactly the same during the celebration of the eucharist within their own communities.
God's grace is wider than the organisational confines of Christian communities.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
the whole issue of Authorised Lay People and Communion is being looked at
If a bishop authorises lay people, then it's kosher. Like a temporary ordination.
A temporary ordination?
Hebrews 7:17
Melchisadech and Christ are priests (hierus) for ever. Ordained 'priests' are never so called by that name in the NT, as Vatican documents point out.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You have a rather peculiar reason for including the Eucharist at a MCC church as being licit. Since when did being excluded by other churches be the sole reason why you might be acceptable to God?
Bit like the desert island scenario - unable to hold a eucharist otherwise.
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As near as I can tell the switch to making the couple the ministers of the sacrament in the RCC was to leave an "out" for annulment
Without weighing in for or against anything else MT said about annulment, this is not the case. The "consent" model of marriage (i.e. marriage is effected by the consent of the marrying partners), promoted by the theologians in Paris in the 12th-13th centuries, was prompted by, among other things, a desire to limit the capacity of noble families to preserve dynasties by arranging marriages between unwilling children. Certainly the need for consent also plays a role in determining the validity of a marriage when an annulment is sought, but this was not the motivating cause of the emphasis on consent.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You have a rather peculiar reason for including the Eucharist at a MCC church as being licit. Since when did being excluded by other churches be the sole reason why you might be acceptable to God?
Bit like the desert island scenario - unable to hold a eucharist otherwise.
In that case, we Baptist are perfectly acceptable. You don't accept us, others don't recognise us ergo we are on a desert island and worthy of recognition.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that it is best not to concentrate on whether a eucharist is valid or not.If it is 'valid' for the participants then it is a way for them to experience God's grace.
As a Catholic I experience God's grace during the celebration of a Catholic eucharist,but I am more than happy to believe that others experience exactly the same during the celebration of the eucharist within their own communities.
God's grace is wider than the organisational confines of Christian communities.
Yep with you there 100%. If you truly believe Christ is present and grace is active, then that's all you need.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that it is best not to concentrate on whether a eucharist is valid or not.If it is 'valid' for the participants then it is a way for them to experience God's grace.
As a Catholic I experience God's grace during the celebration of a Catholic eucharist,but I am more than happy to believe that others experience exactly the same during the celebration of the eucharist within their own communities.
God's grace is wider than the organisational confines of Christian communities.
A very generous post, and one with which I agree.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You have a rather peculiar reason for including the Eucharist at a MCC church as being licit. Since when did being excluded by other churches be the sole reason why you might be acceptable to God?
Bit like the desert island scenario - unable to hold a eucharist otherwise.
In that case, we Baptist are perfectly acceptable. You don't accept us, others don't recognise us ergo we are on a desert island and worthy of recognition.
I may not accept Baptist communion as 'regular' but I have often received at Baptist service - both because my mother attended a baptist church towards the end of her life and because, as an RE teacher, I got invited to the baptisms of some of my pupils.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I may not accept Baptist communion as 'regular' but I have often received at Baptist service - both because my mother attended a baptist church towards the end of her life and because, as an RE teacher, I got invited to the baptisms of some of my pupils.
Regular or irregular - that's one step away from saying regularity is the only qualification for salvation.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Salvat ion is bigger than sacraments (or is at leaast linked with another sacrament - Baptism- which Baptists do rather well!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roman Cataholic:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
the whole issue of Authorised Lay People and Communion is being looked at
If a bishop authorises lay people, then it's kosher. Like a temporary ordination.
A temporary ordination?
Hebrews 7:17
The Lee Oi woman was temmporarily ordained so that the Chinese could have communion.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
By 'the Lee Oi woman" (not the nicest of phrases I've read this morning) can I assume that you mean Rev Florence Li Tim-Oi?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Lee Oi woman was temmporarily ordained so that the Chinese could have communion.
There was nothing temporary about it as far as I can see. She was ordained but subsequently resigned her licence to avoid controversy but was later re-recognised (not re-ordained) when Hong Kong ordained more women.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
That's my understanding of the position. It was never a temporary ordination at all.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I don't have the citation, but Luther once said something to the effect that the devil himself could celebrate the Eucharist and it would still be valid, because it's validity is grounded in the Word of God and its promise to believers, not the state of mind of the celebrant.Which even intuitively makes more sense to me than putting laypeople at the mercy of an insincere clergyperon.
Which would lead me to ask, as a sidebar: If you assume that the validity of the Sacrament is dependent upon the good intention of the clervyperson...what if you have an evil clergyperson who's mouthing the Words of Institution but thinking, " Damn you all to hell with this nonsense"? What remedy would a layperson have in this situation, especially if he or she had no idea that the celebrant was a spiritual fraud? That's the problem I see here.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Is this an intramural discussion, or are outsiders welcome? (Lutherans don't do intention.)
We don't? That's news to me.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Tell me more about your surprise? Between us, Lutheran Chik and i have managed to sum up the usual Lutheran position.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Tell me more about your surprise? Between us, Lutheran Chik and i have managed to sum up the usual Lutheran position.
Yes, the usual Lutheran position of a certain strand of German (or German-American) so-called 'confessional Lutheranism.' In Scandinavia we have always taught that you need a validly called minister (cf. Confessio Augustana 14) that intends to do what the Church does with valid matter and a valid form.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Right Intention = the Intention to Consecrate. I don't think this is what is required. Is it not rather that the celebrant should have the intention to do what the true church does when it celebrates the eucharist? It doesn't matter whether the celebrant is mistaken (!) in his understanding of what the true church intends, or even mistaken in his understanding of which the true church is.
I think I read somewhere that St Robert Bellarmine is the standard authority on this stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Which is why, to loop back as the person that introduced it to the discussion, we come back to Article XXVI. It is indeed about moral fitness/rightness, but how are the congregation to determine that, or to make a window into the soul of the celebrant? They can't. So, right words, properly ordained celebrant = valid. Otherwise we're really saying, if validity of the sacrament is important, that we can't be sure anyone's receiving it. Which is clearly untenable.
You’re right if we mean by ‘intent’ only the (inner) personal intention of the priest or bishop. But that’s not what is usually meant by it, in Catholic theology (Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, etc.). There, valid intent is usually inferred from the other three ‘ingredients.’ The intent is ‘to do what the Church does’ (facere quod facit ecclesia). Note that the intent is not that the priest or bishop must intend what the Church intends, or believe what the Church believes (which would basically be Donatism), but to intend to do what the Church does (that is, performs the rites). This is assumed valid by what he does (the valid form), what he does it with (the valid matter), and what he is (a validly ordained priest or bishop).
I think that one of the reasons this is important is that if intention wasn’t part of this, we couldn’t distinguish between a real celebration of Mass and, say, a play or a film involving an ordained actor.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Tell me more about your surprise? Between us, Lutheran Chik and i have managed to sum up the usual Lutheran position.
Yes, the usual Lutheran position of a certain strand of German (or German-American) so-called 'confessional Lutheranism.' In Scandinavia we have always taught that you need a validly called minister (cf. Confessio Augustana 14) that intends to do what the Church does with valid matter and a valid form.
I looked it up to see what I was forgetting and it's short enough to be quotable:
quote:
Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.
We agree with this, of course. But it doesn't speak to intention or matter (the latter of which we also agree with), and "should" is not the same thing as "possesses the capability to" (that is, one may be forbidden to do something for the sake of good order which one nevertheless has the ability to do).
If you don't mind the brief tangent, do you folks used the unaltered Augustana or the Melancthonian one?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0