|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Validity of the Eucharist and the Intention
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Hebrews 7:17
The Lee Oi woman was temmporarily ordained so that the Chinese could have communion.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
That's my understanding of the position. It was never a temporary ordination at all.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Tell me more about your surprise? Between us, Lutheran Chik and i have managed to sum up the usual Lutheran position.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
