 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Valid, Invalid, Illicit, Licit.
|
The Seminarian
Apprentice
# 18502
|
Posted
Dear Shipmates please excuse me if this is the wrong part of the website for me to post this, this is my second post. Thank you.
I was having a discussion with a Canon Lawyer regarding the validity of sacraments and found the whole conversation very frustrating indeed.
For those of you from non Catholic and Protestant backgrounds, the validity of a sacrament is dependent on three criteria being fulfilled.
Form, Substance, and Intention.
If you don't have all three of these, then the sacrament is invalid.
An example of form would be use of the correct liturgy in the baptismal rite (I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit).
An example of substance would be the use of water for the baptismal rite.
An example of intention would be the minister, intending to carry out the intentions of the Church which in this case would be to baptise an individual into the Church (CCC1256).
Inclusive Language is a controversial issue for many, but it is an issue which is recognised by many of the laity and ordained alike. I myself would use it when praying the office on my own, or when singing or saying the responsorial psalm at Holy Mass, but I do appreciate that some people are uncomfortable with its use.
I have been told that using inclusive language for the sacrament of Baptism would be an invalid form and would render the sacrament invalid.
An example of this invalid form would be to baptise in the name of the "Source of all being, eternal Word and Holy Spirit".
The main issue regarding this would be because the Church has set the form in the official liturgy of the Church. To carry out the will of the Church is to use the form as given by the Church.
So what about when clergy celebrate the sacraments according to the 2nd edition of the Roman Missal?
Apparently, they are valid, but illicit.
Despite the fact that they have been replaced, and the will of the Church is for the 3rd form of the Roman Missal.
What about Eucharistic prayers written by clergy themselves, as is the usual tradition in many retreat centres, even when Bishops are celebrated?
Are they to be considered valid but illicit? Or are they invalid?
Posts: 4 | Registered: Nov 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The problem is not using an inclusive form but that it needs to be clear invocation of the orthodox understanding of the Trinity and no inclusive form that is accepted by all churches has yet been created.
The form "creator, saviour and spirit" is held to be modalist by some. I am pretty sure other shipmates can come up with problems of other formulations. This reminds me about video about analogies.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I would agree that 'creator, saviour, spirit' or 'creator, redeemer, sustainer' are modalist formulae.
On the other hand the formula 'genitori genitoque' or 'to the begetter and the begotten' is found in no less a place than the Tantum Ergo, and is less obviously gendered.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
As a Nonconformist, I simply don't think that "sticking to the prescribed formula" is an issue. But intention and doctrinal orthodoxy are.
The problem, for me, with much of the "inclusivist" language such as "Source of all being ..." is that it depersonalises the nature of God.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I would agree that 'creator, saviour, spirit' or 'creator, redeemer, sustainer' are modalist formulae.
On the other hand the formula 'genitori genitoque' or 'to the begetter and the begotten' is found in no less a place than the Tantum Ergo, and is less obviously gendered.
Sure. But the "Tantum Ergo" is a hymn, not the form of a Sacrament.
Mr Seminarian, I believe you have forgotten to mention that each Sacrament also has its proper Minister(s).
Under the Roman obedience, I'm fairly sure that eucharistic prayers written by clergy and used without the consent of appropriate authority would be considered invalid and illicit.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Seminarian
Apprentice
# 18502
|
Posted
You are correct. The correct minister would be the form (I think?)
Posts: 4 | Registered: Nov 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Well, there's form, matter, intent, and minister.
For Baptism, e.g., the form is "I baptize you in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
The matter is water.
The intent (of the Church, not the minister) is the mystical washing-away of sin.
The minister is customarily a person in orders, but can in extremis be any person--even an unbaptized one.
(I realize that different communions/churches may see the above differently--I'm just offering this as an example)
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
<tangent>
I did wonder weather this thread was an attempt to finally smoke out IngoB. I don't know if it's good form to try and find out what has happened to other memmbers? Anyone know if he's in occultation? Or shouldn't I ask?
</tangent>
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I would agree that 'creator, saviour, spirit' or 'creator, redeemer, sustainer' are modalist formulae.
I do head to Google with some interesting words when I hang out in the Ship.
Both of these formulae make sense to me as God functioning in three ways. So I'm not a Trinitarian? Should I not be here? Or up front in a church service?
This one had me wondering if I'm a Patripassian. But does not the ever-present God as spirit suffer every time one of God's creation is tortured, sadistically killed? Not beside the victim but within?
This would lead to explanations of redeemer and saviour that I'm not going to get into today.
GG (Unashamed Progressive)
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Sounds like hocus pocus to me. Or else god will ignore sounds like lawyers who should be ignored.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
<tangent>
I did wonder weather this thread was an attempt to finally smoke out IngoB. I don't know if it's good form to try and find out what has happened to other memmbers? Anyone know if he's in occultation? Or shouldn't I ask?
</tangent>
He's chosen to take himself ashore for a while to do some listening (I think there's a goodbye thread in either Styx or All Saints). Very mature of him.
--------------------
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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I would agree that 'creator, saviour, spirit' or 'creator, redeemer, sustainer' are modalist formulae.
Both of these formulae make sense to me as God functioning in three ways. So I'm not a Trinitarian? Should I not be here? Or up front in a church service?
Depends on your church. But the Trinity is not just the human perception of God's three functions; it is a statement about God's ontology.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Both of these formulae make sense to me as God functioning in three ways.
The issue to me is that all three Persons are creator, all three are redeemer, all three are sustainer. I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking about God as creator, redeemer and sustainer, but mapping those three aspects onto the three Persons is problematic.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There is ONLY human perception. We know NOTHING about God's ontology, God as He is, the immanent Trinity, apart from by human perception of the economic Trinity and reason.
I'm happy with the fleshing out ... from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. As long as that is the EXPLICIT start and end point.
NEVER leave that behind.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Well, sure--there's only human perception in the sense that we are all brains (or souls) in flesh boxes that can only "know" sense impressions.
But if God has not revealed himself to us in our poor sensoria, and those revelations are not trustworthy despite our inadequacy, then why talk about him at all?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
A false dichotomy Sir. Sensoria CANNOT detect, know the ineffable. Only infer it.
God says that He is Love. I believe. I seek to follow, to strain to reach, to live accordingly. In weakness and ignorance. In chaos. With people who cannot be helped. That's just about every one. But who can be hugged. And given money.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think that the Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer formulation is acceptable as long as it's not taken as the primary formulation. I'm happy if it's used at the start of a sermon but not in a sacramental context. I'm not sure what that says about me.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Bugger me! We're THAT close!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I would agree that 'creator, saviour, spirit' or 'creator, redeemer, sustainer' are modalist formulae.
I do head to Google with some interesting words when I hang out in the Ship.
Both of these formulae make sense to me as God functioning in three ways. So I'm not a Trinitarian? Should I not be here? Or up front in a church service?
This one had me wondering if I'm a Patripassian. But does not the ever-present God as spirit suffer every time one of God's creation is tortured, sadistically killed? Not beside the victim but within?
This would lead to explanations of redeemer and saviour that I'm not going to get into today.
GG (Unashamed Progressive)
That strikes me as yet another very good reason for sticking to the time honoured and accepted formula.
God does not change from day to day according to our perception of him. Nor over our lifetime, does our own faith depend on which particular permutation of speculation about his nature we happen temporarily to find most helpful or unhelpful.
Irrespective of personal foibles, ISTM that those authorised to administer the sacraments have a duty to those to whom they minister to do so in a way that those who receive can rely upon. It's about the person receiving the sacrament, not the person administering it.
In the case of baptism, there's a clear command to do so in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I'd have thought there is a great deal to be said - indeed, I would have thought there is virtue in this - for accepting this and obeying it. I realise there are people who do not feel like this. But for me, I can't see why it's an envelope that anyone might want or feel any need to push.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We unite in bowing the knee.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I may be labelled an ultra conservative, but what is wrong in saying Father, Son and Holy Spirit? I cringe at the attempts by some modernists to make our worship politically correct and I'm not sure that most people want that to happen. I think it just adds to confusion for worshippers, particlarly those without theological backgrounds.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
While I'm not RC, I wouldn't vary the baptismal formula from what's in Scripture, as that's taking liberties, and possibly also chances--I mean, we're counting on God to honor his promise, but if we aren't willing to do as instructed, mrrrwhhhemhhm mrhhhrrmmmmmmwmmm. (transliteration of me getting the galloping heebie-jeebies at the thought of messing with mysteries too great for me)
IMHO we have more freedom when it comes to things that are not spelled out for us.
ETA: And even if you yourself are totally convinced that it's okay to change it to "Creator, Redeemer, etc." or what have you, is it kind to place the burden of doubt on the recipient of baptism? Do it by the book and at least they'll never have to worry that maybe it wasn't done properly. No matter how sure you are, they may not be.
[ 07. November 2015, 00:21: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
What danger would I be in if I found that someone had not said the right words at my baptism? Would I be in mortal terror of going to hell instead of heaven? That sounds to me like superstition.
A focus on rewards and punishments in the afterlife seems to miss the emphasis that Jesus placed on the fact that he was here to demonstrate how to live God’s kingdom here and now. Does one follow his Way in order to make a better life for those around one, or to acquire a ticket to heaven?
Of twenty people worshiping with me, each will have their own concept/understanding of God and relationship with God. Discussing the right words is as much an intellectual exercise as the conclusion by a recent clergyman in my denomination that the Big Bang is consistent with biblical creation and this proves the existence of God. But believing you can prove the existence of God is futile – faith is what matters.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As so often, Lamb Chopped, you've put what I was trying to say much better than me.
Galloping Granny, I'm not sure it matters that much whether what originally drew us was fear of damnation, an aspiration to make a better life for those around us, or even an attractive girl in the church young people's group. Not only do I think we can be too high-minded about this. I think there can even be a dodgy sort of spiritual pride about claiming we believe for altruistic reasons as distinct from he or she over there who is merely looking for their get-out-of-hell-free card.
As time goes on, I sometimes find myself identifying with the disciples. When Jesus asks them, ‘Do you also want to leave?' (Jn 6:67), more or less all they can say is 'where else could we go?'.
Yes, Peter goes on to say a bit more, but it's about Jesus, not their motives for believing.
I don't know whether a person would be in mortal danger if they discovered they'd been baptised by somebody who'd gone off on some fling of their own and used funny words of their own concoction. It would seem unfair to condemn the child for the sin of some minister possibly some years ago. But who knows? I can't answer that question, and I'm not aware that anyone else can. Perhaps that's why there is a form of conditional baptism for those that were baptised in extremis by a midwife.
But all this is why I'd also say that if we've already got the right words, don't change them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's madness. Of course we can answer the question. It doesn't matter a DAMN.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's madness. Of course we can answer the question. It doesn't matter a DAMN.
I agree.
It seems to matter to some people, so I wouldn't change it for their sakes.
But God? God can't possibly mind what words are used. God looks at the heart.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
While I'm not RC, I wouldn't vary the baptismal formula from what's in Scripture
While I'm very glad that I was baptised as an adult according to the traditional terms, despite Jesus' reported giving of the instruction in Matthew, the early church appears to have used the words "In the name of the Lord Jesus", or something similar. Acts and the Epistles never mention a triune formula so it would depend on what is meant by "what's in scripture".
The use of the triune formula is attested in the Didache which would put it within the first century, but it does raise the issue of how important the actual terms of the formula is.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
While I'm not RC, I wouldn't vary the baptismal formula from what's in Scripture
While I'm very glad that I was baptised as an adult according to the traditional terms, despite Jesus' reported giving of the instruction in Matthew, the early church appears to have used the words "In the name of the Lord Jesus", or something similar. Acts and the Epistles never mention a triune formula so it would depend on what is meant by "what's in scripture".
The use of the triune formula is attested in the Didache which would put it within the first century, but it does raise the issue of how important the actual terms of the formula is.
I'd urge caution in how much we read into the apparent formula in Acts though. It is perfectly plausible, given the significance of names in that world, that the phrase essentially means little more than 'Christian' baptism. That's not to say it presents any evidence that another formula was used, but being 'baptised into Christ' is a concept that doesn't preclude a Trinitarian formula either.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
Agreed, but the term which is used in Acts to describe Christian baptism is still "In the name of the Lord Jesus", it's strange that nothing else crops up if a specific, commanded formula was used - especially since in a number of examples it's Peter or Paul issuing instructions.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It may have taken the church as a whole a couple of decades to decide which formula was preferrable. But (a) they did decide, and (b) only one formula is dominical.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Form, Substance, and Intention are very important to me but I think tyhere are exceptions. For example, I regularly went to eucharists celebrated by Luthern ministers who had not been episcopally ordained.
There church had agreed to accept bishops in tactile succession so they are in an interim period.
My view is that, since the liturgy is eschatological, lifting us out of time, as it were, their orders weill have become 'valid' eventually.
I don't imagine the Holy Spirit hovering over the church roof during the epiclesis deciding whether to 'go there' or not.
Or maybe I am being a casuist.
--------------------
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
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't imagine the Holy Spirit hovering over the church roof during the epiclesis deciding whether to 'go there' or not.
For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.”
God is there already, in whatever form.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
What danger would I be in if I found that someone had not said the right words at my baptism? Would I be in mortal terror of going to hell instead of heaven? That sounds to me like superstition.
That's fine and dandy for you, but is it right to willingly place those who DO fear (rightly or wrongly) in such a position? If I had a person desiring baptism who truly feared that the temperature of the water managed (a la the Didache), then I would attempt to baptize him/her using the preferred water temp, even if I had to roll my eyes privately. It's not for me to put stumbling blocks before people, especially those who I might think weaker in faith.
As for the baptismal formula used in Acts--it's true that we are told of people being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but koine Greek has no way to mark off a direct quotation as opposed to an indirect quotation (no punctuation to speak of)--which means that you could either translate that as "to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" or "to be baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' " . The first translation (without the quote marks) could refer to the Trinitarian formula as well as to something else. And there's no way to rule that version out and be sure they were using something other than the Trinitarian formula.
The Acts 19 people appear to have been disciples of John the Baptist, not-yet-not-quite Christians caught in a temporary time warp. Which is why the Holy Spirit was unknown to them.
--------------------
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
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
[QUOTE]
Mr Seminarian, I believe you have forgotten to mention that each Sacrament also has its proper Minister(s).
Under the Roman obedience, I'm fairly sure that eucharistic prayers written by clergy and used without the consent of appropriate authority would be considered invalid and illicit.
If I read Fr Hunwicke correctly he is sure that Robert Bellarmine would consider it valid but illicit. Fr H sums it up so:
"So if, by misjudgement, you were present at a Mass where (I imagine an improbably extreme case so as to put the point I'm making beyond doubt) the priest wore jeans and made up a lot of the prayers himself and Sister A strummed on a guitar and Sister B stood beside Father and pretended to concelebrate and the altar was a plywood coffee table and some floosies did a belly dance at the Offertory ... then, wotta mistaka to maka by going there in the first place, but having done so you should kneel and worship the True Body and the True Blood of Christ, because they are truly present."
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I simply can't imagine Jesus, up there on His throne at the right hand of the Father, checking off these bureaucratic boxes like that. Damn, a comma left out in the document, send it back to the secretarial pool and have them fix it...
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
