O.k. call me stupid if you must
, but could you elaborate more on this? I always thought that baptism, administered with the correct formula and the right intention (of conferring a sacrament) was valid even in non-catholic communities, such as the Orthodox chruch, the Old Catholic churches, the Anglican church, etc.
First of all I take nothing as an attack as I know you are good-intentioned and OUR aim is the truth. So don't worry about "offending" me. As Aristotle said, "I love Plato, but I love the truth more." If you believe me to be incorrect I want you to say so, just keep it civil and no name calling.
Yes, the baptism is valid if done properly, but that in no way means that the ecclesial communities are means of salvation because their disposition is subjective in how they believe salvation occurs. So a prot baptism is ontologically a Catholic baptism, with Protestant beliefs as to what it means.
Well, just because he didn't answer you, doesn't mean that there's no answer.
Well no one has answered the "apparent contradiction" have they? Either that or Cantate Domino of the Council of Florence was too objective and needed more subjectivity. If you get a chance read that document, it's quite good and found online.
The "it must be apparent contradiction" is an a priori judgment.
A contradiction is simply the following:
Statement #1 states something exists (the cat is here)
Statement #2 states something does not exist (the cat is not here)
That's not an a priori judgement. I did not judge previously to the statements a priori
, but a posteriori
That's how we must approach the Council (and the Bible). You say "you" have seen contradictions in the Council, but what do the many theologians who've studied Vatican II have to say?
Well that's who I talked to at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a theologian. I sat down right in his office in Santo Ufficio on the second floor of the Vatican.
Are all of them too dumb to notice this supposedly glaring contradictions? We really need to start listening to what "the other side" has to say.
Yes, they are that dumb (not that I'm saying you are, but THEY are). He never heard of Cantate Domino of the Council of Florence and actually asked me to spell it, and when I recited some of the lines he didn't believe me that such a document existed or could have said that. When he realized I was right he simply backed down. How smart do you think these guys are? Call their bluff with facts and you will see their house of cards fall.
As far as I know, the administering of the Eucharist to non-catholics is reserved for extreme cases, and only for those who believe in the Real Presence. Only the eastern orthodox (those who are not formal schismatics) seem to fulfill this requirement. Here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the object of infallibility:
Actually the Eastern Orthodox can receive from our Churches whenever they feel like it without restriction, and only Prots need to have a spiritual advantage and be properly disposed (Canon 844 sections 2-4), with it's reception being rare (rare as a time frame is not defined). Also, prior Canon Law stated such reception, even with good will unintentionally was never permitted. The words never usually mean exclusivity, hence contradiction. Something cannot be prohibited without exception, and now there are exceptions without a suspension of the rational faculty of the intellect.
As to moral precepts or laws, as distinct from moral doctrine, infallibility goes no farther than to protect the Church against passing universal laws which in principle would be immoral.
That's my point. I don't see how giving the greatest gift in the world to someone not a Catholic is moral when it had been immoral and sacrilegeous for 1930 years. I don't see how a priest could go against the exact opposite in Canon Law in good faith. I don't see how Cardinal Ratzinger (before he was made pope) can give Holy Communion to that "brother" of the Taize community without repentance and abjuration of error. Would you consider Br. Roger to be dying at the time when this was a public reception of sacrilege? I believe a theologian/cardinal of the Church, who is now pope interprets that Canon correctly as it stands. Br. Roger was not dying at the time. I know many stories, and particularly one of JPII recommending to a Protestant politician in France to remain Protestant and continue to receive Our Lord without converting. He told him not to convert, and I know priests who have administered this politician Holy Communion.
Again, we need to start listening to what "the other side" says. How do they justify such an action? I have yet to see any apologetic material in the traditionalist camp, such as it is found in the so-called neo-catholic world.
I don't understand the reference to this statement towards the supposed validity of the Assyrian Orthodox rite without words of Consecration. How can a priest act in persone Christi in nomine Ecclesia without Christ's words? Why even have Our Lord period if all you have to do is figure out why something works and can give salvation and "soteriological value" to alternate realities other than God and His Holy Church?
Again, not much new is written on religious liberty by traditionalist "apologists". The same old "Vatican II was wrong because this is what Pius XI said" just won't do it. We need more people like Sungenis and Fr. Brian Harrison, who deal with the (really complicated) issue head on. We cannot keep ignoring our adversaries.
So what you are saying is that if a principle both in thought and in practice is not only denied, but also contradicted (see Spanish Constitution changes in 1965 for example) we must accept Robert Sungenis and Fr. Harrison? If you think I committed a priori mistakes in applying reason I ask you to reconsider your own position. You said to point to the theologians of Vatican II, and I can, they admit it was a contradiction, and one such theologian named Ratzinger called it a counter-Syllabus. Ratzinger did deal with this head-on, and said it was against the teachings of Pius IX. The only people I see trying to defend these "apparent contradictions" can't realize they are promoting the flags of the rebellion inadvertantly, as I know Fr. Harrison and Robert to be good men and well-intentioned. Also, if Robert Sungenis was so good at hitting this head on why didn't he respond to me as he always has in the past? I wanted to see how he answered his position that civil rights do not mean moral rights.
Other theologians of the Council admitted what they did was a revolution and reversed past teachings. If we are to follow the theologians of the Council, as you say we should, they already told us their intent and their completion of the intention which was to reverse previous teaching. Who should I follow? Fr. Harrison and Sungenis or the men who helped write the documents, who publicly interpret them, and promulgate them throughout the world? If you want read "In the Murky Water of Vatican II" with all the theologians proving their intent and their accomplishments. I can recommend a litany of frankly disgusting books with men who admit their own evil. This world needs a shower of prayer.
Lastly, God bless you too and thanks for the civil discourse. May you have a blessed day tomorrow. If you think I'm wrong, I want you to grill me.