www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Priestly Intent

Dear Father,

Seems to me that once we get here, in this or any other similar discussion, it becomes necessary to get down to particulars.

As you have noted, intent, for our purposes here, has an exceptionally uncluttered meaning, and has nothing to do with the moral state of the priest's person, nor with the active faith of the man as well.

I was thinking of a priest that I know, and his customary liturgies, for example. His was the only liturgy, in my entire life, where I simply could not have gone, and did not go to communion because I had such inner doubt that there was a eucharist at all.

I could say that he did not intend what the Church intends, but I would be sorely pressed to "prove" that as fact, even though his discussion outside of liturgy would indicate that there are some very serious disaffections from Church teaching in the mind and heart of this man.

But that would not be enough to have turned me away entirely.

However I noticed that during his liturgies, there were no prayers that had not been so profoundly redesigned so as to be unrecognizable to me.

I had to guess every moment what a prayer or an order of the mass was supposed to be. There was no recognizable canon. Also he spoke words over a glass pitcher filled with water, into which he had tipped a splash of wine.

So I looked at all three conditions, form, matter and intent, and decided privately that I was not in a valid, nor in a licit liturgy and withdrew myself from communion at that time. No one there would have suspected my inner revulsion.

It was a purely private decision. I could walk away from that moment and not look back. For the rest, he was their parish priest and that was their liturgy.

I would think that defective intent, not axiomatically, but as a rule of thumb, would also begin eventually to show up in defects of form and matter as well.

That might be a more reliable guide than trying to second-guess intent alone.

Do you see merit in these ideas and examples?

Mary

Judging by your description, the man was clearly not doing what the priest is supposed to do.

However, as concerns the specific issue of intention, you write that "I could say that he did not intend what the Church intends". This is a common error, but it is indeed an error.

The required intention is NOT "to intend what the Church intends" but "to do what the Church does" - a very different matter.

Fr. Serge

Yes. I see that. It is an all too easy trap to fall into.

I am a Monothelite in much the same way, in that I catch myself speaking of Jesus and his human and divine will as though they were one, even though intellectually I know that one must make the distinction. It is so easy to slip into small errors with large consequences.

Is too much of a generalization to say that a defect of intent more often than not leads to a defect in form or matter?

Mary

Not necessarily. Check out a weird outfit calling itself "The Liberal Catholic Church", founded just under 100 years ago.

Fr Serge

Oooh. I have some of their literature and service books. Hilarious.

Dear Fr. Archimandrite,

Is that the Canadian Catholic Church?

Alex

Gracious!! Never knew they existed.

There's so much to learn within the boundaries of that which is genuinely and authoritatively Catholic that I tend to breeze right on by the bizarre, without really knowing that there was even anything there at all.

Even when I went off to pursue my favorite sins and stopped practicing my faith, I didn't look to any other religious experience. Apparently, I am pretty monomaniacal about my Church and my faith.

Some people, behaviors and organizations are glaringly defective with respect to anything that is legitimately Catholic. In those instances it is not difficult to say what is valid or not, licit or not, how so, and sometimes even why.

But within the Church, or at the liminal boundaries of schism, it is not quite so easy to tell what the defects are, or even if what we are looking at is truly defective. It is in these cases where one can either be caught out fairly in the light of the sensus fidelium, or trapped unduly in the strobe of paranoia.

Some things are a real tough call.

Mary

The "Liberal Catholic Church" offers what must be the most bizarre creedal statement in all of organized religion: "The Liberal Catholic Church exists to bring the comfort of the Catholic Sacraments to those who do not believe the Catholic Faith."

If one does not believe the Catholic Faith (as they obviously don't) why would one find any particular comfort in the Catholic Sacraments?

Fr. Serge

Dear Ed...

Any question of validity is under the authority of bishop and hierarchy.

While an argument of �how can we know the intent of any particular priest at any particular moment� seems legitimate - it really is not. The reason being that these rites are not a formula for magic. That is to say that the rites and ceremonies that belong to the church � obtain their validity through the church (by way of a judgment of the authority body of the church hierarchy). And so � the staging of any particular ceremony in a �proper way� does not by itself produce a sacrament. One can have all the �factors� � correct � (including the good intention of the priest involved) but validity itself is conferred by the judgment of the central authority of the Church (be that local or universal).

Let me give you an examples. Say �. There is an ordination of priests done by a bishop on Monday (ordination is a sacrament). Now everyone present can assume that the ordination was valid. But - if (on Tuesday) the hierarchy of the church judges that the ordination was not valid - then the ordination that took place on Monday - was not valid (even on that Monday) and did not produce a sacrament at the time it was performed.

The sacraments should not be confused with something mathematical or scientific or mechanical. Sure - I can mix chocolate syrupy with milk and it becomes chocolate milk - or I can boil water and its temperature must be 210% (taking into account the variables of altitude) � such rules apply to the physics of the material world - but they do not apply to the sacraments of the church (otherwise the sacraments would be magic produced by the right ingrediance).

And so it is a � unity � with the mind of the authority of the church (as existing in its hierarchy/tradition/canons) that confers validation upon any act. Who is the judge of that unity? The Church herself. She has the right (as any organization would) to judge her own members and her own ceremonies.

And so any sacramental ceremonies done within the catholic churches (Orthodox, Byzantine, Coptic, etc�) are assumed valid by the laity - until such time as Church authority might judge it - invalid. For it is the judgment of the church which makes any particular act - valid or not.


This is the way I understand it.

Thanks for your patience.

-ray

Ray. Thank you for your reply. you make keen observations. your sentence above sais it all though --- the "judgment of the church". Is this judgment reached by verdict of the church members (non bishops and priests)? can you imagine the kangaroo courts and knee-jerk reactions happening during worship if popular judgment ruled and assumed authroity to determine validity?

Does the Byzantine church have a means for popular rejection of the unwortiness of a sacrament or minister?
Eddie