tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post9039869819021640906..comments2023-11-05T02:55:10.230-06:00Comments on Gottesdienst Online: Indelible Character?Pr. H. R.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-55832176412795583332009-11-20T12:58:27.159-06:002009-11-20T12:58:27.159-06:00It seems this is splitting hairs: you are focusing...It seems this is splitting hairs: you are focusing in on the character, and I've been concentrating on the indelible. But you're right, they're bound together.<br /><br />And as far as the character goes, I suppose I could open a can of worms by asking whether the consecration of the elements by a layman negates the sacrament. I think it does.Fr BFEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554699361739289492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-27600464706873164472009-11-19T21:33:52.415-06:002009-11-19T21:33:52.415-06:00I've always been Lutheran, but here is a forme...I've always been Lutheran, but <a href="http://cumecclesia.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-valid-eucharist-dependant-upon-valid.html#c8622661438302106838" rel="nofollow">here is a former Roman Catholic</a> who understands it the same way.Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-90348766886508115192009-11-19T20:15:42.556-06:002009-11-19T20:15:42.556-06:00Hmmm... interesting but confusing. I've alway...Hmmm... interesting but confusing. I've always understood the power to "confect" the Eucharist to be an essential aspect of the Roman Catholic understanding of this "supernatural mark", a.k.a. "indelible" or "sacramental" character, conferred on the priest in holy orders. <br /><br />What remains after "laicization" of a priest is described as follows on <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock94.htm" rel="nofollow">this</a> New Advent Q&A page:<br /><br /><i>"The supernatural mark of holy orders and the powers connected with the sacrament (especially for the priest) remain even after laicization, although they cannot be used licitly. A laicized priest has the power to confect the Eucharist. Although to the world he may live as a laymn, in a sense 'once a priest, always a priest.'"</i><br /><br />What are you saying this "indelible character" conferred in holy orders consists of if not the powers of the priest, such as the power to confect the Sacraments? This "character" conferred in holy orders certainly cannot be limited to his duties, can it? One who has been officially stripped of those duties is said to still maintain the power to confect the sacraments. The duty or responsibility is obviously not indelible.<br /><br />I'm simply trying to understand here. What is it that is irrevocable according to the Roman Catholic theology of <i>character indelibilis</i> if not his powers (e.g. to confect the Sacraments)? Once a priest is stripped of his duties and rights, what remains that constitutes this "indelible character"???Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-6804050785078999502009-11-19T16:35:50.021-06:002009-11-19T16:35:50.021-06:00Velicus: we'll do well to recall that it's...Velicus: we'll do well to recall that it's easy to misread Luther as well. His invective was usually reserved for abuses, and there were plenty of them. So it may be possible to ascertain that he was in fact railing against abuse.<br /><br />Erich: There is certainly in the Roman Church the dogma which holds that only a canonically ordained priest may truly "confect" the Sacrament, but I'm not sure the idea of "indelible character" itself conveys that idea.<br /><br />Interestingly, there are extraordinary circumstances in which the Roman Church allowed that priestly functions could be performed by laymen. The Great Plague of 1350 comes to mind: so many were dying that special dispensation was given to laymen to absolve one another before death. If this is so, then it would seem the priestly power to perform valid sacramental actions is not quite so absolutely tied to canonical ordination. I believe it was the late Arthur Carl Piepkorn who once saliently made this point.Fr BFEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554699361739289492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-56149065876773346482009-11-19T11:50:18.480-06:002009-11-19T11:50:18.480-06:00Perhaps there is a proper way an "indelible c...Perhaps there is a proper way an "indelible character" given in ordination could be understood. However, the question is what exactly that indelible character is. As I have understood it, the primary Lutheran objection to the concept of "indelible character" is that it points to the priest as the effective agent in the Sacrament rather than the Verba. <br /><br />Hence, the Verba spoken by a Lutheran pastor who is outside apostolic succession fail to effect the Sacrament, because he did not receive this "indelible character" which can only be transferred via direct apostolic succession from Peter.<br /><br />Right?Erich Heidenreich, DDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12819223688598369327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-72272613808110539522009-11-19T11:25:33.596-06:002009-11-19T11:25:33.596-06:00The CCC is right and Luther was wrong to deny it, ...The CCC is right and Luther was wrong to deny it, because as you have demonstrated, Luther incorrectly confused the question of whetder the doctrine is correct and whether it was being abused for personal gain. The Catholic Church, then and now, taught that the grace conferred was not the grace of salvation -- even though there were some who ignorantly or maliciously claimed the graces had the same saving effect.Velicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09222804251058317836noreply@blogger.com