THE ENGLISH DO SUCH A SUPERB JOB OF MANGLING OUR AMERICAN ENGLISH THAT IT TAKES A WHILE TO DECIFER IT, NO? I AM SURE JOHN NOLAN WOULD AGREE

 

Is it valid or not, the consecration, the baptism, the marriage, the ordination, the confirmation, the confession, the anointing of the sick, the Church?

I think the CDF's brilliant condemnation of baptismal formulas that render the sacrament invalid was much needed especially in the current pontificate where every silly 1970's been there and done that thing is resurrected among the aging class of clergy and laity. But then we can become OCD about what is valid and what isn't when we should just presume in faith it is valid until the proper authority in the Church says it ain't. Thus Fr. Hunwicke's post, despite its tortured English, I really wish they would learn it in the United Kingdom, is spot-on:

At Fr. John Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment

Papa Lambertini's conundrum

Pope Benedict XIV pointed out (1) that we are obliged to venerate an exposed Host (cultum negari non posse hostiae ad venerationem expositae). But (2): although it is de fide that consecrated Hosts have been transubstantiated, (3) it is not de fide that this particular host actually was, as a matter of History, certainly consecrated (licet de fide non sit esse consecratam).

You see what he means in part (3) of that. The validity of its (or rather, Its) consecration depends on our certainty that Fr O'Flanahan did say the proper words over it with an adequate intention (poor old chap undoubtedly getting senile) and that the novice nun who baked it did get the recipe right (last week her scones tasted of Vindaloo) and that the village miller's labourer didn't confuse his wheat-grain with his barley-grain (should have gone to Specsavers) and that our rather cranky Sacristan Maire Murphy didn't surreptitiously substitute an unconsecrated host for the consecrated Host (has brainstorms every full moon) and that the priest who baptised Fr O'Flanahan, the notorious Fr Jack Hegarty of Craggy Island, didn't deliberately do it invalidly (by withdrawing his intention to perform any sort of Christian rite) in order to take revenge on bishop Brennan for cutting off his supply of whiskey and girls.

While we are in via, even the majesty of Dogma does not free us from dependance on ordinary human probabilities. Watertight logical certainties guaranteed by a string of immaculate syllogisms are not the stuff of our Christian lives.

In addition to Dogma and syllogisms, we need Trust in God,

I think that we particularly need to be aware of this truth when we are living through a period of ecclesial crisis.

Important reading: Newman's Grammar of Assent.