Mary asked what sanctifying grace is, as Catholics understand it.
Sanctifying grace is that gift (grace) of God which makes us holy, which truly transforms us into his friends, so that we have the mind and heart of Jesus Christ., becoming his brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of God, and enter into the eternal friendship of the Trinity.
It can come to us through the sacraments, but in many, many other ways as well. God loves all that He has made and desires not the death of the sinner but that he be converted and live, so we can have a strong assurance that God wills the sanctification of all and offers to all a means of grace.
What that means is hidden in many cases, but the sacraments reveal it to us, giving us a physical connection, through water, the laying on of hands, bread and wine, to the historical, bodily Jesus.
I think that is a fair summary, although thousands of books have been written on the subject. The question is whether sacramental grace is limited exclusively to the sacraments, and today almost all theologians would say no, God is free to act outside the sacraments if He chooses, and we have good reason, based on the Scriptures, to think that he so chooses.
Thankyou Leon,
Now here rests the crux of my quandry in particular concerning the Sanctifying Grace which is transmitted through the Sacraments.
We also were taught that Proper Intention is essential for valid reception of the Sacraments.
There is much said about this concerning the confection of the Eucharist by the priest on the internet and the Proper Intention of the laity going up for Communion.
But I cannot find a thing about the Proper Intention with regards to the Sacramental reception of Holy Orders..
I have spoken to catholic writers, priests and apologists in both the Catholic and Orthodox church and even a priest who is a Canon Lawyer.Either they are stumped or, as you posited, the more modern assumption now is that Jesus gives it freely by other means too as opposed to Actual Grace.
The reason I question this is because of what we older Catholics were taught vs the revelations by so many priests and seminarian applicants in the past decades.
That is, that Diocesan Vocational Directors Seminary Rectors and Order Superiors have intentionally screened OUT heterosexual male applicants or even those who consider sodomy sinful, preferring those of a homosexual orientation. ( I can provide some links if necessary) .
That said, I wondered how these homosexuals in an all male living facilities could rationally be expected to avoid the near occasion of sin ( which we were also taught to do) with the aide of Sanctifying Grace though frequent sacramental reception and most of all how they could have Proper Intention for the reception of Holy Orders?
If not , the Ordination is indeed invalid and the transmission of Sanctifying Grace through the Sacraments has been robbed from the laity.
I was also taught that the transmission of Sanctifying Grace was the essential stated Catholic reason for Christ’s institution of the priesthood .
The priest Canon Lawyer to whom I posed this question told me after a long pause for thought, that ,”It appears the Vatican must redefine Proper Intention for the sacramental reception of Holy Orders.”
Following that line of traditional Catholic teaching and reasoning one can quickly come to the conclusion that not only by transferring known pedophiles to abuse again, these Bishops and Cardinals must own responsibilty for the rise of evil in the world too.
“Sanctifying grace may be said to succeed justification as actual grace precedes it. The operation of sanctifying grace brings holiness to the individual soul. The indwelling of God in the soul and the soul’s actual participation in God’s nature (in an indefinable manner) are the perfections of sanctifying grace. As to the means, there is a serious cleavage in Christianity, notably in regard to sacramental grace. According to Roman Catholics and Orthodox, the grace accompanying a sacrament is ex opere operato, i.e., by God’s ordinance the sacrament actually confers grace, the good disposition of the minister being unimportant and that of the recipient being not always a condition; Protestants hold that the sacraments are ex opere operantis, i.e., the faith of the recipient is all-important, and the sacrament is the sign, not the source of grace.”
Am I to conclude Roman Catholicism is moving more towards a non catholic view now?
Read more: grace, in Christian theology — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0821443.html#ixzz1ssm5vrsu
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm
I think you mean “desires not the death of the sinner.”
Leon, I like your discription of , and thoughts about, sanctifying grace.
The great medeival theologian Peter Lombard said that God did not bind his power strictly to the sacraments. JP II quoted him with approval in the encycical Divers in Misericordia. The Church has long spoken of people receiving the grace of a given sacrament “in voto”, that is, by desire. Such desire can be implicit.
Though the so called Dutch Catechism had doctrinal problems that needed to be addressed, it also expressed some ideas from our faith and tradition very well. With regard to who receives sanctifying grace it said something like “Many who did not even know the name of Jesus in this life will turn out to have been his. And many who had his name on their lips all their lives will turn out to have never known him.” As C.S. Lewis said “There will be surprises.”
In my humble opinion, I think you are correct. You cannot tie the “hands” of God. Of course, one can find a theologian to back up any opinion.Thanks for a great post!!
Leon,
I found this which will better illustrate my point in question,
“This very early teaching of the Church was articulated, but not invented,
by St. Augustine, who held that the orthodoxy and validity of apostolic
succession were not considered identical. Bishops could be heretics, yet could
exercise their office as stewards of the Sacraments in a valid manner. This
doctrine has been held to this day by the Roman Catholic Church. Provided that
the intention when ordaining their successors was the same as those
traditionally held by the Church, sacred powers could be passed on and the
sacraments administered in a manner that the Church recognizes as valid.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/749391/posts
Note the proviso ,'” Provided that the intention….”
My question is specific to those Bishops who are knowingly Ordaining a man whose own Intention is to have access to other young men for purposes other than sanctification.
I know I have hit you with a a very difficult
conundrum , but for Catholics who were Parochially educated K- 12 in the fifties and early sixties what they were taught vs what is coming out via these abuse trials rocks the foundation of their education as Catholics..
I am not alone, On Orthodox Easter we traveled a distance Liturgy celebrated by a former Catholic priest who we knew very well for decades as our former Catholic Pastor . He went into the Orthodox after decades of complaints made to his Bishops about having to participate in mandatory retreats with other men who were very vocal about feeling they were,”Women trapped in men’s bodies”. There is much more which I could say but wish to restrain myself here.
To my surprise afterward at coffee I discovered many Roman Catholics were also there and as one couple stated from another state, “We have no place to go to Mass.”The same was expressed to me by a friend who was employed as a DRE in this Diocese.Intimately knowledgeable about the priest’s activities , conversations concerning Confessions of the laity etc , this person has been irreparably scandalized. also.
I understand if you should not wish to post .but I think you should be aware that this is a VERY common problem in Diocese where people know far too much about the inner workings and activities of what in some cases, is the majority of clerics.
Father Michael, “Desire” is something that comforts me having read the same from Padre Pio…….
It is not so much in the eyes of God that I mourn and fear the absence of a local church with a sound priest and Liturgy .Communion with like minded Catholics who view Church as the place to give honor and glory to God is what we all have lost.
The older Catholics I know who have been deeply involved with thier parishes and are aware of Diocesan affairs ,close to priests for many years and know what certain priests and laity have endured under many Bishops all expressing the same suffering and abandonment by the institutional organization.
They fear the loss of Faith for their children and grandchildren . I hear this often.
Many of us have home schooled so we could pass down the Faith with real Catholic curricula .Then the Legion stepped in to take over our grassroot home school Catholic support groups under the title of Torch which was run by the Regnum Christi. The children of my friends were molested and Catholic families that were once friends in the Faith became divided against each other just as has happened in parish communities.
That is why I see the new Dicastery of the New Evangelization with it’s many sects as just another destructive organization that will do nothing for real unity within the Catholic Church.
Peruse these websites to read a fraction of the scope of the deterioration of Catholic communities.one only needs to read the arguments to realize how broad the scope of confusion and betrayal is .
There was a time when the Hierarchy described these people as “Disgrunteled”.
I prefer to descibe them as “Betrayed”.
here was a time when only periodicals like the Wanderer , the Remnant and Catholic Family News were the only sources of consolation for pre Vat 2 Catholics . Then a new breed of Apologists and Theologians stepped in with periodicals to counter and further divide. Confusion and anger only grew. Now we have the internet and the Vatican is reading and the confusion and division there is coming to the fore.
Most viewed article from La Stampa
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/most-viewed/
Sanctifying grace does do what Leon said: “makes us holy, which truly transforms us into his friends, so that we have the mind and heart of Jesus Christ.” But that is not what it IS. Sanctifying grace is the effect on us of the indwelling of God. It transforms us in principle into adopted sons rather than enemies, and this is justification, but the transformation of mind and heart, the fullness of justification, takes cooperation and time. It makes us holy (belonging to God, saints, with the supernatural powers of faith hope and charity) but it does not make us holy (saintly, filled with active faith, hope, and charity).
Sanctifying grace is not consequent upon justification. The grace or favor of God is at once His indwelling, its effect on us, and its work in us. St. Thomas teaches this beautifully.
In any case, I can see where out and out fraud on the part of the ordinand might be cause of invalid ordination, but bad intention would not, I think, apply. Through most of history the priesthood has been bought, sold, sought for second sons, sought for career purposes, etc, and still the clerical state was deemed valid. I think the case of Thomas Becket is illustrative. He became a cleric for political reasons, but the ordination appeared to have a strong effect on him. The intention the C hurch speaks of vis a vis ordination is the intention of the ordinary, not the ordinand. And the ordinary simply has to “intend what the Church intends” by the sacrament, regardless of his own belief or personal intentions. I would think that the same would hold true for the ordinand, however. In which case an ordinand who became a priest for access to a homosexual community would be committing a grave sin, but would be a priest.
Think of Christ and His “church” – the Temple religion of His people. Those who ruled temple and land were phonies (the high priest that year was a puppet, the king was a pagan puppet, the whole Council was, I think, an invention to fill a needed role) – the only legit aspect was the lineage of the priestly class. But Christ said they occupied the chair of Moses.
Finally, the canonical principle “ecclesia supplet” covers a lot of ground.
Mary Ann ,I did question a Canon Law priest and his only answer was that,”…. the Vatican will have to redefine Proper Intention for the recipient of the Sacraments”
I have yet to read any Canonist apply “ecclesia supplet” to the improper intention for sacramental reception.That said. the subject of valid Ordinations for the homosexually inclined has certainly been debated in print. If you can find a Canon Lawyer’s substantiation that an active homoseuxual candidate to Ordination has Proper Intention for reception and is a valid priest ,I would appreciate his explanation, other than we cannot know his intention. Because, as I said when I posed the question ,we now know that chaste and straight men were turned away by those Rectors and Vocation Directors who themselves were so inclined.
“With this in mind, Pope John Paul II’s spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, questioned whether ordinations of gays were even valid: ‘People with these [homosexual] inclinations just cannot be ordained” (The New York Times, 3/3).”
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1671
You notice that nothing came of Navarro-Vallis’ comments. To give them credence would open a hundred thousand cans of worms. For example: What of the ordinations (not to mention other sacraments) confered/celebrated by bishops who have turned out to be homosexual? What of the sacraments the priests they ordained have celebrated? What about all the homosexual clergy throughout history and the ordinations they confered, Masses celebrated, etc.?
Until the 1800’s no one even thought of homosexuality as an “orientation”. Our ancestors were concerned with behavour, not temptations. It would therefore be impossible to know what bishops were homosexuals. There goes any trust in the sacraments. I’m not crazy about practising homosexuals ordaining or get ting ordained, but Navarro-Vallis’ comments were frankly ridiculous and a reversion to the heresy of Donatism.