@FrancoisCir @brjohnvianneyop @matthew_sede AA.

Thanks for the direct & intelligent response!

You've shown a good understanding of the two-part objection raised on this point & attempted to directly address them.

But the responses have not gotten to the very root of the objections, probably due to my poor clarity. @FrancoisCir @brjohnvianneyop @matthew_sede BB.

On analogical use of "intention", see similarity & difference:

SIMILAR to matrimony & sacraments, the Thesis is founded on some form of "intention", defect of which impedes receiving authority, like defective intention invalidates a sacrament / impedes reception of grace.

@FrancoisCir @brjohnvianneyop @matthew_sede A.

Thanks for this direct and intelligent exchange. I have longed for one for years now.

I am completely objective. I will embrace and defend the Thesis if the objections are resolved. I have no attachments.

So please, don't give up on me!

Let's proceed. @FrancoisCir @brjohnvianneyop @matthew_sede B.

Notion of intention used ANALOGICALLY as used in the administration & reception of sacraments? You set the foundation to admit any differences I may point out. But if there's an essential difference, then there's no longer a true analogy but erroneous equivocation & novelty.

@FrancoisCir @brjohnvianneyop @matthew_sede A.

Thanks for this direct and intelligent exchange. I have longed for one for years now.

I am completely objective. I will embrace and defend the Thesis if the objections are resolved. I have no attachments.

So please, don't give up on me!

Let's proceed. @FrancoisCir @brjohnvianneyop @matthew_sede B.

Notion of intention used ANALOGICALLY as used in the administration & reception of sacraments? You set the foundation to admit any differences I may point out. But if there's an essential difference, then there's no longer a true analogy but erroneous equivocation & novelty.