What I quoted was from sound sources and it was a complete teaching. Grabbing a quote out of context does not suffice to refute it. I would agree with what Pope Leo XIII is saying here. The Church always looks to outwards signs for it's judging of the validity of a sacrament. Only God can judge inner intentions. So one can without worrying approach any sacrament that is performed properly as far as we can see outwardly. Marriage for example. All of the outward signs of matter and form may be done properly, but if one of the people involved has a bad intention (say to commit adultery right after the ceremony) then no sacrament takes place. Inner intent is always important.
That's what I was clumsily trying to get across. Only Christ can read the intentions. We in the world can objectively witness if the correct rubrics are carried out, but cannot know the inner disposition. Carrying out the Sacrifice of the Mass or the sacrament of confession with wicked inner disposition is as vile a sin as can be imagined, but the priest might appear to be most perfectly orthodox, even holy.
I had a fractured involvement with today's part of this thread and this might have contributed to me stepping on toes which I had no intention to do. I'm sorry for that and wish to thank everyone concerned for a really informative discussion.
But the sacrament is still effected and conferred even if the priest has a wicked inner disposition as long as he carries out the correct rubric intended by the Catholic Church. To administer sacraments validly, a minister need not believe in the sacrament’s supernatural effect, but must intend to do what the Church does, in performing the sacrament.
The Eucharitic Miracle of Lanciano occured even though the priest had interior doubts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano Thankfully we can rest assured that as long as the priest follows the rubrics and follows what the Church intends in saying Mass then the sacrament is conferred.
This was obviously not a standard Mass. when God performs miracles He is acting outside of what is standard. Inner intention is important. This ios not something I am making up out of whole cloth. Here is the full Church teaching: Intention Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99... (Latin intendere, to stretch toward, to aim at) is an act of the will by which that faculty efficaciously desires to reach an end by employing the means. It is apparent from this notion that there is a sharply defined difference between intention and volition or even velleity. In the first instance there is a concentration of the will to the point of resolve which is wholly lacking in the others. With the purpose of determining the value of an action, it is customary to distinguish various sorts of intentions which could have prompted it. First, there is the actual intention, operating, namely, with the advertence of the intellect. Secondly, there is the virtual intention. Its force is borrowed entirely from a prior volition which is accounted as continuing in some result produced by it. In other words, the virtual intention is not a present act of the will. but rather a power (virtus) come about as an effect of a former act, and now at work for the attainment of the end. The thing therefore that is wanting in a virtual, as contrasted with an actual, intention is not of course the element of will, but rather the attention of the intellect, and that particularly of the reflex kind. So, for example, a person having made up his mind to undertake a journey may during its progress be entirely preoccupied with other thoughts. He will nevertheless be said to have all the while the virtual intention of reaching his destination. Thirdly, an habitual intention is one that once actually existed, but of the present continuance of which there is no positive trace; the most that can be said of it is that it has never been retracted. And fourthly an interpretative intention is one that as a matter of fact has never been really elicited; there has been and is no actual movement of the will; it is simply the purpose which it is assumed a man would have had in a given contingency, had he given thought to the matter. It is a commonplace among moralists that the intention is the chief among the determinants of the concrete morality of a human act. Hence when one's motive is grievously bad, or even only slightly so, if it be the exclusive reason for doing something, then an act which is otherwise good is vitiated and reputed to be evil. An end which is only venially bad, and which at the same time does not contain the complete cause for acting, leaves the operation which in other respects was unassailable to be qualified as partly good and partly bad. A good intention can never hallow an action the content of which is wrong. Thus it never can be lawful to steal, even though one's intention be to aid the poor with the proceeds of the theft. The end does not justify the means. It may be noted here in passing, as somewhat cognate to the matter under discussion, that the explicit and frequently renewed reference of one's actions to Almighty God is not now commonly thought to be necessary in order that they may be said to be morally good. The old-time controversy on this point has practically died out. Besides affecting the goodness or badness of acts, intention may have much to do with their validity. Is it required, for instance, for the fulfilment of the law? The received doctrine is that, provided the subject is seriously minded to do what is prescribed, he need not have the intention of satisfying his obligation; and much less is it required that he should be inspired by the same motives as urged the legislator to enact the law. Theologians quote in this connection the saying, "Finis præcepti non cadit sub præcepto" (the end of the law does not fall under its binding force). What has been said applies with even more truth to the class of obligations called real, enjoining for instance the payment of debts. For the discharge of these no intention at all is demanded, not even a conscious act. It is enough that the creditor gets his own. The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. This intention need not necessarily be of the sort called actual. That would often be practically impossible. It is enough that it be virtual. Neither habitual nor interpretative intention in the minister will suffice for the validity of the sacrament. The truth is that here and now, when the sacrament is being conferred, neither of these intentions exists, and they can therefore exercise no determining influence upon what is done. To administer the sacraments with a conditional intention, which makes their effect contingent upon a future event, is to confer them invalidly. This holds good for all the sacraments except matrimony, which, being a contract, is susceptible of such a limitation. More at the links: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm Also found at EWTN: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/intention-10562
There I've done it again, using the wrong word. I should have said 'Only Christ can read the (inner) disposition'. The intention can be humanly judged on the basis of the performance of the priest.
I, as much as anyone here, have my opinions, etc. about the pope, prophecy, etc. I like to read the comments and I like to get others views, but none of us are necessarily right or wrong. It’s our own individual discernment...with the exception of church doctrine, law etc. Everything else is speculative based on our own understanding. At the end of the day.....everything is about trusting Jesus...everything.
Well there seems to be different interpretations of what intent actually means --- and reading all of that hurt my head lol. I defer to the Catechism -- I think it is clear from the Catechism the interior disposition of the priest is irrelevant as long as he celebrates the sacrament in accordance with the intention of the Church. The sacrament is wought by the power of God through the actions of the minister. CCC 1128 This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation49 that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God." 50 From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. For me the Cathechim has a higher level of trust than either New Advent or EWTN. I also quote a priest -- Fr. Grondin’s in Catholic Apologetics saying the same thing -- As long as the priest is saying Mass using the Rites of the Church then the Mass is valid, irregardless of the priest’s personal belief. The priest says Mass and confects a sacrament not by his own human power but by Christ acting through him. Christ acts through the Church and as long as the priest is using the Rites of the Church then the sacrament is valid. The Council of Trent explicitly stated that what is required for intention is simply to do what the Church intends. By saying a Catholic Rite of Mass the priest is intending the Church’s intentions even if he doesn’t believe them. As St. Thomas noted in the Summa: Quote: III, q. 64, a. 8 Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament… And in the next article he states: Quote: III, q. 64 Article 9. Whether faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament? I answer that, As stated above (Article 5), since the minister works instrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his own but by Christ’s power. Now just as charity belongs to a man’s own power so also does faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does not require that the minister should have charity, and even sinners can confer sacraments, as stated above (Article 5); so neither is it necessary that he should have faith, and even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament, provided that the other essentials be there. And by the way I am not arguing this just to be pedantic or awkward but because I think we all want assurance that the Mass we attend is valid. As long as the priest keeps to the rubrics and proper words of consecration and intends to say Mass then I have always believed in the validity of the sacrament. For me intent means that the priest says Mass properly in line with the rubrics of Mass irrespective of his personal holiness.
Yes, Beth is right about trusting in God. Sacraments are outward signs of what's happening internally, and nobody but God truly knows anyone's heart. All we can do is what God asks of us through His Church. God's intent for our eternal salvation can never be inferior to the inner intent of the minister or recipient of any Sacrament. I was inclined to discount what was said in the Encyclopaedia but the reason given for co-consecrators of Bishops suggests that it isn't wrong. A Bishop is the recipient of the fullness of the single Sacrament of Holy Orders which has three stages: Deacon, Priest, Bishop. Why would the intent of the person administering the Sacrament only be a factor at the third stage of its conferral if it didn't matter at the two previous stages?
Yes, HH, we must never fear or be anxious over this issue. Never, because it is outside of our control! JoeJerk would love to tie us up in knots. Certainly, if we are in a parish where a modernist priest is causing our hearts to be troubled, we should inquire of the Lord His Will, whether to stay or move on. But anxiety regarding this issue does not come from the Holy Spirit. The gentle love of Our Lady is prove of that! Stay with us, dear Lady! O Jesus I love Thee in the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar!
I'm afraid I can't remember the reference, but I was reading about the subject of whether bad priests can dispense valid sacraments. I found a passage somewhere that quoted Aquinas, saying that a sacrament dispensed by a bad priest (presumably defective in faith would apply) remains valid, as water can pass through a rusty pipe as well as a clean one. Presumably it's the grace of ordination which compensates for the deficiency in the priest. On a trip to Lourdes with a girlfriend, we fell in with a pilgrim group led by a young priest - sadly not from a parish near us. When he said Mass it was with such reverence that we felt great graces flowing from it.
Praetorian, I am sorry that you feel I was calling you a heretic, I should have said; I find What you posted in post 16362 from "new advent" and post 16378 both highlighted above, to be different to the Catholic Catechism, the Council of Trent, the teachings of Holy Popes and Doctors of the church. You have definitely worked hard sharing orthodox Catholicism and would be much better versed in theology than myself. Mea culpa! Please forgive my faux pas, I will speak about this to my priest at confession this Friday. I can not tell which Catholic Bishops and priests we are to pick wisely, all I know is that the priests I have had in my life, have did what the church has intended, that was visible, maybe I am just one of the lucky ones! You see I've never been to a clown or balloon Mass. Additionally I have taught my children that the ordination rites of the Catholic priest leaves an indelible mark that can not be erased and I don't think I will be telling them that an apostate priest who has no faith does not confer the sacraments. I think that would be very harmful to them and to many others, possibly even harmful to those who may just happen across the MoG site and read those statements. So here is where my faith differs from yours..... The Council of Trent infallibly declares that administering the sacraments validly, a minister need not believe in the sacrament’s supernatural effect, but must intend to do what the Church does, in performing the sacrament...... If anyone saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema. The Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon XI, On the Sacraments in General CCC 1128 This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation 49 that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God." 50 From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. CCC 1550 This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister's sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in the Summa The minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, unless the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament. Summa, III, Q.64, a.8 ad 2. St. Thomas Aquinas goes on to explain .......But if his (the priest) faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (Article 8, Reply to Objection 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister's faith is made good. Summa, III, Q.64, a.9, ad 1. Pope Leo XIII teaches this truth: The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. Apostolicae Curae, (On the Nullity of Anglican Orders), Pope Leo XIII, September 15, 1896, §33.
Thanks, Josephite. The sources you quote are very comprehensive, yet clear, in their articulation regarding the question at hand. I'm grateful for Praetorian expressing all he did. Any remaining questions are being answered. Safe in the Barque of Peter!
From Catholic Candle. When someone administers a sacrament, he acts in the person of the Catholic Church, i.e., as Her representative. The Catholic Church expresses Her intention through this minister’s actions and words (i.e., through the Matter and Form of the sacrament). Whenever a minister acts and speaks as required by the Church, the sacrament will be valid unless the minister outwardly shows the intent not to administer the sacrament A person invalidates a sacrament when he outwardly shows that he has no intention to perform the sacrament. For example, priest prefaces the words and actions of baptism by saying: “I will show you how to baptize. If I were going to really baptize someone, this is how I would do it” [followed by the words and actions of baptism]. By outwardly professing only to demonstrate, this person invalidates any baptism that would have otherwise happened If a priest were to perform a sacrament, he would not have to believe that his words and actions had any effect. But he would have to intend what the Church does, namely, to perform the actions and say the words, without exteriorly expressing any contrary intent (such as an intent to merely demonstrate how a sacrament could be performed). Having seen the Church’s required minimum intention necessary for a valid sacrament, now let’s apply this principle to a concrete dispute, viz., the claim by Archbishop Lefebvre’s enemies that his own ordination and consecration are invalid. If Cardinal Liénart were a Mason, would Archbishop Lefebvre be a Layman? Achille Cardinal Liénart raised Archbishop Lefebvre both to the priesthood and to the episcopate. For decades, Archbishop Lefebvre’s enemies have attacked the validity of his ordination and consecration, claiming that Cardinal Liénart did not have the required sacramental intention to ordain and consecrate Archbishop Lefebvre. They do not question that Liénart said the required words and did the required actions, because so many witnesses saw him comply with Church requirements. In that talk, Archbishop Lefebvre was quoted as saying that he himself believed Cardinal Liénart was a Mason based on his (i.e., Archbishop Lefebvre’s) memory of an article in the Italian publication, Chiesa Viva, published two months earlier. This issue is No. 51, March, 1976. Archbishop Lefebvre’s enemies suppose Cardinal Liénart lacked a valid sacramental intention because they assert that he was a secret freemason and therefore suppose that he must have been secretly anti-Catholic and thus allege that he would secretly lack the minimum required intention for a sacrament’s validity. Supposing Cardinal Liénart were a freemason, that does not prove he secretly intended to invalidate the ordinations and consecrations he performed. Moreover, even if Cardinal Liénart were a freemason, he nonetheless acted and spoke as required by the Church (i.e., using the correct sacramental Matter and Form). He did not suggest that he was unwilling to perform the sacrament. Because Cardinal Liénart spoke and acted as the Church requires for administering the sacraments, without outwardly disclaiming the intent to administer orders, he intended to do what the Church does and thus satisfied the Church’s requirement of a valid sacramental intention when ordaining and consecrating Archbishop Lefebvre. Conclusion concerning Archbishop Lefebvre’s Ordination and Consecration Even if Cardinal Liénart were a freemason, there is no reason to doubt that he intended to do what the Church does, viz., he intended to use the words the Church told him to use and perform the actions the Church told him to perform in the sacrament. There were many witnesses to what Cardinal Liénart did and said. None of them claimed that he exteriorly manifested any contrary intention. Thus, there is no reasonable doubt—not even the smallest reasonable doubt—that Cardinal Liénart had the required, minimum intent to validly ordain and consecrate Archbishop Lefebvre. This means we have a moral certainty that Archbishop Lefebvre’s ordination and consecration are valid.
I don't want to continue arguing this point. What I said is correct and it agrees with the Catechism entry you cited. The links I cited agree with what you cited. They are not at odds. There is a nuance here that I don't think is being clearly understood. A bad or sinful priest can confect the sacrament. I have never argued that he cannot. However, if a priest acts with an inner intention not to confect the sacrament no sacrament takes place. I know there are many confusing aspects to this, but the references you have cited I do not disagree with. Inner intention matters. In all sacraments.
Thank you Dolours. What you have stated here is correct. The consecration of Bishops is of such import that the Church has always been careful by having multiple Bishops consecrate lest one of them have bad intent. Let me also be clear, what I have said does not discount us having trust in God to watch over all of this. Every ordination is a miracle and I am sure God is guiding the Church in this matter. The fact that the very institution of the Church still exists after 2,000 years is a miracle in itself. How many countries or other institutions have been around for that long?
