Thank you Josephite. I was very upset when I read what you wrote about my post. I worked hard on it to make sure everything was proper and correct in it so having it called heresy was shocking. I know this is a confusing subject, but just so you know what I posted from New Advent and EWTN does not contradict what is found in the Catechism or any of the other sources people have listed. The distinction is difficult to make as the argument is quite nuanced. A canon lawyer or theologian could probably do a much better job than I have done. But everything I posted is in accordance with what everyone else has posted. They are not at odds in any way. God Bless.
However, there must be an inner intent of the will to confer the sacrament otherwise nothing happens. Praetorian who actually states this? I have been trying to find this in the Catholic Catechism, Catholic encyclopedia, the writings of the church fathers, popes, doctors of the church etc, but what I am finding is the opposite. From CCC IV. THE SACRAMENTS OF SALVATION 1127 Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify.48 They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son's Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power. 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. From Catholic answers When a sacrament is celebrated according to the norms of the Church and in faith, we believe that it confers the grace it signifies. While a human being is the minister of the sacrament, Christ Himself is the one who is at work: He baptizes, He confirms, He absolves, He changes the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, He unites a couple in marriage, He ordains, and He anoints. Acting in His sacraments, Christ communicates the grace– that sharing in the divine life and love of God– offered through each sacrament. (Confer the Catechism, #1127-28.) Catholic encyclopedia In the year 311 in northern Africa, a dispute arose whether . Donatus (270-355), heading the dissenting party, argued that Caecilian’s consecration as a bishop was invalid. Moreover, this party’s platform, officially labeled the heresy of Donatism, asserted that the validity of a sacrament depends upon the minister’s holiness. In 313, a special synod was held at the Lateran Palace in Rome to deal with Donatus (270-355), argued that Caecilian’s (Bishop of Carthage) consecration as a bishop was invalid. Allegedly, his consecrators had showed weakness during the time of persecution, thereby supposedly making them unworthy and unable to consecrate. Donatus was condemned and excommunicated, not only for his heretical teaching but also for rebaptizing and ordaining apostates. St. Augustine (354-430) was the great champion of true Catholic teaching. In his In Ioannis evangelium tractatus, he forcefully distinguished the action of Christ versus the action of even an apostate minister when performing a sacrament: Christ acts by His power, while the minister acts by his ministry entrusted to him by Christ. Therefore, “…those whom Judas baptized, Christ baptized. So too, then, those whom a drunkard baptized, those whom a murderer baptized, those whom an adulterer baptized, if the Baptism was of Christ, Christ baptized” (5,18). The spiritual power of the sacrament is indeed comparable to light: those to be enlightened receive it in its purity, and if it should pass through defiled beings, it is not itself defiled.” (In Ioannis evangelium tractatus, 5, 15).
I will link the most detailed explanations I could find from orthodox Catholic sources below, but there are many others as well. Also as I noted earlier in the discussion the main line of thinking among theologians has changed on this in the past thousand years so if you are looking up something from say the year 800A.D. you will find the author espousing the view that only the outward expression is necessary. That has changed though. Now the common teaching is that an inner intention is necessary as well. New Advent and EWTN are rock-solid in what they post. That is why people linking random quotes from saints etc. is not helping sort through the matter. Most of that is from before the change occurred. It is likelinking something about the Church teaching on usury from the year 985A.D. it would be outdated and incorrect because the Church has changed that teaching to understand that not all loaning of money is evil. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/intention-10562
Council of Trent, session 7, canon 11: If any one 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. http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2017/04/form-matter-and-intention.html?m=1 Scary, but true.
Ah, yes, yeah from looking at other posts...intention in Latin isn‘t interior. Does anyone have a link to the council of Trent‘s documents in Latin? I just tried looking on the Vatican‘s website but it’s apparently turned into a fanboy site for Pope Francis (rather horrifying if you haven’t seen it recently).
Preatorian, Thank you for the above links. I've just read the link to New advent which states in the paragraph 5 (the meat and potatoes); verbatim ..... 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. The first part of paragraph 5 is wonderful and reflects the CCC, it states that the church has unequivocal stipulations on conferring the sacraments! yet the very next sentence of new advent, says .... 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. However, New Advent, does not give any sources for changing the unequivocally stipulations of the Church! And it begs the questions...When were these changes made? and by whom? Do you know who New Advent are referring to, when they state, 'The common doctrine now'? and do you know when these new changes were ratified by the Church? and will these changes be reflected in the CCC and canon law? at present these changes are not in the CCC nor Canon law. I will now read your second link, I am hopeful that I will get my answers there.
From further research, it looks like what I stated is not correct. This page from Catholic Answers, which seems to be an extract from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia, gives some detail: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/bishop Quoting the document: "The right of consecrating a bishop belongs to the sovereign pontiff, who generally permits the newly elected to be consecrated by three bishops of his own choice. However, if the consecration takes place in Rome, he must select a cardinal or one of the major patriarchs residing at Rome. If, however, his own metropolitan is at that time in Rome, he would be obliged to choose him." And further down the page: "Consecration by a single bishop would not be invalid but would be illicit. However, the bishops of South America have the privilege of being consecrated by one bishop assisted by two or three priests, if it prove difficult for them to obtain three bishops (Letters Apostolic of Leo XIII, “Trans Oceanum”, April 18, 1897; “Acta Sanctae Sedis”, 1896-97, XXIX, 659)." I do recall reading previously that the reason for co-consecrators was to remove doubt about the validity of the consecration but now I can't find the source. The website I quoted above also has a page on Holy Orders: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/Holy-Orders Quoting from that page: SACRAMENT OF ORDER.—From Scripture we learn that the Apostles appointed others by an external rite (imposition of hands), conferring inward grace. The fact that grace is ascribed immediately to the external rite, shows that Christ must have thus ordained. The fact that cheirontonein, cheirotonia, which meant electing by show of hands, had acquired the technical meaning of ordination by imposition of hands before the middle of the third century, shows that appointment to the various orders was made by that external rite. While the above doesn't really address the question of intent, I think that member AnyNameYouWish gets to the nub of it with the following posts because it all hinges on what the Church means by "intent". Yes, the Latin word and the context in which it was used could make a huge difference to solving this puzzle. The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe that God wouldn't have left us with a hit and miss means of receiving Sacramental grace whereby we can never know whether the sacrament is valid because we can never know the interior intention of the priest.
The Church parallels our human institutions. A sizable minority has literally lost its collective mind to the leftist cults. But the majority thanks be to God have not. Few DS and Rs dare to speak up because of persecution. In the government too the "apostates" hold much of the power. Donald Trump is I believe God's "change agent" shining a light on the corruption. Archbishop Vigano has been called by God to do the same for the Church. No wonder he wrote that powerful letter to DJT.
Praetorian are you aware that the New Advent and the EWTN sources you gave are the exact same article! However the EWTN gives an author Father Joseph Delany' so I am looking for information of his credentials and when Catholic church teaching changed. New Advent article... Intention (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. As to the recipients of the sacraments, it is certain that no intention is required in children who have not yet reached the age of reason, or in imbeciles, for the validity of those sacraments which they are capable of receiving. In the case of adults, on the other hand, some intention is indispensable if the sacrament is not to be invalid. The reason is that our justification is not brought about without our co-operation, and that includes the rational will to profit by the means of sanctification. How much of an intention is enough is not always quite clear. In general, more in the way of intention will be demanded in proportion as the acts of the receiver seem to enter into the making of the sacrament. So for penance and matrimony under ordinary conditions a virtual intention would appear to be required; for the other sacraments an habitual intention is sufficient. For an unconscious person in danger of death the habitual intention may be implicit and still suffice for the validity of the sacraments that are then necessary or highly useful; that is, it may be contained in the more general purpose which a man has at some time during his life, and which he has never retracted, of availing himself of these means of salvation at so supreme a moment. For the gaining of indulgences the most that can probably be exacted is an habitual intention.
EWTN article.... Intention Intention (Lat. 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. As to the recipients of the sacraments, it is certain that no intention is required in children who have not yet reached the age of reason, or in imbeciles, for the validity of those sacraments which they are capable of receiving. In the case of adults, on the other hand, some intention is indispensable if the sacrament is not to be invalid. The reason is that our justification is not brought about without our co-operation, and that includes the rational will to profit by the means of sanctification. How much of an intention is enough is not always quite clear. In general, more in the way of intention will be demanded in proportion as the acts of the receiver seem to enter into the making of the sacrament. So for penance and matrimony under ordinary conditions a virtual intention would appear to be required; for the other sacraments an habitual intention is sufficient. For an unconscious person in danger of death the habitual intention may be implicit and still suffice for the validity of the sacraments that are then necessary or highly useful; that is, it may be contained in the more general purpose which a man has at some time during his life, and which he has never retracted, of availing himself of these means of salvation at so supreme a moment. For the gaining of indulgences the most that can probably be exacted is an habitual intention. JOSEPH F. DELANY Transcribed by Rick McCarty copyright © 1913 by the Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright © 1996 by New Advent, Inc. Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).
Bishop Joseph Delany may have written the above article posted in both in the New Advent and EWTN but the search for his involvement of any intrinsic change to catholic doctrine is not available, in fact the only search results on Bishop J Delany is below. When searching for the changes Bishop Joseph Delany reports, these changes are not available and in fact it seems from all that I have read during these searches, that the Catholic Church still believes unequivocally what was stipulated by the Council of Trent! If there is other information on......."the common doctrine now being 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" I would very much appreciate this information as I know it is our duty as faithful Catholics to follow the truths of the Catholic Church and embrace new teachings, if doctrinally sound. Bishop Joseph Delany The second bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth, Bishop Joseph Patrick Delaney, was born in Fall River, Massachusetts on Aug. 29, 1934. The eldest of five children born to Joseph and Jane Delaney, he was part of a devout, close-knit, and loving Irish family. Volunteer groups from the Diocese of Fort Worth helped to erect more than two dozen chapels and numerous catechetical centers within the Diocese of Juticalpa, while also offering extensive repair work in convents, schools, and homes. Bishop Delaney’s leadership led to the creation of a system that provided clean water for 14 villages, effectively halving the infant mortality rate in the area. At the time of his death, Bishop Delaney was a consultant to the U.S. bishops’ (USCCB) Subcommittee on Lay Ministry. He had previously chaired the subcommittee and the full Committee on the Laity. Through the years, he had served on various committees of the USCCB, including his work as chair of the Liturgy Committee. “Due to his humble and self-effacing nature, many of his honors and involvements were discovered as surprises by members of his diocesan staff,” wrote Jeff Hensley. “He simply did the work for the greater good of the larger Church, never for the accolades.” Bishop Delaney died in his home after suffering a heart attack on July 12, 2005, at the age of 70, after a two-year battle with pancreatic cancer. His death came one day before the planned ordination of Monsignor Kevin William Vann as coadjutor bishop. Upon Bishop Delaney’s death, Msgr. Vann was installed on July 13 as presiding bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth. Bishop Kevin Vann served as principal celebrant at Bishop Delaney’s funeral Mass, held July 18, 2005, at St. Patrick Cathedral in Fort Worth. Bishop Vann was joined by 13 other bishops, including Archbishop José Gomez and Archbishop Emeritus Patrick Flores of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, and by other bishops from around the state of Texas and the region.
New Advent has its own up to date website: https://www.newadvent.org/ It's the work of Kevin Knight who is listed as its Editor and it has direct links to the Encyclopaedia, the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Bible and documents of the Church Fathers. I found this info about it on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Advent In 1993, Kevin Knight, then a 26-year-old resident of Denver, Colorado, was inspired, during the visit of Pope John Paul II to that city for World Youth Day, to launch a project to publish the 1913 edition of the 1907–1912 Catholic Encyclopedia on the Internet. Knight founded the website New Advent to house the undertaking. Volunteers from the United States, Canada, France and Brazil helped in the transcription of the original material. The site went online in 1995 and transcription efforts finished in 1997.[1][2] What I can't find anywhere is information about Patrick F. Delaney who seems to have written all or much of the original Encyclopaedia which New Advent translated and put online. The Encyclopaedia was current in 1912/1913. Are the "later theologians" post-Trent whereby "later" would mean up to and around the time the Encyclopaedia was published or are they post-Vatican 11 theologians? I get the impression that they are theologians who were around at the time the Encyclopaedia was published in 1913.
I wouldn't call it a new teaching, rather like nearly all doctrine has done it has development due to a clearer understanding. See paragraphs 134-139 in the below book (I'll post a link, I hope ti works): Notes on the rubrics of the Roman ritual : regarding the sacraments in general, baptism, the eucharist, and extreme unction Author: James O'Kane, Rev. Publisher: New York : P. O'Shea, 1883. https://books.google.com/books?id=cVYrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=internal+intention+to+act+eucharist&source=bl&ots=IEDchz8HhZ&sig=ACfU3U3CwzyFJzJoWZDdC6QIODnCBC5zOw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj60P3jwZXqAhXESzABHYcvDUYQ6AEwC3oECA8QAQ#v=onepage&q=internal intention to act eucharist&f=false It is clear that intention, even centuries ago, had various different meanings. It is also clear that great saints and pontiffs have weighed in on the issues over the centuries - and the result is where we now are. I can understand if this is troubling for some, but here's my advice: Do not worry too much about it unless you have clear reason to be wary. If so, take it to prayer and see if you can find another parish. Please though, don't let you-know-who get inside your head and plant seeds of doubt.
Thank you for providing the link to that book. I couldn't open the text of the book at your link. I did manage to access the text here: https://archive.org/stream/notesonrubricsr01okagoog/notesonrubricsr01okagoog_djvu.txt Everything seems to hinge on this: 137. It has been defined by the Council of Trent, that in conferring a sacrament the minister must have the intention of doing what the Church does.' There are various ways in which a person may be conceived to have an intention in doing a thing. 1*^ He may have an actiuil intention at the moment he does it. 2^ He may have a virtual intention, i.e., he may do it in virtue of an actual intention which he had, and which still continues in some effect, though he does not think of it; as, e.ff.^ if a priest leaves his house with the intention of baptizing a child, and in virtue of this intention goes to the church and performs the ceremony, though in the act he is quite dis- tracted and does not reflect on what he is doing. 3*^ He may have an habitual intention, i.e., he may have had the intention and may not have retracted it ; but yet it does not continue in any effect, nor can it be said that the act is performed in virtue of it. 4° He may have what is called an interpretative intention, t.^., he may be so dis- posed in doing the act, that if he had adverted to it, he would have had such an intention in doing it These seem to be the distinctions as laid down by St. Liguori, INTENTION OF THE MINISTER. G9 according to whom it is certain, that neither the habitual nor the interpretative intention is sufficient; that the actual intention is not required; but that the virtual is required, and is quite sufficient.* 138. So much for the intention as it is an act of the mind. With respect to the object of this intention, it must be " to do what the Church does", and the intention may be directed to this object in two ways, explicitly and implicitly. A well-instructed pious Catholic in baptizing an infant would have the explicit intention of " doing *' what the Church docs", while a heretic, or an infldel, not believing in the true Church or in the efficacy of the sacrament, but yet intending, in the act of baptizing, to do what is done amongst Christians, would have the implicii intention of " doing what the Church does", and such impUcit intention suffices for the validity.' 139. It is quite certain, then, that a virtual implicit intention is sufficient, but it is a question amongst divines whether this intention must be internal^ or whether it be not enough for the validity to perform the external rite seriously and in proper circiunstances, even though the minister should mentally exclude the intention of doing what the Church docs. This is the famous question of the external and internal intention, which was for a time warmly debated in the schools. It is generally admitted now, that the weight of authority and reason is completely in favour of the necessity of the internal; and the other opinion barely escapes condemnation by Alexander VIII , who condemned the proposition At least it cannot be denied, according to Benedict XIY., that this is a very severe blow to it;' and should there be, in any case, sufficient reason to think that the internal intention was wanting in the administration of Baptism, or any other sacrament that cannot be iterated, the sacrament should be again conferred conditionally, or, if time per- mit, the Holy See should be consulted.' The question, however, is very speculative, for in practice the internal intention is hardly ever wanting. I'm not seeing in the above text any definitive pronouncement. The language is more uncertain than definitive.
Sorry about the bad link, I'm glad you were able to access it. My reading of the above (especially in paragraph 137) seems to indicate a very strong preference to the actual and virtual intention (if virtual is even possible - see paragraph 136 for St. Alphonsus Ligori's thinking on that); while declaring habitual intention and interpretive intention insufficient. This stuff gets really deep really quickly. I'm not sure a public forum is the best place for it, I wouldn't want to be misinterpreted and help lead someone astray. Perhaps it's best for me to leave it there for now.
Yes, AED, this is my desire, to love Him more, especially at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to give Him my focused adoration. The Lord knows that I fail and space out at times. I take comfort in St. Therese who often fell asleep while praying in the chapel. One habit that has stuck with me is I pray the Fatima prayer of reparation every time I enter a church and kneel before the Blessed Sacrament. I do so even if I hurry back, having forgotten something in the sacristy. O Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I adore Thee profoundly. I offer Thee the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ present in all tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the many outrages, sacrileges and indifferences by which He Himself is offended. By the infinite merits of His Most Sacred Heart, and through the Immaculate Heart of Mary I beg of Thee the conversion of poor sinners.
Unanswered Questions on the Travel of Pope Benedict XVI 2020-06-22 Father David Nix https://padreperegrino.org/2020/06/b16travels/ This week I put up a Facebook post that had 440 shares. In it, I suspected that Pope Benedict XVI was being controlled and that he would not come back to the Vatican. When I was proved wrong on the latter of those two, I was asked to publicly apologize for my whole post. No, I’m not going to apologize for noticing that Pope Benedict XVI is back in the Vatican. Why? Because I still insist that something nefarious is afoot. The onus of proof is now on my opposing interlocutors to explain not only a few but all of the following questions if they still insist upon a peaceful narrative in the Vatican: 1. Why did Pope Benedict resign after extreme pressure on him for having blown the whistle on the Vatican bank scandal in 2012 if he wasn’t even controlled by nefarious agents back then? 2. Why isn’t Pope Benedict XVI allowed to see his closest friends? I have tried to see him in the Vatican since his “retirement” in my trips to Italy, even with important connections there. It seems only a few people are year are allowed to see him. Key word: “allowed.” 3. Why did Cardinal Daneels and his friends admit to Dutch radio (not a traditionalist website, but Dutch radio!) about five years ago that they frightened Pope Benedict XVI off the throne and even lobbied at the 2013 Conclave? 4. Why did Pope Benedict say that if he planned on retiring from the papacy he would move to southern Germany? Or rather, why is he in the Vatican if he was public that he wanted his retirement to be in Germany? How is that not a sign that he is controlled? 5. Why is Pope Benedict in white, wearing the ring, signing papers of ordination congratulations as “Supreme Pontiff” if not a current and reigning Pope while puppetted by a puppetmaster? Really. Somebody answer this who has studied Church history. 6. Why is he in white living in the Vatican while “Pope Bergoglio” (as AB. Vigano calls him) is living in Casa Santa Martha? What is the point of keeping one Pope there and the other Pope in another location if both are not necessary to a set-up? Even Protestants know you can’t have “two Popes.” 7. Why is Archbishop Ganswein the liaison between the two who is always answering for Pope Benedict? Why did AB Ganswein have to go with him to his last trip to visit his brother if he’s not being controlled? 8. Why are new Cardinals brought to Pope Benedict XVI for approbation while the other in white repeatedly says he himself is the “bishop of Rome”? How is this not a set up of control? 9. Why did Pope Benedict allegedly write to the “bishop of Rome” exactly four years ago this week, verbatim from the Vatican website:“The Vatican Gardens, even for all their beauty, are not my true home: my true home is your goodness”? That ridiculous line is from the Vatican website but it doesn’t sound like anything Cardinal Ratzinger has written in any of his 40 years of prolific writing. 10. Why was it publicized by the Vatican three years ago that one Pope endorsed a book from the other Pope but the former came out weeks later saying it was a lie? Why would this be the case if words were not being put in his mouth? 11. Why earlier this year did Pope Benedict first agree that he wrote a book for priestly celibacy with Cardinal Sarah against the current thrust of the Vatican…and then come out and deny it within two weeks? How is that not a sign that PB16 is either senile or dishonest or under extreme duress? (Cdl. Sarah proved to the world that his former papal friend was not speaking with senility after the incident.) 12. Why does Pope Benedict look beat up in numerous pictures and is never allowed to speak for himself? Any single of the above can be easily poo-pooed. But all 12 together can not be easily dismissed. So, I’m not going to apologize for asking these questions even if it makes people uncomfortable in swallowing the obvious corruption. Dan Brown could not have written a novel with this much Vatican intrigue and clergy manipulation and still be considered a digestible fictional author. +
