I agree that the bar is incredibly low. I didn't mean to imply that I think sacramental simulation is at all common, or that it could occur inadvertently. Theologians say that even a virtual intention suffices. I just meant to say that it is possible (to simulate a sacrament, i.e., to withhold intent purposefully, and willfully, despite the outward appearance of proper confection due to requisite form and matter).
.
There's a (somewhat humorous) story about St. Athanasius. When he was a boy he was playing on the land near the Patriarch of Alexandria's property (I believe that Patriarch was named Alexander). Alexander looked out his window and saw a curious thing; a young man was officiating what looked like Easter baptisms. He went down to see what was going on and asked the boy who was doing the officiating (this boy was St. Athanasius) if he was a Christian. He said yes. And he asked about the others, and Athanasius said they were Pagans, and that they were playing "Bishop" or some such thing. Alexander asked Athanasius how he baptized them and Athanasius described the baptisms. Alexander told him that he had really baptized them. Athanasius was embarrassed and also shocked, since he thought only a bishop could baptize.
.
So there's an instance where someone intended to baptize, but didn't think they could (efficaciously). Still valid. Illustrative of the point (the low bar for intention).
Right, I agree mostly with what you say here. But maybe I am misunderstanding you on the specific point of withholding intent despite the outward appearance of proper confection. I think the St. Athanasius story is an illustration of how the outward appearance is the key to knowing the proper intent. If the form and matter are correct and the minister is valid, and there is no outward sign that the intention is contrary then the sacrament is valid. There can be no possibility of it being invalid. The outward appearance is a manifestation of the intent. To say otherwise is to say that the minister could form 2 contrary intentions for the same act. That is impossible. So priests have to be responsible about saying the words of consecration. He can't go into a chapel and say a Mass and then afterwards say, oh, I didn't mean it, it was just practice. He would have to give some indication beforehand that it was not intended to be a Mass.
Topic: Valid or invalid baptism? (Read 10304 times)