Author Topic: Intention of minister for baptism. (Read 942 times)

Raoul76 · « **on:** January 13, 2010, 03:54:20 AM »

Condemned by Alexander VIII

Quote

"28. Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and form of baptizing, but with his heart resolves, I do not intend what the Church does."

Council of Florence:

Quote

All these sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing as the church does; if any of these is lacking the sacrament is not fulfilled.

I don't understand this. Some say that the intention to do what the Church does is shown by observing the correct matter and form. Is this denied by Alexander VIII, who says the priest's heart must be engaged in what he's doing?

I think you said elsewhere CM that Alexander VIII means that if the priest doesn't intend to do what the Church does, it will reveal itself in some way. Otherwise we'd have a paradox. He doesn't intend to do what the Church does in his heart, but he does it. How can you DO what you didn't INTEND? The intention results in a specific act.

Can I eat an Oreo and say "I am not eating this Oreo"?

I think this quote from Alexander VIII is the sort of thing that, if not understood, could turn people Protestant. It seems grotesquely unfair if you really believe that the Church is saying a baptism relies for its validity on what a priest is thinking at the moment he carries it out. Come to think of it, I found the Alexander VIII quote being used exactly that way by a Protestant, to make the Church sound monstrous and arbitrary.

Maybe quotes like this are a test from God to see if His people will do the research and make the effort to learn before reacting violently.

CM · « **Reply #1 on:** January 13, 2010, 04:00:38 AM »

A few things to note:

It's a decree of the Holy Office under Alexander VIII, not a de fide statement.

Quote from: Even then the condemned proposition never

Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who CORRECTLY[/u] observes all the external rite and form of baptizing, but with his heart resolves, I do not intend what the Church does.

Here is some more stuff that should help:

Quote from: St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, III, Q.64, Art. 8, Reply to Objection 3

Although he who thinks of something else, has no actual intention, yet he has habitual intention, which suffices for the validity of the sacrament; for instance if, when a priest goes to baptize someone, he intends to do to him what the Church does. Wherefore if subsequently during the exercise of the act his mind be distracted by other matters, the sacrament is valid in virtue of his original intention. Nevertheless, the minister of a sacrament should take great care to have actual intention. But this is not entirely in man's power, because when a man wishes to be very intent on something, he begins unintentionally to think of other things, according to Psalm 39:18: "My heart hath forsaken me.

Quote from: Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, #33

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.

So it would seem that as long as baptism is administered correctly, a Catholic is to presume a right intention, and this makes only too much sense, as an intention must effect the movement of the faculties. However malicious a minister may be, if he does externally what the Church does, then he intended to do so. Otherwise how could a minister perform that which he intends not to?

In other words, the Holy Office decree above is correct that if it were to happen that the external rites were performed by a minister who intended not to do what the Church does, this would be manifested by an error in carrying out what the Church does, and would be externally manifested.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** January 13, 2010, 06:19:16 AM »

I also disagree with the (Holy Office under) Alexander VIII quote.

Nor do I think that by "presumed" valid we're in the mode of "we'll just pretend it is". It IS valid. In performing the rite according to that prescribed by the Church you intend to DO what the Church DOES--whether you believe in it or not or whether you in your head think "I don't really mean to do this." By the very fact of doing it, you intend to do it--unless you're utterly deranged.

It's as if I pulled out a knife, stabbed someone, while thinking "I don't mean to do this." By the very fact of DOING it you meant to do it.

Caio di Corea · « **Reply #3 on:** January 14, 2010, 11:30:10 AM »

http://cathom.blogspot.com/2010/01/we-must-always-live-in-serious.html

The only two channels which convey sanctifying grace to our souls are Baptism and Penance: the first cancels original, the second actual sin. The first requires the intention of the person who administers it, which is hidden from us

CM · « **Reply #4 on:** January 14, 2010, 05:02:27 PM »

Caio, your quote is wrong on a couple points.

Perfect contrition is also held to be a channel of sanctifying grace, and it is not the sacrament of Penance.

Baptism also cancels actual sin.

The intention of the person who administers the sacrament to do what the Church does is manifested by his correct performance of the rite; he does what the Church does.

Otherwise you have people living their whole life believing that they are baptized, and yet they may well be still pagans. Are you going to point to the hierarchy of the Church and start saying that we can never know which pope was baptized, or which saint?

If we can never really know that we are CHRISTIAN, then you can not ever really know the pope is either, and the possibility that the whole hierarchy has been overtaken by all unbaptized people since the time of the Early Church is one you could never disprove.