Author Topic: Moral Certainty When Confecting the Sacraments (Read 1111 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** April 29, 2014, 02:27:38 PM »

SJB

In regards to the sacrament being certainly valid when proper form and matter are used and an intent to the contrary is hidden.

Quote

Not exactly though. We just say we have moral certainty unless something external destroys that certainty. I'll post something later that explains this.

When will you be posing on this buddy?

SJB · « **Reply #1 on:** April 30, 2014, 02:28:14 AM »

Here :

SJB · « **Reply #2 on:** April 30, 2014, 05:01:22 AM »

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #3 on:** April 30, 2014, 06:12:12 AM »

Thank you so much for this.

Please straighten me out if need be.

The minister only has to intend to do what the Church does even if he does not know or understand what the Church does?

Say a layperson baptizes another at the point of death intending to do what the Church does but not understand the character of the Sacrament or doesn't even realize that baptism cleanses the soul of Original Sin. is the sacrament valid as he intends to do what the Church does?

It says the Mass is not valid if a Priest does not do the will of Christ. I assume this is in regards to his intent of confecting the sacrament rather than not doing the will of Christ in his personal life? So what would be an example of a Priest who is not a public heretic ithholding his intention secretly when consecrating the bread and wine? Does the answer leave open the possibility that we can never know for sure we are receiving the Eucharist? I ask the question most sincerely as I sometimes read things without fully understanding.

Any reliable person is willing to respond. I don't know everyone here at all but I do not want opinions that will confuse me but clarifications from the likes of SJB or Ambrose or someone equally as knowledgeable.

Thanks very much,
John

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #4 on:** April 30, 2014, 06:23:42 AM »

Thanks also for the second posting which I just read. But I still look forward to my above questions being responded to.

Also in regards to the canonizations - are we to understand that we can only have a moral certitude that one is canonized by a valid Pope, is it possible for a valid Pope to withhold his intention or to canonize in jest in his heart while allowing the faithful to believe he is most serious?

Thanks again for your patience.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** April 30, 2014, 06:40:25 AM »

Intention must be manifest, that is, the intention must be able to be known in the external forum.

A priest, for example, who reads the Mass and performs the rites according to the Missal is manifestly doing has the Church does. His intention is manifested by the actions he is performing. If, on the other hand, the same priest explains his intention in the sermon that he is merely re-enacting the Last Supper and that the bread and wine on the altar is symbolic of Christ's Body and Blood, there would be grave doubts about whether there was a valid Mass.

In the traditional Mass, the intention of the priest is made manifest in the Offertory, so that, even if he internally doubted the Sacrament or positively disbelieved in the Sacrament but never made this known, the Sacrament would still be valid.

In the Novus Ordo, there is no prayer in that service which makes the intention of the priest manifest. Thus, his intention is not manifest and if he believes other than what the Church teaches in regards to the Sacrament, his Masses are, at best, doubtful. Because seminarians in the Novus Ordo are positively taught heresies in many seminaries, the very ability of the Novus Ordo priest to offer a valid Mass is, likewise, doubtful.

At least, this is what Archbishop Lefebvre wrote in his book, Open Letter to Confused Catholics. I recommend that you read this book. While it is not a theological treatise, I think it would answer the questions you seem to be raising better than what I or anyone on CathInfo can explain.

Ambrose · « **Reply #6 on:** April 30, 2014, 07:10:49 AM »

LoT,

The following was posted by Joe Cupertino on the Bellarmine Forums and is a good companion to the text that SJB posted:

The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments
REV. RAPHAEL DE SALVO, O.S.B., S.T.L. 1949, The excerpt below is Chapter 5, the summation and conclusion, pp.92-105.

Found HERE

This is from the text:

Quote

4. Provided the minister seriously performs all the sacramental rites, there is no need for being doubtful about the validity of the sacraments, for it is presumed that the minister has the requisite intention, unless he externally manifests the contrary. In the words of Pope Leo XIII:

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.58

5. The common opinion is that the external intention is insufficient for a valid sacrament, and thus, whenever it is certain that a minister, in conferring any of the sacraments which cannot be repeated, uses only the external intention and does not inwardly wish to do what the Church does, the sacrament should be repeated conditionally if the case is urgent. If it is not urgent, recourse should be had to the Holy See for a decision.59

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #7 on:** April 30, 2014, 08:56:06 AM »

Thank you TKGS and Ambrose. This confirms and helps fill in anything lacking in what I already believed. I look forward to reading the link you provided.

SJB · « **Reply #8 on:** April 30, 2014, 05:13:19 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Thanks also for the second posting which I just read. But I still look forward to my above questions being responded to.

Also in regards to the canonizations - are we to understand that we can only have a moral certitude that one is canonized by a valid Pope, is it possible for a valid Pope to withhold his intention or to canonize in jest in his heart while allowing the faithful to believe he is most serious?

Thanks again for your patience.

I think it is important to realize and highlight that moral certainty is true certainty. I think this is lost in some of these exchanges, and it is assumed that moral certainty is just a mere probability.

SJB · « **Reply #9 on:** April 30, 2014, 07:51:53 PM »

The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, Volume 1, By Joseph Pohle, Arthur Preuss, 1915

Google books

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #10 on:** May 01, 2014, 12:25:56 PM »

Quote from: SJB

The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, Volume 1, By Joseph Pohle, Arthur Preuss, 1915

Google books

Thanks for this awesome book!