Author Topic: New Rite of Ordination (Read 7838 times)

Caminus · « **Reply #35 on:** June 01, 2010, 04:02:32 PM »

If you are posting that in an effort to show some kind of contradiction, it is futile. St. Thomas was referring to the external intention which is sufficient to provide moral certainty of validity of the internal intention, whereas the condemnation of Alexander was referring to an internal intention contrary to the rite performed, the very thing which you claim is irrelevant. According to the text cited above, it is relevant and can invalidate a Sacrament even while performing a rite approved by the Church.

SJB · « **Reply #36 on:** June 01, 2010, 04:41:51 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

If you are posting that in an effort to show some kind of contradiction, it is futile. St. Thomas was referring to the external intention which is sufficient to provide moral certainty of validity of the internal intention, whereas the condemnation of Alexander was referring to an internal intention contrary to the rite performed, the very thing which you claim is irrelevant. According to the text cited above, it is relevant and can invalidate a Sacrament even while performing a rite approved by the Church.

All while maintaining moral certainty of the validity of the sacrament. Are you trying to undermine that moral certainty?

SJB · « **Reply #37 on:** June 01, 2010, 04:51:58 PM »

Quote from: The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments, De Salvo, OSB, STL

A point of importance in this passage is the fact that St. Thomas makes a distinction between the intention and the expressing of the intention. The intention is the mental intention; the expressing of the intention is the external intention. Before the intention is expressed, it must really exist, and it can exist nowhere except in the mind of the minister. Thus, in this passage the mental or internal intention is mentioned. In the same article St. Thomas answers the objection that since man is a minister of the principal agent, his intention is not necessary, but only that of the principal agent. The Angelic Doctor makes a distinction between an inanimate and an animate instrument, saying that it is true that intention is not necessary in an inanimate instrument since it is moved entirely by the principal agent. But the animate instrument is not only moved but also moves itself insofar as it moves its members to action. St. Thomas concludes that in such an instrument there is required an intention by which it subjects itself to the principal agent, namely, that it intend to do what the Church does in the case of the sacraments. In this passage again it is clear that the intention is internal and more specifically one by which the instrument subjects himself to the will of Christ.

There is one phrase in particular in the reply to the second objection which is commented upon by the school of internal intention :

. . . in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed, and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament. ...

Cajetan expressed his interpretation of this passage by saying that the words of St. Thomas are not to be taken in the sense they seem to have, namely, that no internal intention is required. Rather the reply is in answer to the difficulty mentioned in the objection, i.e., if the mental intention is demanded, no one could be certain that he was truly baptized. It was for the purpose of giving us this certitude of having received the sacraments that St. Thomas wrote that the intention of the Church, as expressed through the words of the minister was sufficient, unless the contrary were expressed by the minister or the recipient.The sense of these words is that when the minister pronounces the form. a person can be morally certain that he is receiving the sacrament. The Angelic Doctor did not intend that the words expressed by the minister without any internal intention were sufficient for the validity of the sacraments, but that they were sufficient for human certitude. Hiquaeus, the Salmanticenses, and De Augustinis also interpreted this passage as referring to moral certitude. The Salmanticenses make a statement that summarizes this interpretation:

. . . supposing the necessity of internal intention in the minister, he (St. Thomas) still taught that the recipient of the sacraments can rest assured, and put aside all doubts about the intention of the minister since the minister, unless he expresses the contrary, is presumed to act according to the intention of the Church, which intention he expresses and represents by the words of the form . . . hence he does not base the absolute assurance of validity solely in the serious external exhibition of the sacrament, but assurance sufficient for removing scruples and doubts."

Caminus · « **Reply #38 on:** June 01, 2010, 04:59:24 PM »

What does quoting that text prove? The very same author who proves the erroneous nature of your claim?

SJB · « **Reply #39 on:** June 01, 2010, 05:05:21 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

What does quoting that text prove? The very same author who proves the erroneous nature of your claim?

I quoted it so others could read it. And what is "my claim", Caminus?

The intention is expressed in the form and as far as we are concerned, the intention of the minister is there and we have moral certainty of a valid sacrament.

Again, is it your intention here to attempt to undermine that moral certainty?