CathInfo.com

Sorry to interrupt.

Does anyone know who composed the new Rite of Ordination?

And is it true that it was formulated by the Consilium headed by that dastardly man, Bugnini?

Quote

The purely internal does not matter at all.

My purpose was to demonstrate the error of the above assertion which you and Lad attempted to make.  The text from you you cited is almost entirely devoted to demonstrating the above opinion as erroneous.  

That is why I said purely internal, because there is always an external associated with a Sacrament. What is externally manifest, which also shows us something of the internal, is what is important to judge when a sacrament is administered. It is the only thing anybody can know.

This is precisely why you don't understand the "pope issue".

"That Baptism is valid which is conferred by the minister who observes the whole external rite and the form of baptizing, but inwardly resolves to himself in his heart: I do not intend what the Church does."  ~Condemned

That condemnation does not apply to Catharinus--as per the source I cited.

Nor does it apply to my position, even though it sounds at first glance as though it may.  Again, the operative words are WHAT the Church DOES.  You don't have to intend the Sacramental effect, and you can even have an intention to will away the Sacramental effect, but so long as you intend to do what the Church DOES, your will against the Sacramental effect means nothing.  It's simply reiterating the position of Trent that mere performance of the rite doesn't suffice (someone could be half asleep pronouncing the words over a basket of bread in the kitchen or deranged, etc.), i.e. that intention is required for validity.  That intention to do what the Church does is required.

It's the same argument that I made above.  Let's say that you have a gun.  To make the analogy more apt, I'm going to say that this gun shoots invisible bullets, and the gun is aimed at a target in the distance that you can't see.  You're told (by the Church) that when you pull the trigger a person will die.  But you don't believe it.  You even think to yourself, "I want that person not to die."  So you go ahead and pull the trigger.  In intentionally pulling the trigger, you intend to do what the Church does, whether you believe it actually hit its target or whether you wanted it not to hit its target.

You can INTERNALLY intend to EXTERNALLY DO WHAT the Church does.  So I'm saying that yes indeed the intention must be internal but the object of that intention is to do what the Church DOES.

Conversely, let's say some evil priest goes in front of a bakery, says the words of consecration over all the bread there, with the intention to deliberately subject the Blessed Sacrament to sacrileges.  I say that's invalid also, because he's not intending to do what the Church does.  Just because he intends the Sacramental effect doesn't make it valid, for the Church simply does not indiscriminately consecrate loaves of bread.