This deserves it's own thread.

Ladislaus was spreading nonsense and Pax also trying to make out that internal intention is not required for sacraments to be valid.

This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE as I am about to show.

The following quotes are taken from a translation of an chapter from a pre vatican II manual. The translation is on the EWTN website, but that is not relevant because it is a translation, and the quotes speak for themselves. (I'm anticipating the usual autistic sede responses by saying this)

Anyway here:


https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-intention-required-in-the-minister-of-the-sacraments-10370


476. 2º An internal intention is required [Common and certain teaching].

A. This is demonstrated from the sense of the Church:

a) For the validity of the sacraments, the councils require, beyond matter and form, an intention in the minister of doing what the Church does. And indeed the minister certainly has this intention, or an internal intention, as they say, when he immediately, and certainly and seriously intends to perform a true sacrament or immediately and absolutely wills that a sacrament be present.

b) Not otherwise teaches the Council of Trent, saying that there is no absolution, if the confessor lacks the "serious resolve [of the will: "animus"] of truly absolving."[1]

c) Alexander VIII, in the year 1690, condemned the following proposition of Farvacques, among the errors of the Jansenists: "A Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes every external rite and form of baptizing, but within, in his heart, resolves to himself: not to intend what the Church does."[2] Concerning this Benedict XIV said, "It cannot be denied that a grave wound [has been inflicted by this condemnation] on the aforementioned opinion (of Catharinus)."[3] (In practice, he says, the safer theory, that which demands an internal intention, must be followed; if this intention is lacking, therefore, the sacrament must be conditionally renewed in case of necessity; otherwise the Holy See is to be consulted about what to do.)

The _Roman_Missal_ implicitly teaches likewise, declaring a consecration ineffectual if the priest, having before himself 11 hosts, intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he intends, "because the intention is required."[4] This intention is certainly secret and internal.

B. It is demonstrated by theological reasoning: The intention is required in the minister in order that he may act as a minister of Christ, and that he might determine the rite, in itself indifferent to many ends, to be sacramental [n. 475]. But a merely external intention does not suffice for this, as is obvious from what has been said; an internal intention, or an intention of truly doing what the Church does or what Christ wills.
[1]. S. 14, cp. 6; D. 902. [2]. D. 1318; cf. Innoc. IV, "3 Decret." t. 42, cp. 1 et "Decr. S. officii," 4 Aug. 1768. [3]. "De Synod.," l. 7, c. 4, n. 8: Catharinus is defended by Bouesse, _L'economie_sacramentaire_, p. 358, and by Schillebeeckx, _op._cit._, p. 470-473; he is refuted by Renwart, _loc._ _cit._. [4]. § 7. concerning the defects which may occur in the celebration of the Mass.


477. It matters little whether the minister also acts seriously in those accompanying acts from which his will to act as a minister of Christ can be inferred. For the circuмstances themselves: 1. cannot make a rite in itself merely natural into a rite of the kind which Christ instituted; 2. cannot make a priest really act as a minister of Christ, if internally he does not wish to do so. It remains therefore that an internal intention is required in the minister.

488. Objection 1º: The sacraments produce grace "ex opere operato" (by the deed having been done). Ergo, whenever the external rite is seriously performed, grace necessarily follows, regardless of whether the minister has a contrary internal intention, just as seed sown in the earth yields fruit and as fire burns a rope, regardless of what the farmer or the one setting the fire internally wish.

R. 1. The sacraments are worked "ex opere operato" whenever they are and are performed according to the institution of Christ; but that they may be and may formally be performed according to the institution of Christ, they depend on the internal intention of the minister confecting and administering them.[1] -- 2. Therefore the comparison with the causes cited is not valid, for these causes possess in themselves the power of acting, and immediately produce their effect and are applied, independently of any intention. If this comparison were valid, the external rite, even when accomplished merely to mimic the sacrament, would in fact be a sacrament, which is the heresy of Luther.[2]


[1]. 3, q. 64, a. 8, ad 1. [2]. Cf. Franzelin, th. 17; Billuart, diss. 5, a. 7, prob. 6º.



479. Objection 2º: It is necessary that one can be certain of the validity of the sacraments: for otherwise the salvation of the faithful, and indeed perhaps the ecclesiastical hierarchy itself, are imperiled. But in fact, unless an external intention suffices, this certitude concerning the validity of the sacraments cannot be had, for an internal intention is known only to God. Therefore an internal intention is not required.

R. Concerning the validity of the sacraments one can have moral certitude, which suffices for acting prudently, and for dispelling anxieties of spirit. Thus Leo XIII: "When someone seriously and according to the ritual adheres to the due matter and form for confecting and conferring a sacrament, from this fact [considered according to the common manner in which men act] it may be inferred that he undoubtedly intends (with an internal intention) to do what the Church does."[1] For indeed, if there be any such, they are extremely rarely found, who have such malice that while they perform the sacrament with serious exterior, they internally withhold the intention; and in such a case, the truth of the opinion of Catharinus would profit little, since a minister as perverse as this could most likely secretly falsify the matter and form of the sacrament.



But in fact Christ provided thus far for the hierarchy, promising the perpetual assistance of the Holy Spirit, lest the Church ever fail.

IN PRACTICE: Whatever one thinks in theory about the opinion of Catharinus, it is wholly illicit to follow it, since where the validity of the sacraments is concerned, the safer portion must always be chosen.[2].
[1]. Ep. _Apostolicae_curae_, 13 Sept. 1896; cf. 3, q.64, a.8, ad 2. [2]. D. 1151.

 the internal intention cannot be known per se, that it's a matter of the internal forum, and secondly the internal intention requires only that the minister internally intend to DO WHAT the Church DOES, and not have any specific theological intention regarding what the Church intends to be the Sacramental effect.   That's why, as Pope Leo XIII himself explains, an atheist can validly confect the Sacrament of Baptism.  Internally he undoubtedly does not intend for the soul to be cleansed of Original Sin and to be washed of actual sin and any punishment due to sin.  In fact, he mostly like is sitting there internally thinking it's a bunch of BS adn does nothing, but as long as he has the "internal intention" of "I'm doing this thing that Catholics do", that's all that's necessary.

This. 

This.

'cept Thuc said "I'm NOT doing what the Church intends." Ergo, the above texts.




LIsten to Connie. She will soothe you.

Ladislaus gave you the correct answer. 

Bottom line: Yes, the internal intention must be there, but to determine whether it is or not, one must look to objective phenomena. 

If the minister performs the Rite correctly and normally, then we must assume that the internal intention was there. Leo XII makes this crystal clear.

However, if he says, moments before performing the Rite (to his students in Seminary), that he is does not intend to actually confect the Sacrament but only to show how the Rite should be performed, then we are to take his words as invalidating the Sacrament for lack of intention.

Thats not what the theology of the Church says.

It is not necessary add this fluff you are adding.

I guess you did not read the entire docuмent that you quoted above from EWTN. At the end, it says what I (and others) have been trying to explain to you, but you refuse to understand:

479. Objection 2º: It is necessary that one can be certain of the validity of the sacraments: for otherwise the salvation of the faithful, and indeed perhaps the ecclesiastical hierarchy itself, are imperiled. But in fact, unless an external intention suffices, this certitude concerning the validity of the sacraments cannot be had, for an internal intention is known only to God. Therefore an internal intention is not required.

R. Concerning the validity of the sacraments one can have moral certitude, which suffices for acting prudently, and for dispelling anxieties of spirit. Thus Leo XIII: "When someone seriously and according to the ritual adheres to the due matter and form for confecting and conferring a sacrament, from this fact [considered according to the common manner in which men act] it may be inferred that he undoubtedly intends (with an internal intention) to do what the Church does."[1] For indeed, if there be any such, they are extremely rarely found, who have such malice that while they perform the sacrament with serious exterior, they internally withhold the intention; and in such a case, the truth of the opinion of Catharinus would profit little, since a minister as perverse as this could most likely secretly falsify the matter and form of the sacrament.

But in fact Christ provided thus far for the hierarchy, promising the perpetual assistance of the Holy Spirit, lest the Church ever fail.

This Response (R.) explains our position. And it is the position of the Church. Moral certitude is all that we can EVER have about the "internal intention" if nothing is manifested in contradiction to the proper intention. Therefore, this "moral certitude suffices for acting prudently." Then he quotes, from Leo XIII, the exact quote we have been giving to you and you have been ignoring.

Then, after that part, he continues on, addressing "the opinion of Catharinus," which is condemned by the Church. He states:

IN PRACTICE: Whatever one thinks in theory about the opinion of Catharinus, it is wholly illicit to follow it, since where the validity of the sacraments is concerned, the safer portion must always be chosen.

The opinion of Catharinus says that no internal intention is necessary, but only performance of the external rite is necessary. That opinion is wrong.

What we are saying (with Pope Leo XIII) is that while Catharinus is wrong to suggest that internal intention is completely irrelevant, since we cannot observe the internal intention except when it is made manifest in some way, if the Rite is performed properly and no contrary intention is manifested, we can have "moral certitude" that the Sacrament was valid from the perspective of intention. And we can act securely on this "moral certitude."

Like I just said in the other thread, I really, like really am starting to think you Thucists are utterly stupid people.


You ability to grasp the object of a discussion is so retarded, that sometime I dont know where to begin.

So I will try again (*deep breath*)

....

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE THE INTENTION WAS DELIBERATELY WITHHELD AND THIS WAS ADMITTED BY THE MAN HIMSELF.

WE ARE NOT,
I SAY N ... O.... T....
TALKING ABOUT ACCEPTING RIGHT INTENTION IN GENERAL.




Is this clear enough for you!!!!!?????????????

Ok, let's just presume that +Thuc's withholding of intention is invalid.  What consecrations/ordinations did this affect?

It didn't affect all of them.  

Instead of attacking, why don't you produce a docuмent by Thuc himself where he claimed to "deliberately withhold" his intention when Consecrating the bishops that the Vatican itself admits that he Consecrated. Not that it would invalidate a Sacrament that had been conferred years before anyway, but you at least could be honest in your efforts to support your witch-hunt with hard evidence.

The fact is that the Vatican was so sure that Thuc's intention was valid when he "illicitly ordained" the Plamarians, they issued a decree of excommunication against him. Later, Thuc repented of his illicit action. Note the Vatican does not say that the Consecrations were invalid.

Therefore, the Vatican Notification did not claim that Thuc was just pretending and "withheld his intention." No, the Vatican investigated the matter, determined that the Consecrations/Ordinations were valid, excommunicated Thuc, and Thuc later said he was sorry.

Then in 1981, Thuc performed the Consecrations of Lauriers and Carmona and Rivera. Again, the Vatican investigated and excommunicated Thuc because he Consecrated those bishops.

You claim, with no evidence, except for an article from an SSPX newsletter from 1982, that Thuc withheld his intention for something that happened years earlier. Do you think Cekada investigated the matter to the degree that the Vatican did? Do you think Cekada talked to Thuc?

Cekada wrote a hit piece and he later retracted it. Cekada himself was under a Thuc bishop, Dolan. Do you not see how ridiculous it is for you to claim Cekada as your source?


https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19830312_poenae-canonicae_en.html

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

Notification*

His Excellency Mons. Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc, titular Archbishop of Bulla Regia, in the month of January 1976 ordained several priests and bishops in the village of Palmar de Troya in Spain, in a way which was completely illicit. Consequently, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 17 September of the same year, issued a decree (cf. AAS LXVIII, 1976, p. 623), mentioning the canonical penalties incurred both by himself and by the others who were thus illicitly ordained by him.

Later the same Prelate requested and obtained absolution from the excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See which he had incurred.

It has now come to the knowledge of this Sacred Congregation that His Excellency Mons. Ngô-dinh-Thuc, since the year 1981, has again ordained other priests contrary to the terms of canon 955. Moreover, what is still more serious, in the same year, disregarding canon 953, without pontifical mandate and canonical provision, he conferred episcopal ordination on the religious priest, M.-L. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., of France, and on the priests Moises Carmona and Adolfo Zamora, of Mexican origin. Subsequently Moises Carmona in his turn conferred episcopal ordination on the Mexican priests Benigno Bravo and Roberto Martínez, and also on the American priest George Musey.

Moreover, His Excellency Ngô-dinh-Thuc wished to prove the legitimacy of his actions especially by the public declaration made by him in Munich on 25 February 1982 in which he asserted that "the See of the Catholic Church at Rome was vacant" and therefore he as a bishop "was doing everything so that the Catholic Church of Rome would continue for the eternal salvation of souls".

After duly pondering the seriousness of these crimes and erroneous assertions, the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, by special mandate of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, deems it necessary to renew the prescripts of its decree of 17 September 1976, which in this case is applied fully, namely.

1) Bishops who ordained other bishops, as well as the bishops ordained, besides the sanctions mentioned in canons 2370 and 2373, 1 and 3, of the Code of Canon Law, incurred also, ipso facto, excommunication most specially reserved to the Apostolic See as stated in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office of 9 April 1951 (AAS XLIII, 1951, p. 217 f.) The penalty contained in canon 2370 applies also to assisting priests, should any have been present.

2) In accordance with canon 2374 priests illicitly ordained in this way are ipso factosuspended from the order received, and they are also irregular should they exercise the order (canon 985, 7).

3) Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in forceuntil repentance.

Moreover, this Sacred Congregation deems it its duly earnestly to warn the faithful not to take part in or support in any way liturgical activities or initiatives and works of another kind which are promoted by those mentioned above (1).

Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 12 March 1983.

Joseph Card. RATZINGER
Prefect

Fr Jérôme Hamer, O.P.
Titular Archbishop of Lorium
Secretary

---

* L’Osservatore Romano, English Edition, 18 April 1983, Page 12.
1) As regards the concordance of the canons mentioned above with the canonical legislation recently promulgated, cf. in the New Code of Canon Law canons 1015, par. 1; 1013; 1382-1385; 104, 6.

Cekada thing has no connection.

Object of Vatican investigation was not validity of Sacrament. Just the fact he did it.

Read more carefully, the Notification states: "...he conferred episcopal ordination on the religious priest, M.-L. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., of France, and on the priests Moises Carmona and Adolfo Zamora, of Mexican origin."

The Notification could have said Thuc "attempted to confer," but it did not say that. The Vatican officialyl acknowledged that the valid conferral of episcopal consecration took place.

And if the Cekada thing has no connection, why don't you produce your evidence? The Angelus article that you referred to in the other thread was based on Cekada's earlier comments.

It was not based on Cekadas comments. That's in the mind of the Thuc cultists. Pure fiction.

And I'm not interested in what the Modernists in Rome thing about Thuc. Neither should you.