it is quite possible that a pagan Baptism might be valid

HOW?  You're claiming that intention involves intending to do what the Church intends, i.e. that pagan would have to intend the remission of Original Sin, infusion of sanctifying grace, etc.

Quote from: Council of Florence, Exaltate Deo

In case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but also a layman, or a woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church.

 

Quote from: Council of Trent, Canons on Baptism (Canon 4)

If anyone says that baptism, even that given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema.

This is how I was taught and how I've always believed it. Thank you for substantiating this for me.

Quote from: curioustrad

it is quite possible that a pagan Baptism might be valid

HOW?  You're claiming that intention involves intending to do what the Church intends, i.e. that pagan would have to intend the remission of Original Sin, infusion of sanctifying grace, etc.

In other words, according to curioustrad's position to validly baptize a pagan would have to convert to the Catholic faith, i.e. cease to be a pagan. But the Church teaches that pagans can validly baptize.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: curioustrad

it is quite possible that a pagan Baptism might be valid

HOW?  You're claiming that intention involves intending to do what the Church intends, i.e. that pagan would have to intend the remission of Original Sin, infusion of sanctifying grace, etc.

In other words, according to curioustrad's position to validly baptize a pagan would have to convert to the Catholic faith, i.e. cease to be a pagan. But the Church teaches that pagans can validly baptize.

No that isn't my position. There are some distinctions to be made:

1/ Until the Middle Ages no-one ever mentioned the need for a ministerial intention. The Fathers (St. Augustine, St. Athanasius etc.) said the words and the ceremony effect the Sacrament (here said of Baptism).

2/ During the Middle ages the debate raged over the issue of intention. Some said like the Fathers - the performance of the ceremony effected the Sacrament. Others said the "intention to do what the Church does" was also required - although what that meant was also debated.

3/ In the modern era (and by that I mean pre-Vatican II) the theologians generally agree that the intention must also be internal in so much as it is an act of the will.

4/ In the ordinary course of things Baptism is to be performed by a Bishop or Priest and a Deacon with delegation.

5/ However, in danger of death, the Church extends the possibility to laity and heretics and even pagans.

6/ In the case of Baptism administered in danger of death, prudence dictates at least a conditional baptism where the question of intention may not be certain. Since this is carried out with utmost secrecy (usually) you don't get to know about such things.

7/ In an earlier post I made reference to an actual case where a Priest withheld his intention:

Here is what happened:

Anthony Gavin, a Catholic priest of Saragossa, describes the confession of a brother priest on his deathbed, whose name he conceals, and who says: "The necessary intention of a priest in the administration of baptism and consecration (of the wafer) without which the sacraments are of no effect, I confess I had it not on several occasions, as you may see in the parish books; and observe that the baptism was invalid of every person whose name is there marked with a star, for in such cases I had no intention. And for this I can give no other reason than my malice and wickedness. Many of them are dead, for which I am heartily sorry. As for the times I have consecrated (the wafer) without intention we must leave it to God's mercy, for the wrong done by it to the souls of my parishoners, and those in purgatory cannot be helped." [Master Key to Popery, 1833 Cincinnati, p. 35] (…) Gavin, on examining the parish books, found one hundred and fifty-two names marked with a star, and of the persons enrolled in this ill-starred register eighty six were dead. Gavin was greatly troubled about these persons, knowing that it is the decided opinion of the Church that "The intention of the priest is absolutely necessary to the validity of a sacrament, without which there is no sacrament at all." By the advice of his brother priests he communicated the case to the bishop, who summoned the persons still living, who through the absence of intention in the defunct priest, were not baptized when they passed through all the forms of baptism, and bringing them into his own chamber separately, he baptized them; enjoining the strictest secrecy under the heaviest penalties upon each. [Master Key to Popery, 1833 Cincinnati, p. 38]

Quote

3/ In the modern era (and by that I mean pre-Vatican II) the theologians generally agree that the intention must also be internal in so much as it is an act of the will.

So far you have not demonstrated it, you just gave one quote from Ott.

Quote from: curioustrad

5/ However, in danger of death, the Church extends the possibility to laity and heretics and even pagans.

6/ In the case of Baptism administered in danger of death, prudence dictates at least a conditional baptism where the question of intention may not be certain. Since this is carried out with utmost secrecy (usually) you don't get to know about such things.

You still miss the main point. If internal intention of doing what Church intends to accomplish is required (as you claim), a pagan is incapable of validly baptizing under any circuмstances, becaue he does not believe in original sin and baptismal regeneration, and thus by definition he cannot have internal intention of doing what the Church intends. He would have to convert to the Catholic faith or Eastern Orthodoxy (or some Protestant denomination which believes in baptismal regeneration) and start believing in original sin, necessity of baptism for salvation etc. to have proper intention. But the Church teaches otherwise.

Quote

7/ In an earlier post I made reference to an actual case where a Priest withheld his intention:

That sort of anecdotal evidence cannot be considered a doctrinal argument.

What if one of the bishops in the 1st century withheld intention during the ordination? According to your interpretation great portion of the priests today would be impostors and in general we have no way of knowing who is priest and who is not.

Your arguments are not with me - they are with Ott who quotes the majority opinion, Bellarmine who states no-one can know with the certainty of faith anyone's intention. Anecdotes (though a weak form of authority) nevertheless show Church Sacramental Theology in practice. Argue with the evidence - not with me. All I see here are people spouting opinions not citing theologians of merit.

Here is the trusty Catholic Encylopedia:

Conditional baptism

From the foregoing it is evident that not all baptism administered by heretics or schismatics is invalid. On the contrary, if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really "intends to perform what the Church performs" the baptism is undoubtedly valid. This is also authoritatively stated in the decree for the Armenians and the canons of the Council of Trent already given. The question becomes a practical one when converts to the Faith have to be dealt with. If there were one authorized mode of baptizing among the sects, and if the necessity and true significance of the sacrament were uniformly taught and put in practice among them, there would be little difficulty as to the status of converts from the sects. But there is no such unity of teaching and practice among them, and consequently the particular case of each convert must be examined into when there is question of his reception into the Church. For not only are there religious denominations in which baptism is in all probability not validly administered, but there are those also which have a ritual sufficient indeed for validity, but in practice the likelihood of their members having received baptism validly is more than doubtful. As a consequence converts must be dealt with differently. If it be certain that a convert was validly baptized in heresy, the sacrament is not repeated, but the ceremonies which had been omitted in such baptism are to be supplied, unless the bishop, for sufficient reasons, judges that they can be dispensed with. (For the United States, see the First Council of Baltimore.) If it be uncertain whether the convert's baptism was valid or not, then he is to be baptized conditionally. In such cases the ritual is: "If thou art not yet baptized, then I baptize thee in the name", etc. The First Synod of Westminster, England, directs that adult converts are to be baptized not publicly but privately with holy water (i.e. not the consecrated baptismal water) and without the usual ceremonies (Decr. xvi). Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration. Still each case must be examined into (S. C. Inquis., 20 Nov., 1878) lest the sacrament be sacrilegiously repeated.

As to the baptism of the various sects, Sabetti (no. 662) states that the Oriental Churches and the "Old Catholics" generally administer baptism accurately; the Socinians and Quakers do not baptize at all; the Baptists use the rite only for adults, and the efficacy of their baptism has been called in question owing to the separation of the matter and the form, for the latter is pronounced before the immersion takes place; the Congregationalists, Unitarians and Universalists deny the necessity of baptism, and hence the presumption is that they do not administer it accurately; the Methodists and Presbyterians baptize by aspersion or sprinkling, and it may be reasonably doubted whether the water has touched the body and flowed upon it; among the Episcopalians many consider baptism to have no true efficacy and to be merely an empty ceremony, and consequently there is a well-grounded fear that they are not sufficiently careful in its administration. To this may be added, that Episcopalians often baptize by aspersion, and though such a method is undoubtedly valid if properly employed, yet in practice it is quite possible that the sprinkled water may not touch the skin. Sabetti also notes that ministers of the same sect do not everywhere follow a uniform method of baptizing.

The practical method of reconciling heretics with the Church is as follows:-- If baptism be conferred absolutely, the convert is to make no abjuration or profession of faith, nor is he to make a confession of his sins and receive absolution, because the sacrament of regeneration washes away his past offences. If his baptism is to be conditional, he must first make an abjuration of his errors, or a profession of faith, then receive the conditional baptism, and lastly make a sacramental confession followed by conditional absolution. If the convert's former baptism was judged to be certainly valid, he is only to make the abjuration or the profession of faith and receive absolution from the censures he may have incurred (Excerpta Rit. Rom., 1878). The abjuration or profession of faith here prescribed is the Creed of Pius IV, translated into the vernacular. In the case of conditional baptism, the confession may precede the administration of the rite and the conditional absolution be imparted after the baptism. This is often done as a matter of fact, as the confession is an excellent preparation for the reception of the sacrament (De Herdt, VI, viii; Sabetti, no. 725).

Source

You see the Church in her right mind has questions galore - and she has answers - you don't play around with Sacraments and especially not Baptism. If she's got questions with regards to Protestants - she certainly would have with regards to pagans!

I miss no main point at all - a pagan may have a confused intention - but the degree of certitude in the integrity of the intention is certainly diminished. Whoever heard this ridiculous notion that except someone embrace Christianity they could not validly baptize ? They probably could - but I wouldn't rely on that for my salvation if that were me.

I'll give you another anecdote - one from personal experience - years ago I unintentionally -  overheard a conversation with a layman and a priest - since it happened right in front of me while I was praying in the church I couldn't avoid hearing it. The priest was the Parish Priest and he was discussing with a fellow the absence of a baptismal certificate that was needed for the layman to get married. The elderly Irishman said: "Well there's no need to worry about it - we don't have the paper so we'll conditionally baptize you and record it here - that'll take care of it now." Now here there was no doubt of the man's Baptism whatsoever - except he lacked the docuмentary evidence. I do not know why 2 witnesses couldn't be produced and it was none of my business - however, for the sake of re-establishing a paper trail the PP saw fit to perform a conditional Baptism to remove the doubt. I don't fault his judgment.

You see that not even a doubt of intention is required to repeat a Sacrament sometimes!

No, it is you who contradict constant teaching of the Church that a pagan can validly baptize. A pagan by definition cannot have an inner intention of doing what the Church intends to accomplish (because he does not believe in original sin and baptismal regeneration), yet, the Church teaches he can validly baptize, which means inner intention is not necessary for validity of the sacrament. Thus, Church teaching trumps any theologian or anecdotal evidence you bring up.

I miss no main point at all - a pagan may have a confused intention - but the degree of certitude in the integrity of the intention is certainly diminished. Whoever heard this ridiculous notion that except someone embrace Christianity they could not validly baptize ? They probably could - but I wouldn't rely on that for my salvation if that were me.

A confused intention? According to your standard a pagan would have to think "I want to remit original sin all all personal sins of this person by baptism in the name of the Father, Son and the Spirit". But a pagan does not believe any of the above, he cannot have this intention unless he converts to Christianity. Yet, the Church teaches that a pagan can validly baptize - this alone refutes the view that someone's intention in internal forum can invalidate the sacrament.

The positive docuмent: "The Decree for the Armenians"

"The Decree for the Armenians", in the Bull "Exultate Deo" of Pope Eugene IV, is often referred to as a decree of the Council of Florence. While it is not necessary to hold this decree to be a dogmatic definition of the matter and form and minister of the sacraments, it is undoubtedly a practical instruction, emanating from the Holy See, and as such, has full authenticity in a canonical sense. That is, it is authoritative. The decree speaks thus of Baptism:

Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we can not enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water; and it is indifferent whether it be cold or hot. The form is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We do not, however, deny that the words: Let this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; or: This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, constitute true baptism; because since the principal cause from which baptism has its efficacy is the Holy Trinity, and the instrumental cause is the minister who confers the sacrament exteriorly, then if the act exercised by the minister be expressed, together with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the sacrament is perfected. The minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to baptize, by reason of his office. In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay, even a pagan or heretic can baptize, provided he observes the form used by the Church, and intends to perform what the Church performs. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin. As a consequence, no satisfaction for past sins is enjoined upon those who are baptized; and if they die before they commit any sin, they attain immediately to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.

Catholic Encylopedia - article I already cited from

Yes a pagan can baptize - but he must have the intention - if the Church questions the intention of Protestant ministers (as is later stated in the same article) why are pagans exempted from questioning the intention they held (or didn't  hold) during a hypothetical baptism?

Surely their intention is more confused than that of a Protestant clergyman?

Problem here is with the notion of "interior" intention.  Interior/internal only speaks to the fact that it's internal, an act of the mind and will, vs. just physical activity.

What's at issue is not whether it must be interior or internal, but what the OBJECT of that intention must be.

Again, the object of said "internal" intention must be simply to DO that which the Church DOES.  One need not intend the same thing the Church intends by doing that action.  So what's under discussion is the OBJECT of said internal intention.  If one must intend what the Church intends, then pagans could never validly baptize.  But if one merely intends to DO that which the Church DOES, then anyone can validly baptized.

And notice the language of Trent; one must intend to DO that which the Church DOES.  No mention of someone having to intend what the Church intends.

Let me give you an example of where the interior intention is lacking.  Let's say you have a priest who's just practicing offering Mass (for whatever reason).  Perhaps it's because he's been just conditionally ordained from the Novus Ordo but doesn't yet know how to offer the Tridentine Mass.  He does everything including saying the words of consecration.  But his intention is just to "practice".  In that case there's no intention to perform the action that the Church performs.  This would not be valid.  So the mere external action of saying the words does not suffice to validly confect the Sacrament.

But, on the contrary, if you have a rogue priest (say, some Communist infiltrator) who goes up there and says Mass for the parish.  In his mind, he's saying "I do not intend to consecrate."  This matters not.  By going there and publicly offering the Mass, he intends to DO what the Church does, to PERFORM the actions that the Church performs in order to validly offer the Mass.  That act of the intellect & will (internal actions) suffices to make the Mass valid, despite him intending NOT to do that which the Church INTENDS by the Mass.

That's why, regardless of what rogue infiltrators might be in the Church, God will safeguard the validity of the Sacraments for the faithful.  God doesn't withhold the Sacraments from the faithful due to such rogue elements.