Tradfly wrote:
..in all bar a signed sheet of paper, whilst he puts his charges under the beneficent care of FTD (Francis The Destroyer), how are the Resistance clerics mobilising to provide for the imminent large influx of displaced souls?

Any punters? It's only I've yet to spot a clue in that regard..

Bindas wrote:
The SSPX and the Resistance are a disgrace. Even that's a mild word!

Quote from: Ladislaus

 
This last sentence is disputed by theologians.

I have long disagreed with +Williamson's understanding of "intention".  You cannot invalidate a Sacrament based on some act performed in the internal forum.

That is why the theological principle is formulated that one must intend to DO what the Church DOES.

One need not INTEND what the Church INTENDS.

Crucial distinction.  You simply intend to DO WHAT the Church DOES.  I intend to PERFORM the Church's RITE of CONSECRATION.  Valid Sacrament.  Despite any secret inner thoughts about "I really don't intend what the Church intends with this Sacrament."

And this makes sense.  Otherwise, everything is thrown into chaos.  What if the priest who Baptized me didn't have the proper "intention"?  Yes, I can "PRESUME" that he did it but can never be more sure than that.

Nonsense.  If he did it, then it's valid ... unless he was basically not in his right mind and had no idea what he was DOing.

There is not certainty on this; but only theological opinions. There are some who say, that an internal intention is indeed necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. And some who disagree with this, maintaining that as long as the proper words and matter are used, (and the priest has the  habitual intention of doing what the Church does) the Sacrament is valid; even if the priest is distracted, lacking Faith, or somehow incapacitated at that moment.

Among the theologians who hold the first opinion, there is Ludwig Ott, who believed that a mere external manifestation on the part of who is conferring the Sacrament would not be sufficient for the validity thereof; but that an internal disposition would be also necessary.

Quote from: Ludwig Ott

According to the almost general opinion of current theologians, an inner intention (intentio interna) is necessary for the valid administration of the sacraments. By intentio interna is meant an intention that is directed not merely to the external execution of the sacramental rite, but also to its inner signification. The mere external intention (intentio mere externa) … which is directed toward merely performing the external action with earnestness and in the proper circuмstances, while the inner religious significance is not taken into consideration, is insufficient.

The mere external intention is not compatible with the concept of doing what the Church intends, or with the status of the minister as a servant of Christ, or with the religious determination of the sacramental sign, which is of itself capable of many interpretations, or with the declarations of the Church.

However, the Council of Trent speaks only about "at least" an intention of doing what the Church does. The "at least" part is important, but it is vague. It is hard to say with exactitude what really constitutes this intention and its necessity in the internal forum.  

Quote from: Trent, Canon 11

“If anyone says that, in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does, let him be anathema.”

St. Thomas writes in the Summa that the minister’s “intention is required, whereby he subjects himself to the principal agent; that is, it is necessary that he intend to do that which Christ and the Church do. This means that the minister must truly intend to confer the Sacrament. He must use the appropriate matter and he must mean the words (form). If this minimal intention is lacking, then the Sacrament is not valid.

It has been suggested that the following are theologically true:

“So if, by misjudgement, you were present at a Mass where (…) the priest wore jeans and made up a lot of the prayers himself and Sister A strummed on a guitar and Sister B stood beside Father and pretended to concelebrate and the altar was a plywood coffee table and some floosies did a belly dance at the Offertory ... then, (…) you should kneel and worship the True Body and the True Blood of Christ, because they are truly present.”

Source: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2017/01/novus-ordo-hosts-being-administered-at.html

A Question of Intention

Updated below the original "Conclusion"

It has been suggested that the following are theologically true:

“So if, by misjudgement, you were present at a Mass where (…) the priest wore jeans and made up a lot of the prayers himself and Sister A strummed on a guitar and Sister B stood beside Father and pretended to concelebrate and the altar was a plywood coffee table and some floosies did a belly dance at the Offertory ... then, (…) you should kneel and worship the True Body and the True Blood of Christ, because they are truly present.”

Source: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2017/01/novus-ordo-hosts-being-administered-at.html

And:

("If a Bishop doesn't believe in Sacrificing priests, how can he intend to ordain them?"). This error is so grave (you'd never know for sure whether any sacrament was valid because you could never be sure that the bishop's or priest's views were orthodox)…

Simple rule: (1) If someone says that a Sacrament is invalid and that this invalidity results simply and solely from some mistake, or some heresy, in the mind of the Minister, then he is wrong. This is contrary to the Church's teaching.

Source: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2017/01/intention-yet-again-updated.html

And finally:

I have written before about the frantic desire some who think of themselves as Ultra-Traditionalists have to discover 'invalidity' in the sacraments of the non-traddy part of the Church. Indeed, there are ultra-ultra-traddies who passionately seek out 'invalidity' even among plain traddies.

(…) Here, today, is an explanation by an Englishman, the Fr Adrian Fortescue who wrote The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, still the standard handbook for the Vetus Ordo . This is what he wrote in a book published by the Catholic Truth Society in 1908.

"People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament (the point applies equally to minister and subject). The 'implicit intention  of doing what Christ instituted' means so small and vague a thing that one can hardly help having it ... numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is (this was the error of St Cyprian and Firmalian against which Pope Stephen I, a.d. 254-7, protested). A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament, and yet confer it or receive it validly."

His powerful point is that this is an area in which one can fall into heresy. If you say that "Fr X does not have one ounce of Catholic belief about the Mass, so his Masses are obviously invalid, because he doesn't intend to do what the Church does", you are not being a rigidly firm splendidly orthodox Traditional Catholic, defending with your lifeblood the Faith of our Fathers. You are being a heretic. Well, no, not really: because you don't want to contradict the Church's established dogma about 'intention'; you are just terribly confused about what that teaching is. But what you have actually said still technically is, in Fortescue's word, 'heresy'. Seriously: the danger for us all at this time is that some of those trying to restore Tradition will erect new and untraditional home-made shibboleths of their own. This is not a help; it is an unwelcome distraction from the real problems. (…)

The only way a daft priest can invalidate a Mass is by forming a deliberate interior intention "I'm not performing any sort of Christian rite at all; I am just play-acting"; or by not using real wheat bread and real grape wine; or by not using words which mean This is my Body, This is my Blood. There are a lot of other bad things he can do, but they are what we call "abuses" and abuses do not invalidate. They might, however, give one a thoroughly good reason for seeking out a Mass celebrated by a less daft priest.

Source: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2017/01/untraddy-traddies.html

This is supposedly based on an unsourced quotation from St. Robert Bellarmine:

The Church's standard teaching is graphically expressed by Bellarmine:

"There is no need to intend to do what the Roman Church does; but what the true Church does, whichever it is, or what Christ instituted, or what Christians do: for they amount to the same. You ask: What if someone intends to do what some particular or false church does, which he thinks the true one, like that of Geneva, and intends not to do what the Roman church does? I answer: even that is sufficient. For the one who intends to do what the church of Geneva does, intends to do what the universal church does. For he intends to do what such a church does, because he thinks it to be a member of the true universal church: although he is wrong in his discernment of the true church. For the mistake of the minister does not take away the efficacy of the sacrament: only a defectus intentionis does that."

Cardinal Franzelin gives an extreme case: a daft priest who didn't want to confer grace when he baptised but actually believed that by baptising he would consign someone to the Devil - there was a seventeenth century rumour about this in Marseilles. Non tamen, he writes, sacramenti virtutem et efficaciam impediret. He quotes Aquinas in support. In nineteenth century, the Holy Office declared that Methodist missionaries in Oceania who explicitly denied in the course of the Baptism service itself that Baptism regenerates, did not thereby invalidate the Sacrament. Heresy or even total Unbelief is, in the traditional Theology of the Western Church, NOT the same as a Defect of Intention. Defect of Intention means a deliberate intention not to confer the Sacrament at all, NOT a mistake about what the Sacrament is or confers.

Source: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2017/01/intention.html

However, this is not the official position of most modern (i.e. pre-Vatican 2) theologians as is stated here by Ott:

2. Activity of the Minister

a) For the valid dispensing of the Sacraments it is necessary that the minister accomplish the Sacramental Sign in the proper manner. (De fide.)

This involves the obligation of using the essential matter and the essential form and of unifying them in a unitary sacramental sign. D 695.

b) The minister must further have the intention at least of doing what the Church does. (De fide.)

The Council of Trent declared against the Reformers, who denied the necessity of the intention of the minister, as they recognised in the Sacrament a subjective, psychological efficacy only: Si quis dixerit, in ministris, dum sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt, non requiri intentionem saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, A.S. D 854. Cf. D 424, 672, 695, 752.

The expression "intendere facere quod facit Ecclesia" (to do what the Church does) has been current since the beginning of the 13th century. (Praepositinus, Gilbert of Poitiers,William of Auxerre, Philipp the Chancellor.)

?) Necessity of the intention

The Fathers did not discuss the necessity of the intention. They see the proper intention included in the proper consummation of the sacramental rite. Pope Cornelius (251-253) declared the bishop's consecration of Novatian as "an apparent and nugatory inlposition of hands," that is, as invalid, obviously on account of the lack of the necessary intention on the part of the minister (Eusebius, H.e. VI 43, 9). Regarding the validity of Baptism conferred in play or in joke there was uncertainty in Patristic times. St. Augustine ventured no decision (De bapt. VII 53, 102). It was only in the period of early Scholasticism that the question was cleared up, notably by Hugo of St. Victor (De sacr. II 6, 13).

The necessity of the intention is based on the following arguments. As the human minister is a servant and representative of Christ (I Cor. 4, I; 2 Cor. 5, 20), he is in duty bound to subordinate and adapt his will to the will of Christ  (My emphasis) Who gives him his mandate. Christ continues perpetually to live and work in the Church. Therefore it suffices to have the intention of doing what the Church does.

The human minister is a creature endowed with reason and freedom. The act involved in the execution of the administration of the Sacrament must therefore be an actus humanus, that is, an activity which proceeds from understanding and free will. Hugo of St. Victor, who was the first to lay strong emphasis on the intention, teaches: rationale esse oportet opus ministeriorum Dei (the work of the ministers of God ought to be rational) (De sacr. II 6, 13).

  The sacramental sign of itself is undetermined and may be used variously. By the intention of the minister it is unambiguously determined, and adapted to the sacramental operation. Cf. S. th. III 64, 8.

?) Nature of the Intention required in the Administration of the Sacraments. Subjectively regarded, an actual intention is that disposition of the will which is present before and during the whole action, but such a disposition is not indispensable. A virtual intention, that is, that disposition of the will, which is conceived before the action and which continues virtually during the action (called by St. Thomas intentio habitualis. S. tho III 64, 8 ad 3), also suffices. An habitual intention, that is, that disposition of the will which was conceived before the action and which was not withdrawn, but which during the action is neither actually nor virtually present, and thus does not affect the action, is not sufficient.

Objectively considered, the intention of doing what the Church does suffices. The minister, therefore, does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely, to produce the effects of the Sacraments, for example, the forgiveness of sins; neither does he need to intend to execute a specific Catholic rite. It suffices if he have the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians.

Source: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott, Translation by Dr. Patrick Lynch, edited by James Canon Bastible, D.D, 1955, Herder, St. Louis, pp. 343-4.

Now this is largely in agreement with those points made above which we reproduced as part of the debate in this theological excursion. However, Ott continues his discussion on the ministerial intention and develops it further bringing forth a most interesting series of points that flatly contradict the opinion that we should not question a priest’s intention even if the circuмstances surrounding the confecting of a Sacrament should cause a reasonable person to question not only the “spectacle” but also the intent of the celebrant. I think the implicit idea in all of this is somehow the mere celebration should allow us to presume  the validity but that simply is not the case – read on:

?) Inadequacy of an intentio “mere externa”

According to the almost general opinion of modern theologians, an inner intention (intentio interna) is necessary for the valid administration of the Sacraments. By intentio interna is meant an intention which is directed, not merely to the external execution of the sacramental rite, but also to its inner signification. The mere external intention (intentio mere externa) which was regarded by many theologians of early Scholasticism (for example Robertus Pullus, Roland), later by Ambrosius Catharinus, D.P. († 1553) and many theologians of the 17th and 18th centuries, (including Bellarmine, by the way) as adequate, and which is directed towards merely performing the external action with earnestness and in the proper circuмstances, while the inner religious significance is not taken into consideration, is insufficient. The mere external intention is not compatible with the concept of doing what the Church intends, or with the status of the minister as a servant of Christ, or with the religious determination of the sacramental sign, which is of itself capable of many interpretations, or with the declarations of the Church. Cf. D 424; fidelis intentio. Pope Alexander VIII, in 1690, rejected the following proposition: Valet Baptismus collatus a ministro, qui omnem ritum externum formamque baptizandi observat, intus vero in corde suo apud se resolvit: non intendo, quod facit Ecclesia. (A Baptism is valid which is conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and the form of baptising but who says in his heart" I do not intend to do what the Church does") D 1318.Cf.D 672,695, 902. (N.B. The foregoing proposition was condemned not approved !)

Source: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott, Translation by Dr. Patrick Lynch, edited by James Canon Bastible, D.D, 1955, Herder, St. Louis, pp. 344.

Indeed the question of a merely mental intention is of the utmost importance because of cases of a contrary and defective intention have in fact been verified. The following comes from a work which is Anti-Catholic in nature but whose veracity (on this subject at least) I do not question:

Suppose that the priest who baptizes a child did not intend to "do as the Church does," in granting the sacrament, then the child is not baptized, and no faith subsequently received, no works performed in the future can remove that original defect; according to the Catholic theory that man is not a Christian, and cannot be saved. (…) And suppose again, that this priest in consecrating the host does not intend to consecrate it, it follows, according to the papal theory, that it is not the real body and blood of Jesus, that it is only bread; and, therefore, when the people worship what they regard as the very Son of Mary, they are only adoring a piece of paste, they are guilty of idolatry. And suppose this priest in the confessional solemnly absolves a penitent man from his sins, but does not intend to release him from his guilt, on the Roman theory, the poor supplicant has no pardon, he rejoices in a delusion, he is the victim of sacerdotal imposition. And suppose that this priest baptizes an infant boy without the intention of doing it, and as a consequence the child is not a Christian, and can never perform with true validity any act of a Christian; that in time the priest becomes a bishop, and the babe becomes a man, and a candidate for the service of the altar; that this old friend ordains him deacon and priest, but "does not intend to do as the Church does," in either case, it follows that all the children he baptizes are heathens outside of Church, and with no title to heaven; that all his absolutions are null, and his penitents are still in their sins; (…) and that all his masses are impositions, the man himself being neither a priest nor a Christian; and hence all the people that worshipped the hosts which he consecrated were guilty of idolatry on every occasion in which they were in the church when he celebrated mass. Now let us suppose farther, that this young man becomes pope in the process of time, and he sits in Peter's chair for many years. He is not a Christian, he is not a priest, he can perform no religious act because he was never baptized; then all his masses are senseless mummeries, all his pontifical blessings are impositions; he has no right to send the Pallium to any bishop, so that the hundreds of bishops who have been consecrated during his long reign are destitute of authority to perform one episcopal act; all the priests and deacons they have ordained are laymen still, all the children they have baptized are yet in heathenism; all their absolutions are mockeries, and all their masses are but idolatries. Since the heavens were stretched over the earth, since this globe's covering of waters was gathered up into seas, nothing so monstrous as this doctrine was ever invented. No Catholic, without omniscient knowledge of the priest's intention, can possibly tell whether he was baptized, absolved, married, ordained; or whether in the mass he was idolatrously worshipping unchanged bread, or reverently adoring the veritable God-man made out of flour. In this way the whole earthly and everlasting religious privileges of the Catholic depend, not on Christ, not the man's own deeds or his priest's, but on the intentions of a minister whose purposes he has no possible way of learning.

And while Catholic priests have, no doubt, the ordinary honesty of motive common to men in general; yet, as Protestant communities have the deceitful, so unquestionably the Romish Church has the insincere and hypocritical, who, out of malice, or to gratify some caprice, or some sceptical opinion about the power of their sacraments, occasionally or frequently have no intention to "do as the Church does," and their masses, absolutions and other rites are all counterfeits.

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]

Source: The Papal System: From Its Origin to the Present Time, by William Cathcart, D.D., 1872, Menace Publishing Company, Aurora, pp. 358-360.

Concerning the state of confusion such an approach to the ministerial intention would present, oddly enough Bellarmine (it is stated) addressed precisely this issue in these terms:

"It is not possible for any one to be sure with the certainty of faith that he has received a true sacrament, as a sacrament cannot be celebrated without the intention of the minister, and no one can see the intention of another.” (Neque potest certus esse, certitudine fidei, se percipere verum sacramentum, cuм sacramentum sine intentione ministri non conficiatur, et intentionem alterius nemo videre possit.)—Bell. Disput. de Justif., lib. iii. c. 8, sec. 5, tom. iv. p. 488. Prag., 1721.

Source: The Papal System: From Its Origin to the Present Time, by William Cathcart, D.D., 1872, Menace Publishing Company, Aurora, p. 360.

Conclusion

In times of theological confusion, therefore, it is evident that dressing up and “saying the black and doing the red” may not always give the Faithful reason to presume that Sacraments are always valid. To affirm this position is not “heresy”. As Ott states above the church has deepened her understanding of the vital role the intention of the minister plays in the administering of the Sacraments. What was said by Bellarmine (on intention) no longer represents the majority view of theologians now. Where Sacraments are concerned, the policy of the Church has always been to follow the safer course (Tutiorism) e.g. the account of the Baptisms that were repeated as related above. Thus to affirm that the intention cannot always be presumed (according to Bellarmine) is simple common sense ! “But this is chaos !” You exclaim. I reply: "Is this not the plight of the Church today ?"
Update

Further to the postings above that led to the composition of this piece – some additional argumentation is advanced (condemnations and footnote):

And do not be anxious about receiving Communion in a church where both forms of the Roman Rite are in use; do not bother about hosts consecrated at a novus Mass having been mixed up in the Tabernacle with those consecrated at a Traditional Mass. Because    

                            THE BODY OF CHRIST IS THE BODY OF CHRIST.

                                                        Realiter et substantialiter.

And the Mass is the Mass, whatever the rite, however perverse its celebrant may be.

And so it is not right to call any Mass "EVIL". The smoke of Satan may have got into the celebrant's lungs, but his Mass is still the august and adorable oblation of the Divine Victim. God's power is stronger than the perversity of Man or the machinations of the Evil One. That is God's infallible guarantee. Because he loves you.

IF YOU SAY "I WILL NOT RECEIVE THOSE HOSTS BECAUSE THEY WERE (OR MIGHT HAVE BEEN) CONSECRATED AT A 'NEW' MASS", YOU ARE 'FAILING TO DISCERN THE LORD'S BODY' AND FALLING UNDER A DIVINE CONDEMNATION. IF YOU FAIL TO GENUFLECT BECAUSE YOU THINK THAT THE TABERNACLE IN FRONT OF YOU CONTAINS HOSTS WHICH ARE NOT PROPERLY CONSECRATED, YOU ARE NOT A 'TRADITIONALIST', JUST ONE MORE PERSON WHO IS REFUSING TO WORSHIP JESUS.

__________________________________________________________________

Footnote added (in reference to Bellarmine): * !542-1621, a vigorous and successful opponent of Protestant heresies. Canonised 1930; declared a Doctor of the Church in 1931.

Source: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2017/01/novus-ordo-hosts-being-administered-at.html

It is not in dispute that a Mass said in any approved rite of the Catholic Church is valid if a duly ordained priest, uses bread made from wheat (whether leavened or unleavened) and wine made from grapes, the words of consecration (according to the several rites) and possesses the correct intention. The argument (for the purpose of this article) concerns only the intention. Thus in response to the latest update:

Is a satanic mass valid ? There are those who hold that it may be so. Would it, therefore, be correct to say “(I)t is not right to call any Mass “EVIL” ? Of course not.

Here, however, our interest is not to establish whether a Mass is “evil” or not but whether it is valid or not. The teaching of the Church is clear – a defect of intention invalidates a Sacramental rite – pure and simple. The defect of intention is now held to be more than that enunciated by S. Robert Bellarmine. It matters not one whit when Bellarmine was canonized, nor the fact that he was proclaimed a Doctor of the Church. If the Church’s appreciation of her own understanding of sacramental theology has deepened since his time then surely we should not advance a theological opinion that clearly differs from that received by the Church in this age. We would not subscribe to the double conception theory today but the Scholastics (among them Aquinas – a Doctor of the Church) certainly did. We would not condemn S. Bernard of Clairvaux (likewise a Doctor of the Church) or S. Thomas for their opposition to the Immaculate Conception. The title of "Doctor of the Church" does not (according to my understanding of it at least) confer personal infallibility upon all their writings. If it did, we would be in quite a pickle.

The teaching remains quite clear, if a celebrant does not faithfully follow the Sacramental Rite (D 424 fidelis intentio), given the heterodoxy and heteropraxy of today’s Church, we cannot always presume the internal intention of the celebrant. As to Divine Condemnations – what of the celebrant who mocks the mind of God and the teaching of His Church? Is the priest who mutilates the rite merely “daft” or rather justly damnable? Let the imprecations fall where they surely should: not on those who question the mutilation but on those who mutilate!
And finally, if Bellarmine is to be considered, in this matter, the theological "be-all-and-end-all", then his own words (previously cited) bear repeating again:

"It is not possible for any one to be sure with the certainty of faith that he has received a true sacrament,
as a sacrament cannot be celebrated without the intention of the minister, and no one can see the intention of another.”

Neque potest certus esse, certitudine fidei, se percipere verum sacramentum, cuм sacramentum sine intentione ministri non conficiatur,
et intentionem alterius nemo videre possit.—Bell. Disput. de Justif., lib. iii. c. 8, sec. 5, tom. iv. p. 488. Prag., 1721.

"It is not possible for any one to be sure with the certainty of faith that he has received a true sacrament,
as a sacrament cannot be celebrated without the intention of the minister, and no one can see the intention of another.”

Neque potest certus esse, certitudine fidei, se percipere verum sacramentum, cuм sacramentum sine intentione ministri non conficiatur,
et intentionem alterius nemo videre possit.—Bell. Disput. de Justif., lib. iii. c. 8, sec. 5, tom. iv. p. 488. Prag., 1721.

Quote from: Ott

The mere external intention is not compatible with the concept of doing what the Church intends,

Quote from: Ott

The mere external intention is not compatible with the concept of doing what the Church intends,

If anyone says that, in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does, let him be anathema.

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote

"It is not possible for any one to be sure with the certainty of faith that he has received a true sacrament,
as a sacrament cannot be celebrated without the intention of the minister, and no one can see the intention of another.”

Neque potest certus esse, certitudine fidei, se percipere verum sacramentum, cuм sacramentum sine intentione ministri non conficiatur,
et intentionem alterius nemo videre possit.—Bell. Disput. de Justif., lib. iii. c. 8, sec. 5, tom. iv. p. 488. Prag., 1721.

If that is the case, why does the Church teach that anyone can validly baptize, including an atheist or a pagan? An atheist or a pagan by definition cannot have proper intention because they do not have the Catholic faith and do not believe in original sin. So it would follow that only a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox could validly baptize with proper intention (most Protestants don't believe in baptismal regeneration so they would not qualify either) - but that is not what the Church teaches. It seems to me Ladislaus is right on this one. I think that Fr Gregory Hesse taught the same thing - as long as priest "goes by the book", the sacrament is always valid.

In the practical order a baptism by a pagan would be repeated conditionally since the intention could not be presumed as certain.

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: curioustrad

Quote

"It is not possible for any one to be sure with the certainty of faith that he has received a true sacrament,
as a sacrament cannot be celebrated without the intention of the minister, and no one can see the intention of another.”

Neque potest certus esse, certitudine fidei, se percipere verum sacramentum, cuм sacramentum sine intentione ministri non conficiatur,
et intentionem alterius nemo videre possit.—Bell. Disput. de Justif., lib. iii. c. 8, sec. 5, tom. iv. p. 488. Prag., 1721.

If that is the case, why does the Church teach that anyone can validly baptize, including an atheist or a pagan? An atheist or a pagan by definition cannot have proper intention because they do not have the Catholic faith and do not believe in original sin. So it would follow that only a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox could validly baptize with proper intention (most Protestants don't believe in baptismal regeneration so they would not qualify either) - but that is not what the Church teaches. It seems to me Ladislaus is right on this one. I think that Fr Gregory Hesse taught the same thing - as long as priest "goes by the book", the sacrament is always valid.

Actually the quotation is from Bellarmine - I should think he knew a thing or two about "intention" after all he is a Doctor of the Church.