I recently heard an SSPX priest state:

"The three criteria necessary for a valid sacrament are:

1) Form

2) Matter

3) Intention"

Question: Can anyone tell me what's wrong with that statement?

Here's a hint:

There's actually a 4th criteria.

Anyone know what it is?

It must be instituted by Jesus Christ!

Truly, but not what I am looking for.

Another hint:

If you were going to an FSSP Mass, this would be a concern.

Gotta be a valid priest.

Bingo!

1) Form

2) Matter

3) Intention

4) Valid Minister

In the conversation in which the SSPX priest mentioned the first three criteria, he was responding to a question as to whether or not the faithful could attend an FSSP Mass, and whether it would be valid.

Seems like the 4th criteria is no longer in the SSPX' s radar.

Hey Mr Johnson! This is fun. Give us another one.

OK, in the same vein:

If an FSSP priest was ordained according to the traditional rite, why might one still have reservations about the validity of his sacraments?

seanjohnson - wouldn't this #4 traditionally fall under the category of #2 Matter firstly and #3 Intention secondarily?  Because, it is certainly understood that if some layman says the words of consecration, nothing happens, implying the necessity of valid orders.  I wasn't at this catechism class, so I cannot comment on the spirit of the session, but not mentioning this # 4 explicitly doesn't necessary alarm me.  

I will grant that silence on the particulars concerning this subject(post v2 validity) while at the same time approaching Rome is very dangerous if not impossible to succeed without, that does not mean that accepting the validity of post v2 orders is wrong or a change of core belief.  What the sspx needs to do is be open and explanatory about how exactly tradition can have relations with new church.  Because, up until this point, the sspx code of conduct for relations with the NO has been practically schismatic(in some ways for good reason).  And, that leaves everything in between no mans land, and that is a deadly area, which tradition and the sspx is partly to blame for, because it is inhabited. 

Traditions problems do not revolve around validity of orders and their implication.  That is an easy one.  Traditions problems revolve around the legitimacy of orders, and their implication.  I say this because concerning the clergy, the concern is legitimacy.  Concerning the universal laity, the concern is validity.  Those two statements entail much, and they need to be explained in our catechism classes.   However, I would prefer to let the law of prayer establish the law of belief, because I don't much enjoy explaining it.  

seanjohnson - wouldn't this #4 traditionally fall under the category of #2 Matter firstly and #3 Intention secondarily?  Because, it is certainly understood that if some layman says the words of consecration, nothing happens, implying the necessity of valid orders.  I wasn't at this catechism class, so I cannot comment on the spirit of the session, but not mentioning this # 4 explicitly doesn't necessary alarm me.  

I will grant that silence on the particulars concerning this subject(post v2 validity) while at the same time approaching Rome is very dangerous if not impossible to succeed without, that does not mean that accepting the validity of post v2 orders is wrong or a change of core belief.  What the sspx needs to do is be open and explanatory about how exactly tradition can have relations with new church.  Because, up until this point, the sspx code of conduct for relations with the NO has been practically schismatic(in some ways for good reason).  And, that leaves everything in between no mans land, and that is a deadly area, which tradition and the sspx is partly to blame for, because it is inhabited.

Traditions problems do not revolve around validity of orders and their implication.  That is an easy one.  Traditions problems revolve around the legitimacy of orders, and their implication.  I say this because concerning the clergy, the concern is legitimacy.  Concerning the universal laity, the concern is validity.  Those two statements entail much, and they need to be explained in our catechism classes.   However, I would prefer to let the law of prayer establish the law of belief, because I don't much enjoy explaining it.  

Greetings PG-

No.

All four criteria are distinct, and none of them subsists in any of the others.

For example: A layman can feign a sacrament with valid matter, or a priest can feign a sacrament with invalid matter, etc.

seanjohnson - I actually meant to type form instead of matter, but it doesn't make much difference now because on second thought I actually think intention may be more important than form if your number 4 does fall under any category.  Do you have an authoritative source proposing that there are four instead of three?  Because, from memory, I only recall three being mentioned.  

Another concern I have about this is that a number four is not something tangible.  Matter can be observed(seen, felt, smelt, tasted and even heard).  Form can be observed(heard and seen).  Intention can be observed(seen and heard).   From all of these, if they are or are not followed, one I image can deduce the validity of the sacrament and perhaps even the minister.  Which, is why there would be three criteria, and not four.  But, a number four is an invisible mark on the soul.  It is definitely different from the other three.  And, that may be the reason why the sspx bunches only the three together.  

Good Morning PG-

Can you absolve your mother's sins, or confect the Holy Eucharist?

Why not?

You are certainly able to muster proper form, matter, and intent.

But you are not a valid minister of those sacraments.

Hence, criteria #4 is lacking, and the sacraments would not be valid

Many of the manuals speak only of form, matter, and intent because the validity of the minister is presumed.