It's not a mere "presumption", but a moral certainty.

Issue is not with internal intention but the nature of internal intention.

Internal intention to do WHAT the Church DOES.  When +Lienart put his vestments on, showed up at church, performed the Rite of Ordination ... unless he was insane (there was no indication of this) or botched the form (and no one there noticed) ... that means he was intending to do WHAT the Church does, i.e. to perform the Church's ordination rite (that's intended by the Church to make the man designated a priest).

He didn't have to intend the Sacramental effect for it to be valid.

Invalidating internal intentions include things like doing it for the sake of practice, or playing (story of young Athanasius), or mockery.  Also, external mockery doesn't necessarily invalidate the intention to do what the Church does.  It has to do with the reason one is performing the ceremony.  You could have an atheist who's performing a Baptism by request, and he could make derrogatory comments about it while performing the rite and make faces, etc., but it would still be valid because the reason he's doing it is to do this thing that Catholics / Christians do.  But if he were just doing it on some atheist buddy of his to mock the ceremony, that would not be intending to do what the Church does.  It has to do with why the ceremony is being performed.

Hello M. Ladislaus-

If I perform a sacramental rite exactly according to the rubrics, and use proper matter, but interiorly (and without any external manifestation) deliberately form a contrary intention not to do what the Church does, have I validly confected a sacrament?

If you were to perform a sacramental rite with the proper form and matter, how is anyone to know that you do not have the proper interior intention, unless you tell them that you haven't the proper interior intention?

They can't.

Which is why your question doesn't have a clear answer.

The answer is crystal clear: There is no sacrament (you just can't know it).

How can it be crystal clear if you can't know it?

Because the objective reality exists independently of my subjective recognition or rejection of it.

Because the objective reality exists independently of my subjective recognition or rejection of it.

What you are saying goes contrary to Trent.

A Sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ to give grace. The outward sign *is* proper matter and form - that's reality. The sacraments were not instituted by priests or bishops, they are not the ones who give grace if they are in the proper mindset.

There has to be a way of knowing if a sacrament is knowingly invalid. It must be presumed to be valid otherwise.

And...wasn't the Council of Trent concerned only with the supposed sacraments as were administered by the Protestant heretics? It wasn't actual Catholics that were in question at Trent. The Protestant heresy was in full-swing back then. And some of the Protestant heretics still considered themselves to be Catholic (reformed Catholics). It needed to be addressed, and it was, at Trent.

Sorry, but this is simply not the case.  A communion wafer could unknowingly contain invalidating ingredients; a priest could botch the form (e.g., the words of consecration at Mass); a wicked minister could form a covert contrary intention not to do what the Church does.

In none of these circuмstances is there any way to know the sacrament has become invalidated.

As regards your comment on Trent, you are effectively proposing an unheard of double standard: External intention suffices fo Catholics (later condemned by Alexander VIII), but heretics are additionally required to have proper internal intention.

In reaching this erroneous opinion, you apear to have what the Church does with what the Church intends (i.e., a heretic still believes himself to be baptizing -doing what the Church does.  Whether he intends to do what the Church intends is quite another matter).

What you are saying goes contrary to Trent.

A Sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ to give grace. The outward sign *is* proper matter and form - that's reality. The sacraments were not instituted by priests or bishops, they are not the ones who give grace if they are in the proper mindset.

So sorry, but all the citations I am providing (e.g., Hunter; Pohle) are based upon Trent.

Moreover, was your misunderstanding correct, the consequence would be that Alexander VIII would have anathematized himself (and all the manuals since Trent would be heretical).  

Regarding this last concern, I recognize that you do not shrink from making this very assertion regarding all the catechisms in the Church since Trent (nor does M. Ladislaus), but this is hardly believable.  

Incidentally, if you two (both Feeneyites) will then question the quality of Pohle's manual, I would simply point out to you that it was the very same manual which Fr. Feeney studied in the seminary: 


"Many Catholics living today can remember when priests were well trained in theology and could express the Faith properly in their sermons and in their writing. That is because they were given sound teaching at the seminary in Logic, Philosophy, and Dogmatic Theology from textbooks such as this 12 volume set. The famous Pohle-Preuss manual was used in many seminaries in America and other countries prior to the 1950's when seminary training began to go downhill.

This particular manual was used in the Jesuit seminary where Fr. Leonard Feeney, who was one called by his Jesuit superior "the greatest theologian we have in America...by far" was trained. This beautiful hardbound series is an exact reproduction of the edition originally published in 1911, and it was written by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pohle and edited by Arthur Preuss.

Joseph Pohle was a Jesuit and one of the founding faculty members of the Catholic University of America as well as a frequent contributor to the Catholic Encyclopedia. He died in 1922 after having produced one of the clearest and most succinct and useful systematic studies of Catholic theology ever published. This series is invaluable for priests, seminarians, and anyone interested in a systematic study of dogmatic theology."
https://www.leafletonline.com/pohle-preuss-manual-of-dogmatic-theology-six-book-set 

I would conclude by noting the very same teaching is to be found in every other approved manual of dogmatic or sacramental theology (lest it be written by an ancient Cathar).

These are all very rare exceptions.  In general, God does not allow His Church to operate in such a haphazard way.

Regarding the rarity or commonality of such occurrences, neither of us are in position to opine.

What I will say, is that the Church teaches us that we can acquire a moral certitude regarding validity, so long as external intention is manifested (i.e., the priest performs the rite), even if this does not infallibly exclude invalidation by the same minister covertly forming an intention not to do what the Church does.

As l' Abbe Hunter recounts (from p.1 of this thread):

"It is objected to this doctrine that it makes the validity of every Sacrament depend upon a purely internal fact, namely, the intention of the minister who may perform the outward acts with the interior intention of not acting as deputy of Christ. We admit the consequence, but deny that there is anything in it out of harmony with other parts of revealed doctrine; it is perfectly true that, without special revelation, no one can have absolute certainty that he has received a Sacrament or that he is in the state of grace (n. 639): but his assurance on the subject may approach so nearly to this absolute certainty as to make any misgiving on the subject foolish and vain; and it must always be remembered that God, who has bound Himself to give grace when the Sacraments are duly received, has nowhere limited His power, disabling Himself from giving grace apart from these holy rites. One, therefore, who acts in good faith may hope that no disaster will befall himself or those dear to him through the deceit of a wicked minister. (See n. 696.)"