Sorry but Trent is clear.

That Trent is clear is not disputed, but that it falls back upon you seems not to be perceived.

L' Abbe Tanqueray, (Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, Ch. 6, pp. 210, 211) holds the identical opinion of Pohle and Hunter:

In paragraphs 991 and 992, he first recounts the anathema of Trent against those would would say that, for the valid confection of sacraments, there is not required in the minister the intention to do that which the Church does.

Then he proceeds to recount the anathema of Pope Alexander VIII against those who argue that the performance of the rite suffices for suppliance of the requisite intention, even if the minister form a covert contrary intention not to do what the Church does.

So what's your point?  "Sacraments can never be certain."  Ok, so do you just want to wallow in confusion for the rest of your life?  What are you trying to accomplish?  Even St Thomas Aquinas was in doubt to as if he pleased God.  We humans can self-analyze ourselves to death, but as St Padre Pio continually told us, "Pray, hope and don't worry.  Worry is useless."


So what are you attempting to gain by pointing out the extreme?  It is certainly NOT THE NORM that Trad sacraments are invalid.  And if some of them are invalid, we can't know, so it's not our fault.  Again, worrying about it solves nothing.

It would only be a defective conscience which would "wallow in confusion" when he is already in a state of moral certitude.

What I am "trying to accomplish" is to refute the erroneous opinion of M. Ladislaus, who would have you believe a condemned proposition, namely that, so long as a minister performs a rite, the requisite intention is necessarily present.  That is simply not the case (as Pope Alexander VIII illustrated).

I agree that worry about this is foolish.

What I am "trying to accomplish" is to refute the erroneous opinion of M. Ladislaus, who would have you believe a condemned proposition, namely that, so long as a minister performs a rite, the requisite intention is necessarily present.  That is simply not the case (as Pope Alexander VIII illustrated).

Either you're an idiot or a malicious slanderer (you've already been exposed several times for lying), most likely both, as you've refuted nothing and keep claiming that I reject the Holy Office decision.  Of course, it's fair game for R&R vis-a-vis teachings of Ecuмenical Councils, and most including SVs reject the teaching of the Holy Office that declared non-geocentrism to be grave error proximate to heresy, and the decree from the Holy Office that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation.  So the hypocrisy in some of these groups is breathtaking, picking and choosing what they want to reject while then trying to beat people up for not accepting things they want to accept.  In any case, it's beside the point, since I have already explained why I do not reject the Holy Office ruling on the matter (which you persist in characterizing as some teaching of Alexander VIII).

Evidently you're incapable of grasping the meaning of my distinction, either out of stupidity or malice of both.

Internal intention is required for validity, but it's the intention to do what the Church does and not to intend what the Church intends.  If you either refuse to grasp or cannot grasp what this means, then you need to just stop arguing theology, because you are unqualified to have an opinion on the matter.

... Where internal intention is lacking would be in situations where 1) a priest is not of sound mind, 2) a priest doing something in jest, 3) a priest doing something to practice / rehearse the Rite ... all of which can be discerned from the external forum.  But if a priest shows up for the 8:00 AM Mass scheduled at a Catholic church and peforms the Rite that's intended to be the Mass, he could sit there with all his might, gritting his teeth "intending" to do the exact opposite of what the Church does, but it would make no difference, and his Mass would be valid.

That is precisely the theory of the school of Catharinus.  They distinguished between an apparent jocose act and an apparent serious act, and argued that sufficient intention would be lacking in the apparent jocose act, but would not actually be lacking in an apparent serious act.

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.

That the Council was only concerned with protestants is the argument of the school of Catharinus.


The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments (1949) - Rev. Raphael De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.L., pp.60-63:

The school of Catharinus made use of the decrees of theCouncil of Trent for one of its principal arguments for the sufficiency of external intention. The Council had made thefollowing decrees:

Quote

If anyone says that in the ministers, when they effectand confer the sacraments, there is not required at leastthe intention of doing what the Church does, let him beanathema. (° Session VH. can. 11 (Mansi 33, 53; DBU 854).)     

The penitent, therefore, ought not so to flatter himself on his own faith as to think that even though he have nocontrition and there be wanting on the part of the priestthe intention to act earnestly and absolve effectively, he isnevertheless really and in the sight of God absolved byreason of faith alone. For faith without penance effectsno remission of sins, and he would be most negligent ofhis salvation who, knowing that a priest absolved him jokingly, would not diligently seek another who would actearnestly.  (Session XIV. can. 6 (Mansi 33, 95; DBU 902).)    

If anyone says that the sacramental absolution of thepriest, is not a judicial act but a mere service of pronouncing and declaring to him who confesses that the.sins are forgiven, provided only he believes himself to beabsolved, even though the priest absolves not in earnestbut only in jest ... let him be anathema.  (Session XIV, can. 9 (Mansi 33. 101; DBU 919).)

These decrees of the Council were interpreted as meaning thatthe intention of doing what the Church does is the intention ofacting seriously, and that this is lacking only when the priest is known to be acting in a jocose manner. In the opinion of themembers of the school of external intention the Council taught that the only requirement in the minister was that he appear to beacting in a serious manner. The intention of acting in a jocose manner affects the validity of the sacrament only when this is apparent to the recipients:   

Quote

Therefore, through the intention of doing what theChurch does the Holy Synod understands the mind ofacting seriously, which is lacking when the priest isknown to be acting in a joking manner. Thus for a valid sacrament the Holy Synod taught that it was sufficient if the minister outwardly appeared to be acting seriously; and that the intention of acting jocosely affects the validity of the sacrament only when the joking and playfulmanner of the action of the minister is apparent to therecipients. (Juenin, G., De Sacramentis in Communi...)

In regard to the jocose absolution given by the priest, they maintained that these words of the Council can be understood only in reference to lack of serious intent which was externally manifested. Otherwise the penitent could never be aware of thejocose performance. It did not occur to them that the sacrament might also be rendered invalid if the jocose intention of the priestwould not be noticed, since it might easily happen that a piouspenitent would not take note of such behavior on the part of thepriest. 

From the statements of various members of the school ofCatharinus it can be gathered that the Council teaches that a contrary internal intention does not harm the validity of the sacraments in the least. According to them the Council wasconcerned only with the Protestants who had declared that thepenitent was truly absolved even if the priest absolved jokingly. 

The doctrine of external intention is demonstrated by severalexamples; the judge who would pass a sentence while joking and drinking would not be taken seriously, since he shows by hisactions that he is not acting in a serious manner. But if he wouldobserve all the procedures of law and seriously and freely pass asentence with a grave voice and countenance, the judgment wouldbe valid, even if the judge mentally did not intend to absolve theguilty party or impose a fine. Thus, in the same way the sacraments which are apparently confected in a serious manner arereally valid.   

It is true that the sentence of such a judge would be considered valid, since it is presumed that his judgment corresponded withhis apparently serious actions. But in se the judgment is not valid in the internal forum. In the event that the true intention of thejudge came to light, the state might declare that the judgmentstands. The state has the power to do this for the common good.  

But in the case of the sacraments we have no assurance from Christ that He will render those sacraments valid which appear to be such by the outward appearance of sincerity in the ministerwho lacks a true internal intention.

That Trent is clear is not disputed, but that it falls back upon you seems not to be perceived.

L' Abbe Tanqueray, (Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, Ch. 6, pp. 210, 211) holds the identical opinion of Pohle and Hunter:

In paragraphs 991 and 992, he first recounts the anathema of Trent against those would would say that, for the valid confection of sacraments, there is not required in the minister the intention to do that which the Church does.

Then he proceeds to recount the anathema of Pope Alexander VIII against those who argue that the performance of the rite suffices for suppliance of the requisite intention, even if the minister form a covert contrary intention not to do what the Church does.

You're arguing for it being permissible to doubt a sacrament after presuming to read, or to guess the mind of the priest or bishop - when we don't even know what goes on behind closed doors.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Perhaps you will have better luck reading M. Cupertino's post above?

He posted:
"In the opinion of the members of the school of external intention the Council taught that the only requirement in the minister was that he appear to be acting in a serious manner. The intention of acting in a jocose manner affects the validity of the sacrament only when this is apparent to the recipients:"

Goes without saying imo - that's why nobody said it.

Have you been trying to say that +Leinart administered the sacrament of Holy Orders to +ABL in a jocose manner? If so you would have to prove it, if not, what's the purpose of this thread?

He already told you: to prove "M.Ladislaus" wrong.

Actually, what I said was "to refute the erroneous opinion of M. Ladislaus."

Do you also belong to the condemned School of Catharinus with M. Ladislaus (and Meg, Stubborn, and Pax Vobis)?