The Holy Office “condemned” the proposition that a baptism is valid if the minister had a secret internal intention not to do it, while all the externals appear correct.
I reject this decision.

But when a priest shows up for his assigned 9:00 AM Mass, he knows full well that he's carrying out this ministry of the Church and he intends to perform this ministry, and whether he lacks the requisite intention either due to unbelief or due to a contrary will (where he wills that it not have the effect intended by the Church), none of that matters. 

So far, the manuals of De Salvo, Tanqueray, Hunter, Pohle-Preuss, the anathema of Pope Alexander VIII, and the Council of Trent all stand against the condemned neo-Catharinusian "exterior intention" argument of M. Ladislaus and his fellow Jansenists.

Here we add a 5th manual condemning the position of Ladislaus/Catharinus:

MSGR. J.M. HERVÉ, S. Th. Dr.: THEOLOGIA DOGMATICA. VOL. III. Part 4: De Sacramentis in genere Chapter IV: De ministro sacramentorum.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-intention-required-in-the-minister-of-the-sacraments-10370

473. Errors and Opinions.
a) Errors: According to the Protestants, the sacraments are nothing but signs for arousing or increasing the faith of those who receive them. Consequently, no intention is required for the validity of the sacraments; it suffices that any kind of external rite be performed.

b) Theory of Catharinus: Catharinus[1] teaches that "the material performance of the external rite, when it is performed freely, seriously, and without any jest," suffices for the validity of the sacrament, even if the minister has a contrary interior intention. Some others have welcomed this opinion, particularly some of the Faculty at the University of Paris, although they modify the opinion with the restrictive clause that "an external intention does not suffice unless the external rite, considered along with the circuмstances of place, time, and the state of the minister, seems to those watching to be a sacrament."

[1]. _De_necessaria_intentione_in_perficiendis_sacramentis_. Rome: 1552, p. 205ff; Salmeron, Serry, Drouin, and others believe likewise. Cf. Godefroy, _Dict._theol._, art. "Intention," col. 2273ff; art "Politi," p. 2432-33; Rambaldi, _L'oggetto_dell'intenzione_sacramentale_.... Rome:, 1944; Renwart, _N._R. Theol._," 1955, P. 800-821; 1075-1077.

474. Catholic Doctrine:
1. It has been defined, against heretics, that it is necessary for the validity of the sacrament that there be in the minister the intention *of doing what the Church does*.
2. In order to have this intention, moreover, it is commonly taught that a) it is not necessary that the minister will directly and explicitly to confect the sacrament or to perform the rite as instituted by Christ and productive of grace; b) nor does an external intention suffice, in the sense of Catharinus; c) but it is required, and also sufficient, that there be an internal intention, at least implicit, of performing the rite as it is customarily performed in the true Church, with all that this includes, or is thought, even falsely, to include, or of doing what Christians are accustomed to do through such a rite: for by so doing, the minister makes his own the intention of Christians.

[...]


476. 2º An internal intention is required [Common and certain teaching].
A. This is demonstrated from the sense of the Church:
a) For the validity of the sacraments, the councils require, beyond matter and form, an intention in the minister of doing what the Church does. And indeed the minister certainly has this intention, or an internal intention, as they say, when he immediately, and certainly and seriously intends to perform a true sacrament or immediately and absolutely wills that a sacrament be present.
b) Not otherwise teaches the Council of Trent, saying that there is no absolution, if the confessor lacks the "serious resolve [of the will: "animus"] of truly absolving."[1]
c) Alexander VIII, in the year 1690, condemned the following proposition of Farvacques, among the errors of the Jansenists: "A Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes every external rite and form of baptizing, but within, in his heart, resolves to himself: not to intend what the Church does."[2] Concerning this Benedict XIV said, "It cannot be denied that a grave wound [has been inflicted by this condemnation] on the aforementioned opinion (of Catharinus)."[3] (In practice, he says, the safer theory, that which demands an internal intention, must be followed; if this intention is lacking, therefore, the sacrament must be conditionally renewed in case of necessity; otherwise the Holy See is to be consulted about what to do.)
The RomanMissal implicitly teaches likewise, declaring a consecration ineffectual if the priest, having before himself 11 hosts, intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he intends, "because the intention is required."[4] This intention is certainly secret and internal."


As M. Joe Cupertino pointed out earlier, the position described by M. Ladislaus is exactly the same as that condemned in Catharinus, a Jansenist error, despite his illogical protestations to the contrary, and it is for this reason he is unable to answer my very simple question (asked now 8 times): He wants to say yes, but he knows his answer stands condemned.

It is interesting to also note in passing that the most vehemet defenders of this condemned Jansenist error are also Feeneyites (Ladislaus, Stubborn, Pax Vobis), which is perhaps not surprising, given the harsh perspective they have of God.

I simply stick universally with the Church initially presuming the sacrament is valid unless there is a very good reason to presume otherwise. That's what the Church does, that's what we Catholics do.

If we concern ourselves at all with the priest actually doing what the Church does, but in his mind or heart secretly does not intend to do what the Church does - well, I'm lost right there because then, as Gladius said earlier, the Church cannot presume validity, rather, we can only have at best, doubt, which is ridiculous because there is no way we can know the interior thoughts of anyone. Which is what makes this whole exercise bizarre.

As such, Pope Alexander VIII can easily (must?) be understood literally, i.e. that the condemnation is directed only to the minister, not the recipient, and only as regards the sacrament of baptism, not any of the other sacraments, as de Lugo posted:

.
Maintaining that God will supply graces extraordinarily in such cases is, I think, a common and prudent opinion.
.
But that's completely different than holding no internal intention is necessary. De Lugo and Joe Cupertino have done a good job defending the traditional and mostly uncontroversial doctrine of the Church: that a minister of a sacrament must have sufficient internal intention to do what the Church does, otherwise his sacrament is null.

Yes.

Thanks.

I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem that anyone on this thread is saying that if Lienart were to be proven to be a freemason, that it wouldn't be a problem and that the consecration is still absolutely valid. It would be a problem. Though I've seen it argued in the past that it could still (if Lienart were a freemason) be valid due to the presence of co-consecrators, but that's another subject.

Mith,

Hi there.

I agree, but what is meant by "internal intention"? Intention signifies end of an action. I think Lad's position is that it doesn't matter what a priest or person believes about what is being done, but that he intends to do it, i.e. the action. A priest who doesn't believe, for example, in transubstantiation, is nonetheless intending to perform the sacramental act of consecration by following the prescribed words and offering the host to the faithful who approach him for it with the faith of the Church. Just as a heretic might not believe that baptism effects a spiritual regeneration might nonetheless intend to perform the rite of baptism prescribed by the Church to render baptism to someone who desires Catholic baptism with a Catholic faith at the time of death.

Lad is not disclaiming all intent, but subjective intent as to what is being done as irrelevant. The intent to do the act, presumed by the action done, is always necessary.  His example of the kids playing at baptism is a good example: they only intend on playing priest, not conferring a sacrament of the church to someone coming to them for the sacrament. Whereas the non-believing priest intends to administer the sacrament to those who come to him, as the Church directs him to do - otherwise why would he do it? If he does it to maintain his position in the Church for whatever reason (to continue to receive food and board, to influence some away from the Church if they come to him for spiritual guidance, no matter - since he intends to do what the Church intends, which is necessary to remain as priest in the Church), he's doing it intending to do what the Church requires him to do to maintain his standing, etc.