“What I and others are saying is that, yes, if the minister has the intention internally NOT to do what the Church does and manifests that externally afterwards, we must deem that the sacrament was invalid.”


“No one is debating this.  We all agree.“


The problem is, Ladislaus does not agree with this. He believes that the sacrament would still be valid.

Since Ladislaus is regurgitating all his errors on ministerial intention, I guess its time to bump this old thread.

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.

Against Ladislaus^^^

Let's let Ladislaus say what Ladislaus is saying:

Reply #2 in this thread (you know, way back on p.1?):

"So a hypothetical Mason Lienart could sit there the entire time thinking, "I do not wish to ordain.  I do not wish to ordain."  But if he performs the Rite he intends to do the ordination, and therefore to ordain."

THAT's precisely what is condemned by Alexander VIII, and precisely what is advocated by the School of Catharinus and the later Jansenists.

There couldn't be a clearer case of invalidity than deliberately rejecting the requisite intention.

Ladislaus pretending not to ascribe to the ccondemned theory of Catharinus, but perfectly replicating the Catharinian position here^^^

Sean, do you realize that your argument supports the proposition that Lefebvre's Priestly Ordination was doubtful? Do you think that there is a positive doubt that Lefebvre was not ordained as a priest by Leinart because of the possibility of Lienart's evil "ministerial intention?"

The "Catharinus position" would be that the ministerial intention of Leinart is irrelevant so long as Leinart followed used the proper Matter and Form. But you seem to be stating that we cannot be sure of Leinart's internal (unstated) intention when he ordained Lefebvre and because we cannot be sure of Lienart's internal intention that Lefebvre's ordination is positively doubtful.

But I don't think you want to come to that conclusion, since you are a Resistance supporter, right?

No it does not.

The Church did not find doubt in the case of Talleyrand, so how could any find doubt in the case of Lienart???

It means Lefebvre's ordination (just like every other sacrament ever received by anyone) is only morally certain.

Moral certitude is probability so great that, even though not infallible, one would be judged imprudent to disregard it.

Would you consider youself to be in positive doubt because you are not infallibly certain that your place of employment has not burned down over the weekend?  And would you therefore refuse to go to work on Monday, because you are only morally certain the building is still standing?

To equate moral certitude and positive doubt is an extreme error.

Infallible certitude does not exist in the domain of sacramental validity, since there is no way of knowing if, for example, a host has been corrupted, or the priest has secretly botched the words of consecration, or (as in the present discussion) the minister has covertly formed a contrary intention not to do what the Church does.  Those who can't accept that will be led to theological errors like Catharinus was.

It was precisely because of his inability to accept this, that Catharinus formed his condemned opinion, saying that anyone who performed the rites in a serious manner therefore had the requisite intention.

That's exactly what Alexander is condemning.

No it does not.

The Church did not find doubt in the case of Talleyrand, so how could any find doubt in the case of Lienart???

It means Lefebvre's ordination (just like every other sacrament ever received by anyone) is only morally certain.

Moral certitude is probability so great that, even though not infallible, one would be judged imprudent to disregard it.

Would you consider youself to be in positive doubt because you are not infallibly certain that your place of employment has not burned down over the weekend?  And would you therefore refuse to go to work on Monday, because you are only morally certain the building is still standing?

To equate moral certitude and positive doubt is an extreme error.

Infallible certitude does not exist in the domain of sacramental validity, since there is no way of knowing if, for example, a host has been corrupted, or the priest has secretly botched the words of consecration, or (as in the present discussion) the minister has covertly formed a contrary intention not to do what the Church does.  Those who can't accept that will be led to theological errors like Catharinus was.

It was precisely because of his inability to accept this, that Catharinus formed his condemned opinion, saying that anyone who performed the rites in a serious manner therefore had the requisite intention.

That's exactly what Alexander is condemning.

Stated differently, one cannot simultaneously be in a state of both moral certitude and positive doubt, since the two are incompatible.

Since all are morally certain regarding Lefebvre, the only doubts which can arise are negative doubts (i.e., asking oneself the question, "What if...?).

The moralists tell us "a negative doubt is to be despised."

If there is no point discussing it, then why are you bothering to discuss it?

Why did Alexander, and all the theologians (or Catharinus, for that matter) bother to discuss it?

The Holy Office theologians under Alexander VIII (not Alexander VIII himself) and other theologians discuss all kinds of esoteric, impractical issues. They debate each other endlessly.

However, Pope Leo XIII gave us the guide for practical action in these matters. Specifically, he said that there is no need to doubt the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders based on some covert interior ministerial intention. So we don't need to bring that up in cases of practical moral judgment.

I find it quite sad and fascinating how people can reject the clearest of self-evident doctrines.

In this case Ladislaus is doing some kind of mental gymnastics to get around the fact that you can invalidate the sacrament by forming a contrary intention while the more common lunacy is rejecting John 3:5 and the canons declaring it literal.

Sad. 

Lad why are you doing this to yourself?

You have to submit even if you don't understand.