No, sir.  This has been dealt with before.  That opinion, that it is not necessary to intend the Sacramental effect, is most consistent with Church teaching and practice.  That is why it is almost universally held that even an atheist can baptize.  It is also why one need not worry that the Mason Lienart ordained Archbishop Lefebvre.

Otherwise a single infiltrator could destroy several lines of Apostolic succession.  Most people don’t know that nearly every single episcopal line in the Roman Rite can be traced back to a single individual.  I believe, from memory, that it was a Cardinal Rebiba.  What if he had been an infiltrator?

In any case, the SSPX promoted false intention theology to explain why they did conditional ordinations while at the same time claiming to hold the NO rites to be valid.  For political reasons, they wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

Yes, it's the intention to do what the Church does, which is the sufficient intention. Now, you additionally claim that the correct form implies or indicates this intention.

But look at this article: THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF BAPTISM CONFERRED IN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS. The author is a heretic, but the reasoning looks fine.

The form used by the Mormons is acceptable. But they don't intend to do what the Church does:

The example of the Mormons shows that "doing what the church does" is not a safe indicator of "having the intention to do what the church does".

Perusing the Denzinger, one can find several definitions explicitly stating that both the correct form and the correct intention are required.

"traditional Catholic teaching regarding Mormon baptisms which taught that they were still valid"

Do you have a magisterial source for this statement?

Why do you say "Trinity is used" when the Mormons themself say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are three gods? Using the same words, they without any doubt don't mean the same thing, they baptize in the name of three gods, thus obviously, their intention is not to do what the Church does.

If it matters what the Mormon believes, then why doesn't it matter what the Jew believes?  Does a Jew believe that the Trinity in the Trinitarian formula is the same God when/if he/she baptizes?

"traditional Catholic teaching regarding Mormon baptisms which taught that they were still valid"

Do you have a magisterial source for this statement?


Why do you say "Trinity is used" when the Mormons themselves say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are three gods? Using the same words, they without any doubt don't mean the same thing, they baptize in the name of three gods, thus obviously, their intention is not to do what the Church does.

Quote from: Struthio on July 19, 2020, 11:32:51 AM

The following was condemned (Pope Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy Office, December 7, 1690, Errors of the Jansenists):

Quote from: Denzinger

1318 28. Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite and form of baptizing, but within his heart resolves, I do not intend what the Church does.

http://patristica.net/denzinger/

Consequently, the use of the proper form cannot be said to imply the proper intention or the validity of the baptism.

The problem becomes knowing what was in the "heart" of the one administering the sacrament.  If we are to question what is in the heart of every person that administers a Catholic sacrament, then we can never really know which sacraments are validly administered.  

It is still my understanding that validity is presumed in such cases.  Perhaps someone else with more knowledge and training can chime in...perhaps Ladislaus?

Yes, as long as the form and matter of a Catholic Rite was used, then correct intention is presumed.

The problem is whether the New Paul VI Rites are Catholic.    

As for your other question above, the docuмent you provided states that it was traditional practice that Mormon baptisms were considered valid by the Catholic Church. Was there a pre-VII magisterial docuмent on it? I don't believe so, but it appears that the traditional hierarchy never questioned them in the past...until the Vatican II sect questioned them. If we follow what the Vatican II sect proclaimed, that would mean that there were a number of Mormon converts to Catholicism that were never validly baptized....which would also mean that the Catholic Church allowed those souls to go to Hell.  

I think I'll stick with the traditional practice of the Catholic Church.

But only if God allows that he does.

That's not a valid argument. It reminds me of the Roman Catechism where a Catechumen may accidently die before baptism and blind fate would have left God helpless, not being able to save his elect.