As per usual, Struthio, you are a liar.  Quote me where I reject that ruling.  Nevertheless, like most rabid dogmatic sedevacantists, you hold decisions of the Holy Office to be infallible and irreformable.  They are not.  Despite that, my argument was regarding the nature of interior intention.  But of course, you ignore all of that.  Leo XIII taught contrary principles in Apostolicae Curae.

Even the theological sources you cited indicate that the contrary opinion is merely "common".  This position that I hold is not classified as an error, just a minority opinion ... by people who know theology and understand the theological notes.

I don't hold decisions of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition or of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office per se to be infallible or irreformable. And you're not able to quote me otherwise. Rather, I have quoted Pohle

Quote from: Joseph Pohle: THE SACRAMENTS - A DOGMATIC TREATISE

Thesis II : A merely external intention in the sense of Catharinus is not sufficient for the validity of a Sacrament.

This proposition may be technically qualified as communis.
https://archive.org/details/sacraments01pohluoft/page/n191/mode/2up

and I have asked you to

To convince me of your ideas you would have to start with a refutation of the given argumentation of Pohle.

It's not true, that I "hold decisions of the Holy Office to be infallible and irreformable." And I never said so.


On the other hand, if you do not reject the ruling of the Roman and Universal Inquisition (Pope Alexander VIII, December 7, 1690, Errors of the Jansenists)

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.

then, why did you say the following?

Otherwise a single infiltrator could destroy several lines of Apostolic succession.

Or this?

In any case, the SSPX promoted false intention theology

Given the above condemnation, the minister could indeed "destroy several lines of Apostolic succession" (if God allows it).

Or why did you recommend Ibranyi's pamphlet as "the most thorough treatment of the subject that I've found"?

While I do not support Ibranyi in most things, this is the most thorough treatment of the subject that I've found.

Ibranyi undertakes to prove that the condemnation is not infallible in order to be able to ditch it as an error of the Roman Inquisition.

Furthermore you said:

I believe that the intention to PERFORM the Rites of the Church suffices

This contradicts the condemnation. Even an actor, with the intention not to baptise, has the intention to perform the rite. But given the condemnation, no valid baptism is conferred.

This your opinion is the opinion of Catharinus, Farvacques, and Ibranyi, which was condemned.

Furthermore, given a quote of Pohle, who goes on to not only quote the condemation, but also to prove that the condemned proposition is false, you stated:

Neither Ibranyi, nor Catholic Encyclopedia, nor I claim that this is not currently the "common" opinion.  Just like EENS-rejection picked up traction during the same timeframe and suddenly be came "common".  I am arguing that it's the WRONG opinion.

Again, part of the quote you are commenting on:

Thesis II : A merely external intention in the sense of Catharinus is not sufficient for the validity of a Sacrament.

This proposition may be technically qualified as communis.

You hold that this Thesis II is the common opinion. And you hold that this opinion is false. Consequently, you hold that "a merely external intention in the sense of Catharinus is sufficient for the validity of a Sacrament." And consequently, you contradict the condemnation of 1690.

Leo XIII taught contrary principles in Apostolicae Curae.

Here you follow Ibranyi again, who claims that Leo XIII contradicts the condemnation of 1690. In an earlier post, I have explained why Ibranyi is wrong (which you so far decided to ignore). Ibranyi not only claims that the magisterium of the Church contradicts the magisterium of the Church (Leo XIII / Alexander VIII), but he also claims that Leo XIII contradicts himself within one and the same paragraph.

The truth is, that Leo XIII (again in that same paragraph) confirms the condemnation of Alexander VIII, saying that an adverse intention destroys the sacrament. Ibranyi unduly presupposes that a modification of the form of the sacrament is the only way to make an adverse intention manifest.

No, I hold that the Catharinus position does not necessarily contradict the Holy Office condemnation.  I've explained this a couple times now.

Ambrosius Catharinus maintained that what he called an intentio mere externa, that merely performing the external rite, even if coupled with an internal refusal to do what the Church does, would suffice for the validity of a sacrament. Exactly this is condemned by the Roman Inquisition.

You presented the two "allowable opinions" of Ibranyi's to your knowledge "most thorough" discussion:

1. Exterior Intention Opinion: This opinion teaches that the minister only has to intend to do what the Catholic Church does, which, according to this opinion, means that the minister’s personal intention to confect the sacraments does not matter regarding validity. All the minister needs is to intend to do what the Catholic Church does by using a valid rite, form, and matter and acting serious. I believe this opinion is the true one for many reasons.

2. The Interior Intention Opinion: This opinion teaches that the minister must interiorly intend to confect the sacraments; that is, he must have the personal intention to confect the sacraments.

And you said:

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.

But the second opinion of Ibrany's, as he presents it, is a strawman. It is not the opinion of the opponents of Catharinus. Nobody ever held it (baptism of heretics etc. was accepted long before `intention' was debated).

After the necessity of the "intention to do what the Church does" was defined (Decretum pro Armenis and Tridentine Council), some theologians debated the exact meaning of this. Later, the Roman Inquisition condemned the notion, that an adverse intention doesn't invalidate the sacrament. Consequently, the "intention to do what the Church does" (whatever else it may additionally imply) implies absence of an adverse intention.

And that's the core of every true Interior Intention Opinion, which isn't a strawman. For reference see e.g. Ludwig Ott. What Ibrany and you present is the (false) notion that the alternative to Catharinus is "to intend the sacramental effect". But that's not the case.

Ibrany quotes the condemnation as well as Leo XIII, where Leo later in that same quoted paragraph reiterates that the absence of an adverse intention is necessary for the validity. And he doesn't even grasp, that the condemnation shows that his two "allowable" opinions are (to say the least) few. He does not only reject it, as a false opionon (of the Roman Inquistion). He implictly qualfies it as "not allowable", that is: as heresy.


The treatise of Ibrany is in no way acceptable.

This from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith;

 The Sacrament of Baptism administered with an arbitrarily modified formula is not valid, and those for whom “baptism” was celebrated in this way must be baptized “in forma absoluta” — that is unconditionally — by repeating the rite according to the liturgical norms stipulated by the Church.
That is what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith affirms in response to two questions regarding the validity of Baptism conferred with the formula, “In the name of the father and of the mother, of the godfather and of the godmother, of the grandparents, of the family members, of the friends, in the name of the community we baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. The responses from the CDF were confirmed by Pope Francis at the end of June and published on Thursday.

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2020-08/cdf-baptisms-with-arbitrarily-modified-formulas-are-not-valid.html

This is truly bizarre.  And I thought some Protestant ceremonies were “out there!”  

The video above is interesting. He has some rhetoric, which I can ignore, but he also oversimplifies things.

At about 14:00 in the video he claims some Lutheran baptized using the form "...in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit", and that this is invalid.

No, that's not correct.

It might be invalid if used by someone to deny equality within the Trinity, but that would be an exception among mainline Protestants.

Puts another spin on this thread:
https://www.cathinfo.com/politics-and-world-leaders/trump-chooses-taylor-marshall/

(Saying that form is valid is not advocating using it. Each rite in the Church has a prescribed form that clergy are supposed to use.)

Any rite of baptism approved, even tacitly, by Rome today (IF you believe there is a true pope) cannot be questioned as being doubtfully valid.

My first post on this thread was that the RITE ITSELF is valid.  I'm talking here about the well-known tendency among Novus Ordites to play fast and loose with the Sacramental forms.  I hold it to be valid, despite the fact that I don't really believe that the V2 papal claimants have been legitimate popes.