Pohle’s book along with Pope Alexander VIII’s condemnation (Dz n 1318) is not a direct condemnation of Catharinus. It may be a condemnation but Pohle doesn’t state that it is definitively condemned. So maybe there is a way to reconcile them? Specifically the pope condemns the idea that baptism could be valid if the minister has an internal intention to not DO what the Church DOES. But the Church teaches that it is NOT necessary for validity to intend what the Church INTENDS. So a direct intention is sufficient for validity. So how could a minister have an intention to DO something other than what the Church DOES if he uses the correct matter and form and manifests no contrary intention during the ceremony and ever after? A mere internal thought that has no outward manifestation is nothing more than a distraction. Which we know does not invalidate. If on the other hand the minister makes known his negative intention then we would have reason to doubt validity. I think maybe Alexander was condemning the idea that we don’t question validity even if the minister were to make known his negative intention. But if we have no evidence of a bad intention the Church presumes validity. If it were possible for a sacrament to have no validity even in cases where there was no external evidence, there would be good reason to doubt all the sacraments. No one could be trusted except for exceptionally holy priests and bishops. And we could never trust a non-Catholic. But non-Catholics are trusted. So I don’t think Alexander’s condemnation is a direct contradiction of Catharinus.
Topic: +Lefebrve and withholding jurisdiction (Read 1934 times)