Importance of Intent in Sacramental Validity

[Ziggamafu]

To be brief, Donatism suggested that sacramental validity depended on the moral disposition of the celebrant / administrator. To this Augustine responded with the classic formulation of “from the work, worked” theology. But morals represent only one side of the faith-coin, with doctrines being on the flipped-side. Donatism was a big deal because it tossed the validity of sacraments up into the air. But look at the flipped side of the coin; we do indeed recognize intent to be part of the 3-fold requirement for a sacrament’s validity - the intent to do what the Church does.

Liberal view of intent: “intent” regards the willingness to use the proper matter and form of the sacrament.

**Conservative view of intent: **“intent” regards the intention to do what THE Church does (that is, intent for the sacramental effects of the sacrament at hand).

Why is this a big deal? Well, I find it hard to believe that even a liberal understanding in this area would allow for “intent” to be fulfilled when the present intent is actually contrary or directly opposed to the intent of the Church in what she does. FOR INSTANCE:

In my background as a Protestant (especially my experience as a Baptist), I can say as a matter of fact that during every Protestant baptism I have ever attended - unless my memory fails me regarding some unknown occasion - the baptism was prefaced with an explicit, public rebuttal of Catholic intent (e.g., “What we do now is NOT in ANY way efficacious or meritorious, nor does it yield any kind of special grace. We do not believe - and even condemn the idea - that baptism remits any sin or has any effect. What we are about to do is STRICTLY and entirely symbolic and in no way necessary for salvation!”). I have, to the best of my knowledge, never been to a Protestant baptism where a small, polemical sermon repudiating Catholic teaching was not attached to the ceremony. In fact, I know of Protestant congregations that make the person about to be baptized acknowledge agreement to the repudiation, sometimes publicly, prior to being baptized. Since the intent of such a ceremony is directly opposed to the Church’s intent in baptism, it would seem that it is impossible to regard it as a valid baptism.

However, since the vast and overwhelming majority of mainline, “Evangelical” Protestant baptisms (particularly those of the Baptists) are representative of scenarios such as those I’ve outlined above, it would seem that very often, a Protestant coming into full communion with Rome has not been properly baptized. I’ve never seen or heard of a parish check into evidence of proper intent - only the matter and form. This would seem to indicate that many converts from Protestantism, having never validly received baptism, did not validly receive Confirmation and do not licitly receive Holy Communion. It also indicates that a vast majority of marriages do not enjoy the blessings of sacramental grace (could this have something to do with the phenomenal increase in divorce?).

An example from another sacrament:

Long story short, one of my professors is convinced that a particular Mass in her past did not have a valid Eucharist because the priest, though using correct matter and form, explicitly denied that the bread and wine were anything more than symbol and apparently acknowledged that he meant as much when speaking the words of consecration.

SO! Thoughts? Concerns? Opinions?

Have at it.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

To be brief, Donatism suggested that sacramental validity depended on the moral disposition of the celebrant / administrator. To this Augustine responded with the classic formulation of “from the work, worked” theology. But morals represent only one side of the faith-coin, with doctrines being on the flipped-side. Donatism was a big deal because it tossed the validity of sacraments up into the air. But look at the flipped side of the coin; we do indeed recognize intent to be part of the 3-fold requirement for a sacrament’s validity - the intent to do what the Church does.

Liberal view of intent: “intent” regards the willingness to use the proper matter and form of the sacrament.

**Conservative view of intent: **“intent” regards the intention to do what THE Church does (that is, intent for the sacramental effects of the sacrament at hand).

Why is this a big deal? Well, I find it hard to believe that even a liberal understanding in this area would allow for “intent” to be fulfilled when the present intent is actually contrary or directly opposed to the intent of the Church in what she does. FOR INSTANCE:

In my background as a Protestant (especially my experience as a Baptist), I can say as a matter of fact that during every Protestant baptism I have ever attended - unless my memory fails me regarding some unknown occasion - the baptism was prefaced with an explicit, public rebuttal of Catholic intent (e.g., “What we do now is NOT in ANY way efficacious or meritorious, nor does it yield any kind of special grace. We do not believe - and even condemn the idea - that baptism remits any sin or has any effect. What we are about to do is STRICTLY and entirely symbolic and in no way necessary for salvation!”). I have, to the best of my knowledge, never been to a Protestant baptism where a small, polemical sermon repudiating Catholic teaching was not attached to the ceremony. In fact, I know of Protestant congregations that make the person about to be baptized acknowledge agreement to the repudiation, sometimes publicly, prior to being baptized. Since the intent of such a ceremony is directly opposed to the Church’s intent in baptism, it would seem that it is impossible to regard it as a valid baptism.

However, since the vast and overwhelming majority of mainline, “Evangelical” Protestant baptisms (particularly those of the Baptists) are representative of scenarios such as those I’ve outlined above, it would seem that very often, a Protestant coming into full communion with Rome has not been properly baptized. I’ve never seen or heard of a parish check into evidence of proper intent - only the matter and form. This would seem to indicate that many converts from Protestantism, having never validly received baptism, did not validly receive Confirmation and do not licitly receive Holy Communion. It also indicates that a vast majority of marriages do not enjoy the blessings of sacramental grace (could this have something to do with the phenomenal increase in divorce?).

An example from another sacrament:

Long story short, one of my professors is convinced that a particular Mass in her past did not have a valid Eucharist because the priest, though using correct matter and form, explicitly denied that the bread and wine were anything more than symbol and apparently acknowledged that he meant as much when speaking the words of consecration.

SO! Thoughts? Concerns? Opinions?

Have at it.

The Church does say that each Baptism must be looked into, investigated as to it’s validity when an adult presents themselves for union with the Catholic Church. If something like this “What we do now is NOT in ANY way efficacious or meritorious, nor does it yield any kind of special grace. We do not believe - and even condemn the idea - that baptism remits any sin or has any effect. What we are about to do is STRICTLY and entirely symbolic and in no way necessary for salvation!” comes to light during this investigation that particular Baptism would be questionable and possibly a conditional Baptism would be in order.

 

[AJV]

To be brief, Donatism suggested that sacramental validity depended on the moral disposition of the celebrant / administrator. To this Augustine responded with the classic formulation of “from the work, worked” theology. But morals represent only one side of the faith-coin, with doctrines being on the flipped-side. Donatism was a big deal because it tossed the validity of sacraments up into the air. But look at the flipped side of the coin; we do indeed recognize intent to be part of the 3-fold requirement for a sacrament’s validity - the intent to do what the Church does.

Liberal view of intent: “intent” regards the willingness to use the proper matter and form of the sacrament.

**Conservative view of intent: **“intent” regards the intention to do what THE Church does (that is, intent for the sacramental effects of the sacrament at hand).

Could you explain the part in red, particularly what you mean by “sacramental effects”? The conferral of grace? The way I’m currently reading it is that you are actually saying “intend what the Church intends” not “intend what the Church does”

 

[Luke65]

“What we do now is NOT in ANY way efficacious or meritorious, nor does it yield any kind of special grace. We do not believe - and even condemn the idea - that baptism remits any sin or has any effect. What we are about to do is STRICTLY and entirely symbolic and in no way necessary for salvation!”

“A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter.” (Revelation 8:11)

 

[Ziggamafu]

Could you explain the part in red, particularly what you mean by “sacramental effects”? The conferral of grace? The way I’m currently reading it is that you are actually saying “intend what the Church intends” not “intend what the Church does”

Intending what the Church intends, doctrinally speaking; that is, assent to the Catholic dogmas concerning the sacrament.

 

[Ziggamafu]

“A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter.” (Revelation 8:11)

Creepy. Hadn’t thought of that verse. If the Church has not formally addressed the issue I’ve raised here, I’ll be shocked.

Honestly, I would be (or am) directly impacted by this whole issue. I was baptized as a Protestant but the intent - doctrinally speaking - to do what the Catholic Church does by means of the sacrament was not there. Back in RCIA I only knew about the requirements of proper form and matter.

 

[Cluny]

Lack of intent is usually hard to prove. Intention is presumed if the Priest goes to the trouble of vesting and saying the prayers of the Mass with the proper matter and ceremonies, in the absence positive and clear evidence to the contrary.

Though the case mentioned of a priest who seemed to repudiate traditional doctrine is an interesting point.

I simply don’t know in that case.

(e.g., “What we do now is NOT in ANY way efficacious or meritorious, nor does it yield any kind of special grace. We do not believe - and even condemn the idea - that baptism remits any sin or has any effect. What we are about to do is STRICTLY and entirely symbolic and in no way necessary for salvation!”)

I understand your concern about this apparently clear lack of general intention “to do what the Church does” here.

But I believe that the Church can create grace where none exists. To put it another way, in this case the Church can take an empty vessel and fill it with grace that it might otherwise lack.

HOWEVER–this is why I also say that it may be well just to receive all converts (except from Orthodoxy or an Eastern Church) by canonical Baptism, to remover all doubt.

 

[Ziggamafu]

Some form of repudiation exists in most Evangelical (especially Baptist) baptisms. And it is explicitly clear (made so by the Protestants themselves) that almost all of them deny baptismal regeneration. I find it hard to justify a “presumption of intent”, given the facts.

Also, regarding the Church “filling an empty vessel”, this simply does not fly; intent is a requirement of validity - no more and no less a requirement than matter and form - and just as there is no possible way that a baptism involving daisies or maple syrup could be valid, it is similarly impossible for a baptism lacking proper intent to be valid.

Granted, matter and form are objective while intent is subjective; nevertheless, subjective dispositions are not necessarily mysteries. Where the disposition is admitted or acknowledged in some clear manner, what was once subjective is now objectively clear. Such is the case for the vast and overwhelming majority of Protestant baptisms. Even those who do not have a little polemical speech in the ceremony are likely to have a congregational “statement of faith” that outlines their denial of Catholic doctrine regarding sacraments.

Ok, I’m just going to say it:

It seems clear to me that the vast and overwhelming number of Protestant converts to Catholicism, if they have not been conditionally baptized, have not ever been validly baptized at all (and thus, neither have they been confirmed), illicitly receive the Eucharist, and perhaps do not even enjoy sacramental marriages. Baptism is the all-important sacrament insofar as it is the gateway to all other sacraments and the only means by which one enters into the Body of Christ. We never settle toward a dangerous (and perhaps sinful) presumption of baptisms of desire or blood because these forms of baptism are called “extraordinary” for a reason and can be hoped for, but not counted on.

 

[malphono]

I understand your concern about this apparently clear lack of general intention “to do what the Church does” here.

But I believe that the Church can create grace where none exists. To put it another way, in this case the Church can take an empty vessel and fill it with grace that it might otherwise lack.

I agree, provided the formula used in the Protestant Baptism was valid in the eyes of the Church (and not all Protestant baptismal formulae are). In such a case, the seeming lack (or even contradiction) of intent takes a back seat to what the Church intends. In other words, Church’s intent is that, present a valid formula, the candidate is validly baptized, so the Church herself supplies what was missing. Of course, where the formula itself was defective in the first place (as is the case with many Protestant denominations), the baptism was not valid.

HOWEVER–this is why I also say that it may be well just to receive all converts (except from Orthodoxy or an Eastern Church) by canonical Baptism, to remover all doubt.

FWIW, I also tend to agree with this. A conditional baptism can do no harm.

Lack of intent is usually hard to prove. Intention is presumed if the Priest goes to the trouble of vesting and saying the prayers of the Mass with the proper matter and ceremonies, in the absence positive and clear evidence to the contrary.

Though the case mentioned of a priest who seemed to repudiate traditional doctrine is an interesting point.

I simply don’t know in that case.

I recall from many years ago a Latin Rite priest who fit that bill. He was known for “chips & Coke” fests in informal setting, and those, of course, were invalid from the get-go due to lack of matter (and, usually, form as well). Even in a formal setting, (where matter and form were correct), it seems to me the service was a travesty and no Eucharist was (to use the Western term) confected.

His theological position on the Eucharist was very clear: “the Church can say whatever she wants, but (a) there is no such thing as the Real Presence and (b) the Eucharist is nothing more than symbolic anyway.”

The case here differs from the Protestant baptism example in that one who is supposed to be an ordinary minister of the Church clearly and explicitly denies what the Church teaches and intends.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Some form of repudiation exists in most Evangelical (especially Baptist) baptisms. And it is explicitly clear (made so by the Protestants themselves) that almost all of them deny baptismal regeneration. I find it hard to justify a “presumption of intent”, given the facts.

Also, regarding the Church “filling an empty vessel”, this simply does not fly; intent is a requirement of validity - no more and no less a requirement than matter and form - and just as there is no possible way that a baptism involving daisies or maple syrup could be valid, it is similarly impossible for a baptism lacking proper intent to be valid.

Granted, matter and form are objective while intent is subjective; nevertheless, subjective dispositions are not necessarily mysteries. Where the disposition is admitted or acknowledged in some clear manner, what was once subjective is now objectively clear. Such is the case for the vast and overwhelming majority of Protestant baptisms. Even those who do not have a little polemical speech in the ceremony are likely to have a congregational “statement of faith” that outlines their denial of Catholic doctrine regarding sacraments.

Ok, I’m just going to say it:

It seems clear to me that the vast and overwhelming number of Protestant converts to Catholicism, if they have not been conditionally baptized, have not ever been validly baptized at all (and thus, neither have they been confirmed), illicitly receive the Eucharist, and perhaps do not even enjoy sacramental marriages. Baptism is the all-important sacrament insofar as it is the gateway to all other sacraments and the only means by which one enters into the Body of Christ. We never settle toward a dangerous (and perhaps sinful) presumption of baptisms of desire or blood because these forms of baptism are called “extraordinary” for a reason and can be hoped for, but not counted on.

Keep in mind here that the Church does not have the presumption of baptisms being valid. The Church says that they should be carefully look into and varified during the Inquiry phase of RCIA. Many pastors and even Bishops may have this presumption of baptisms being valid.

 

[Ziggamafu]

It seems to me that intending to “do what the Church does” necessarily requires such intent to be directed toward the Catholic Church, since there is no such thing as an alternative “Church”. Think about this: many Protestants do not even regard “baptism” as a sacrament. So not only does their statement of faith repudiate Catholic doctrine on baptism’s effects, but they intend something of an entirely different nature than what the Catholic means by the word “baptism”. A sacramental mystery that conveys the grace of salvation is utterly and wholly different than a merely human, symbolic action. We call an orange and orange. They call an apple an orange. Their apple does not turn into an orange.

They intend an act that does not seem to properly have the word “baptism” attached to it, and they intend that act to achieve effects very different from what the Church intends, and they often explicitly and publicly repudiate the Church’s intent in doing so. *How can it be said that they nevertheless are doing what the Church intends? *With so liberal a definition of “intent” it makes one wonder why the requirements are treated so strictly. Surely if the common Protestant ritual represents valid “intent” through some convoluted wiggle-room then we should be able to similarly excuse the use of beer and pizza for the Eucharist. What I’m trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the strict adherence to matter and form and the generous liberalism allotted to intent.

 

[Ziggamafu]

Obviously a pagan or Protestant is able to intend to do what the Church does. And one’s intention need not involve perfect or even good knowledge of the sacrament. But “the Church” toward which intent must be directed may only be Catholic; and while the mere lack of knowledge regarding this fact would not be a matter of invalidity, a direct repudiation of the Church (and her intent, to say nothing of a complete hijacking of our term “baptism”) does not seem to be reconcilable with the requirement of intent. In other words, it seems to me that where a ritual using the form and matter of baptism but lacking the intent of a sacrament - much less a Catholic sacrament - takes place, it cannot properly be called a baptism. And the problem is that most Evangelical baptisms fit this bill.

Although using proper form and matter, they:

• proclaim the “ordinance’s” nature to be a purely symbolic, human act (thus redefining the term “baptism” in the first place)
• intend only a message of inspiration and testimony to Protestant doctrine as effects of the human act
• publicly repudiate the intention of the Church, either within the context of the act or in their congregational statement of faith

Can this be in any way argued to be indicative of “intending to do what the [Catholic] Church does”? If not, then nearly every single Evangelical convert (and particularly Baptists) who has not received a conditional baptism is in fact riding on the unknown hope of an extraordinary baptism (desire / blood), has not actually been confirmed, illicitly receives Holy Communion, and may not even have the protection and graces that come with a sacramental marriage.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Obviously a pagan or Protestant is able to intend to do what the Church does. And one’s intention need not involve perfect or even good knowledge of the sacrament. But “the Church” toward which intent must be directed may only be Catholic; and while the mere lack of knowledge regarding this fact would not be a matter of invalidity, a direct repudiation of the Church (and her intent, to say nothing of a complete hijacking of our term “baptism”) does not seem to be reconcilable with the requirement of intent. In other words, it seems to me that where a ritual using the form and matter of baptism but lacking the intent of a sacrament - much less a Catholic sacrament - takes place, it cannot properly be called a baptism. And the problem is that most Evangelical baptisms fit this bill.

Although using proper form and matter, they:

• proclaim the “ordinance’s” nature to be a purely symbolic, human act (thus redefining the term “baptism” in the first place)
• intend only a message of inspiration and testimony to Protestant doctrine as effects of the human act
• publicly repudiate the intention of the Church, either within the context of the act or in their congregational statement of faith

Can this be in any way argued to be indicative of “intending to do what the [Catholic] Church does”? If not, then nearly every single Evangelical convert (and particularly Baptists) who has not received a conditional baptism is in fact riding on the unknown hope of an extraordinary baptism (desire / blood), has not actually been confirmed, illicitly receives Holy Communion, and may not even have the protection and graces that come with a sacramental marriage.

You can’t make a blanket assumption, each Baptism that is presented for investigation MUST be looked at individually. No it might be possible to over time acknowledge that Baptisms performed by a particular pastor during a particular time, at a particular Christian Community are most likely invalid, or valid. However each should be carefully look at to insure nothing changed.

 

[Digitonomy]

It’s worth comparing this situation to what happens when a priest who completely lacks belief in the real presence confects the Eucharist. He goes through the motions, not in order to transsubstantiate the bread and wine, which he is certain cannot happen. Instead he does it to keep people happy, to keep his job, etc. So in that sense his intent is very much different from that of the Church. However, we are taught that unless he has actually formed a contrary intent to NOT confect the Eucharist, going through the motions is intent enough.

In the case of these Protestant baptisms, the same thing is often true - the minister may not believe that going through the motions has any effect, but he is still going through the motions. The fact that he misunderstands, and misstates, what is actually happening, need not affect its validity. And he is after all doing this ceremony to officially bring the person into the Christian family - exactly as the Church teaches, whether or not those involved understand the ramifications.

So while you raise some interesting questions, and some Protestant baptisms may indeed be invalid for the reasons you state, I think it’s proper for the bar to be much higher than you suggest in finding invalid intent.

 

[Ziggamafu]

A friend of mine had this to say:

The fact that the CDF has rejected Mormon baptism, even though the matter and form are correct, and the general intention is to do what the Church does, speaks volumes. In fact, the article that accompanied the CDF notification, which was written by Fr. Ladaria, S.J., admits that doctrinal errors do not normally invalidate baptism, but in the case of Mormonism, which rejects faith in the Triune God, it does invalidate the ritual. Clearly, the rejection of Mormon baptism by the Catholic Church is based upon the Mormon Church’s, and by extension the Mormon minister’s, lack of Trinitarian faith. So even though a Mormon has general intention to wash away sin through baptism, the theological errors present within his “faith” specifically vitiate that desire, because the desire itself is motivated by a heretical tritheistic / polytheistic theology. Thus, the theological errors of Mormonism make Mormon baptism invalid.

Mormons - like Evangelicals - have an intention motivated by error (“Jesus recommended baptism only as a symbolic witness”) with serious, public repudiations of the Church’s intent intimately involved with the ritual. **What seems most problematic to me is that the Mormon, like the “Low-Protestant”, defines baptism as something fundamentally different than the Catholic Church or “High-Protestant”. For us, baptism is a soteriological sacrament of God; for them, baptism is a symbolic act of Man. In other words, the Evangelical baptism cannot properly be called a baptism at all because it redefines it, calling their apple by the name of our orange.

 

[FrDavid96]

A friend of mine had this to say:

Mormons - like Evangelicals - have an intention motivated by error (“Jesus recommended baptism only as a symbolic witness”) with serious, public repudiations of the Church’s intent intimately involved with the ritual. **What seems most problematic to me is that the Mormon, like the “Low-Protestant”, defines baptism as something *fundamentally different ***than the Catholic Church or “High-Protestant”. For us, baptism is a soteriological sacrament of God; for them, baptism is a symbolic act of Man. In other words, the Evangelical baptism cannot properly be called a baptism at all because it redefines it, calling their apple by the name of our orange.

You’re on the right track, but something else needs to be said for clarity. It’s not a matter of belief in the effects of Baptism, but it has to do with beliefs about God Himself.

Protestant baptisms are valid because when they invoke the Trinity, they are speaking of the same Trinity (yes, the only Trinity) invoked in Catholic baptisms. Even if their Trinitarian theology is in error, or to be more specific their Christology is in error (as in the case of the early heresies) they are still invoking the same Blessed Trinity.

What makes Mormon “baptisms” different is that they do not believe in the Trinity at all. They may use the same names, and there may be similarities between the Mormon trinity and the true Trinity but they are not the same 3 Divine Persons. So when a Mormon “baptises” and does so “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” he is not invoking the Christian God. Mormons invoke a different god than the God of Christianity and that is what makes all of their baptisms invalid. It’s not so much a lack of belief in the Trinity, or a lack of belief in the true effects of baptism, but a belief in another god which is not-the-Trinity but happens to have the same name.

The reason why a non-Christian can still validly baptise in an emergency (a Jew, Hindu, or Moslem or even an atheist) is because such a person still invokes the true Trinity even though he might not understand or believe-in what that means, and might not understand or believe the effects of Baptism.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

You can’t make a blanket assumption, each Baptism that is presented for investigation MUST be looked at individually. No it might be possible to over time acknowledge that Baptisms performed by a particular pastor during a particular time, at a particular Christian Community are most likely invalid, or valid. However each should be carefully look at to insure nothing changed.

I did a little more digging around today and got this explaination.

Intent for the celebration of the Sacraments is normally presumed when the minister acts in manner consistant with the Church. Unless there is a clear denial of this intent by the actions or words of the minister.

 

[Ziggamafu]

You’re on the right track, but something else needs to be said for clarity. It’s not a matter of belief in the effects of Baptism, but it has to do with beliefs about God Himself.

Protestant baptisms are valid because when they invoke the Trinity, they are speaking of the same Trinity (yes, the only Trinity) invoked in Catholic baptisms. Even if their Trinitarian theology is in error, or to be more specific their Christology is in error (as in the case of the early heresies) they are still invoking the same Blessed Trinity.

What makes Mormon “baptisms” different is that they do not believe in the Trinity at all. They may use the same names, and there may be similarities between the Mormon trinity and the true Trinity but they are not the same 3 Divine Persons. So when a Mormon “baptises” and does so “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” he is not invoking the Christian God. Mormons invoke a different god than the God of Christianity and that is what makes all of their baptisms invalid. It’s not so much a lack of belief in the Trinity, or a lack of belief in the true effects of baptism, but a belief in another god which is not-the-Trinity but happens to have the same name.

The reason why a non-Christian can still validly baptise in an emergency (a Jew, Hindu, or Moslem or even an atheist) is because such a person still invokes the true Trinity even though he might not understand or believe-in what that means, and might not understand or believe the effects of Baptism.

Now wait a second. A Mormon, who certainly thinks he’s worshiping the correct, Christian God, and who uses the proper matter and form, and who intends to “baptize”, administers an invalid baptism because of improper theology directly connected to the ritual at hand. But (for example) a Baptists, who similarly redefines baptism by bad theology administers a *valid *baptism?

Anyway, I see no grounds for removing the effects of baptism from the intent of the Church. In fact, as I just typed that, I nearly laughed out loud. It is clear that the Church intends the effects of baptism when the Church baptizes. Even if you don’t know these effects, you must intend what the Church intends when you baptize (i.e., you can’t deliberately repudiate the Church’s theology, which is exactly what most Evangelical baptisms involve). I don’t see how the case is not closed when it comes to baptisms that involve direct repudiations of the Church’s intent.

However, for the sake of argument, let’s remove the assent (even if not a knowledgeable assent) toward the Church’s intended effects from the equation. Let’s just look at the basic definition of baptism by the Church:

The Church intends a sacramental act of God.

The Low-Protestant intends a symbolic act of Man.

If the second position is strict, (indeed, repudiating the first position), then not only is there absolutely no room left for what the Church intends, but it stands as an act of direct opposition to what the Church intends. And yet: a person holding such a position fulfills the requirement for validity of “intending to do what the Church does”? This borders on the absurd, as far as I can tell.

Put it in another context:

If a priest who hates his own Church were to take wheat bread and grape wine and pronounce the words of consecration over them with the intent of a purely symbolic act, publicly repudiating the Church’s intent within the context of doing so, would you be willing to fall prostrate in adoration before the alleged host he then holds before you? Would the priest have an intention that matches that of the Church?

 

[FrDavid96]

Now wait a second. A Mormon, who certainly thinks he’s worshiping the correct, Christian God, and who uses the proper matter and form, and who intends to “baptize”, administers an invalid baptism because of improper theology directly connected to the ritual at hand. But (for example) a Baptists, who similarly redefines baptism by bad theology administers a *valid *baptism?

Anyway, I see no grounds for removing the effects of baptism from the intent of the Church. In fact, as I just typed that, I nearly laughed out loud. It is clear that the Church intends the effects of baptism when the Church baptizes. Even if you don’t know these effects, you must intend what the Church intends when you baptize (i.e., you can’t deliberately repudiate the Church’s theology, which is exactly what most Evangelical baptisms involve). I don’t see how the case is not closed when it comes to baptisms that involve direct repudiations of the Church’s intent.

However, for the sake of argument, let’s remove the assent (even if not a knowledgeable assent) toward the Church’s intended effects from the equation. Let’s just look at the basic definition of baptism by the Church:

The Church intends a sacramental act of God.

The Low-Protestant intends a symbolic act of Man.

If the second position is strict, (indeed, repudiating the first position), then not only is there absolutely no room left for what the Church intends, but it stands as an act of direct opposition to what the Church intends. And yet: a person holding such a position fulfills the requirement for validity of “intending to do what the Church does”? This borders on the absurd, as far as I can tell.

Put it in another context:

If a priest who hates his own Church were to take wheat bread and grape wine and pronounce the words of consecration over them with the intent of a purely symbolic act, publicly repudiating the Church’s intent within the context of doing so, would you be willing to fall prostrate in adoration before the alleged host he then holds before you? Would the priest have an intention that matches that of the Church?

Bad theology is one thing–a different god altogether is something different. That’s what I’m trying to explain here. When a Mormon baptises “in the name of the Father…” the god who is being invoked is not the God of Christianity. That is what makes all the difference.

 

[Ziggamafu]

I get that. But what I’m trying to convey is that although the Baptist invokes the same God and uses the proper matter and form, the intent is not to “baptize” much less “do what the Church does” because he repudiates the Church’s intentions and what he does seems not to be a baptism at all because he places a completely different definition to the Church’s term. That’s why I’ve singled out Low-Protestants in this discussion; High-Protestants have a proper definition (and even intend many or all of the same effects).