Importance of Intent in Sacramental Validity

[AJV]

For a baptism to be considered valid, the minister must intend to do what the Church does. He does not have to intend the sacramental effects of baptism. This proposition is supported by theologians by pointing out the wide range of persons who may baptize. Certainly, even lay people might not be able to baptize validly if that was the requirement, since not all are well catechized. Certainly, non-Christians would not.

The intention of doing what the Church does can also be expressed in equivalent intentions, such as the intention to do what Christ commanded, or the intention of doing what the true Church does.

Contrary and symbolic intentions can be “concomitant” i.e. it is an intellectual thing and does not condition the sacramental intention of the sacrament. Thus people may state their intellectual (erroneous) opinions publicly, but they may be just that - actions of the intellect, and not “willed into” the sacramental intention. This is why consistently, in the 1870’s, the 1890’s and again in 1949 and the 1960s, Rome pronounced in favour of a presumptive validity of Protestant baptisms, even when ministers had stated their disbelief.

But it is entirely possible that such an intention could be made positive in conferring the sacrament, for example ( a bit simplistic, but nonethless) “I intend to confer a purely symbolic baptism”. Now it depends on which intention is predominant. Baptism in the name of the Most Holy Trinity “absorbs” as it were, private errors of individuals, and even specific intentions, if these are secondary. Thus for example, if the primary intention of the minister was “I intend to do what Christ instituted” and his secondary intention was “I intend to baptize symbolically only”, the intention of doing what Christ instituted, which is what the Church does, absorbs his defective intention. If however, the defective intention was primary, then it does not, and the baptism is invalid.

This gives rise to a legitimate question: surely the Protestant has an erroneous idea of “what Christ instituted” in any case? He/She probably believes he commanded it merely as an external institution of some sort, with no effects on the soul. Correct, but again, this is his/her intellectual error - the will, is “what Christ instituted”. Again, suppose he intends “I will to do what Christ instituted and what the true Church does but not what the Roman Church does”, it is still valid, since his error concerning the Church is absorbed by his other primary intentions.

As the Angelic Doctor explains in the Summa

"A perverse intention perverts the action of the one who has such an intention, not the action of another. Consequently, the perverse intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far as it is his action: not in so far as it is the action of Christ, Whose minister he is. . "

As has been pointed out, Mormon baptisms are really not on par here. Because they do not baptize into the Trinity, their other defective errors cannot be absorbed, as it were.

That being said, I do see your point. It seems to me that too many baptisms nowadays are not inquired into properly. There is even a certain opposite mentality from the Protestant Fundamentalism, found in places in the mainstream denominations, where even the form or the matter may be corrupted (one thinks of this “Creator, Redemmer, Sanctifier” which makes the rounds) but people may not be able to remember, or were baptized as infants.

 

[Ziggamafu]

Thank you for an intelligent and thoughtful reply that seems to have been produced from research.

In one sense, your reply makes me feel more at ease in respect to the majority of Low-Protestant baptisms. In another sense, it makes me more concerned because in many Baptist circles (indeed, in every Baptist circle of which I’ve ever had personal experience or knowledge) it seems abundantly clear that the tradition of Protestantism is actually placed before Christ; the “anything but Catholicism” mentality that shuns philosophy and reason as tools of the Devil and seemingly fears truth. I was actually baptized twice as a Protestant. The first time was definitely by a group whose preeminent focus in religion was anti-Catholicism. The second time was a non-denominational setting wherein I think the focus was more on what Jesus intended.

 

[Aramis]

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).

The Early councils determined it was not the intent of the minister that mattered for baptism, but that of the baptized, or in the case of children and the mentally infirm, their sponsor.

If the person intended to unite themselves the Trinity as a member of the church, and the proper form was used with valid matter, and accepted baptism for the remission of sin, that’s a valid baptism.

If, however, they held heretical beliefs about the trinity, they could not be validly baptized. It was presumed that, if one was baptized by heretics as part of joining a heretical church, one had been trained in those heresies, and had believed those heresies. Anti-Trinitarian heresies are condemned in the early councils.

That standard is more than 1500 years old.

The Mormons hold several heretical views of the trinity, and require the candidate believe them and articulate that belief, as well as the other beliefs of the the Mormon cult, prior to baptism. (Hence why they do not baptize infants. On the other hand, they accept baptism by proxy for the dead.) Therefore, anyone baptized a Mormon was baptized with intent to unite to a heretical church, and required to state belief in that heresy.

Most of the protestant baptisms I’ve seen do believe in it remitting sins and admitting one to the church, and do believe in the Trinity.

 

[Luke65]

Thank you for an intelligent and thoughtful reply that seems to have been produced from research.

In one sense, your reply makes me feel more at ease in respect to the majority of Low-Protestant baptisms. In another sense, it makes me more concerned because in many Baptist circles (indeed, in every Baptist circle of which I’ve ever had personal experience or knowledge) it seems abundantly clear that the tradition of Protestantism is actually placed before Christ; the “anything but Catholicism” mentality that shuns philosophy and reason as tools of the Devil and seemingly fears truth. I was actually baptized twice as a Protestant. The first time was definitely by a group whose preeminent focus in religion was anti-Catholicism. The second time was a non-denominational setting wherein I think the focus was more on what Jesus intended.

Well, you’ve received a lot of good information for why the Church accepts certain baptisms but not others. But I want to show you another proof from Scripture, to alleviate any other worries you may have:

“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves… lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power.” (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

The Church Fathers interpreted this “form of godliness” to be referring primarily to Baptism. So you see, these baptisms are valid, but many deny the power of this gift of the Holy Spirit. Fortunately, you do not. God bless.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The Early councils determined it was not the intent of the minister that mattered for baptism, but that of the baptized, or in the case of children and the mentally infirm, their sponsor.

If the person intended to unite themselves the Trinity as a member of the church, and the proper form was used with valid matter, and accepted baptism for the remission of sin, that’s a valid baptism.

If, however, they held heretical beliefs about the trinity, they could not be validly baptized. It was presumed that, if one was baptized by heretics as part of joining a heretical church, one had been trained in those heresies, and had believed those heresies. Anti-Trinitarian heresies are condemned in the early councils.

That standard is more than 1500 years old.

The Mormons hold several heretical views of the trinity, and require the candidate believe them and articulate that belief, as well as the other beliefs of the the Mormon cult, prior to baptism. (Hence why they do not baptize infants. On the other hand, they accept baptism by proxy for the dead.) Therefore, anyone baptized a Mormon was baptized with intent to unite to a heretical church, and required to state belief in that heresy.

Most of the protestant baptisms I’ve seen do believe in it remitting sins and admitting one to the church, and do believe in the Trinity.

The early Councils determined that it was not the FAITH or HOLINESS of the minister that was required.

 

[Ziggamafu]

The early Councils determined that it was not the FAITH or HOLINESS of the minister that was required.

Donatism was refuted, but that concerns holiness. As for doctrines, the Church has always necessitated proper intent to do what THE Church (i.e., Catholic Church) does by baptism. One could be ignorant of the details so long as the ignorance wasn’t deliberate (hence my concerns regarding Low-Protestant baptisms, which attach the word “baptism” to a ritual that is defined in an entirely different way, and which typically involve direct repudiations of Church teaching on the subject.

As for verses, please check out the one mentioned from Revelations toward the beginning of this thread.

 

[acuddymar]

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.

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

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:

This is my concern as well. If a priest believes the Eucharist is just a symbol and is just going through the motions during the consecration, is the recipient getting the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ?

Acuddymar

 

[Luke65]

As for verses, please check out the one mentioned from Revelations toward the beginning of this thread.

I guess I should have explained that further. “The waters” symbolize grace, from the Holy Spirit. So it’s referring to all the Sacraments, not just Baptism. The fallen star, Martin Luther destroyed most of the Sacraments for one-third of the Church - Protestants. While of course, Catholics and Orthodox have all 7 valid Sacraments. And while many people have been baptized, some of them are not valid, and, as we saw in the other passage, many deny the power of the sanctifying grace they have received in Baptism. So in that sense, the water is indeed “bitter”.

 

[Soler]

The Early councils determined it was not the intent of the minister that mattered for baptism, but that of the baptized, or in the case of children and the mentally infirm, their sponsor.

If the person intended to unite themselves the Trinity as a member of the church, and the proper form was used with valid matter, and accepted baptism for the remission of sin, that’s a valid baptism.

If, however, they held heretical beliefs about the trinity, they could not be validly baptized.

The Trinitarian faith of the sponsor MATTERS?
Where do you get conditional baptism?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The Trinitarian faith of the sponsor MATTERS?
Where do you get conditional baptism?

OF course the Faith of the Godparent(s) matters (however not for validity) that is why they are required by Canon Law to be Confirmed, practicing Catholics, in good standing with the Church. Anyone seriously concerned about their Baptism should speak with their pastor, and express that concern.

 

[Aramis]

The Trinitarian faith of the sponsor MATTERS?
Where do you get conditional baptism?

Questionable intent, baptism to ostensibly heretical sects, etc.

“We’re not certain you were validly baptized… so Just in case.”

 

[Layman]

I vaguely recall a poster mentioning in a recent thread that a percentage of Catholic priests don’t believe in transubstantation, thus rendering their consecrations of the Host invalid.

Is this true? I didn’t take in the implications when I first read it and now I can’t find the post. I hope I mis-remember this.

 

[ljubim]

I think Our Lord might still come because the faithful believe it. How awful would it be to receive the Eucharist and feel nothing? I would probably run out the door and speed to another mass to see if I’m not too late!

Remember the Eucharistic miracle in Italy (L-something) happened when the priest didn’t believe.

 

[Orchanian]

The validity of consecration is not dependent on the holiness of the priest. This is a clear teaching of the Church. In this year of the priest, we should pray for priests to strengthen their faith and their desire to support and teach correct doctrine.

 

[Orchanian]

I think Our Lord might still come because the faithful believe it. How awful would it be to receive the Eucharist and feel nothing? I would probably run out the door and speed to another mass to see if I’m not too late!

Remember the Eucharistic miracle in Italy (L-something) happened when the priest didn’t believe.

More on the Eucharist miracles is available at realpresence.com. I think the Italian city is Lepanto, although there were many miracles in Italy (as well as other countries). We have an exhibition coming up in our church on the Eucharistic Miracles - those approved by the Vatican. I’ve seen it before and it’s wonderful. You can do this in your own church as well.

 

[GratefulFred]

If you think a priest does not believe in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, then bring a friend and talk kindly with him in private. If then you still believe he does not believe in what he is doing in the Mass then talk to your Bishop.

Meanwhile, I would not gossip about him to others behind his back and I would pray for an increase in his faith and attend another priest’s Masses.

 

[malphono]

The validity of consecration is not dependent on the holiness of the priest. This is a clear teaching of the Church. In this year of the priest, we should pray for priests to strengthen their faith and their desire to support and teach correct doctrine.

No, it is not dependent on the “holiness of the priest” (which is quite a subjective thing anyway and best not even discussed). It is, however, dependent (among other things) on the ***intent ***of the priest. [edited]

 

[ljubim]

More on the Eucharist miracles is available at realpresence.com. I think the Italian city is Lepanto, although there were many miracles in Italy (as well as other countries). We have an exhibition coming up in our church on the Eucharistic Miracles - those approved by the Vatican. I’ve seen it before and it’s wonderful. You can do this in your own church as well.

I always think Lepanto too, but that was the sea battle. Just looked it up, it’s Lanciano

Thanks fro the suggestion, that would be a great thing for my church to see! God bless

 

[Orchanian]

No, it is not dependent on the “holiness of the priest” (which is quite a subjective thing anyway and best not even discussed). It is, however, dependent (among other things) on the ***intent ***of the priest. There was a [thread=381403]thread[/thread] about this issue in this same forum a few months back.

According to James Akin in Mass Confusion, It is not necessary for the priest to have the specific intention that transubstantiation take place so long as he has the general intention to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist. I think this is a question for the apologist to answer for more clarification.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I vaguely recall a poster mentioning in a recent thread that a percentage of Catholic priests don’t believe in transubstantation, thus rendering their consecrations of the Host invalid.

Is this true? I didn’t take in the implications when I first read it and now I can’t find the post. I hope I mis-remember this.

Lack of personal belief itself does not render the Consecration invalid.

He must however intend to Consecrate the Bread and Wine.

If for instance he discovers the something is wrong with the hosts in a ciborium. He can set those specific individual hosts or the whole ciborium off to the side and only Consecrate the other hosts. In this case only those he intended to Consecrate are Conserated, the others are not.