Infallible teaching of the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter PatK63
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting.

#288
The minister must further have the intention at least of doing what the Church does. (De fide.) Trent says if the Matter and form are correct the intention is not to be questioned.

The Church does this all the time. :roll_eyes:
 
Interesting.

#288
The minister must further have the intention at least of doing what the Church does. (De fide.) Trent says if the Matter and form are correct the intention is not to be questioned.

The Church does this all the time. :roll_eyes:
The bolded part is not in the book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. What is in the book on p. 344, is:
Objectively considered, the intention of doing what the Church does suffices. The minister, therefore, does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely, to produce the effects of the Sacraments, for example, the forgiveness of sins; neither does he need to intend to execute a specific Catholic rite. It suffices if he have the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians.
 
I wonder why it says "Trent says… "

I’d like to look into Trent’s documents.
 
I wonder why it says "Trent says… "

I’d like to look into Trent’s documents.
Reformers thought that the intention of the minister was not needed.
The Council of Trent declared against the Reformers, who denied the necessity of the intention of the minister, as they recognised in the Sacrament a subjective, psychological efficacy only: Si quis dixerit, in ministris, dum sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt, non requiri intentionern saltern faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, A.S. D 854. Cf. D 424, 672, 695, 752.
D refers to the old numbering in Denzinger, you can read them here:
Denzinger - English translation, older numbering (old numbering)
 
Last edited:
I get that. I’m curious if Trent said we should not question the minister’s intentions.
 
I get that. I’m curious if Trent said we should not question the minister’s intentions.

COUNCIL OF TRENT 1545-1563 (25 sessions total) D 782 - 992​

SESSION Vll (March 3, 1547)
854 Can. 11. If anyone shall say that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, the intention at least of doing what the Church does is not required: let him be anathema.

SESSION XIII (Oct. II, 1551)
902 With regard to the minister of this sacrament the holy Synod declares false and entirely foreign to the truth of the Gospel all doctrines which perniciously extend the ministry of the keys to any other men besides bishops and priests [can. 10], believing that those words of the Lord: “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven” [ Matt. 18:18; and “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” [ John 20:23], were indifferently and indiscriminately addressed to all the faithful of Christ contrary to the institution of this sacrament, so that anyone may have the power of remitting sins, public sins by way of rebuke, if the rebuked acquiesces, and secret ones through a voluntary confession made to anyone. It also teaches that even priests who are bound by mortal sin exercise as ministers of Christ the office of forgiving sins by virtue of the Holy Spirit conferred in ordination, and that they are of an erroneous opinion who contend that this power does not exist in bad priests. However, although the absolution of the priest is the dispensation of the benefaction of another, yet it is not a bare ministry only, either of announcing the Gospel or declaring the forgiveness of sins, but it is equivalent to a judicial act, by which sentence is pronounced by him as if by a judge [can. 9]. And, therefore, the penitent should not so flatter-himself on his own faith as to think that even though he have no contrition, and that the intention of acting earnestly and absolving effectively be wanting in the priest, nevertheless he is truly and before God absolved by reason of his faith alone. For faith without penance effects no remission of sins, and he would be most negligent of his own salvation, who would know that a priest was absolving him in a jesting manner, and would not earnestly consult another who would act seriously.
 
854 Can. 11. If anyone shall say that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, the intention at least of doing what the Church does is not required: let him be anathema.

Thanks!

Do you know if this is relative to all Sacraments?
 
Last edited:
854 Can. 11. If anyone shall say that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, the intention at least of doing what the Church does is not required: let him be anathema.
Thanks!

Do you know if this is relative to all Sacraments?

Welcome. Yes, that section was entitled Canons on the Sacraments in General.
 
So how come Intentions of Marriage are questioned and judged so much?

The spouses are the Ministers.

I can understand if one spouse confesses, but what if they dont?
 
Last edited:
So how come Intentions of Marriage are questioned and judged so much?

The spouses are the Ministers.

I can understand if one spouse confesses, but what if they dont?
The absolute minimum for marriage is the consent of the couple themselves and two witnesses to it, as long as there are no impediments per the Church. Proper intention must exist for validity, and deceit is possible.
 
Last edited:
So it’s not saying that ministers intentions can not be judged?

This was the statement:
Trent says if the Matter and form are correct the intention is not to be questioned.

But maybe your canon reference isnt saying that
 
Last edited:
So it’s not saying that ministers intentions can not be judged?

This was the statement:
Trent says if the Matter and form are correct the intention is not to be questioned.

But maybe your canon reference isnt saying that
That statement was not from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

The Council of Trent, Session XIV, Chapter VI (Penance)
For neither would faith without penance bestow any remission of sins; nor would he be otherwise than most careless of his own salvation, who, knowing that a priest but absolved him in jest, should not care fully seek for another who would act in earnest.
A Catholic marriage must be celebrated per canon law and the norm is that a minister must have faculties for the sacrament to be valid (CIC 1108.1). Also proofs may established for impediments.

CIC (Latin Canon Law) Canon 1074 An impediment is said to be public, when it can be proved in the external forum; otherwise, it is occult.
 
Yes. I’m curious how one can prove intentions, unless admission is made.

Evidence can support a doubt. But I’m curious what constitutes proof of false intentions.

I thought this statement supported the notion that one cannot question intentions.
 
Yes. I’m curious how one can prove intentions, unless admission is made.

Evidence can support a doubt. But I’m curious what constitutes proof of false intentions.

I thought this statement supported the notion that one cannot question intentions.
It may not be possible to prove an occult impediment (such as wrong intention or deceit). Some examples for marriage include contagious disease contracted and discovered after the marriage, desertion, antecedent impotence.
 
So how come Intentions of Marriage are questioned and judged so much?

The spouses are the Ministers.

I can understand if one spouse confesses, but what if they dont?
Trents comments are talking about the intentions of the ordained.
 
Isnt it talking about ministers of the Sacraments?

Anyway, I’m not so sure where the statement “Trent says if the Matter and form are correct the intention is not to be questioned” comes from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top