The Curse of Intent!

[batteddy]

Let’s just imagine our Mr. Jean Meslier sitting in his box and liseing to the confessions of his flock. Of course, he doesn#t absolve them earnestly - because in his diary he especially mocked and laughed at the “superstitious” sacraments - so he mocks you(the penitent), and secretly(though not overtly) laughs at you, and secretely laughs when absolving you, laughing secretly at you because you are so dull to belive that when he absolves you you are absolved of your sins.

Well, I think Leo X condemned this. And, therefore, I get the idea that Jean Mesliers penitents died in their mortal sins.

Jean Mesliers sounds like one of the rare cases in history of a priest so evil and deranged that they do preform the outward rite while delibrately withholding internal intention to do what the Church does out of their own hatred for the Church.

Leo’s condemnation is perfectly true: a person merely intending to RECIEVE a sacrament is not enough to actually recieve it. The other qualifications must be met. So if Jean Mesliers penitents wanted to be absolved but were not, this was not enough. They were, indeed, no more absolved than if I went into the confessional and pretended to be a priest and give them absolution. Because of this, some may have died in their mortal sins…however, we can hope that they went to other priests too, or that their intent to confess was in some elevated to a Perfect Contrition.

Alexander VIII condmned by a decree of the Holy Office this error of the Jansenists:
“Baptism is valid if it is done by a person who observes the wohle external rite and form of baptism, but secretly decides in his heart: I don’t intent to do what the church does.”

This condemnation is also true, and in no way contradicts what Aquinas or I have said. If a person delibrately and consciously decides “I dont intend to do what the church does” that baptism is definitely invalid. But unbelief in what the church believes is not the same as not intending to do what she does. You can personally esteem it to be nothing, but if you are preforming the ritual because you know the Church believes in it (even if you yourself dont) you are intending to do what the Church does unless you positively exclude this.

Insofar as the substance of bread remains the same, it isn’t allowed to doubt the least, that after the presaid words of the consecration of the body[this is my body], which are spoken by the priest with THE INTENT TO TRANSFORM[the bread into the body of Christ], the bread is substantially transformed into the true body of Christ. (Denzinger-Hünermann 1352)

Also true. It is absolutely undoubtable that a priest who preforms the correct ritual, with correct matter, correct form, correct intent, AND correct belief preforms a true sacrament. If a priest does not have correct belief, there may be some doubt, but the sacrament may still be true. He may still preform a correct sacrament, but his unbelief MAY (but not necessarily) effect his intent. So a priest who simply doesnt believe in transubstantiation but doesnt morally oppose the Church still preforms a proper sacrament. But a priest who delibrately excludes the intent of the Church because his conscience tells him it is no longer morally right to submit to the Catholic Church will not preform the sacrament.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Part 3.

The Sacraments

Section 1

The Doctrine of the Sacraments in General

Chapter 1

The Nature of the Sacraments

…

…

§10. The Recipient of the Sacraments

…

2. Conditions of the Valid Reception

…

(Dogma) b) For the validity of the sacraments in the case of adult reception the intention of receiving the sacrament is necessary. (Sent. Certa.)

…

**Constitution of the intention **

As the role of the recipient is receptive, a subjective habitual intention normally suffices and even in case of necessity, an interpretive intention, whereby a person, who is suddenly rendered incapable of an actual or habitual intention (unconsciousness, mental disturbance), had a wish at least implicit before the emergency to receive the Sacrament. In Matrimony a virtual intention at least is necessary because those contracting Matrimony are not merely recipients but also ministers of the Sacrament. The same applies to Holy Orders, on account of the obligations arising therefrom. The intention to receive that which the Church gives is sufficient. (“Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, by Ludwig Ott; Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974 edition., p. 345.)

The probabilities are that – despite any later dispositions – at the time of his ordination he (Meslier) possessed the necessary intention of receiving the Sacrament of Orders. Cardinal Bellarmine wrote “…no one can see the intention of another.” (Disput. de Justif., lib. iii. c. 8, sec. 5, tom. iv. p.488. Prag., 1721.)

 

[Sean_O_L]

Somewhat similar cases from the Canon Law Digest - Case 1:

CANON 1993

Sacred Orders: Simulation of Intention: Exclusion of Obligations: Extrinsic Fear (Rota, 13 Jan., 1928, and 1 Aug., 1928) R.D. 20-1; R.D. 20-347.

The Facts. This young man, whom we shall call C, was ordained to the priesthood at the age of twenty-two (in 1908).

It is in evidence that before entering the seminary, and while there, he was infatuated with a girl. Their friendship was a most misguided and fatuous affair on both sides. She refused to marry, wished to remain a virgin, but desired to cultivate his affections as a priest, believing that a priest was “like an angel, incapable of any impure affection.” To this end, she imposed upon him the condition that he must be ordained in order to continue in her good graces. After his ordination scandals occurred; her affection for him quickly cooled; and it is only then that he brings this suit, claiming that his intention was simulated, that he excluded the obligations of sacred orders, and that extrinsic fear entitled him to relief from the obligations. Twice his suit was rejected by the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, to which he first applied; at last, by special favor of the Holy See, he obtains this hearing before the Rota. Three issues are presented: (1) the claim that his intention in ordination was completely lacking - a pure simulation; (2) that even if he had the intention of receiving orders, he excluded the obligations connected with them, particularly celibacy; (3) that if he consented, it was only under the influence of grave extrinsic fear, and that he is, therefore, entitled to relief from the burden of orders in accordance with canon 214.

The Law. 1. a) For the valid reception of orders, a genuine intention, at least habitual, is requisite. Hence, if one’s intention is simulated, the almost common opinion of theologians holds that the ordination is invalid (contra, Gasparri, De Ordinatione, Vol. I, n. 643). To this common opinion this court adheres.

b) But simulation of intention must be conclusively proved. It is not proved by the mere assertion of the party; but requires moreover a showing that a reasonable cause for the simulation existed, and proof of *circumstances *which confirm or corroborate the claim that the consent was feigned.

c) The existence of a low or improper motive for receiving sacred orders does not necessarily exclude a genuine intention to receive them. In this case, the misguided and guilty infatuation which is proved to have existed was not necessarily a cause for simulating consent. It may, on the contrary, have been a motive for receiving sacred orders validly; that is, with a genuine intention.

d) Upon a full review of the evidence, the court holds that simulation is not proved. Hence, the orders were validly received.

1. Upon the second issue, namely, that C excluded at least the obligations connected with sacred orders, the court observes: It is the better and more common opinion that the obligation of chastity which is connected with sacred orders results immediately from the vow which is implicit in the reception of orders. Hence the obligation usually flows from the will of the party. But, in the extraordinary supposition that the party excluded this vow by a positive contrary act of the will made at the time of ordination, he would still be bound - not, in that case, by the vow, but by positive ecclesiastical law. This is the more common opinion, to which this court adheres. Consequently, the intention to exclude the obligations connected with sacred orders would be irrelevant even if it were proved. The court is moreover of the opinion that it is not proved in this case.

cont:

 

[Sean_O_L]

cont:

1. As regards the issue of fear, the court holds that, if any grave fear existed, it was intrinsic in its source; that is, it was the result, not of any pressure from without, but of C’s own reflections on the possible consequences of his acts. Such fear is not sufficient to relieve from the obligations of orders.

The decision of the court is, therefore, adverse to the petitioner on all issues.

R.D. 20-1; Rota, 13 Jan., 1928. On appeal, this decision was in all respects confirmed by a second Rota decision, 1 Aug., 1928; R.D. 20-247.

---

Case 2:

Sacred Orders: Grave Fear Must Be Extrinsic (Rota, 16 Apr., 1928) R.D.20-127.

The Facts. This case for the declaration of nullity of the obligations of sacred orders on the ground of fear, is in the Rota on appeal from an adverse decision of a diocesan court to which it had been committed by the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments. Petitioner claims that he received orders under pressure of grave fear.

The Law. If one receives sacred orders under grave fear applied by an external agent directly for the purpose of compelling the person to receive orders, the orders are considered valid - since the intention to receive them is not absolutely wanting - but the person will be relieved of the obligations of orders, especially that of chastity. To obtain this relief, two things must be conclusively proved: first, the grave fear as above stated: secondly, that after the cessation of the fear, the person did not ratify his orders by exercising them with the intention of assuming their obligations. There is no merit in the contention made by the plaintiff’s attorney, that the fear required by canon 214

need not be extrinsic. The canon does not use the term, ab extrinseco but it does say, coactus, which clearly supposes fear injected from without. It is certain that the fear must be extrinsic.

The Evidence. There was some evidence that the ordinand’s mother exercised undue influence upon him to induce him to receive orders; but there is no proof of grave fear. The man was twenty-seven years old, and by no means timid. The relief asked for is denied. *Non constat de nullitate onerum Sacrae Ordinationi *adnexorum,in casu.

R.D. 20-127; Rota, 16 Apr., 1928. Final.

Maternal Exhortations Held Not to Have Produced Grave Fear. In an earlier case (1922), the evidence proved only that the ordinand’s mother had constantly exhorted him to continue his clerical studies and to go on to the priesthood, urging chiefly two motives therefor: first, to reform his conduct, and secondly, in order not to waste the money that had been spent on his clerical education. The court held this evidence insufficient to prove grave and unjust fear. Rota, 9 Aug., 1922 (R.D. 14-263).

Source: "The Canon Law Digest”, Vol II, by T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., LL.B., S.T.D., pp. 314-5, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, First Printing 1943, My Copy the Seventh Printing, 1956.

 

[thistle]

TheWhim:

I adressed people: “My dear fellow Caholics!”

And I formally belong to the Roman Catholic Church, united with the Pope, not to FSSPX.

But due to the curse of intent and some other obstacles, I’m pondering ifI shouldn’t turn to Protestantism.

well, Sean, the link you provided, there I read the following:

Now, if a sinful priest loses his faith and doesn’t want to do what the Church intends, then nothing happens, no grace is given. He puts up an obstacle.

In my opninion, Thomas of Aquin says something different. But the above quote fits with the Council of Florence and the Papal condemnaions. Therefore, in summary, if the priest got positive contrary intent, if he doesn’t wants to consecrate, nothing happens: bread remains bread…

That’s it, okay?

Yours.

I’m still totally unclear as to how you know the intent of a priest, or anyone. You equate yourself to God by saying you know the mind of a person because only God knows what is in a person’s mind.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Not to re-invent the “wheel” - I have just uploaded an excellent extract on (the blessing) of Intention to my website.

THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A Summary of Catholic Doctrine
arranged and edited by
Canon George D. Smith, D.D., Ph.D.,
Volume II
Burns Oates & Washbourne
Publishers to the Holy See, 1948.
Chapter XXI THE SACRAMENTAL SYSTEM

§IV: THE THEOLOGY OF THE SACRAMENTS
(pp. 744-58):
The minister of the Sacraments

The Sacraments therefore receive their efficacy from Christ. What then is the role played by the “minister” of the Sacrament? for after all you cannot baptise nor confirm nor ordain nor anoint nor absolve yourself, nor can a layman at any rate consecrate the Eucharist; and though the man and the woman are the ministers, each to the other, of the sacrament of Marriage, yet each does require the other, and obviously cannot administer that Sacrament to himself by himself.

Again, the role of the minister in the administration of Sacraments did not come up on, so to say, its own merits, but, because of the claim of heretics to administer the Sacraments equally with the orthodox. This claim seemed so horrible to certain groups, or to fierce-tempered individuals like the African Cyprian that, on the grounds that where the Church was not, the Holy Spirit was not, and where he was not, nothing of a sanctifying nature could exist, and therefore not the Sacraments, they denied to heretic ministers the power to administer any Sacrament whatsoever validly. This dispute will be found explained, and the course it took, in the pages of this volume dealing with the Sacrament of Baptism. But behind that dispute existed the universally admitted certainty, that a proper minister is necessary in the case of each and every Sacrament, and the dispute really turned upon the question - Who was the proper one? It was, all admitted, the “word” of the proper minister that made the bread to be Christ’s Body, that made the water to be no mere water, but baptismal water. This conjunction of the word with the thing, so that a moral whole was created, supplied that due material element through which the Spirit of God could act. But the minister was not ever regarded simply as a man. Had he been so regarded, certainly much might have turned upon his moral or mental dispositions. But he was definitely regarded as representing, in his person, the Church; and the Church was the continuation of Christ, and the dwelling-place of his Spirit. Therefore, albeit it was a man who spoke the words, Christ spoke through them- "Christ cleanses.

It is therefore certain that the moral condition of the minister of the Sacrament does not interfere with its validity on its own account. The mere fact that his soul has sin in it, does not render him useless as an instrument in the hands of the Church and of Christ, for the “making” of the Sacrament. It is desirable, in every way, that a priest, for example, should be a holy and even a cultured man. But the fact that he is immoral, or boorish, cannot affect the Sacrament as such. Certainly a devout priest will obtain, by his holiness and the fervour of his prayer, additional grace for those on whose behalf he administers a Sacrament; but this is a consideration exterior to the essence of the Sacrament itself. Similarly, two people who intend to get married and go through the marriage ceremony in proper circumstances, may, if they be frivolous, obtain little enough actual grace, but they will be truly married, and have administered to one another the Sacrament. It is very important even here to distinguish between a valid Sacrament and a fruitful one.

See the full article at jloughnan.tripod.com/teaching.htm

 

[TheWhim]

I’m deeply thankful to both of you, Sean and batteddy, for having given most value arguments to defend the validity of masses read by atheist or at least heretical priests.

Now, as I think I understand the topic enttirely, I would even go so far as to hold the opinion that masses said by unbelieving priests are NECESSARILY valid.

Because, as battedy so wisely stated, they scarcely can have got a üpositive contratry intent. For if a priest doesn’t belive in transubstantiation, he can’t got the intent: “I don’t want this to become the body of Christ”, because he flatly denies that matter form, or his intent, have any cause at all, because he belives that there is NO transubstantiation. Therefore, only a priest can have positive contrary intent who believes in transubstantiation.

Let’s take this example(a bit far-fteched maybe): A king has murdered his brother(lest he shouldn’t get lusts at his throne). This murder has come to the knowledge of the kin’g’s spiritual master. The king now refues to confess his sins, because he thnks the murder was perfectly justified. The priest deprives him of the sacraments unless he may repent. But next Sunday the mass is to be said. And if the king doen’t get Communion, there will be murmurs among the people: “Hey, hey, the king doen’t get Commuion! He’s most surely in mortal sin. Do you think it was HE who killed his brother?” And so on. The king wants to stop rumors and thefore tells the priest that if he woul’nt get Commuion out of his hands, he would kill he priest- the priest is deeply firghtend but also a very pious soul. He knows that when a person getting holy Commuion is in the stae of mortal sin, this would be an abominable sacrilege. To make it not happen that the sweetest Jesus-child under the appearance of the bread may enter such a sinner, he says masses - otherwise he would get killed - but sets his intetnion against the words he says. The bread doen’t get consecrated. And our bad king gets just this: bread.

I repeat again my claim: unbelieving priest do necessarily perform valid masses. If they don’t believe at all that they are able to turn the bread into Christ, they cannot possibly intent whist saying mass: “I don’t want this to become the bread of Christ now.” Only a believing priest is able to intent this.

What to you think? May I hold and openly defend this opinion and still be pefectly Catholic?

Yours.

 

[Sean_O_L]

The Whim,
I think that you should consult a competent priest who is in communion with Rome to help you to flesh out your personal problem.

The first thing to remember is that if you have received valid Baptism in the Catholic Church, then you have an indelible character on your soul which, like Holy Orders, cannot be removed: you are a Catholic and will die a Catholic. Likewise, a validly ordained priest remains a priest for life. The state of each soul is up to the individual at all points of time in the interim. In the meantime, God is in control and DOES make full use of even unbelieving priests who, at least initially, had the intention to be Catholic priests and who “do what the Church does” that is, uses the prescribed Rites of the Church.

I think that it is foolishness to persue the line of thought that you currently are - but, no-one here, I think, will be able to do so in a professional manner and to your satisfaction.

Best wishes, and God bless,