transubstantiation

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes, and the same goes for (former) Roman Catholic priests. A priest can (validly) celebrate the Eucharist apart from, and out of communion with, his (former) bishop. But he may not (necessarily) do that licitly. This is an important distinction.

Thank you for your response;
Former Roman Catholic priest’s? Your explanation appears to be the root of the protestant revolt which caused the separation from the Catholic faith.

A priest apart from his Apostolic successor (bishop) has no community to celebrate the Eucharist, when the communion is lost. Unless the priest starts his own community independent of his bishop, which begins the protestant independent community apart from the bishop who is by law the overseer of the community.

In Lutheranism, does the bishop preside over the Eucharist as the ordinary minister of the Eucharist and the priest has to be in full communion with his bishop in order to celebrate the Eucharist as the bishop’s assistant as extra ordinary ministers of the Eucharist?

It is true a priest is a priest forever. However; A priest without his bishop’s communion, when the bishop is the one who administers to the priest his consecration to confect the Eucharist, the priest cannot celebrate the Eucharist in liturgy (publicly) lawfully. Although there maybe (private)circumstances when the priest without a bishop can consecrate the Eucharist. I do not know how this applies to Lutheran priest and bishops?

 

[GKC]

Thank you for your response;
Former Roman Catholic priest’s? Your explanation appears to be the root of the protestant revolt which caused the separation from the Catholic faith.

A priest apart from his Apostolic successor (bishop) has no community to celebrate the Eucharist, when the communion is lost. Unless the priest starts his own community independent of his bishop, which begins the protestant independent community apart from the bishop who is by law the overseer of the community.

In Lutheranism, does the bishop preside over the Eucharist as the ordinary minister of the Eucharist and the priest has to be in full communion with his bishop in order to celebrate the Eucharist as the bishop’s assistant as extra ordinary ministers of the Eucharist?

It is true a priest is a priest forever. However; A priest without his bishop’s communion, when the bishop is the one who administers to the priest his consecration to confect the Eucharist, the priest cannot celebrate the Eucharist in liturgy (publicly) lawfully. Although there maybe (private)circumstances when the priest without a bishop can consecrate the Eucharist. I do not know how this applies to Lutheran priest and bishops?

Note KjetilK’s use of the term “licitly”. Compare to your use of the term “lawfully”. Contrast with the term "validly, as in “sacramentally valid”.

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Note KjetilK’s use of the term “licitly”. Compare to your use of the term “lawfully”. Contrast with the term "validly, as in “sacramentally valid”.

GKC

Yes, I caught that. My second point related to the communion between the priest out of communion with his bishop, if? a Lutheran priest out of communion with his bishop can celebrate the Eucharist in liturgy (public).

I believe this is a very important aspect of communion. If priest are allowed to celebrate the Eucharist and sacraments without communion with his bishop, continues to lead to dividing Christian communities, every time a priest finds conflict with his own bishop, and leaves to begin another community. I pray this is not the case with Lutheranism or Anglicans?

How does the change of bread and wine (transubstantiate) into the real presence, when a communion between bishop and priest is lost?

 

[GKC]

Yes, I caught that. My second point related to the communion between the priest out of communion with his bishop, if? a Lutheran priest out of communion with his bishop can celebrate the Eucharist in liturgy (public).

I believe this is a very important aspect of communion. If priest are allowed to celebrate the Eucharist and sacraments without communion with his bishop, continues to lead to dividing Christian communities, every time a priest finds conflict with his own bishop, and leaves to begin another community. I pray this is not the case with Lutheranism or Anglicans?

How does the change of bread and wine (transubstantiate) into the real presence, when a communion between bishop and priest is lost?

It is the case, if I am following your thought correctly. But it is not the same as the distinction between validity and liceity. Any validly ordained priest may validly confect the Sacrament, whether in communion with his Ordinary or not. But such a Sacrament is not thereby lawful/licit. Unless (not speaking of the RCC here), he was to become in communion with a bishop who can provide the necessary faculties/office, to confect the Sacrament validly, and also confect it licitly.

GKC

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

A Catholic priest who leaves ministry loses his faculties

No, he does not.

Can he validly celebrate the sacrament of Reconciliation (outside of danger of death)? No. Can he preside over the marriage of Catholics? No.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a priest is priest forever.

Yes, of course he is.

You seem to conflate liceity and validity.

You seem to presume that a priest who leaves the Church must continue to intend to do what the Church does.

 

[GKC]

You seem to presume that a priest who leaves the Church must continue to intend to do what the Church does.

The concept of sacramental intent, and how it might be assessed, as validly facere quod facit ecclessia, was explicated in Apostolicae curae. Sacramental intent is an interior condition, not discernible in itself. Hence, to determine sacramental intent requires something to serve as determinatio ex adiunctis. If all other sacramental factors in a sacramental action are valid, the intent is normally judged as valid also. This doesn’t include being formally in communion with the RCC. Hence, in all these discussions, all factors are assumed to be valid (form/matter/subject/). This allows a judgement of valid but illicit, if it is indeed the case. It’s why the RCC can consider Orthodox or PNCC orders and sacraments as valid/illicit.

GKC

 

[commenter]

As to your last, so say all right thinking RCs. Or so they should say.

GKC

Aren’t all right thinkers RCs? I may need to research this further.

 

[GKC]

Aren’t all right thinkers RCs? I may need to research this further.

Report findings.

GKC

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I believe this is a very important aspect of communion. If priest are allowed to celebrate the Eucharist and sacraments without communion with his bishop, continues to lead to dividing Christian communities, every time a priest finds conflict with his own bishop, and leaves to begin another community. I pray this is not the case with Lutheranism or Anglicans?

GKC;12589999]It is the case, if I am following your thought correctly.

Don’t you find this to be the root of the protestant movement that separated itself from the Catholic Church, which continues to haunt Protestantism as it denominates further into divided Christian communities?

If a Lutheran or Anglican priest falls out of communion with his bishop is allowed to celebrate the Eucharist and sacraments in public dividing the bishop’s flock? The question is no longer what is valid, invalid, licit or illicit? A worse damage exist in this example, which points to a reality that continues to divide communities apart from each other.

When this lost communion between a priest and his bishop happens in Roman Catholicism, the priest falls into sin, that begins in the breaking of his vows before God.

But it is not the same as the distinction between validity and liceity. Any validly ordained priest may validly confect the Sacrament, whether in communion with his Ordinary or not. But such a Sacrament is not thereby lawful/licit. Unless (not speaking of the RCC here), he was to become in communion with a bishop who can provide the necessary faculties/office, to confect the Sacrament validly, and also confect it licitly.

From this context, is what leads me to the original subject of transubstantiation. Pope Benedict XVI is of the opinion, that faith in the real presence, should not be in contention or contradiction of what is deemed valid and or Licit from Apostolic Succession, as faith in the real presence brings one to salvation.

For those; particularly the Lutheran’s, holding to a faith in the real presence. Faith here in the real presence should not allow what is licit in Transubstantiation to be an obstacle for faith to believe in the real presence.

What is licit from Transubstantiation of the change that takes place in the substance of bread and wine, should not invalidate ones faith in the real presence in retrospect ones faith in the real presence cannot invalidate what is licit in Transubstantiation.

Faith in the real presence, possesses the gift of grace, finds no obstacle to the substantial change in transubstantiation. I trust in Pope Benedict XVI opinion of the Lutheran faith in the real presence, is where the terminology from valid, invalid, licit or illicit belongs; that should not restrict or challenge ones true faith in the real presence.

But we cannot neglect those things valid and licit that belong to God, such as priestly holy orders to bring about chaos in communions. When that unity and communion between priest and bishop should be the foundation, Christ placed in stone, for all to be one in communion with Christ in His Eucharistic true and substantial real presence.

Peace be with you

 

[GKC]

I believe this is a very important aspect of communion. If priest are allowed to celebrate the Eucharist and sacraments without communion with his bishop, continues to lead to dividing Christian communities, every time a priest finds conflict with his own bishop, and leaves to begin another community. I pray this is not the case with Lutheranism or Anglicans?

Don’t you find this to be the root of the protestant movement that separated itself from the Catholic Church, which continues to haunt Protestantism as it denominates further into divided Christian communities?

If a Lutheran or Anglican priest falls out of communion with his bishop is allowed to celebrate the Eucharist and sacraments in public dividing the bishop’s flock? The question is no longer what is valid, invalid, licit or illicit? A worse damage exist in this example, which points to a reality that continues to divide communities apart from each other.

When this lost communion between a priest and his bishop happens in Roman Catholicism, the priest falls into sin, that begins in the breaking of his vows before God.

From this context, is what leads me to the original subject of transubstantiation. Pope Benedict XVI is of the opinion, that faith in the real presence, should not be in contention or contradiction of what is deemed valid and or Licit from Apostolic Succession, as faith in the real presence brings one to salvation.

For those; particularly the Lutheran’s, holding to a faith in the real presence. Faith here in the real presence should not allow what is licit in Transubstantiation to be an obstacle for faith to believe in the real presence.

What is licit from Transubstantiation of the change that takes place in the substance of bread and wine, should not invalidate ones faith in the real presence in retrospect ones faith in the real presence cannot invalidate what is licit in Transubstantiation.

Faith in the real presence, possesses the gift of grace, finds no obstacle to the substantial change in transubstantiation. I trust in Pope Benedict XVI opinion of the Lutheran faith in the real presence, is where the terminology from valid, invalid, licit or illicit belongs; that should not restrict or challenge ones true faith in the real presence.

But we cannot neglect those things valid and licit that belong to God, such as priestly holy orders to bring about chaos in communions. When that unity and communion between priest and bishop should be the foundation, Christ placed in stone, for all to be one in communion with Christ in His Eucharistic true and substantial real presence.

Peace be with you

I speak only of Anglicanism, and that only in the limited sense one can make generalizations of the motley crew. But I was not saying that an Anglican priest could function, separate from the episcopacy, as a form of sacerdotal vagante, and do so as any sort of Anglican. Such a case might exist, and such sacraments as might be connected would be so validly/illicitly, but this is not a case of being allowed. This is a case of something that could not be halted, ut being by definition outside the ecclesiastic authority. This is a case of not being in any sense an Anglican. Anglicans do indeed break with bishops, but only to find communion with another bishop, in another jurisdiction. While generalizing about Anglicans is a futile exercise, generally Anglicanism recognizes that the episcopacy is of the esse) of the Church, not merely the bene esse. An Anglican priest not under a valid bishop’ oversight is not functioning as an Anglican. Though his sacraments might be valid/illicit all the same. A rogue RC priest would be in the same condition.

GKC

 

[commenter]

I speak only of Anglicanism, and that only in the limited sense one can make generalizations of the motley crew. But I was not saying that an Anglican priest could function, separate from the episcopacy, as a form of sacerdotal vagante, and do so as any sort of Anglican. Such a case might exist, and such sacraments as might be connected would be so validly/illicitly, but this is not a case of being allowed. This is a case of something that could not be halted, ut being by definition outside the ecclesiastic authority. This is a case of not being in any sense an Anglican. Anglicans do indeed break with bishops, but only to find communion with another bishop, in another jurisdiction. While generalizing about Anglicans is a futile exercise, generally Anglicanism recognizes that the episcopacy is of the esse) of the Church, not merely the *bene *esse]. An Anglican priest not under a valid bishop’ oversight is not functioning as an Anglican. Though his sacraments might be valid/illicit all the same. A rogue RC priest would be in the same condition.

GKC

"Fr. (Patrick) Reardon says that what settled the question for him was watching bishops wreak havoc upon the Episcopal Church. “Clearly bishops must be of the esse,” he says, “because they’re certainly not of the benne esse!”

GKC, I hear your point about Anglicans breaking with bishops, but still being under a bishop, in another “jurisdiction”. But the Archbishop in Canterbury doesn’t recognize the “jurisdiction” of ACNA or the Continuum, nor would they recognize a primate in Africa as having jurisdiction to grant jurisdiction to “Anglican” entities in the USA. I can, with difficulty, see the Anglican Communion ceding continuing jurisdiction to an American, ordained bishop by the TEC but who later left. But what about the man who was never a bishop, perhaps never even a priest within the “American Jurisdictional” auspices of the TEC, but now becomes one, in ACNA or the Continuum. Does his “jurisdiction” derive only from his Holy Orders?

Since the Anglican Communion (and TEC) recognizes the jurisdiction of Catholic bishops, over some people in America but not the jurisdiction of ACNA, over anyone, does that mean in Anglican terms an American RC bishop has more validity, or licity, or - well - jurisdiction - than some ACNA or Continuing bishops?

(In a previous post, I was challenged to report back if there are right thinkers out there, besides RC’s. I found there are, lots of them. It’s kinda scary.)

 

[GKC]

"Fr. (Patrick) Reardon says that what settled the question for him was watching bishops wreak havoc upon the Episcopal Church. “Clearly bishops must be of the esse,” he says, “because they’re certainly not of the benne esse!”

GKC, I hear your point about Anglicans breaking with bishops, but still being under a bishop, in another “jurisdiction”. But the Archbishop in Canterbury doesn’t recognize the “jurisdiction” of ACNA or the Continuum, nor would they recognize a primate in Africa as having jurisdiction to grant jurisdiction to “Anglican” entities in the USA. I can, with difficulty, see the Anglican Communion ceding continuing jurisdiction to an American, ordained bishop by the TEC but who later left. But what about the man who was never a bishop, perhaps never even a priest within the “American Jurisdictional” auspices of the TEC, but now becomes one, in ACNA or the Continuum. Does his “jurisdiction” derive only from his Holy Orders?

Since the Anglican Communion (and TEC) recognizes the jurisdiction of Catholic bishops, over some people in America but not the jurisdiction of ACNA, over anyone, does that mean in Anglican terms an American RC bishop has more validity, or licity, or - well - jurisdiction - than some ACNA or Continuing bishops?

(In a previous post, I was challenged to report back if there are right thinkers out there, besides RC’s. I found there are, lots of them. It’s kinda scary.)

That’s comforting to know. I suspected as much.

And that may explain why Fr. Reardon is now Orthodox.

The Anglican Communion is no sort of hierarchy, nor is Cantuar an Anglican analog of a Pope. The Communion is an association of those Anglican jurisdictions in communion with Canterbury, and (mostly) in communion with one another. All the Communion can do is recognize an Anglican jurisdiction as being in the Communion, by virtue of voting them to be. Or portions thereof can recognize (say) the Primate of the ACNA as a fellow Anglican Primate. As did those 8 Anglican Primates, and 3 reps from other juridictions, of Anglican Communion Churches, present at the recent enthronement of the new Archbishop of the ACNA, who not only accept the ACNA as Anglican, but recognized ++Beach as a fellow Anglican bishop, in the Communion. That is a debatable point, as to the last, but arguable. It is not arguable that the Primates representing the numerical majority of those in the Anglican Communion recognize the ACNA as fellow Anglicans and their episcopacy likewise.

The answer to the question ending para 1 is yes.

GKC

 

[commenter]

The Anglican Communion is no sort of hierarchy, nor is Cantuar an Anglican analog of a Pope. The Communion is an association of those Anglican jurisdictions in communion with Canterbury, and (mostly) in communion with one another. All the Communion can do is recognize an Anglican jurisdiction as being in the Communion, by virtue of voting them to be. Or portions thereof can recognize (say) the Primate of the ACNA as a fellow Anglican Primate. As did those 8 Anglican Primates, and 3 reps from other juridictions, of Anglican Communion Churches, present at the recent enthronement of the new Archbishop of the ACNA, who not only accept the ACNA as Anglican, but recognized ++Beach as a fellow Anglican bishop, in the Communion. That is a debatable point, as to the last, but arguable. It is not arguable that the Primates representing the **numerical majority **of those in the Anglican Communion recognize the ACNA as fellow Anglicans and their episcopacy likewise.

GKC

It’s hard for me to grasp the jurisdiction, vs sacramental aspect. My RC bishop was ordained a bishop, by several other bishops, in a ceremony. Immediately after, in a separate action, he was given jurisdiction by the pope, episcopal authority in a given area. His Holy Orders is for life. His jurisdiction may not be. His jurisdiction changed a couple times, as he accepted assignments, and jurisdiction, in larger cities, giving up jurisdiction of his former diocese. Popes (rarely) have stripped jurisdiction from a sitting bishop. My bishop will normally have to give up jurisdiction in whatever diocese he is in, at 75. He will never stop being a bishop, but I doubt he then has jurisdiction to do anything on his own, other than saying Mass.

My understanding is the bishops in the SSPX have Orders, but not jurisdiction, anywhere. In the AC, is there any provision - tradition - that primates representing a numerical majority, have more authority than a coalition representing, say, 40%?

 

[GKC]

It’s hard for me to grasp the jurisdiction, vs sacramental aspect. My RC bishop was ordained a bishop, by several other bishops, in a ceremony. Immediately after, in a separate action, he was given jurisdiction by the pope, episcopal authority in a given area. His Holy Orders is for life. His jurisdiction may not be. His jurisdiction changed a couple times, as he accepted assignments, and jurisdiction, in larger cities, giving up jurisdiction of his former diocese. Popes (rarely) have stripped jurisdiction from a sitting bishop. My bishop will normally have to give up jurisdiction in whatever diocese he is in, at 75. He will never stop being a bishop, but I doubt he then has jurisdiction to do anything on his own, other than saying Mass.

My understanding is the bishops in the SSPX have Orders, but not jurisdiction, anywhere. In the AC, is there any provision - tradition - that primates representing a numerical majority, have authority?

In the multiverse of world Anglicanism, anything is possible, as we know. But, no. The Communion, as the major grouping of Anglicans, is made up of totally independent, autocephelous Churches. A plurality of Primates might vote a given jurisdiction out of the Communion, but that is the authority of the ballot box.

GKC

 

[Gorgias]

Sacramental intent is an interior condition, not discernible in itself.

Hmmm… from Apostolicae curae:

The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it

So… it’s not that intent purely “an interior condition” and therefore completely indiscernable, but rather, that external manifestations allow the Church to judge it.

Hence, to determine sacramental intent requires something to serve as determinatio ex adiunctis. If all other sacramental factors in a sacramental action are valid, the intent is normally judged as valid also.

Fair enough. If the matter is valid (unleavened wheaten bread, unadulterated grape wine) and the form is valid (the words of institution), then the confection is valid. However, do the various forms in the Book of Common Prayer constitute valid form? I know what ‘valid form’ is in the Catholic Liturgy; are you suggesting that, although the wording varies from the Catholic Eucharistic Prayers, the Anglican prayers are likewise ‘valid form’? Can you substantiate such an assertion?

This doesn’t include being formally in communion with the RCC. Hence, in all these discussions, all factors are assumed to be valid (form/matter/subject/)

You might assume validly; but is that really what the Church asserts?

 

[GKC]

Hmmm… from Apostolicae curae:

So… it’s not that intent purely “an interior condition” and therefore completely indiscernable, but rather, that external manifestations allow the Church to judge it.

Fair enough. If the matter is valid (unleavened wheaten bread, unadulterated grape wine) and the form is valid (the words of institution), then the confection is valid. However, do the various forms in the Book of Common Prayer constitute valid form? I know what ‘valid form’ is in the Catholic Liturgy; are you suggesting that, although the wording varies from the Catholic Eucharistic Prayers, the Anglican prayers are likewise ‘valid form’? Can you substantiate such an assertion?

You might assume validly; but is that really what the Church asserts?

Your 3rd comment shows , though your 2nd comment might leave one in doubt, that you grasp the concept of the determinatio ex adiunctis. An external condition may allow of determination of intent, but not inevitably. To add to your listed factors, if minister and subject are likewise valid, valid sacramental intent is normally assumed.

In the case of Apostolicae curae, the sacrament in question was Orders, and the judgement was an intertwined one, relating to intent and form, the form being the means of determinatio ex adiunctis. It is a complicated historical subject, a hobby of mine for many years.

In this case, of confecting the Eucharist, I know of no formal RCC declaration as to the Anglican Eucharistic liturgy, parallel to that in Apostolicae curae, as to the Edwardine Ordinal and the form for ordering clergy, prior to the revision of 1662. I make absolutely no assertions at all, on that subject. What I was said that if one assumes all external factors to be valid, than the question of intent would be normally judged equally valid. The context of that whole discussion was as to the idea that intent would necessarily be invalid, not facere quod facit ecclesia, in either a RC priest, become Anglican, or indeed, any Anglican, regardless of the external sacramental factors, due to some supposed concept re: transubstantiation such a priest would necessarily hold. Not a valid conclusion.

GKC

 

[Gorgias]

What I was said that if one assumes all external factors to be valid, than the question of intent would be normally judged equally valid.

Fair enough. Inasmuch as the words of institution in the Book of Common Prayer differ from those in the Catholic liturgy, why would you “assume all external factors to be valid”?

the idea that intent would necessarily be invalid… due to some supposed concept re: transubstantiation such a priest would necessarily hold.

This does not imply that the question of validity isn’t in play, but rather, simply that the Church would not judge, based on it. The question of validity is still a salient one for the priest at the Anglican altar. If he does not believe as the Church believes, can he tell himself that he “does what the Church does”?

Of course, based on your take here, you’ve identified another vector of discussion, which is the external factor of the matter of the Eucharist. Regardless of the wording of the original question, if the answer is ‘invalid’, based on a particular consideration, then the answer remains the same…

 

[GKC]

Fair enough. Inasmuch as the words of institution in the Book of Common Prayer differ from those in the Catholic liturgy, why would you “assume all external factors to be valid”?

This does not imply that the question of validity isn’t in play, but rather, simply that the Church would not judge, based on it. The question of validity is still a salient one for the priest at the Anglican altar. If he does not believe as the Church believes, can he tell himself that he “does what the Church does”?

Of course, based on your take here, you’ve identified another vector of discussion, which is the external factor of the matter of the Eucharist. Regardless of the wording of the original question, if the answer is ‘invalid’, based on a particular consideration, then the answer remains the same…

1. I don’t. And I don’t assume them to be invalid, in the eyes of the RCC. Absent a specific determination on that subject, paralleling AC, on the question of Orders. I assume all external sacramental factors to be valid, for the purpose of this discussion of intent.
2. If intent remains internal, and external factors are valid (for the purpose of this discussion), you have no objective means to determine what he believes or does not believe. That you could not make an assumption on this was my original point.
3. Unclear what this one is saying. The “matter” is the unleavened bread/red wine. I suspect you are meaning something else though. I’ve used the double entendre myself in these discussions.

GKC

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Fair enough. Inasmuch as the words of institution in the Book of Common Prayer differ from those in the Catholic liturgy, why would you “assume all external factors to be valid”?

1. I don’t. And I don’t assume them to be invalid, in the eyes of the RCC. Absent a specific determination on that subject, paralleling AC, on the question of Orders. I assume all external sacramental factors to be valid, for the purpose of this discussion of intent.

I’m confused. In one fell swoop, you’ve said that you don’t assume all external factors to be valid, that you don’t assume them to be invalid, and that you do assume them to be valid. Ever hear of the law of non-contradiction?

1. If intent remains internal, and external factors are valid (for the purpose of this discussion), you have no objective means to determine what he believes or does not believe. That you could not make an assumption on this was my original point.

Hmm. Your point, I thought, had to do with validity, not with assumptions. Invalidity is invalidity, regardless whether it’s known objectively by others or not.

1. Unclear what this one is saying. The “matter” is the unleavened bread/red wine. I suspect you are meaning something else though. I’ve used the double entendre myself in these discussions.

Sorry… my mistake. I meant ‘form’.

 

[GKC]

I’m confused. In one fell swoop, you’ve said that you don’t assume all external factors to be valid, that you don’t assume them to be invalid, and that you do assume them to be valid. Ever hear of the law of non-contradiction?

Hmm. Your point, I thought, had to do with validity, not with assumptions. Invalidity is invalidity, regardless whether it’s known objectively by others or not.

Sorry… my mistake. I meant ‘form’.

1. “for the purpose of this discussion of intent”, I assume the factors to be valid. I do not assume the RCC says the Eucharistic rite used by the Anglicans is, in fact, valid. Though I am aware of no formal declaration on the point either way, analogous to that with reference to valid form, with respect to the sacrament of Orders (i.e.,* Apostolicae curae*). IF the Anglican liturgical form is valid in Rome’s eyes, then that assumption would be true, in reality, not merely within this Gedankenexperiment. Point remains, absent a method of determining validity of intent (determinatio ex adiunctis), and if all sacramental external factors are valid (and I am aware of no RCC comment on the Anglican liturgical rite,as to validity), intent is assumed by the RCC to be valid.
2. We are not communicating. Recall the concept of determinatio ex adiunctis. Without which, intent is assumed to be valid, by the RCC. Else, no one could ever be sure of receiving a valid sacrament.

GKC