Valid Baptism: the intention of the minister, the recipient, or both?

[Brandon_Cal]

I understand that the Sacraments function ex opere operato, but I’m having a harder time understanding why the intention of the minister is necessary for validity if the requirements for the matter, form, and disposition of the recipient are all met. It seems to me that the recipient of a Sacrament can only truly know that the latter three are met and must trust that the minister’s intention is in line with “what the Church intends to do”. If perchance the minister doesn’t intend to do what the Church does but the recipient understands the Sacrament as the Church does and therefore is properly disposed to receive that Sacrament (and proper form and matter were adhered to), she nevertheless will have received no Sacrament. Isn’t this almost borderline Donatism?

 

[Vico]

I understand that the Sacraments function ex opere operato, but I’m having a harder time understanding why the intention of the minister is necessary for validity if the requirements for the matter, form, and disposition of the recipient are all met. It seems to me that the recipient of a Sacrament can only truly know that the latter three are met and must trust that the minister’s intention is in line with “what the Church intends to do”. If perchance the minister doesn’t intend to do what the Church does but the recipient understands the Sacrament as the Church does and therefore is properly disposed to receive that Sacrament (and proper form and matter were adhered to), she nevertheless will have received no Sacrament. Isn’t this almost borderline Donatism?

The minister’s intention of doing what the Church does determines the meaning of the act. The intention of the recipient is also needed once the use of reason is acquired.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

The minister’s intention of doing what the Church does determines the meaning of the act. The intention of the recipient is also needed once the use of reason is acquired.

If a priest were to lose his faith and become an atheist would the Eucharist he confects be valid? If so, how could an atheist intend to do something he doesn’t believe is real?

 

[rcwitness]

An athiest can have the intentions to do what the Church desires without believing himself.

Faith/believe is required of the recipient for the Sacraments to be benificial. But for the administer, faith is not explicitly required. Yet, it could be argued that some faith is inevitable when someone assists another to receive. It would be an act of kindness towards another, despite the fact that they dont personally believe. But that should not be understood as a faith that is sufficient for their own salvation. But ‘a faith’ sufficient to be used as an instrument of the Lord.

I personally believe their would be a special grace given to that person who, with this faith, assists a Christian to receive from the Lord. Like the natural gift of God to those whom He compells to work. Its not that a work can save them, but that their good intention is already following the goodness which comes from above. It is a step towards belief that God has compelled all acts of Charity, and not from man.

 

[Vico]

If a priest were to lose his faith and become an atheist would the Eucharist he confects be valid? If so, how could an atheist intend to do something he doesn’t believe is real?

Yes, valid with the proper internal intention along with matter and form. But a will against doing what the Church intends will invalidate.

Pope Leo XIII, Bull Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896: Now, if a person has seriously and duly used the proper matter and form for performing or administering a sacrament, he is by that very fact presumed to have intended to do what the Church does.

Take the example of invalid Ordination. Cardinal Gasparri states in * Tractatus de Sacra Ordinatione* (1893) that:“An ordination is invalid if the minister… as he confers it on someone, makes an act of the will not to ordain that person, because by that very fact he does not have at least the intention of doing what the Church does — indeed, he has a contrary intention.”

 

[G_S]

Here’s a true story of an example of following the form of baptism while not having proper intent. An American Evangelical pastor would bring tour groups to Israel. The tour guide would be a young, Jewish, Israeli woman. While standing at the banks of the Jordan, the young woman would become – apparently – deeply moved. The pastor would witness to her and baptize her when she accepted Jesus as her Lord and Savior. Pretty impressive. Eventually, a couple went on this tour a second time and saw the same scenario with he same tour guide and pastor. Obviously, the baptism was invalid since it was a deliberate farce. Another example would be of a “baptism” in a play or motion picture. Otherwise, only if a person places an “obex” or obstacle in the way of the efficacious action of the baptism would it become invalid. For example, an atheistic hater of Christ and his Church might undergo baptism to please his wife but is placing an obstacle to its effects. A person without the faculty of reason would not be placing an obstacle against the working of grace.