Replies

The divisions within Catholicism are revealing in what they bring forth, but a touchy issue. And here i am not delving into the issue of sacraments themselves, as that best belongs in a different post, but RC teaching.

(I will say that I do concur that anyone may conditionally baptize in an emergency, but that such things as anointing the sick, which is supposed to be for healing, not a sign of impending death as in the “Last Rites” [Ja. 5:14,15] and that of conferring the Holy Spirit [Acts 9:17; Gal. 3:5] requires true Holy Spirit ministers of faith.)

I do not see the premise that only three things are required for a minister to validly confer a sacrament, matter, form, and intention, refuted by Augustine or Aquinas or RC teaching, as it does not preclude an evil man or otherwise unbeliever from performing baptism (or a bad priest for other sacraments), if he uses an acceptable form, and words and “intends to do what the church does” (which part can get interpretive).

Thus Aquinas states as quoted, “even an unbeliever can confer a true sacrament, provided that the other essentials be there” (one of the essentials being intent).

This is contrary to the Donatists who were rigorists, and held that the church must be a church of practicing “saints,” not “sinners,” and that sacraments, such as baptism, administered by unsaintly were not valid.

But back to your point that the validity of the eucharist or any sacrament for that matter, depends on the intention of the priest, indeed the intent of the minister of the sacrament is part of the criteria for validity, even though one cannot be sure that is the intent of the heart at that time. However, it is basically to be presumed the intent is kosher.

And to teach that intent is not necessary is contrary to RC teaching:

The Catholic Encyclopedia>Intention: The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real [virtual at least] internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. (www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm)

The Catholic Encyclopedia>Baptism (regarding baptism by “heretics”) states:

“Practically, converts in the United States are almost invariably baptized either absolutely or conditionally, not because the baptism administered by heretics is held to be invalid, but because it is generally impossible to discover whether they had ever been properly baptized. Even in cases where a ceremony had certainly been performed, reasonable doubt of validity will generally remain, on account of either the intention of the administrator or the mode of administration...Still...if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really “intends to perform what the Church performs” the baptism is undoubtedly valid.”

The minister’s insufficient faith concerning baptism never of itself makes baptism invalid. Sufficient intention in a minister who baptizes is to be presumed, unless there is serious ground for doubting that the minister intended to do what the Church does. (www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html)

Thus Can. 869 of the 1983 of canon law teaches,

§2 Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community are not to be baptized conditionally unless there is a serious reason for doubting the validity of their baptism, on the ground of the matter or the form of words used in the baptism, or of the intention of the adult being baptized or of that of the baptizing minister. (www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2W.HTM

Catholic Encyclopedia>Sacraments”

“To be a minister of the sacraments under and with Christ, a man must act as a man, i.e. as a rational being; hence it is absolutely necessary that he have the intention of doing what the Church does. This was declared by Eugene IV in 1439 (Denzinger-Bannwart, 695) and was solemnly defined in the Council of Trent (Sess.VII, can.II). ..for it is by the intention, says St. Thomas (III:64:8, ad 1) that a man subjects and unites himself to the principal agent (Christ). Moreover, by rationally pronouncing the words of the form, the minister must determine what is not sufficiently determined or expressed by the matter applied, e.g. the significance of pouring water on the head of the child (Summa Theologiæ III.64.8). - www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

In addition, besides the intent of the minister, RC teachings holds that some intention is necessary, if not attention, for valid reception (except in children who have not yet reached the age of reason, or the insensible. Attention is also needed for licit reception of some sacraments):

“...for the valid reception of any sacrament except the Eucharist, it is necessary that they have the intention of receiving it...”

“By the intention man submits himself to the operation of the sacraments which produce their effects ex opere operato [by the act itself], hence attention is not necessary for the valid reception of the sacraments. One who might be distracted, even voluntarily, during the conferring, e.g. of Baptism, would receive the sacrament validly.”

For Mass or Sacrament to be valid, three things are needed — right matter, right form, right intention. Anyone can baptize, but other Sacraments need in general a Bishop or a Priest. (”Father” William Most, “Validity of Mass and Sacraments;” (www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=187)

A statement that is attributed to Cardinal Bellarmine but which i found unverifiable, states,

No one can be certain, with the certainty of faith, that he receives a true sacrament, because the sacrament cannot be valid without the intention of the minister, and no man can see another’s intention “ (unverified, attributed to Bellarmine in “Disput. Controv. De Justine.” III. Viii. 5)

Understanding intent also extends to discerning the intent which is made by words, so as to know what level a teaching falls under and what kind of assent is required:

But before being bound to give such an assent [of faith, required for infallible teachings], the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. (Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility)

Which can be difficult (but not as much as knowing the heart of a minister), and thus there is no certainty about how many infallible teachings in all there are.

It also extends to marriage:

“A valid marriage requires the proper intention at the time that the vows are exchanged. The parties must intend to make a marriage, which by definition is a life-long communion open to new human life,” (Canon 1096) as entering into a marriage with the intention of never having children is a “grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment.” (McLachlan, P. “Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.”(www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu164.htm) [except in the case of Mary, contrary to its description by Moses and the Lord: (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6)]