The Curse of Intent!


#1

My dear fello9w Catholics,

I am simply desperated. You all know that for a valid sacrament these three are absolutely necessary: matter, form and intent(to do what the church does).

The intent was made a DOGMA of the faith at the Council of Trent:

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.

At the Council f Florence, in the bull “Cantate Domino”, the intent concerning the Eucharist was already clarified: After the priest has spoken the words of consecration with the INTENT to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, Christ becomes truly present.

Well, what is it that desperates me so deeply?

I do not want to be too pessimistic on this subject. And I know that in the U.S.A. people, and accordingly also the priests, tend to be more religigous than people and pirests in Europe(in my case: Germany). But I can tell you taht I have experienced priests who do not even seem to belive in the full Divinity of our Lord. When they celebrated Mass, I felt like they were tired at this obligation of their ministry at the altar. My parish-prest even told me once that though the Trinity was still important to him(God thanks!), the Eucharist wouldn’t be that important to him - for fear of getting a heretical answer, I didn’t further inquiry if he also questioned the Real Presence.

Let’s face it: We got priests who do not even believe that Christ can become present with all his soul and Divinity on the altar. At least in Germany, I may tell that a great part pf priests belive in what Zwingli taught(the bread is a mere symbol), or, at best, in what Calvin taught(the bread is mere bread, but if we eat it, it effects our souls as if it would really be Christ).

Therefore, if asked if I would still believe that most pirests I experience have the intent to do what the church does, have the intent to change the bread into Christ, I have to flatly deny.

But then many sacraments given by now-aday priests are invalid. If they are invalid, they don’t effect your soul- if your soul isn’t effected by God’s sacramental grace, you cannot be saved.

Furthermore, we all know that a priest has to be ordained by a Bishop. But can you tell anymore that ALL the Bishops really got the intent of conferring the sacramental grace of priesthood on the ordinand? I even believe that not even all the Cardinalsgot this intent(for example, Daneels and Kaspar).

But then you can’t be sure anymore if your priest was validly ordained. Even if he’s got the correct intent at Mass, the Bishop who ordained him may have denied the intent to do what the church does.
Therefore, you won’t get valid sacraments by this priest - you won’t get grace - you won’t be saved----

May anyone loosen my desperation?

Yours.


#2

[quote=TheWhim]My dear fello9w Catholics,

I am simply desperated. You all know that for a valid sacrament these three are absolutely necessary: matter, form and intent(to do what the church does).

The intent was made a DOGMA of the faith at the Council of Trent:

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.

At the Council f Florence, in the bull “Cantate Domino”, the intent concerning the Eucharist was already clarified: After the priest has spoken the words of consecration with the INTENT to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, Christ becomes truly present.

Well, what is it that desperates me so deeply?

I do not want to be too pessimistic on this subject. And I know that in the U.S.A. people, and accordingly also the priests, tend to be more religigous than people and pirests in Europe(in my case: Germany). But I can tell you taht I have experienced priests who do not even seem to belive in the full Divinity of our Lord. When they celebrated Mass, I felt like they were tired at this obligation of their ministry at the altar. My parish-prest even told me once that though the Trinity was still important to him(God thanks!), the Eucharist wouldn’t be that important to him - for fear of getting a heretical answer, I didn’t further inquiry if he also questioned the Real Presence.

Let’s face it: We got priests who do not even believe that Christ can become present with all his soul and Divinity on the altar. At least in Germany, I may tell that a great part pf priests belive in what Zwingli taught(the bread is a mere symbol), or, at best, in what Calvin taught(the bread is mere bread, but if we eat it, it effects our souls as if it would really be Christ).

Therefore, if asked if I would still believe that most pirests I experience have the intent to do what the church does, have the intent to change the bread into Christ, I have to flatly deny.

But then many sacraments given by now-aday priests are invalid. If they are invalid, they don’t effect your soul- if your soul isn’t effected by God’s sacramental grace, you cannot be saved.

Furthermore, we all know that a priest has to be ordained by a Bishop. But can you tell anymore that ALL the Bishops really got the intent of conferring the sacramental grace of priesthood on the ordinand? I even believe that not even all the Cardinalsgot this intent(for example, Daneels and Kaspar).

But then you can’t be sure anymore if your priest was validly ordained. Even if he’s got the correct intent at Mass, the Bishop who ordained him may have denied the intent to do what the church does.
Therefore, you won’t get valid sacraments by this priest - you won’t get grace - you won’t be saved----

May anyone loosen my desperation?

Yours.
[/quote]

You are making quite a generalisation about priests. I see from your birthdate that you are only 19. I’m curious how many priests and bishops you have met in the USA and Europe to come to your conclusions?


#3

As for this, you’re wrong.

I’m not even nineteen, I’m eightteen. :slight_smile:

However, we should face the problem as it is: and it is a MAJOR problem. I know for sure that the bishop of my diocese explizitly denies some of the DOgmas of the church(I had an argument with him, so I know). Well. we weren’t discussing the Eucharist but if you deny other major dogmas, why not the Real Presence and the priestly power to make it happen?

On the other hand, I’ve read many articles and books by Bishops and priests who spoke out against the Eucharist as the Council of Trent defined it and sought refuge n an understanding of the Real Presence, that was, at best, Calvinistic, but rather semmed to be an adoptation of the views of Zwingli.

Especially in the U.S.A. you got many perverts in prestly office. One cannot deny this anymore. Do you think that anyone who cannot even discern good from bad still believes in Christ The Godly Judge, The Church, the sacraments, the priestly power and transubstantiation?

Anyway, we get astray if we focus on this. At least you are compelled to admit that ONE priest in this world has no intention at all of changing the bread into Christ when at the altar. This fact alone suffices to make the problem a MAJOR problem. According to the Catholic church, if this priest is your parish priest, you won’t get any valid sacrament of him, no valid confessions and so on, and dy in your sins?

Do you know abut Jean Meslier? He was a French priest who lived prior to Vatican II. He did his priests’s job correctlxy for forty years(wasn’t a pervert or anything like this.) But he was an absolute atheist. In his diary(found after his death), he especially condemns the Cathoilic sacraments as the greates superstition ever-

So, let’s not go astray. Just tell me what the Church means when speaking about “intention”

Yours.


#4

[quote=TheWhim]…Especially in the U.S.A. you got many perverts in prestly office. One cannot deny this anymore…
[/quote]

I can and do. We have very few priests against whom accusations of sexual impropriety have been made and found to be credible, especially when compared with rates of credible charges of sexual impropriety against clergy of other faiths or against persons in other professions, although even one is far too many.


#5

[quote=JB.]I can and do. We have very few priests against whom accusations of sexual impropriety have been made and found to be credible, especially when compared with rates of credible charges of sexual impropriety against clergy of other faiths or against persons in other professions, although even one is far too many.
[/quote]

Which Catholic church are you from? in Minnesota alone their are 3 that have been convicted in the court of law and another 20 more that either sued or settled out of court,so please I encourage you to compare. Thats just in one state. I challenge you to combine all other faiths in Minnesota and still make that claim.


#6

[quote=myfavoritmartin]Which Catholic church are you from? in Minnesota alone their are 3 that have been convicted in the court of law and another 20 more that either sued or settled out of court,so please I encourage you to compare. Thats just in one state. I challenge you to combine all other faiths in Minnesota and still make that claim.
[/quote]

3 out of how many priests total in MN? I don’t know, but I imagine there must be at least several hundred. 0.5% or less I would consider to be very few, although, as I have said, even one is too many.

The twenty who have been sued or settled can’t be conclusively considered credible cases without additional data. You say these priests were sued which would imply a civil action, not criminal. What is the reason these priests were not convicted on criminal charges? Out of court settlement without other substantiating evidence should not be considered a factor supporting the credibility of charges. Insurance companies sometimes find out of court settlements cheaper than trials.

I don’t have have information on non-Catholic clergy or other professions specific to MN. Perhaps you can research that yourself and let us know what you find. For nationwide stastics you might start here:

[quote=http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211fea2.asp]…
What are the best statistics available about priestly sex abuse?

A 1992 study conducted in the Archdiocese of Chicago is the largest such study done to date. It examined the personnel files of all priests serving in the diocese. It found that out of the 2,252 priests who had served from 1951 to 1991, allegations of sexual abuse had been made against 59 of them, or 2.6 percent.

The study adopted a policy of favoring the accuser in cases of doubt, accepting hearsay testimony (which would not be allowed in court), and adopting a “preponderance of evidence” standard (as opposed to the “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials). With this methodology, it concluded that 18 of the allegations of sexual abuse did not stand up, leaving 41 probable offenders, or 1.8 percent of the priests who had served in Chicago in four decades. Again, “the overwhelming number of cases . . . involved homosexual ephebophilia-in other words, priests sexually attracted to young teenage boys. . . . There was only one founded case of pedophilia, involving a priest-uncle with two six-year-old nieces” (Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis [1996], p. 81).

A recent study conducted in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania showed a 1.7 percent figure of priestly sexual abuse involving minors (cited by Philip Jenkins on “Catholic Answers Live,” May 17, 2002, archived at www.catholic.com)).

While there may be new accusations in the future, the national percentage of priests accused of abuse-0.53 percent-likely will never approach these figures of 1.8 and 1.7 percent. It appears that the archdioceses of Chicago and Philadelphia have had levels of abuse more than three times higher than the national average.

How do these numbers compare against the general population?

It’s unclear, again because of inadequate scientific studies. To our knowledge no study has been conducted that isolates the primary problem: adult male homosexual abuse of adolescent boys. One expert in pedophilia, Dr. John Bradford, “estimates its [pedophilia’s] prevalence at maybe four percent of the population” (John Cloud, “Pedophilia,” Time, April 29, 2002).

If so, the percentage of pedophiles in the ranks of Catholic priests is significantly lower by all accounts than in the general population. This may be due to the psychological screening candidates for the priesthood are subject to prior to ordination-and to the practical fact that priests have less access to children than do typical pedophiles.
**
How do the numbers compare to sexual abuse by the clergy of other religious groups?**

Though there is again an absence of proper studies, the numbers appear similar. The fact that most Catholic priests are celibate (unmarried) does not seem to make a difference.

In his book Pedophiles and Priests, Prof. Philip Jenkins—a Protestant and an expert in the subject of pedophilia—stated, **“The most-quoted survey of sexual problems among Protestant clergy states that some ten percent are involved in sexual misconduct of some kind, and that ‘about two or three percent’ are pedophiles, a rate equal or higher than that suggested for Catholic priests. ** These figures should be viewed skeptically; the methodology on which they are based is not clear, and they seem to rely disproportionately on individuals already in therapy. However, it is striking to find such a relatively high number suggested for both celibate and non-celibate clergy” (pp. 50-51)…
[/quote]

Please note the disclaimer in the final paragraph.


#7

If there were the same percentage of men in the general population who exploited boys for sex as there have been, apparently, priests, there would be tens of thousands of cases pending in the City of New York alone, and the justice system would be overwhelmed. This is a true scandal, and what kills me is that the movement that calls itself Traditional Catholic claims (falsely for their own self-interest) that it’s a “newchurch” thing. What a laugh.

There is nothing we can do about the fact that we cannot read a priest’s mind when he consecrates the elements. God demands of us a great deal, but he does not demand the superhuman. In the extreme case that a Catholic has been attending Mass for a long period of time or even all his life in a context where the sacrament is invalid for reasons he could not possibly have realized, as in the case of that 17th/18th century French priest, that person cannot incur guilt. However, if our original poster actually thinks or suspects that a priest lacks the proper intent, it is his obligation to go somewhere else. I recommend asking the priest outright about his intent, and if the answer is repeatedly unsatisfactory, keep moving on and report the situation to the diocese.


#8

**The thread is off topic which the OP has restated as:

So, let’s not go astray. Just tell me what the Church means when speaking about “intention”

**


#9

The Whim wrote:

“The Curse of Intent"
and
"Do you know abut Jean Meslier? He was a French priest who lived prior to Vatican II. He did his priests’s job correctlxy for forty years(wasn’t a pervert or anything like this.) But he was an absolute atheist. In his diary(found after his death), he especially condemns the Cathoilic sacraments as the greates superstition ever-”

Rather, you should have exclaimed:
“The Blessing of Intent”!

I suggest that you visit a local seminary and study some volumes on Moral Theology - such as, for example, “Moral Theology, A Complete Course, Based on St Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities,” by John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P., Vol II, 1958. - which covers The Sacraments from 646. Items 2666 - 2674 cover the subject of Intention.

Examples:

2666 - on The Necessary Intention includes the following two sentences:

“But, on the other hand, an **unbeliever can administer validly **if he really intends to do what Christians do or what Christ commanded to be done. The intention not to do what the Church does was the chief cause of the nullity of Anglican Orders;”

One must presume that one who has become an unbeliever (or an athiest") HAD the intention to do what the Church does at the time of his Ordination.

#2674 - on When an Habitual Intention Suffices adds:

“… he who has asked for Orders is validly ordained even when unconscious…”

One of my old priest friends quipped in the 1970’s: “Thank God for Habitual Intention”. The reference was to elderly priests who (and I am talking of pre-vatican II days!) occasionally dozed off whilst saying Mass, and who mumbled the Latin without really knowing what they were saying!


#10

Dear jbuck919,

You wrote: “There is nothing we can do about the fact that we cannot read a priest’s mind when he consecrates the elements. God demands of us a great deal, but he does not demand the superhuman.”

Well, I have also already thought that if my parish priest at the altar hasn’t got proper intention, the bread and wine would be bread and wine all the same for me because it is not me who denies this miracle imparted on us. The problem is: This is a Protestant attitude. Just some days ago I was talking to an Orthodox Lutheran - um…- priest?! - who assured me that in his denomination it doesn’t matter what the priest’s got for an intent when administering the Eucharist, confession or baptism - it’s actually your personal faith that makes the bread into the Lord. (Of course, this view is somehow attractive to me).

Yesterday evening a silly idea arose in my head, but even so I may propose it: some of you may know about the Benedict Center(catholicism.org), the attendants of whom deny baptism of desire. What makes their position not a complete heresy is that they have adopted a somewhat eccentric reading of the Council of Trent’s decrees on justification. They seperate between justification and salvation - as their founder, Father Feeney put it: “The water of baptism: Unless you don’t desire this water, you caannot be justified. And unless you don’t get it, you cannot be saved.” As far as I know, PopeJohn XXIII had the writings of Father Feeney be sorted through by an important theologian, lest some heresy may be found in them. However, the theologian replied that their position, though undeniably strange, wouldn’t be in direct conflict with dogma.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.

My re-reading of this Canon would sound as follows: the sacramental grace is effected by the priests action, not by our faith. However, if the priest uses proper matter and form when administering the sacrament - one can easily discern if he’s doing this - one cannot possibly call his intent inwo question - his intent will somehow be forced to become the intent to do what the church does. In other words: God will overrule him. Or to put it in another way: if the priest is lacking proper intent on his own, the Holy Ghost, dwelling in the church, will supply what is lacking to make the sacrament a valid one. Therefore, I do not deny that the intent is necessary for valid sacraments. But I belive that the intent will always be present, if a Catholic priest uses correct form and matter.

What do you think of this opinion? Is it heretical? Is it proxima heresy? Or may I make my peace with it?

Well, to the second posting:
Dear Sean O L,

#2674 - on When an Habitual Intention Suffices adds:

“… he who has asked for Orders is validly ordained even when unconscious…”

One of my old priest friends quipped in the 1970’s: “Thank God for Habitual Intention”. The reference was to elderly priests who (and I am talking of pre-vatican II days!) occasionally dozed off whilst saying Mass, and who mumbled the Latin without really knowing what they were saying!

That’s indeed interesting! If the bishop conferring Holy Orders isn’t aware about what he’s doing, he’ll nevertheless confer the sacrament validly so long as the ordninand got proper intent?
Well, if my parish priest speaks absolution and hsn’t really got the intent to absolute me, does it suffice if just I got the proper intent of being absoluted?

And what is habitual intention? Does it mean that the priest, so long as he doesn’t completely deny his priestly power and transsubstantiation, may confervalid sacraments, though he isn’t at very instant of Mass, or even for the greates part of it, not aware about what he’s doing? (Let’s remember that in times when the clergy wasn’t that educated, for some or even many priests the Latin was as just a mysterous and wholly unknown language like Arameic or something else exotic.)

Could you calrifiy “habitual intention”?

Yours.


#11

Here is a definition of:

**INTENTION. **

i. The tendency of the will towards some end through some means. One acts with intention when the will directs one’s activities towards a definite end. An intention is actual when it is here and now made, virtual when it is no longer attended to yet still exerts its influence on the resultant activity**; it is habitual if, while no longer exerting a positive influence, it has never been retracted.** An interpretative intention is one which has never been actually made but would have been had the person thought about it (cf., Motive, End). If an act is such that it produces two effects so interconnected that the will cannot choose one without the other, the effect primarily intended is “will in itself,” the effect not intended is “will in its cause.” If the latter effect be evil, the action may not be performed unless there be a proportionally grave reason and provided that the good effect does not come about means of the bad.

ii. Order of Intention. Opposed to Order of Execution. That which is first in the order of intention is last in the order of execution. The object or the end an agent has in view is the first cause of his action, and at the same time the last end.

iii. In conferring the sacraments the minister must have at least a virtual intention of doing what the Church does, and the recipient’s intention must be at least habitual (see above.) Anglican orders (q.v.) were rejected by Pope Leo XIII because of defect of intention (and defect of form), but intention here does not mean the internal intention of the minister but the external intention, i.e., the internal intention as manifested externally in the rite. It is the intention of the rite rather than that of the minister which the pope had in mind.

iv. An object for which a person prays and asks others to pray; the particular blessing asked of God in response to any good work: it may be spiritual or temporal, on behalf of ourselves or others, living or dead, particular or general (e.g., the conversion of England) A private intention is such an object whose nature is unexpressed; a Mass intention is that for which a Mass is offered, by a person assisting thereat or one who has arranged for the Mass to be said, but more usually referring to the intention of the sacrificing priest himself. Prayer for “the pope’s intentions” is one of the usual conditions for gaining a plenary indulgence (q.v.).
(cf. “A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary" by Donald Attwater, 3rd Edition, The Macmillan Company, 1958, pp. 258-9.)

TheWhim wrote:
[font=Arial][size=2]

[size=3][font=Times New Roman][font=Arial][size=2]That’s indeed interesting! If the bishop conferring Holy Orders isn’t aware about what he’s doing, he’ll nevertheless confer the sacrament validly so long as the ordninand got proper intent?[/size]

[/size]
[/font] [/font][/font][/size]
But, you have not understood what has been written!!!

What WAS written was:

#2674 - on When an Habitual Intention Suffices adds:

“… he who has asked for Orders is validly ordained even when unconscious…”

One of my old priest friends quipped in the 1970’s: “Thank God for Habitual Intention”. The reference was to elderly priests who (and I am talking of pre-vatican II days!) occasionally dozed off whilst saying Mass, and who mumbled the Latin without really knowing what they were saying!

The one who may be unconscious above is the one TO BE ordained - NOT the ordaining bishop. There is NO reference there to a bishop not being “aware about what he’s doing”! Imagine the following scenario (it might or might not be appropriate):

A seminarian does all the prescribed studies for the priesthood and has the intention of receiving valid Holy Orders from the hands of his local bishop (who has all the required - or at least the minimum required - intentions to confer Holy Orders.

Some time prior to the ordination ceremonies, the seminarian contracts some form of illness which renders him unconscious - perhaps to the point of imminent death.

The bishop is able to confer the Sacrament on the recipient.

Does this help?


#12

In any event, TheWhim, I think that you are flagellating yourself unnecessarily:

You write:

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.

What do you think of this opinion? Is it heretical? Is it proxima heresy? Or may I make my peace with it?

If YOU hold the opinion - then it would be subject to Anathema - if Anathemas still existed. Your problem is, I think, that you do not understand the Canon and what caused it.

At the time of the Council of Trent, there WERE those who claimed that “intention at least of doing what the Church does” was NOT required “in ministers, when they effect(ed), and confer(ed) the sacraments.”

And it was in response to those false assertions that the Council of Trent made plain the Catholic Church’s position. Those who disagreed with the Church’s position were made aware that they were holding false positions.


#13

Umhhh… an idea: Jean Meslier had neither actual nor habitual intention, but visual - because he was using correct matter and form and an approved rite of the Catholic church. Were his masses valid?

And if they were, why did Archbishop Lefebvre warned the Catholics not to go to Novus Ordo Masses, lest they would attend possibly invalid masses due to the doubtful intentions of the priests?

when ordaining his bihsops, he even said(this is not literal" : “If I won’t ordain these men, by whom will they be ordained? By conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments.”

And if I am not mistaken, you haven’t still answered my question. I realize waht was condemned by the COuncil of Trent. But if I belive that, though the corect intent is absoultely necessary for valid sacraments, the Holy Ghost will overrule the priests and make them get the correct intent(so long as they use the approved rites of the church), am I a heretic?

Yours.


#14

[quote=TheWhim]Umhhh… an idea: Jean Meslier had neither actual nor habitual intention, but visual - because he was using correct matter and form and an approved rite of the Catholic church. Were his masses valid?

****And if they were, why did Archbishop Lefebvre warned the Catholics not to go to Novus Ordo Masses, lest they would attend possibly invalid masses due to the doubtful intentions of the priests?/****B]

when ordaining his bihsops, he even said(this is not literal" : “If I won’t ordain these men, by whom will they be ordained? By conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments.”

And if I am not mistaken, you haven’t still answered my question. I realize waht was condemned by the COuncil of Trent. But if I belive that, though the corect intent is absoultely necessary for valid sacraments, the Holy Ghost will overrule the priests and make them get the correct intent(so long as they use the approved rites of the church), am I a heretic?

Yours.

Why would we listen to a schismatic and someone who has been ex-communicated?
[/quote]


#15

Therefore, if asked if I would still believe that most pirests I experience have the intent to do what the church does, have the intent to change the bread into Christ, I have to flatly deny.

The specific intent to “change the bread into Christ” is different from the general intent to “do what the Chuch does”.

A priest does not have to believe personally that the bread changes into Christ, as long as he knows the Church believes it, and knows he is preforming the ritual the Church believes does it.

As long as the priest knows he is doing what the Church does (and I dont see anyone saying mass by mere coincidence) he doesnt personally have to believe in the Church’s explanation about “what the Church does”…

As Thomas Aquinas says in the Summa Theologica:

if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to “do what the Church does”, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament

newadvent.org/summa/406409.htm

So even if the priest esteems the outward actions to be nothing, and does not believe in their inward effect, if he is preforming the actions delibrately, because it is his job, because he knows the Church considers them to be something (although he personally doesn’t believe in them) then this is all that is necessary to intend to do “what the Church does”.

Basically, the person has to preform the sacrament DELIBRATELY, whether or not they believe in the Church doctrine on it.

So, for example, a priest at a dinner party holding a piece of bread and saying, absentmindedly, as part of some other conversation, “hey, this is my body”…will not consecrate the bread, whether he believes or not. Because he was not delibrately “doing what the Church does” in the actions…whether he personally believes or not.


#16

Thank you, battedy, for stating this that succintly and clearly! I just wonder about the bull “Cantate Domino”.

You wrote:
The specific intent to “change the bread into Christ” is different from the general intent to “do what the Chuch does”.

The Council of Florence, however, stuck to the following view:
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)

How do you explain this?

And why did Archbishop Lefebvre express his worries about the validness of conciliar Masses and Orders, if these are surely valid all the same?

Yours.


#17

And how do you explain that Leo X. in his bull “Exsurge Domine” condemned the following error of Martin Luther:
"If - let#s just assume this impossible case - the penitent seeking absolution wouldn’t be ruesome or the PRIEST WOULDN’T ABSOLVE HIM EARNESTLY, BUT JUST AS DOING A JOKE, then he[the penitent] is nevertheless truly absolved insofar he belive to be truly absolved.

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.

And what do you make of this condemnation? 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.”

Again, let’s have a look at our mister Meslier. He ABHORRED the sacraments, and, as being an absolute atheist and anti-Catholic, set his will against the intention of the church, though he outwardly did the rite.

I do not see how to harmonize your and St. Thomas statement with the Council of Florence and the Papal condemnations.

Yours.


#18

Fr. Robert Levis of EWTN provides an appropriate answer to the question and and further information is provided at
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=310141&Forums=0&Experts=6&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=sinful+priests&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

A summary: a positive contrary intention NOT to consecrate is required for invalidity. I do not know if anyone is able to provide positive evidence that Fr. Jean Meslier possessed that (interior disposition) from the commencement of his priesthood. Positive evidence (not hearsay or dubious documents) would be required.

In any event - what bearing does this have today? Is it YOUR position “TheWhim” to claim that, due to some defect of matter, form or intent, that the normative Mass of the Roman Rite (the so-called Novus Ordo) is thereby invalid? or that the current Rite of Ordination is defective?

Please “cut-to-the-chase” - and disclose whether you are, in fact, a Catholic or non-Catholic, and if the former, to which mass and location you adhere?


#19

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.


#20

Now, if a sinful priest loses his faith and doesn’t want to do what the Church intends,

Then why is he still saying Mass? By saying Mass, he is already doing something the Church intends…so if he doesnt want to, why would he?

If he is delibrately saying Mass knowing it is sacramental ritual of the Church, his personal belief on it doesnt matter.

Unless he specifically thinks “I dont want this to become the body of Christ”…but someone who doesn’t believe WOULDNT think that thought, because they would already believe it didnt [become the body of Christ] and so would find no reason to positively exclude it.

Sometimes a priest who is planning to leave the Church and still says a few masses but no longer feels it is right to do what the Church intends may delibrately exclude the Church’s intent from the ritual and say an invalid mass…but these cases are rare as this sort of person who consciously cares about not assosciating with the Church usually leaves the Church…

Unless the priest is some evil person going around trying to delibrately sabatoge the faith and preform consciously false Masses…but that would be ridiculous paranoia if one were concerned about some conspiracy like that.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.