Many Catholics have probably heard that the proper intention of the minister is required for the valid celebration of a sacrament, but the exact nature of this intention is generally not well understood.
"Faith is not required for validity because the minister need not intend what the Church intends (e.g. to give grace), but merely intend to do what she does (to perform a sacred rite)". This is an interesting way of approaching the question. But here, in the sense also of the question arised by Eric S, the question is: "Which rites?" I do believe that liturgical changes had not rendered invalid the sacraments of the Church as much as the proclaim at least the essential believe on the sacraments. But there has been a change of the believe. I put an example. In the traditional rite of Baptism there are several exorcism. In the new rites only one. Some priests of my dioceses (real life) do not pray that prayer. They do not perform that rite of the minor exorcism. I do positively know that they do not believe in the preternatural action of the devil and in some case neither on the existence of the original sin. So why I have to asume that when the baptize with the proper formula "N., I baptize you in the Name of the Father,...." but omitting some previous rites the baptism is valid?. I think this is an interesting question, since for us canonists we try to save the validity and the presumption of validity of the sacraments as much as we can. What do you think?
In the Bachofen commentary on the 1917 Code, the phrase "secundum ritus Ecclesiae" is equated with "in valid form" (Vol. VI, p. 194). This indicates that the use of only the essential form necessary for validity (for baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father...etc") suffices to give us moral certitude about the validity of the sacrament performed. So even if the other rites surrounding the actual baptism itself are omitted, this would have no impact on our moral certitude about the validity of the sacrament itself.
The way that I think of it in English would be that the essential form is a "rite" with a lowercase "r," while the complete ritual for baptism with all the accompanying exorcisms, profession of faith, etc., in totality makes a "Rite" with an uppercase "R." In other words, there are many little "rites" that make up the big "Rite," and only one of the little "rites" (the essential part for valid form) needs to be performed correctly for us to have moral certitude about the validity of the sacrament.
This is, by the way, the distinction the 1917 Code used to make between "solemn baptism" and "private baptism." The solemn baptism included not only the baptism itself but also the other accompanying ceremonies, while private baptism only included the bare minimum required for validity, which is the pouring of water over the head or other principal part of the body accompanied by the Trinitarian formula.
In fact, extraordinary ministers of baptism (which can be non-Catholics) are forbidden from performing solemn baptism, as that requires a sacred minister. As we know that non-Catholics can validly baptize, and that they cannot perform solemn baptism, this suffices to demonstrate that the Church considers the performance of private baptism (the bare minimum, valid form) as sufficient for us to have moral certitude about the validity of the sacrament.
If someone received private baptism in danger of death and then survived, he was not conditionally baptized unless there was some actual positive doubt about the correct performance of the baptism itself; on the contrary, it became customary to merely "supply the rites" of solemn baptism in such a case (Baltimore Catechism Q. 648). This again indicates that the Church does not regard the performance of all the solemn rites surrounding the baptism as necessary for us to be morally certain about the baptism's validity.
Than you for this post. I can state categorically that in the seminary I attended (the now defunct hotbed of heresy The Washington Theological Union) nothing was ever said about the necessity of intention. I was lucky enough that at that time there were still priests living with us that had studied and been formed before the “spirit of Vatican II” took hold. They were a solid rock in the storm.
Alas, given the formation and education I received, I often wonder if I should even function as a priest. It was really that bad.
To answer this question, let's look at daily life for a moment. Generally speaking, we presume that people's actions align with their intentions unless they've given us a good reason to question that or have habitually demonstrated themselves to be untrustworthy people. Likewise, in law, we generally make this assumption, as acts placed correctly with respect to their external elements possess the favor of the law. To apply this to sacramental theology, if a priest uses the proper matter and form and does not give any positive indicator that he does NOT intend to perform a religious rite, we presume that he does. Does this allow certain extraordinary cases with very, very bad priests to slip through? Yes, but the same goes for pretty much any part of life. We can never have metaphysical certitude about what actually goes on in the internal forum.
I am aware of a Satanist who was in the priesthood and did not intend to confect the eucharist but instead intended to curse anyone who received the host. In this case, I assume this is not a valid eucharist even though it would look legit from the external signs.
Yikes. That is evil beyond words. Unfortunately, in the case of a Satanist it might actually be safe to assume that they would want a valid Eucharist because it would be more sacrilegious to desecrate a valid host than an invalid one...
"Faith is not required for validity because the minister need not intend what the Church intends (e.g. to give grace), but merely intend to do what she does (to perform a sacred rite)". This is an interesting way of approaching the question. But here, in the sense also of the question arised by Eric S, the question is: "Which rites?" I do believe that liturgical changes had not rendered invalid the sacraments of the Church as much as the proclaim at least the essential believe on the sacraments. But there has been a change of the believe. I put an example. In the traditional rite of Baptism there are several exorcism. In the new rites only one. Some priests of my dioceses (real life) do not pray that prayer. They do not perform that rite of the minor exorcism. I do positively know that they do not believe in the preternatural action of the devil and in some case neither on the existence of the original sin. So why I have to asume that when the baptize with the proper formula "N., I baptize you in the Name of the Father,...." but omitting some previous rites the baptism is valid?. I think this is an interesting question, since for us canonists we try to save the validity and the presumption of validity of the sacraments as much as we can. What do you think?
In the Bachofen commentary on the 1917 Code, the phrase "secundum ritus Ecclesiae" is equated with "in valid form" (Vol. VI, p. 194). This indicates that the use of only the essential form necessary for validity (for baptism, "I baptize you in the name of the Father...etc") suffices to give us moral certitude about the validity of the sacrament performed. So even if the other rites surrounding the actual baptism itself are omitted, this would have no impact on our moral certitude about the validity of the sacrament itself.
The way that I think of it in English would be that the essential form is a "rite" with a lowercase "r," while the complete ritual for baptism with all the accompanying exorcisms, profession of faith, etc., in totality makes a "Rite" with an uppercase "R." In other words, there are many little "rites" that make up the big "Rite," and only one of the little "rites" (the essential part for valid form) needs to be performed correctly for us to have moral certitude about the validity of the sacrament.
This is, by the way, the distinction the 1917 Code used to make between "solemn baptism" and "private baptism." The solemn baptism included not only the baptism itself but also the other accompanying ceremonies, while private baptism only included the bare minimum required for validity, which is the pouring of water over the head or other principal part of the body accompanied by the Trinitarian formula.
In fact, extraordinary ministers of baptism (which can be non-Catholics) are forbidden from performing solemn baptism, as that requires a sacred minister. As we know that non-Catholics can validly baptize, and that they cannot perform solemn baptism, this suffices to demonstrate that the Church considers the performance of private baptism (the bare minimum, valid form) as sufficient for us to have moral certitude about the validity of the sacrament.
If someone received private baptism in danger of death and then survived, he was not conditionally baptized unless there was some actual positive doubt about the correct performance of the baptism itself; on the contrary, it became customary to merely "supply the rites" of solemn baptism in such a case (Baltimore Catechism Q. 648). This again indicates that the Church does not regard the performance of all the solemn rites surrounding the baptism as necessary for us to be morally certain about the baptism's validity.
Very well. It is as you say.
Than you for this post. I can state categorically that in the seminary I attended (the now defunct hotbed of heresy The Washington Theological Union) nothing was ever said about the necessity of intention. I was lucky enough that at that time there were still priests living with us that had studied and been formed before the “spirit of Vatican II” took hold. They were a solid rock in the storm.
Alas, given the formation and education I received, I often wonder if I should even function as a priest. It was really that bad.
How does one discern though whether the priest 'intends to perform a religious rite'?
To answer this question, let's look at daily life for a moment. Generally speaking, we presume that people's actions align with their intentions unless they've given us a good reason to question that or have habitually demonstrated themselves to be untrustworthy people. Likewise, in law, we generally make this assumption, as acts placed correctly with respect to their external elements possess the favor of the law. To apply this to sacramental theology, if a priest uses the proper matter and form and does not give any positive indicator that he does NOT intend to perform a religious rite, we presume that he does. Does this allow certain extraordinary cases with very, very bad priests to slip through? Yes, but the same goes for pretty much any part of life. We can never have metaphysical certitude about what actually goes on in the internal forum.
I am aware of a Satanist who was in the priesthood and did not intend to confect the eucharist but instead intended to curse anyone who received the host. In this case, I assume this is not a valid eucharist even though it would look legit from the external signs.
Yikes. That is evil beyond words. Unfortunately, in the case of a Satanist it might actually be safe to assume that they would want a valid Eucharist because it would be more sacrilegious to desecrate a valid host than an invalid one...