Skip to main content

Form, Matter and Intention - Part 2

+
JMJ

 Given that Pope Francis is not letting up and the direction some are taking in response to this, I thought it would be a good idea to do a deeper dive into the 'Intention' part of the validity of the Sacraments.

First the 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. (Council of Trent: 7)
and the following have bearing as well:
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that a minister, being in mortal sin,-if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament,-neither effects, nor confers the sacrament; let him be anathema.  (Council of Trent: 7)
The Sacraments of the New Covenant contain the grace which they signify, and bestow it on those who do not hinder it. (De fide.)
The Sacraments work ex opere operato. (De fide.)
Note these are Dogmas of the Catholic Church to deny this is ... well true heresy.

How, my question is what were the reasons that the Catholic Church decided it was time to clarify this aspect.  

For more insight I'll turn to 'Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott':
While the Reformers recognised only a subjective psychological efficacy in the Sacraments (regarding them as they excite and confirm fiducial faith in the recipient), the Catholic Church teaches that the Sacraments have an objective efficacy, that is, an efficacy independent of the subjective disposition of the recipient or of the minister.
So the 'reformers' ie. Luther et al, believed that the Sacraments cause interiour feelings of faith in the congregation. Hence the reason why they believe that Our Lord is present because of the faith of the people and not the power of the priesthood.

This sounds very similar to the vital immanence of the modernists.

It also reminds me of the pre elevation genuflection of Catholic priests in the Tridentine Mass.

To sum up:

The priest (validly ordained) needs to have, at a minimum, the intention of doing what the Church does for the valid confection of the Sacraments.

Any other intentions he may have pre and post the performance of the rite with proper matter has no bearing on the subject. 

So as hard as it may be to accept, if a validly ordained priest consecrates the host, even if his intention post-consecration is to provide the host for evil intentions such as a Black Mass or to provide the host for communion of divorcee's, protestants etc (re: Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitiae).


P^3
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sedevacantism and Heresy

+ JMJ I've observed three core reactions during this crisis of the Catholic Church. The Pope can't be wrong, therefore this is the New Springtime The Pope is infallible in certain conditions and there is a problem with many things that have been said, done and written, during and after the Second Vatican Council (even in the Council doc). The Pope can't be wrong, this stuff is wrong, therefore he isn't Pope. Of course there are a spectrum of responses in between, but these are the key elements. The 1st group holds the words of the Pope et al as impeccable. Here, let me get you a Koran to kiss... The 3rd group holds that they've all been heretics and lost their office.  There is also a spectrum within this group.   One answer is that they are very poor judges of heresy.  The link below provides some reasoned thought that, I'm happy to say, is completely consistent with Church Teaching. Canon law blog: Its not impossible just very diff...

What does it mean "I'm a Traditional Catholic"?

+ JMJ I was visiting with a friend the other day when he said: "I'm a traditionalist". This surprised me because, while I could imagine him saying he was a "conservative or faithful Catholic", I didn't really think that the "traditionalist" label would stick. This got me to to thinking about what it means, or should mean when a person shakes you hand and says: "Hi, I'm a Traditional Catholic".

Rome and SSPX - Version 2026 Part 2

 + JMJ Part 2 Detailed Synopsis and Timeline (ChatGPT) At this point, I took the shortcut of uploading all of my previous links and the latest SSPX and Rome links to ChatGPT. This way we’ll see how ChatGPT interprets the world as presented on the internet. P^3 Briefing Memo Subject: Rome–SSPX Relations and Planned Episcopal Consecrations (July 1, 2026) Prepared for: Ecclesial / Academic / Media Briefing Date: February 2026 Issue Overview The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has announced its intention to consecrate new bishops on July 1, 2026 , potentially without a papal mandate . The Holy See has acknowledged ongoing talks with the SSPX and stated its desire to avoid rupture, but has not granted approval nor outlined canonical consequences. The situation revives unresolved tensions dating to 1988 and raises questions about schism, authority, and doctrinal continuity. Background Founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX seeks to preserve pre-Vat...

Schism

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches:  "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...