What
is Required for a Valid Intention?
Robert J. Siscoe
(Revised 12-31-19)
On the Feast of Corpus
Christi, Pope Francis delivered a sermon in which he referred to the Eucharist
as bread – “Bread that contains all sweetness within it”. A Catholic blogger, who was apparently
unaware that the phrase is taken from the Litany of the Blessed Sacrament,
considered this to be definitive proof that Francis rejects the doctrine of transubstantiation.
The blogger then raised the question of whether Francis' “express denial”
of transubstantiation would have the effect of invalidating his Masses due to a
defect of intention.
The short answer is
no. A heretical understanding or even
express denial of the sacramental effect – in this case, the
conversion of the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ
– will not render the consecration invalid due to a defect of intention. This is one of the errors of Archbishop Lefebvre that has spread throughout the traditional movement and been embraced by nearly everyone.
The Holy Office clarified on two
separate occasions that an express denial of the sacramental effect does invalidate a sacrament due to a defect of intention. The following reply was given in response to a dubium concerning baptism but it applies to all the sacraments.
In 1872, the Holy Office
responded to two questions submitted by Bishop of Oceana, who inquired as to whether baptism administered
by a public heretic will be invalid due to a defect of intention if the minister expressly warned the one
being baptized that he is not to believe the sacrament will have an effect on the soul.
The Holy Office responded in the negative:
Sacred Congregation of the Holy
Office, December 18, 1872: Dubium quoad Baptisma administratam ab haereticis:
“In some places, some (heretics) baptize with the proper matter and the form
simultaneously applied, but they expressly warn the baptizands not to
believe that baptism has any effect upon the soul; for they say that it is
merely the external sign of aggregation of the sects. And so often the
Catholics in their crowd turn around their belief about the effects of Baptism,
and call it superstitious.
“Question: 1. Whether baptism
administered by those heretics is doubtful on account of defect of intention to
do what Christ willed, if an express declaration was made by the minister
before he baptized that baptism had no effect on the soul?
“Question 2. Whether baptism so
conferred is doubtful if the aforesaid declaration was not expressly made
immediately before the conferring of baptism, but had often been asserted by
the minister, and the same doctrine was openly preached in that sect?"
“Reply to the first question: In the
negative; because despite the error about the effects of baptism, the intention
of doing what the Church is not excluded.
“Reply to the second question:
Provided for in the answer to the first."
(Sacra
Congregatio Sancti Officii. 18 Decern. 1872 - Vic. Ap. Oceaniae Centr.
"Dubium quoad Baptisma administratam ab haereticis." Acta Sanctae
Sedis, Vol. XXV, 1892-93, p. 246.)
Here we see that an
express denial of the sacramental effect – namely washing away original sin
and infusing grace into the soul – does not render a sacrament null due to a
defect of intention.
A similar reply was given
five years later in response to a question raised about baptism administered by
Methodist ministers. The reply was the
same, but in this reply the Holy Office stated that the same reasoning applies to
all the other sacraments as well.
The
following is taken from The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the
Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments, Rev. Raphael, O.S.B., S.T.L.:
“The
Bishop of Nesqually had addressed to the Propaganda an inquiry concerning the
validity of baptisms conferred by Methodists, against the validity of whose
baptisms he alleged an insufficient and adverse intention and consequently the
presumption of invalidity. The Bishop stated that the Methodists held so
many errors about the necessity, the power, and the efficacy of the sacrament
of Baptism that they considered it merely an indifferent rite which had
been entirely omitted in the past and at a later time had been put into use
again for the purpose of deceiving the faithful and attempting to show them
that their false religion did not differ from the true religion. (Sacra
Congregatio Sancti Officii, Jan.24, 1877-CSCPF, n.1465, Vol.11, pp.99-100.)
“To
this question the Holy Office gave a very detailed answer which is one of the
most explicit statements about the intention of doing what the Church does. In
substance the reply lays down the following principles:
“1.
It is a dogma of faith that Baptism administered by anyone, whether a
schismatic, a heretic, or even an infidel, must be considered valid, as long as
in their administration those things are present by which the sacrament is
perfected, namely, due matter, the prescribed form, and the person of the
minister with the intention of doing what the Church does. Hence it follows
that the peculiar errors which the ministers profess either privately or
publicly do not at all affect baptism or any other sacrament.
“2.
The errors which the heretics profess privately or publicly are not
incompatible with that intention which the ministers of the sacraments must
have, namely, of doing what the Church does. Those errors in
themselves cannot give rise to a general presumption against the validity of
the sacraments in general and baptism in particular.
“From
these principles taken from the decision of the Holy Office it must be
concluded that as a general rule the baptisms of heretics are valid in spite
of the fact that their ministers hold beliefs entirely incompatible with the
Catholic doctrine concerning Baptism, and deny all power of regeneration in
that sacrament. Their error does not offer sufficient reason to conclude
that they have an insufficient or adverse intention in regard to conferring the
sacrament." (De Salvo, Rev. Raphael, O.S.B., S.T.L. The Dogmatic Theology
on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments. 1949. pp.28-29)
As
we can see, as long as the correct form and matter are used, the intention to “do
what the Church does” is not excluded by a heretical belief concerning “the
necessity, the power, and the efficacy of the sacrament,” or even by a public
denial of the sacramental effect.
Another
way to understand it is that the minister does not have to intend what
the Church intends, but only what the Church does. The object of
his intention is the action or ceremony performed, not the purpose
of the action. Bellarmine explains:
“The Council of Trent does not mention the purpose of the sacrament or say that
the minister ought to intend to do what the Church intends but what the
Church does. Moreover, what the Church does refers to the action,
not the purpose. There is required the intention with regard to the action,
not in so far as it is a natural action, but in so far as it is a sacred
action or ceremony, which Christ instituted or Christians practice. If one
intends to perform the ceremony which the Church performs, that is enough.” (Bellarmine,
de Sacramentis in genere chapter 27.) link
He continues:
"There is no need to intend to do what the Roman Church does; but what the
true Church does, whichever it is, or what Christ instituted, or what
Christians do: for they amount to the same. You ask: What if someone intends
to do what some particular or false church does, which he thinks the true one,
like that of Geneva, and intends not to do what the Roman church does?
I answer: even that is sufficient. For the one who intends to do what the
church of Geneva does, intends to do what the universal church does. For he
intends to do what such a church does, because he thinks it to be a member of
the true universal church: although he is wrong in his discernment of the true
church. For the mistake of the minister does not take away the efficacy of the
sacrament: only a defectus intentionis does that." (Bellarmine, de
Sacramentis in genere chapter 27 paragraph 8, translated by Fr. Hunwicke).
The simplest way to understand it, is that the general intention “to baptize” (whatever that means), or “say Mass” (whatever that means), or to “ordain a priest” (whatever that means), is sufficient to produce the sacramental effect – even if the one administering the sacrament publicly denies the effect that the sacrament is intended to produce (e.g., washing away Original Sin, changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, etc.)..
What
will render a sacrament invalid is the positive intention not
to do what the Church does.
This was addressed by the Holy Office under Pope Alexander VIII, which condemned the following proposition:
“A
Baptism is valid when conferred by a minister who observes every external rite
and form of baptizing, but within in his heart, resolves to himself: not to
intend what the Church does.” - CONDEMNED, (Pope Alexander VIII, Decree of the Holy
Office, December 7, 1690, Errors of the Jansenists, Denz., 1318).
If
the minister seriously intends to perform the religious ceremony, or the
ceremonial action, and does not positively withhold the intention to do what the
Church does, the validity of the sacrament will not be in doubt due to a defect
of intention.
Here
are some additional quotations that deal with the intention of the sacraments:
Hunter, Outlines
Of Dogmatic Theology, Volume 3: “The Intention of the Minister . — The
Council of Trent (Sess. 7, De Sacrum . can. 11; Denz. 735) condemns all who
deny that the minister of the Sacraments must have at least the intention of doing
what the Church does. This declaration seems absurd in the eyes of those who do
not admit the Catholic doctrine as to the action of the Sacraments (n. 672),
but who prefer to hold that the actions performed are mere empty symbols and
the words spoken are nothing but exhortations. But it follows from the
paragraph just quoted that the sacramental action is the action of Christ, and
the human minister is the deputy of the Divine Head of the Church, and must act
in that character: the action of the man is in itself indifferent, and is done by
him on his own behalf or on behalf of Christ, as may be determined by the act
of his will : this act is what is called his intention. If the act is performed
without any intention at all, as by an idiot or a somnambulist, then it is not
a human act, proceeding from the intellect and the will (n. 585), and it cannot
have sacramental efficacy (n. 681); if it be done with the explicit intention
of not performing the act which the Church does, then the minister is acting on
his own account, and not as the deputy of Christ, and therefore there is no Sacrament.
(See n. 739.)
“The intention of
doing what the Church does is not necessarily an explicit intention of doing an
action that is efficacious of grace, for we have seen that the validity of the
Sacrament does not depend on the faith of the minister (n. 682); a general intention
of performing the rite in use among Christians is sufficient.
“It is objected to
this doctrine that it makes the validity of every Sacrament depend upon a
purely internal fact, namely, the intention of the minister who may perform the
outward acts with the interior intention of not acting as deputy of Christ. We admit
the consequence, but deny that there is anything in it out of harmony with
other parts of revealed doctrine; it is perfectly true that, without special
revelation, no one can have absolute certainty that he has received a Sacrament
or that he is in the state of grace (n. 639): but his assurance on the subject
may approach so nearly to this absolute certainty as to make any misgiving on
the subject foolish and vain; and it must always be remembered that God, who
has bound Himself to give grace when the Sacraments are duly received, has
nowhere limited His power, disabling Himself from giving grace apart from these
holy rites. One, therefore, who acts in good faith may hope that no disaster will
befall himself or those dear to him through the deceit of a wicked minister.
(See n. 696.)
“The reply just
given to the difficulty about the uncertainty of the Sacraments seems perfectly
sufficient ; but there have been theologians who, not being content with it,
maintain the possibility of having absolute certainty that a Sacrament has been
validly administered; and thus making some approach to the Lutheran assurance
of the presence of habitual grace in the soul. This doctrine attracted attention
at the time of the Council of Trent, being put forward by the Italian
theologian, Ambrose Catharinus, who avowed that he was influenced by a desire to
secure peace of mind to the faithful but one who feels a wish that a doctrine
should be true maybe suspected of not being a fair judge of the arguments
bearing on it. The decree of the Council left the question open, and it is
still debated, although the followers of Catharinus grow fewer in number and
authority as time goes on.
“In the view of
Catharinus, no other intention is required in the minister of a Sacrament than
that he should deliberately go through the outward acts required by the rite ;
and this is held to be sufficient, though the minister have no interior
intention of doing what the Church does, and even if he interiorly form an
explicit act of not intending so to do. But this theory fails to secure the
absolute certainty that the Sacrament is
valid, for it is easy for the minister to change the words of the form (n. 680)
in an essential particular without this fraud being detected.
“The theory,
therefore, does not possess that advantage which was its chief recommendation,
and it is open to grievous theological difficulties. The man who does not at
least implicitly intend to act as agent for Christ cannot do so, for the
character of his action depends on his intention ; the words of the Council are
most naturally applicable to the internal intention, and it is certain that
this suffices; for if the matter and form of Baptism be duly applied to a child
by one who interiorly intends to perform the Christian rite, the Baptism is
valid, even though the minister pretend exteriorly that he went through the
ceremony in mockery : and lastly, if the priest saying Mass intends to
consecrate ten Hosts and no more, but has eleven before him, then not one is
validly consecrated, as is declared in the rubrics of the Missal. (De Defectu I
ntentionis.) For these and other similar reasons, most modern theologians
reject the doctrine that the exterior intention is sufficient, but they confess
that it has not been condemned by the authority of the Church.
“Pope Alexander
VIII., in 1690, condemned the following proposition (n. 28 ; Denz. 1185): “A Baptism
is valid which is conferred by a minister who observes all the external rite
and form of baptizing ; but who interiorly in his heart is resolved, I do not
intend to do what the Church does.” Pope Benedict XIV. (De Synod Dioeces. 7,
4, 8) observes
that this condemnation inflicts a grave wound on the doctrine of Catharinus,
and the wound would indeed be fatal, if the proposition be understood as
dealing with a Baptism to which no objection could be raised except that
specified; but it may be understood even of the case where the ceremony is
performed in open and obvious mockery of the Christian rite, in which case it
would be certainly invalid as wanting both the interior and the exterior
intention; and since all these condemnations must be understood in the
strictest sense, the matter is still undecided by authority.
“Recapitulation .
— The truths established in this chapter as to the requisites of the Sacraments
in regard to the recipient, the rite, and the minister, follow easily from our
doctrine respecting the mode of action of the Sacraments, which has been established
already. The domestic question which we treated in the last paragraph as to the
sufficiency of a purely external intention in the minister is the only point on
which serious controversy is possible, when once the nature of a Sacrament as
held in the Catholic Church is grasped.”
Father
Edward Yarnold: “A wrong understanding of the nature of a sacrament does not
invalidate the sacrament... All that is necessary is 'the implicit intention of
doing what the Church does without reference to the sacrament's effect, as if
the minister were to say to himself: ‘I intend to perform the Christian rite of
(say) baptism,’ and is therefore de facto doing what the Church does without
attending to the fact... The traditional intention of doing what the Church
does is apparently taken as synonymous with the intention of doing what Christ
instituted (quod voluit Christus)... To sum up. There can be no doubt that
Bellarmine held to the necessity of intending to do what the Church does only
in the sense defined above: namely, that the minister is intending to perform a
rite as practiced by what he takes to be the Church. To deny the purpose of the
sacrament does not extinguish this intention; nor even does the intention not
to produce an effect intended by the Church.”
Adrian
Fortesque: "People who are not theologians never seem to understand how
little intention is wanted for a sacrament … The ‘implicit intention of doing
what Christ instituted' means so small and vague a thing that one can hardly
help having it – unless one deliberately excludes it. At the time everyone was
talking about Anglican orders, numbers of Catholics confused intention
with faith. Faith is not wanted (needed). It is heresy to say that it is
(this was the error of St Cyprian and Firmalian against which Pope Stephen I,
a.d. 254-7, protested). A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous
views about a sacrament, and yet confer it or receive it quite validly." (Adrian
Fortesque, The Greek Fathers, Catholic Truth Society, 1908, p. 94-95.
Fr.
Hunwicke: “Cardinal Franzelin gives an extreme case: a daft priest who didn't
want to confer grace when he baptised but actually believed that by baptising
he would consign someone to the Devil - there was a seventeenth century rumour
about this in Marseilles. Non tamen, he writes, sacramenti virtutem et
efficaciam impediret. He quotes Aquinas in support. In nineteenth century, the
Holy Office declared that Methodist missionaries in Oceania who explicitly denied
in the course of the Baptism service itself that Baptism regenerates, did not
thereby invalidate the Sacrament. Heresy or even total Unbelief is, in the
traditional Theology of the Western Church, NOT the same as a Defect of
Intention. Defect of Intention means a deliberate intention not to
confer the Sacrament at all, NOT a mistake about what the Sacrament is or
confers." (source)
St.
Thomas Aquinas: Summa, III, q. 64, art. 8: “Whether the minister's intention is
required for the validity of a sacrament? …
“Objection
2: Further, one man’s intention cannot be known to another. Therefore if the
minister’s intention were required for the validity of a sacrament, he who
approaches a sacrament could not know whether he has received the sacrament.
Consequently he could have no certainty in regard to salvation; the more that
some sacraments are necessary for salvation, as we shall state further on (65,
4).” (...)
On the contrary, What is
unintentional happens by chance. But this cannot be said of the sacramental
operation. Therefore the sacraments require the intention of the minister.
I answer that, When a
thing is indifferent to many uses, it must needs be determined to one, if that
one has to be effected. Now those things which are done in the sacraments, can
be done with various intent; for instance, washing with water, which is done in
baptism, may be ordained to bodily cleanliness, to the health of the body, to
amusement, and many other similar things. Consequently, it needs to be
determined to one purpose, i.e. the sacramental effect, by the intention of him
who washes. And this intention is expressed by the words which are pronounced
in the sacraments; for instance the words, "I baptize thee in the name of
the Father," etc. (...)
“Reply
to Objection 2: "On this point there are
two opinions. For some hold that the mental intention of the minister is
necessary; in the absence of which the sacrament is invalid: and that this
defect in the case of children who have not the intention of approaching the
sacrament, is made good by Christ, Who baptizes inwardly: whereas in adults,
who have that intention, this defect is made good by their faith and devotion.
Consequently, others with
better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the
whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the
intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity
of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part of either of the
minister or of the recipient of the sacrament.”
This might be true enough
of the ultimate effect, i.e. justification from sins; but as to that effect
which is both real and sacramental, viz. the character, it does not appear
possible for it to be made good by the devotion of the recipient, since a
character is never imprinted save by a sacrament.
St.
Thomas Aquinas: Summa, III, q. 64, art. 9: “Whether faith is required of necessity
in the minister of a sacrament? …
“I
answer that, As stated above (5), since the minister works instrumentally in
the sacraments, he acts not by his own but by Christ’s power. Now just as
charity belongs to a man’s own power so also does faith. Wherefore, just as the
validity of a sacrament does not require that the minister should have charity,
and even sinners can confer sacraments, as stated above; so neither is it
necessary that he should have faith, and even an unbeliever can confer a true
sacrament, provided that the other essentials be there.
“Reply
to Objection 1. It may happen that a man’s faith is defective… 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 esteems it to be nothing. And such an intention
suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (8, ad 2) the minister of a
sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the
minister’s faith is made good.”
Rev.
Raphael, O.S.B., S.T.L.: INTERPRETATION OF ST. THOMAS’ TEACHING ON INTENTION -
… The two principal texts of St. Thomas used by the school of Catharinus are
the following: “ ‘...in baptism and the other sacraments which have in the form
the exercised act, the mental intention is not required, but the expression of
the intention through the words instituted by the Church is sufficient: and
therefore, if the form is observed, and nothing is said externally which would
express the contrary intention, he (the catechumen in question) is
baptized...’5
“‘Consequently,
others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the
person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by
him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the
validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either
of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament...’
“The latter quotation
was the principal one used in the contention that the role of the minister was
merely the external application of the matter and the form to a fit subject.
This passage was in reply to the objection that if the mental intention were
required, the subject would always be in doubt about having received the
sacraments validly. Followers of Catharinus declared that the recipient can be
certain that he has received the sacraments only if the bare external
ceremonies duly applied constitute a valid sacrament.” (The Dogmatic Theology
of the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacrament: MI, p. 65:
“F.
