Doctrine Of Intention And Assurance Of Salvation

[thessalonian]

I am still going the rounds with Bill Jackson from dodone.org. He never gets to the heart of the matter in the topics we discuss. He never did answer me regarding the Church having to be visible so that the world could see it's unity as spoken in John 17. Now we're on to baptism and of course that is a work of man according to him. He now came up with this claim:

"None of the things that you mention we do contributes to salvation.
Just the withholding of his intention by the priest invalidates the
sacrament. "

and then:
"Since you don't seem to know the doctrine of Intention which was used
at the Council of Trent to annul the Christian assurance, check it
out on my website and tell me what you think of it."

I am in fact familiar with the doctrine of intention. Intention of the priest and the baptizee are definitely important in the sacrament. But that this was done to counter assurance seems like a rather ridiculous claim. The website says it was done so that people could never know they were validly baptized.

Any of you guys run in to this and can give me a little input. It's a new one for me. I always enjoy new protestant arguements and don't seem to run in to many so I am going to give it some time and appreciate input. The old call no man father and peter was a little stone are so old that it's nice to have something to delve in to a bit.

Blessings

Edited February 18, 2007 by thessalonian

[Mr.Cat]

It boils down to apologetics tuned to non-believers coming to belief. They ask if you don’t always “actively” have the intention to pray to God does that mean it is not prayer? The answer is yes it is prayer even if we are not actively thinking that it is communication with God. Moreover, the very fact that we say a prayer (such as in traditional format) we receive grace by the very fact that we have said it even though we may not be as reflective as we ought to be. Likewise, the Sacrament is valid as the Council of Trent explained on the merits of Christ (not the Priest) in addition it could be explained that unless the Priest actively did not have the intention to Baptize then it would be valid for him simply performing the ritual would be intention enough.

It is like saying you are going to knock the living snot out of someone but didn’t have the intention to start a fight, sometimes intention is a little more than we humans perceive. Likewise, the Church admits that the collective belief of the Mystical Body can sometimes supplement the lack of belie in those persons performing sacred office. So simply put, if the Priest didn’t have the intention he would of never poured the water...

[thessalonian]

bump

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1198788' date='Feb 17 2007, 11:27 PM']Likewise, the Sacrament is valid as the Council of Trent explained on the merits of Christ (not the Priest) in addition it could be explained that unless the Priest actively did not have the intention to Baptize then it would be valid for him simply performing the ritual would be intention enough.[/quote]

Actually it seems trend is saying the sacrament is not valide if the intention of the priest is not there.

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.

That is this guy's point. We could be baptized an the priest not have proper intention and we would think we were baptized but we weren't. I of course have never met a preist who would dare do such a thing and highly doudt there has ever been one. But I can see this guys objection to it from a protestant standpoint, even if he did not believe in assured salvation. Of course I can counter that God is not limited by his sacraments. It also seems to me that the intent of this decree is for protection rather than exclusion since the Church has always accepted the baptism of heretics and says that non-catholics, even aethists can baptize. Further if they did not say this one could have had water dumped over his head at some point and if no form or intention was neccessary he could say he was baptized. S

[Mr.Cat]

It is not the argument of intention but rather passive and active intention. If one turns the key in the starter of a car but claims they did not have the intention not to start their engine, doesn’t that seem rather hypocritical. Also one must remember that the true minister of a Sacrament is our Blessed Lord acting in the Persona of Christ through the said person, regardless of who they are but most of all if they are of Holy Orders.

For if this intention was strictly applied to actively it would mean that all Protestant baptisms are invalid for it would mean none of them had the active intention to make the person fully incorporated into the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body. Further some believe it is only an outward sign so this would also hinder the validity in this argument mindset. But I find it VERY hard to believe that a Priest would perform a ritual of the Church without the intention of doing what the Church is doing, otherwise why would the Priest perform such a ritual?

I admit that this question is hard to answer and I don’t have the best answer in the world, but it certainly does not violate the Council of Tent’s decree unless we are willing to limit the intention only to an active intention. The best example I could give is that a person in the state of grace can make the general intention (saying a prayer in the morning) to obtain all the indulgences they can through a day. After this prayer they are no longer actively thinking of it but it is intention enough to obtain an indulgence.

Maybe I am wrong but it seems right to me and I think I heard it somewhere, this answer...

[thessalonian]

Your example of the car is appreciated. I understand the point of the protestant baptisms and my study on intention so far has been a growth experience as the intricacies of it help me to understand that my rosary is not fruitless because my mind tends to wander. But none of this answers his claim that we don't know if we are baptized or not. Now I have little doudt myself and little or no doudt of my children's baptism's as they were by holy priests. Even if the priests were not holy and dedicated this doctrine gives far more encouragement than it does doudt. From our viewpoint of the church and the nature of baptism and the priesthood it must be this way. But I am just not finding a good way to address his charge yet. A search of the internet also shows that this accusation is not uncommon. So I will continue to research. thanks for the input.

I do appologize to you and the board for the fracus on the other thread.

Edited February 21, 2007 by thessalonian

[Mr.Cat]

When you are not exactly sure how to explain theology to someone start thinking more like a realist for a moment, namely, why would God institute a Sacrament “necessary” for our salvation that we could never be certain that we have been given? The answer is He has and He does let us understand or that something in this statement is false, if the statement is false then the Scriptures are false. So following process of elimination the only reasonable conclusion is that unless there is something out of the ordinary we can presume Baptism is valid.

[thessalonian]

I understand all of that. I have no doudts about the Churches teaching on the matter. I don't have any doudts about the baptisms of anyone I know. But I understand his objection. He is looking at it from a negative angle, of course superimposing assured salvation over the top.

[Ziggamafu]

The question itself is ultimately one of an omni-benevolent God's grace, mercy, and compassion. Such doubts are nothing more than scruples that ultimately amount to despair. My response to this guy would be this: The Church teaches that everyone is expected to live their faith sincerely, neither presuming of Heaven nor despairing of Hell, but only placing a confident trust in the all-sufficiency of Christ alone. We are not accountable for what we don't know or understand, nor are we accountable for sinful actions to which we did not give full and deliberate consent. We are accountable only for working out our faith sincerely, the best that we know how, with humble obedience and a contrite heart.

The Church says that the priest must have the intention and I agree with Mr. CC's "starting the car" analogy; you would be lying or insane if, after starting the car, you said that you did not intend to do so, and likewise with (indeed how much more so) a priest who performs such an elaborate ceremony. However, let us assume that there do indeed exist such maliciously evil agents of Satan in the priesthood, "intentionally not intending" to baptize properly. If the invalidly baptized person never found out, and if he nevertheless continued his life in humble obedience, sincerely working out his faith the best he knows how, he would still be saved. I believe this is clear in Church teaching.

[thessalonian]

ziggamafu,

I agree.

[Mr.Cat]

Baptism of Desire no doubt...

This subject although reminds me of stories where Priests have gone to the Altar of God truly no longer believing in the True Presence but none the less something happens, a Eucharistic miracle. I wonder how this fits in.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1202393' date='Feb 22 2007, 11:57 AM']Baptism of Desire no doubt...

This subject although reminds me of stories where Priests have gone to the Altar of God truly no longer believing in the True Presence but none the less something happens, a Eucharistic miracle. I wonder how this fits in.[/quote]


The canon sited above is really more applicable to the Eucharist than baptism. As long as the priest intends to do as Christ did, the transubstantiation takes place.

[thessalonian]

Here is my reply:

Intetion destroys visibility? No, I don't think so. I have little if any doudt that 99.99% of the people who I know that are Catholics were validly baptized. Intention only makes sense regardless of whether you believe that the Holy Spirit is received in baptism or not. If someone is giving another a bath is it a baptism? No. Even in your Church it would not be as there is no intention of baptizing. Both parties must have intention (in the case of babies it is the parents intention to have the child baptized) or it is simply not to be called a baptism. Now if some priest were maliciously withholding his intention, we don't limit God to his sacraments and so we leave him to judge the situation and I have every belief that the baptize could be saved.

A part of your problem with intention may be that you think that explicit intention is required? It is not. One must only intend to do what the Church does. And this intention does not have to be explicitly expressed at the moment of the baptism. Intention is really a more inclusive, rather than exclusive doctrine as you are trying to use it. The Catholic Church says baptism's of those other Christians outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church are validly baptized by the intention of the baptizer and baptized to do what the Church or at least Christ intended, even if they don't have full knowledge of what that is. Form (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), matter (water), and intention must be there or a baptism simply cannot be said to be a baptism. It's just a bath.