Validity Of Certain Sacraments

[Ziggamafu]

To be brief, Donatism suggested that sacramental validity depended on the moral disposition of the celebrant / administrator. To this Augustine responded with the classic formulation of "from the work, worked" theology. But morals represent only one side of the faith-coin, with doctrines being on the flipped-side. Donatism was a big deal because it tossed the validity of sacraments up into the air. But look at the flipped side of the coin; we do indeed recognize intent to be part of the 3-fold requirement for a sacrament's validity - the intent to do what the Church does.

[b]Liberal view of intent:[/b] "intent" regards the willingness to use the proper matter and form of the sacrament.

[b]Conservative view of intent:[/b] "intent" regards the intention to do what THE Church does (that is, intent for the sacramental effects of the sacrament at hand).

Why is this a big deal? Well, I find it hard to believe that even a liberal understanding in this area would allow for "intent" to be fulfilled when the present intent is actually contrary or [i]directly opposed to the intent of the Church[/i] in what she does. FOR INSTANCE:

In my background as a Protestant (especially my experience as a Baptist), I can say as a matter of fact that during every Protestant baptism I have ever attended - unless my memory fails me regarding some unknown occasion - the baptism was prefaced with an explicit, public rebuttal of Catholic intent ([i]e.g., "What we do now is NOT in ANY way efficacious or meritorious, nor does it yield any kind of special grace. We do not believe - and even condemn the idea - that baptism remits any sin or has any effect. What we are about to do is STRICTLY and entirely symbolic and in no way necessary for salvation!"[/i]). I have, to the best of my knowledge, never been to a Protestant baptism where a small, polemical sermon repudiating Catholic teaching was [i]not [/i]attached to the ceremony. In fact, I know of Protestant congregations that make the person about to be baptized acknowledge agreement to the repudiation, sometimes publicly, prior to being baptized. [b]Since the intent of such a ceremony is directly opposed to the Church's intent in baptism, it would seem that it is impossible to regard it as a valid baptism.[/b]

However, since the vast and overwhelming majority of mainline, "Evangelical" Protestant baptisms (particularly those of the Baptists) are representative of scenarios such as those I've outlined above, it would seem that very often, a Protestant coming into full communion with Rome has not been properly baptized. I've never seen or heard of a parish check into evidence of proper intent - only the matter and form. This would seem to indicate that many converts from Protestantism, having never validly received baptism, did not validly receive Confirmation and do not licitly receive Holy Communion. It also indicates that a vast majority of marriages do not enjoy the blessings of sacramental grace (could this have something to do with the phenomenal increase in divorce?).

An example from another sacrament:

Long story short, one of my professors is convinced that a particular Mass in her past did not have a valid Eucharist because the priest, though using correct matter and form, explicitly denied that the bread and wine were anything more than symbol and apparently acknowledged that he meant as much when speaking the words of consecration.


SO! Thoughts? Concerns? Opinions?


Have at it.

[Archaeology cat]

Having been raised and baptised as a Southern Baptist before converting, I can say that this is something which I have struggled with as well. When I was converting, they simply asked for a baptism certificate. I was told I could have a conditional baptism if I wished, but that it wasn't necessary, and so I didn't do it. I periodically get paranoid about it, but then I remind myself to trust in the priests who were preparing me for my Confirmation, and to trust in God's mercy. And besides, the Church teaches than anyone can baptise in an emergency, even if the person baptising isn't Christian (AFAIK - please correct me if I'm wrong), so that kinda seems like the belief of the person performing the Sacrament isn't as much an issue. While the pastor who baptised me definitely spoke against Catholic teaching on baptism, he was also convinced that he was performing baptism as it was performed by the early Christians. Yes, he was mistaken in thinking that baptism is not efficacious at all, but his intent was to do what the True Church does; he just didn't recognise what the True Church was. Hope I'm making sense.

[Ziggamafu]

Having proper intent involves intending what the Church intends, and the Church has very clear doctrinal intents. The liberal view on this issue would be that merely consenting toward proper matter and form are all that the Church requires by "intent", but if such were the case the third requirement would be superfluous and redundant from square one. No, intent is about alignment with the true Church, if only in regards to teachings on the sacrament at hand. And as I said before, I find it hard to find even the liberal view on this issue tolerating "intent" to be fulfilled when the administrator of the sacrament has clearly acknowledged being representative of intent which is directly opposed to the intent of the one, universal Church. Some form of repudiation of Catholicism exists in most Evangelical (especially Baptist) baptisms. And it is explicitly clear (made so by the Protestants themselves) that almost all of them deny baptismal regeneration. [b]I find it hard to justify a "presumption of intent", given the facts.[/b]

[i]Intent is a requirement of validity[/i] - no more and no less a requirement than matter and form - and just as there is no possible way that a baptism involving daisies or maple syrup could be valid, it is similarly impossible for a baptism lacking proper intent to be valid. Granted, matter and form are objective while intent is subjective; nevertheless, subjective dispositions are not necessarily mysteries. [b]Where the disposition is admitted or acknowledged in some clear manner, what was once subjective is now objectively clear.[/b] Such is the case for the vast and overwhelming majority of Protestant baptisms. Even those who do not have a little polemical speech in the ceremony are likely to have a congregational "statement of faith" that outlines their denial of Catholic doctrine regarding sacraments.

Ok, I'm just going to say it:

It seems clear to me that the vast and overwhelming number of Protestant converts to Catholicism, if they have not been conditionally baptized, have not ever been validly baptized at all (and thus, neither have they been confirmed), illicitly receive the Eucharist, and perhaps do not even enjoy the extra protections and graces of sacramental marriages. Baptism is the all-important sacrament insofar as it is the gateway to all other sacraments and the only means by which one enters into the Body of Christ. We never settle toward a dangerous (and perhaps sinful) presumption of baptisms of desire or blood because these forms of baptism are called "extraordinary" for a reason and can be hoped for, but not counted on. When Donatism presented a crisis in which the certainty of sacramental validity was jeopardized, the Church caught fire with the resolve to settle the matter. It seems that a similar crisis exists here, but unlike Donatism, this crisis cannot be labeled “heresy” since the Church herself teaches the absolute necessity of proper intent.
[i]
"A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter." (Revelation 8:11)[/i]

[Aloysius]

the key here is that one may intend to do what the Church does without knowing what the Church does, or even while believing that what the Church does is something entirely different than it is.

If a minister baptizes intending to do what the Christian Church does, believing that the Christian Church symbolically baptizes with no efficacious effect, he has intended to do what the Christian Church does. The TRUE Christian Church provides the rest through her treasury of grace from her divine founder. If he repudiates doing what the "Catholic Church" does, but does the baptism because the scriptures say to do the baptism and because Christianity does baptisms, it is possible to say that he intends to do what the Church does...

the minister must simply intend to baptize. doesn't matter what he thinks baptizing is, all that matters is that he intends to do it, and the Church provides the rest.

God is generous in the graces he bestows through the Church... that's the point of the Church, because justice demands that none of us deserve an ounce of grace, but the Church as a conduit makes us worthy to merit it.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='29 September 2009 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1254235235' post='1974268']
the key here is that one may intend to do what the Church does without knowing what the Church does, or even while believing that what the Church does is something entirely different than it is.

If a minister baptizes intending to do what the Christian Church does, believing that the Christian Church symbolically baptizes with no efficacious effect, he has intended to do what the Christian Church does. The TRUE Christian Church provides the rest through her treasury of grace from her divine founder. If he repudiates doing what the "Catholic Church" does, but does the baptism because the scriptures say to do the baptism and because Christianity does baptisms, it is possible to say that he intends to do what the Church does...

the minister must simply intend to baptize. doesn't matter what he thinks baptizing is, all that matters is that he intends to do it, and the Church provides the rest.

God is generous in the graces he bestows through the Church... that's the point of the Church, because justice demands that none of us deserve an ounce of grace, but the Church as a conduit makes us worthy to merit it.
[/quote]
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to get at, only said much, much better.

[Apotheoun]

Eastern Orthodox Archbishop Lazar Puhalo's podcast on this subject is available through "allsaintsmonastery" on YouTube, but it is a somewhat polemical treatment, so be prepared.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='29 September 2009 - 04:37 PM' timestamp='1254256661' post='1974437']
Eastern Orthodox Archbishop Lazar Puhalo's podcast on this subject is available through "allsaintsmonastery" on YouTube, but it is a somewhat polemical treatment, so be prepared.
[/quote]

I'm having a hard time finding this. I'm doing a search for "allsaintsmonastery" on youtube and I get a lot of results; I tried adding "baptism" but that doesn't seem to help, much. Can you send me the direct link? And what side does he come down on? Strict or liberal?

[Apotheoun]

He seems to be fairly strict.

[Aloysius]

despite what I've said, I am in favor of liberally offering conditional baptisms... they can't hurt anything. it seems like just a matter of being too afraid to ecumenically hurt the feelings of other denominations when we don't conditionally baptize converts from those religions... which just boils down to considerations of human respect over certitude in sacraments.

is it not true that we require 3 bishops to ordain a new bishop on the basis of certitude that the ordination is valid? why not liberally offer conditional baptisms to all converts on the same premise?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='29 September 2009 - 09:13 PM' timestamp='1254280407' post='1974677']
I'm having a hard time finding this. I'm doing a search for "allsaintsmonastery" on youtube and I get a lot of results; I tried adding "baptism" but that doesn't seem to help, much. Can you send me the direct link? And what side does he come down on? Strict or liberal?
[/quote]
I think that "strict" and "liberal" are understood differently in Eastern Orthodoxy. Those who hold the strict position in Orthodoxy would say that a mystery (i.e., a sacrament) is only valid in the Church, which an Orthodox Christian would define as the Eastern Orthodox Church, while those who hold a more liberal position in Orthodoxy would accept the possibility of valid mysteries (i.e., sacraments) outside of the Eastern Orthodox communion.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='30 September 2009 - 06:13 AM' timestamp='1254309180' post='1974758']
I think that "strict" and "liberal" are understood differently in Eastern Orthodoxy. Those who hold the strict position in Orthodoxy would say that a mystery (i.e., a sacrament) is only valid in the Church, which an Orthodox Christian would define as the Eastern Orthodox Church, while those who hold a more liberal position in Orthodoxy would accept the possibility of valid mysteries (i.e., sacraments) outside of the Eastern Orthodox communion.
[/quote]

That wouldn't be such an issue if they wouldn't have backed out of Florence.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='29 September 2009 - 10:40 AM' timestamp='1254235235' post='1974268']
the key here is that one may intend to do what the Church does without knowing what the Church does, or even while believing that what the Church does is something entirely different than it is.
...
If he repudiates doing what the "Catholic Church" does, but does the baptism because the scriptures say to do the baptism and because Christianity does baptisms, it is possible to say that he intends to do what the Church does...

the minister must simply intend to baptize. doesn't matter what he thinks baptizing is, all that matters is that he intends to do it, and the Church provides the rest.
[/quote]

It seems to me that intending to "do what the Church does" necessarily requires such intent to be directed toward the Catholic Church, since there is no such thing as an alternative "Church". If proper intent were merely a matter of proper matter & form (the objective act, which you seem to imply in your final sentence, above)then "intent" would seem to be a superfluous requirement. Think about this: many Protestants do not even regard "baptism" [i]as a sacrament[/i]. So not only does their statement of faith repudiate Catholic doctrine on baptism's effects, but [i]they intend something of an entirely different nature[/i] than what the Catholic means by the word "baptism". A sacramental mystery that conveys the grace of salvation is utterly and wholly different than a merely human, symbolic action. We call an orange and orange. They call an apple an orange. Their apple does not turn into an orange.
[b]
They intend an act that does not seem to properly have the word "baptism" attached to it, and they intend that act to achieve effects very different from what the Church intends, and they often explicitly and publicly repudiate the Church's intent in doing so.[/b] Yet you say that they nevertheless are doing what the Church intends. With so liberal a definition of "intent" it makes one wonder why the requirements are treated so strictly. Surely if the common Protestant ritual represents valid "intent" through some convoluted wiggle-room then we should be able to similarly excuse the use of beer and pizza for the Eucharist. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the strict adherence to matter and form and the generous liberalism allotted to intent.

[Apotheoun]

The CDF's recent rejection of Mormon baptism seems to have very little do with the intention of the Mormon minister, who has a vague intention to do what the Church does, and seems to be focused instead on the ministers (and by extension - the Mormon Church's) lack of a true Triadological faith.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='30 September 2009 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1254337251' post='1974972']
The CDF's recent rejection of Mormon baptism seems to have very little do with the intention of the Mormon minister, who has a vague intention to do what the Church does, and seems to be focused instead on the ministers (and by extension - the Mormon Church's) lack of a true Triadological faith.
[/quote]

Obviously one need not have faith in the Trinity in order to baptize validly for, as both the Latin and the Eastern Churches agreed at Florence, "In case of necessity, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or a woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing as the Church does." (Ecumenical Council of Florence: Denzinger-Schonmetzer 1315).

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='30 September 2009 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1254343442' post='1975046']
Obviously one need not have faith in the Trinity in order to baptize validly for, as both the Latin and the Eastern Churches agreed at Florence, "In case of necessity, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or a woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing as the Church does." (Ecumenical Council of Florence: Denzinger-Schonmetzer 1315).
[/quote]

Ah, but that last bit is the provisional catch. Obviously a pagan or Protestant is able to intend to do what the Church does. And one's intention need not involve perfect or even good knowledge of the sacrament. But "the Church" toward which intent must be directed may only be Catholic; and while the mere lack of knowledge regarding this fact would not be a matter of invalidity, a direct repudiation of the Church (and her intent, to say nothing of a complete hijacking of our term "baptism") does not seem to be reconcilable with the requirement of intent. In other words, it seems to me that where a ritual using the form and matter of baptism but lacking the intent of a sacrament - much less a Catholic sacrament - takes place, it cannot properly be called a baptism. And the problem is that most Evangelical baptisms fit this bill.

Although using proper form and matter, they:

* proclaim the "ordinance's" nature to be a [i]purely symbolic, [u]human[/u] act[/i] [b](thus redefining the term "baptism" in the first place)[/b]
* [i]intend only a message[/i] of inspiration and testimony to [i]Protestant[/i] doctrine as effects of the human act
* [i]publicly repudiate the intention of the Church[/i], either within the context of the act or in their congregational statement of faith

Can this be in any way argued to be indicative of "intending to do what [i]the [/i][Catholic] Church does"? If not, then nearly every single Evangelical convert (and particularly Baptists) who has not received a conditional baptism is in fact riding on the unknown hope of an extraordinary baptism (desire / blood), has not actually been confirmed, illicitly receives Holy Communion, and may not even have the protection and graces that come with a sacramental marriage.