The role of intent in determining the validity of a Mass
#1
The following claim appears in the SSPX FAQ at http://www.sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q5_novusordo.htm
Quote: . . .only three things are required for validity (presupposing a validly ordained priest), proper: matter, form, and intention.
However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention. That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting, but more and more doubtful as the crisis in the Church is prolonged).

I would like to see an expanded form of this argument that explains why the NO does not guarantee the intent of the celebrant.  The accepted principle for centuries has been that one presumes correct intent when there is correct form and matter.  Some people claim that this principle does not apply to the NO and I would like to see the reasoning for this.  Can anyone give me a link or  present the argument himself?
Reply
#2
I see that INPEFESS has written about this in another thread:
Quote:As it concerns the sacrament’s validity, the validity of a sacrament is contingent upon three factors: matter (informally speaking, the materials of the sacrament), form (the rubrics), and intention. If one of those elements is missing, the sacrament is not valid and there is no transubstantiation. According to the teachings of the Church, if a priest observes the proper matter and form of a sacrament, we are to presume that the sacrament is valid - that transubstantiation has actually taken place - and we are not responsible for whatever subjective intentions (or lack of intentions) the priest may have maintained. The problem is that this exoneration does not make an invalid sacrament valid; if the priest did not maintain the intention to "do what the Church does" (which Eucharistic Prayer makes that clear?) it is still objectively invalid in which case the participants are worshiping nothing more than bread and wine. Though we are not necessarily responsible, no good Catholic would be content attending such a Mass at which they are but worshiping bread and wine as if it were the Body and Blood of Christ.

Some contend that the words of consecration bespeak the beliefs of the priest as well as his intention. But this is not so because heretics read and recite these exact same words at religious gatherings and services every day and yet deny their true meaning: the teachings of the Church. Though these words constitute the form of the sacrament, they do not vouch for the subjective intentions of the priest because they are an excerpt from a Scriptural dialogue - the telling of a story - not a profession of intention. (Satan himself can read those exact same words and then claim, as have various Protestant groups, that it is merely a symbolic reenactment of the Last Supper; that it is merely celebrating the "spiritual presence of God in the community"; that it is a sacrifice, but not for the propitiation of sin because Christ already died for the sins of all mankind, or, as some heretics have claimed, that it is a 'bare commemoration of Christ's death on the cross'.) To be certain of his intention and, therefore, the sacrament's objective validity, we must be certain to the best of our power that he intends to do exactly what the Church intends to do. How, then, are we to know whether the consecrating priest intends to do as Holy Mother Church?

The best way is that which has been given to us by our Holy Mother, the Church. The Church, in Her wonderful wisdom, has provided for the faithful the Offertory, a beautiful prayer said within the Mass (prior to the consecration) professing the unambiguous and unequivocal beliefs and intentions of the consecrating priest. This collection of prayers preceding the consecration is the steel bane of heretics who have tempered it with the fires of their very own heresies. Though we can never truly know the intentions of the priest, because "lex orandi, lex credendi" (loosely translated as "the law of prayer is the law of belief"), we are safe to maintain positive certainty that he intends to do as he is offering, praying, and professing to God: to consecrate the host.

However, in the parallel rite of the Church, the new Mass, it is this same sword of truth, faith, and unity of belief which has been replaced with a set of four Eucharistic Prayers. These Eucharistic Prayers are a poor substitute (at best) for the various prayers of the traditional Latin Mass surrounding the consecration and hardly worthy of defending the Mass from all of its various attacks. Each of these prayers states the intention of the priest in a much more uncertain, ambiguous way, and any three of these prayers may be selected for the Mass in addition to Eucharistic Prayer 1 (which is the Canon). What the priest really intends to do, then, is not as easily discerned. In many cases, the priest's intention is not included in its entirety in the prayers, in which case we are to presume that, because he used the proper matter and form (hopefully), the consecration is valid and transubstantiation is really taking place. But again, it is the objective intention of the priest (in addition to the other elements), rather than our permissible presumption of it, that turns the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Now, obviously this elicits the question: before the present Offertory of the traditional Latin Mass (I exclusively attend the Tridentine Mass), how were participants to evaluate the subjective intention of the priest? It is for this purpose that the organic development of the Mass is (was) so important. As I said earlier, the Mass (and particularly, the Offertory) is the steel bane of heretics tempered by the fires of their very own heresies. The purpose of the councils of the Church were to condemn the extensive heresies of the age, to address the various theological problems, doctrines, or questions that had been raised, and to further clarify and expound upon the dogmas of the Church. As the Church developed its teachings, so, too, did the Mass maintain its solidarity, identity, and unity with the theological blossoming of the Catholic Church. The Offertory is a summation of the Church's organically-developed teaching concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass as well as what is meant by the Church's intention to effect the sacrament. As heresies sprang up amongst the people, the Church responded with a condemnation and a clarification.

These heresies are as much alive today as they ever were, and with such poor theological training in the seminaries, it makes the problem of intention even worse. What does the priest really think he's doing? The removal of the summation of the Church's intention fails to safeguard the participants' positive certainty of intention from the various heresies and errors which have wreaked havoc throughout antiquity. This is why it is so important, to me, to attend a Mass at which I am certain there are no dogmatically-significant selections, substitutions, omissions, options, optings, preferences, additions, renovations, innovations, novelties, ad libs, impromptus, or other such deviations which further obscure that which is already obscure: the priest's intention in an age when Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies, has taken root within the Church as, by far, the most extensive, putrid, and repugnant error ever to spread through the halls of the Church and the hearts of Her children.
Reply
#3
Jayne, did you read it? Just in case you were not able to yet, you included a bit of Scipio's response to you that I had quoted in order to show how this was probably what he was saying.
Reply
#4
(04-19-2010, 06:02 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Jayne, did you read it? Just in case you were not able to yet, you included a bit of Scipio's response to you that I had quoted in order to show how this was probably what he was saying.

I didn't read it all the way through.  I saw enough to see that it was an answer to my question and moved it here.  I'll edit out that part because that Isn't what I am interested in for this thread.
Reply
#5
(04-19-2010, 06:09 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(04-19-2010, 06:02 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Jayne, did you read it? Just in case you were not able to yet, you included a bit of Scipio's response to you that I had quoted in order to show how this was probably what he was saying.

I didn't read it all the way through.  I saw enough to see that it was an answer to my question and moved it here.  I'll edit out that part because that Isn't what I am interested in for this thread.

Okay, you don't have to. I just thought that, since I hadn't specified the author of those words ("In his words..."), you would either want to fix it or consider it separately. I think it is a logical continuation of my post and what I think he meant by his post, but it wasn't technically part of my own statement, so it wasn't entirely accurate that the post you cited was my own words.

All things considered, though, it probably doesn't really matter. I think my post more or less explains what he was probably assuming was general knowledge.
Reply
#6
(04-19-2010, 05:28 PM)JayneK Wrote: The following claim appears in the SSPX FAQ at http://www.sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q5_novusordo.htm
Quote: . . .only three things are required for validity (presupposing a validly ordained priest), proper: matter, form, and intention.
However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention. That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting, but more and more doubtful as the crisis in the Church is prolonged).

I would like to see an expanded form of this argument that explains why the NO does not guarantee the intent of the celebrant.  The accepted principle for centuries has been that one presumes correct intent when there is correct form and matter.  Some people claim that this principle does not apply to the NO and I would like to see the reasoning for this.  Can anyone give me a link or  present the argument himself?

The waste majority of the New Mass priests are in full communion with Rome and the Holy See, act accordint to the intentions of the of the Magisterium, and lives inside the legal limits of the Catholic Church. Ibi Petrus, ubi Ecclesia.

Some traditionalists are who oppose the Magisterium, and her decisions, their intention is doubtful to do what the Living Church wants with her hierarchy. Christ established a living Church, under the living hierarchy, not a frozen one.
Reply
#7
(04-19-2010, 08:07 PM)glgas Wrote: Ibi Petrus, ubi Ecclesia.

If you are quoting St. Ambrose, that should be "Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)