It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:55 am

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
 Intention of the Minister in the Sacraments - De Salvo, 1949 
Author Message

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Intention of the Minister in the Sacraments - De Salvo, 1949
The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments

The excerpt below is Chapter 5, the summation and conclusion, pp.92-105.


The whole discussion of the problem of the minister's intention up to this point has been an objective one based on the official teaching of the Church. It has been pointed out that the minister must have the intention of doing what the Church does for the valid confection of the sacraments, this being a matter of faith defined by the Council of Trent. But in regard to the thesis that the internal intention is an absolute necessity there has been no explicit definition by the Church.1 The doctrines of the schools of external and internal intention have been given in detail and from the presentation of the respective arguments by each of the schools it seems that the school of internal intention has by far the better case.


It is the common opinion today as it was in the thirteenth century2 that for the validity of a. sacrament a true internal intention is required. In fact it may more correctly be called the unanimous opinion among theologians. As for the sacrament of Penance there is little room for doubt, for the Council of Trent supposes in the priest the mind of acting seriously and truly absolving.3 One can act seriously externally without the internal intention, but the mind of truly absolving cannot exist without an internal intention. After mentioning the fact that the Council of Trent had not condemned the doctrine of Catharinus, Billot added that in spite of this the contrary opinion is the most common doctrine and the one to be held.4

One of the strongest supporters of the doctrine of internal intention was St. Alphonsus who mentioned expressly that for a valid sacrament there is required in the minister neither faith nor probity, but at least a virtual intention of performing not only the external act, but also the sacrament, or at least that which the Church does or what Christ has instituted. Later in the same work in reply to the question as to whether the internal intention is required, he replied that the intention of performing the external action alone is not sufficient, but that there is required the intention of doing what the Church does, and that this is of faith.5 Such a sequence of reasoning is equivalent to the statement by St. Alphonsus that it is a matter of faith that the minister must have the internal intention, although he does not expressly make this statement.

There are others who teach substantially the same thing as St. Alphonsus does. Tournely calls the internal intention of the minister necessary for the substantial validity of the sacrament.6 Davis asserts that the Church actually does perform a sacred rite, and the intention of doing this is absolutely necessary. "There must, therefore, be an internal intention of doing this, and the external gesture ... if we may call it so ... will not suffice."7 Hugon teaches that unless the minister has the internal intention, he does not even implicitly wish to use the power divinely commissioned to him, and consequently that he does not place a ministerial action but a merely natural one.8

est . Docet requiri intentionem internam, quae scilicet non tola versetur circa apparentiam exteriorem sed sit intentio qua minister non solum vult cohibere omnem ostensionem simultationis ab actione quae foris apparet, sed etiam vere apud se intus resolvit: volo facere id quod Ecclesia facit.

Franzelin is representative of those who deny the sufficiency of the external intention, for after admitting that some intention is necessary, he expressly mentions that this intention is not only the will of materially placing the external action, but that such a will is evidently not enough for the valid confection of the sacraments.9 Sylvius in his commentary of St. Thomas makes this statement:

The intention of the work which is done, insofar as it is a natural act, is not sufficient ... it is not enough to have the intention of doing only the external and natural action, but there is required the intention of doing what the Church does, namely, a sacred action instituted by Christ.10

This same doctrine of internal intention is taught by Ballerini,11 Dens,12 Sasse,13 Tepe,14 Vermeersch,15 Konings,16 SabettiBarrett,17 and numerous other theologians. The present status of the thesis asserting that the internal intention is necessary for the valid confection of the sacraments is its classification as a theological opinion,18 due to the fact that it is set forth in such a way that the theologian allows for the possibility of the opposite thesis being true, although it might be classified more accurately as a common opinion. In fact Tanquerey,19 Gonet,20 Gazzaniga,21 Van Noort22 assign it that theological note and Herve,23 St. Alphonsus,24 Neyraguet,25 and Cappello26 hold that it is common and certain. These opinions are in agreement with the majority of contemporary theologians.



In the institution of the sacraments Christ constituted them in such a way that they proceed not only from the power of God, but also from the power given to man as a minister. This power is expressed by actions proper to him. It is in this sense that the minister is said to forgive sins, to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The power which the minister has in the confection of the sacraments is a power given to man as man, and consequently in the exercise of that power he makes use of human acts which are under the command of the will.27 The will of confecting a sacrament must enter into the minister's intention in some manner. The will of merely performing the material rites is not sufficient according to the common teaching.28

All theologians agree that the confection of the sacraments is a human act insofar as man has a role in their confection, and this human act is necessarily one which must be performed by a minister who has the full use of reason and applies it to the work at hand. Everyone agrees also that at times men do things for which they cannot be held responsible, the reason being, that these actions are done without the internal intention of the individual. Such acts are called acts of man, or in the technical expression, "actus hominis," whereas those done with full deliberation are called human acts, "actus humani." Men are not held accountable for the former.

Keeping this distinction in mind, it can be said that the use of the merely external intention does not constitute a human act in regard to the confection of the sacraments. This can be illustrated by an example of the hunter who goes into the forest for the purpose of killing a wild animal, but indeliberately kills a man whom in the distance he mistakes for a wild animal. This total act can be divided. The firing of the gun is a human act, one for which he is responsible since he does it deliberately. The killing of the man is the other part of the total act. Ordinarily, the killing of a man is murder, but under the circumstances the hunter is not guilty of murder for the reason that he did not intend it. This latter part of the act is not a human act.

This same thing can be applied to man's role in the confection of the sacraments. As he fulfills the requirement of positing the matter and the form he either intends to confect or not to confect a sacrament, or at least to do what the Church does. There is not any question about his intention of performing the external actions. He deliberately posits them and is responsible for them if he is a free agent, and this constitutes a human act. But in regard to the confection of a sacrament, there is a true sacrament if he intends this to be the result of his actions. If he does not intend this effect, which can be present in the general intention of doing what the Church does, his operations stop short of it. The will of man cannot be forced. The mere fact that the minister does not will to confer a sacrament, or at least to do what the Church does, makes it impossible for him to produce such a result as long as that will is present and has predominance over all other intentions.

If it were true that the sacrament is confected merely by the serious positing of the matter and the form, it would be correct to assert that no contrary intention could render the actions nonsacramental. In this event the minister's role in the sacrament would be similar to that of the sailor who throws his belongings overboard in order to keep the ship from sinking. There is a conflict in his will. By one will he does not want to throw his property overboard, and by the other he performs the actions which effectively remove his property from the ship. By the mere fact that he deliberately throws his property into the sea, he completes an action. His actions have a determined result. The positing of the matter and the form in the sacramental rites does not have the sacramental result unless it is done for this purpose. The additional element which they need is limitation or determination by which they are done for one purpose rather than for another. The positing of the matter and the form is a human act if the minister is awake, but this same human act can be done for different purposes, as St. Thomas mentions,29 and, consequently, there is no sacrament unless the actions are determined by the intention of confecting a sacrament, at least implicitly. Other intentions may be present concomitantly as long as they do not contradict the first one. The problem seems to be reducible to the principle of contradiction: when the matter and the form are placed, the minister intends at least in general to do what the Church does, or he lacks this intention. If he has the intention, the result is a sacrament; if he does not, no sacrament is confected.


If the true intention of confecting a sacrament is lacking, the element of the serious external performance seems to contribute very little or nothing to the contention that those actions thus posited constitute a true sacrament.29 In fact it is a misnomer to call an action "serious" if the internal serious intent is lacking. Such so-called "serious" performances are not serious at all. That they are apparently serious is true, but that they are really serious is false.

In the school of Catharinus it seemed to make little difference whether or not the external performance was really serious. The great concern was that it appeared to be such. One of the greatest arguments for the necessity of internal intention can be drawn from the comparison between a jocose performance and an apparently serious performance of the sacramental actions. The Protestants, logically following their sacramental teachings, maintained that a jocose placing of the matter and the form does not prevent the sacrament from being valid, due to the fact that the minister's role is merely to show forth the signs which would stir up the faith of the recipients. This doctrine was condemned by the Council of Trent.

The jocose performance of the sacramental actions does not render the sacrament null because it is apparent to men that these actions are not done seriously, but because the necessary will of confecting a sacrament is lacking. If the necessary will for confecting a sacrament is present, the sacrament is valid in spite of the appearance of a jocose performance.30 When the sacrament is declared null, it is presumed that the will of confecting a sacrament was lacking, and one of the indications of this is the jocose performance. The will or the intention necessary for validity can equally be lacking whether the intention of performing the whole rite as a sham is hidden or apparent. Thus, although the declaration of the Council of Trent is applicable particularly to the apparent jocose performance, it seems to apply also to the jocose performance which is hidden.31

Some of the exponents of the sufficiency of the external intention maintained that the lack of internal intention could be supplied by external circumstances, such as a sacred place, sacred vestments, the request of some one for a sacrament, and the minister's acting "ex officio." Admittedly, these external circumstances are an indication that the minister has the proper intention, but the indication can be false. The mere fact that a minister performs the rites of Baptism in a Church wearing sacred vestments does not prevent him from having an intention destructive of the sacrament. The reason for the insufficiency of these external circumstances to effect validity is the fact that intention by its nature is something internal, and although it can be indicated by external things, it cannot be replaced by them. Consequently, if in such circumstances the minister performs the sacramental rites with the positive intention of not confecting a sacrament, the sacrament would be invalid.


It was very significant that the Council of Florence demanded three things for a sacrament: the matter, the form, and the intention of the minister.32 The Council of Trent demanded in the ministers the intention of doing what the Church does while they confect the sacraments.33 It is certain that when the Fathers at these Councils mentioned the two requirements of matter and form, they had no other thought but that they should be posited seriously. But over and above these two requisites they also demanded the intention of the minister as something that could possibly be separated from the other two. St. Alphonsus argues that by this fact the Councils demand internal intention, since if they did not, it would have been superfluous to mention intention at all, and the Fathers of the Councils are not accustomed to use superfluous words.34 The same argument is frequently used among the members of the school of internal intention.

The Council of Trent states that one of the causes for an invalid absolution is the fact that the priest does not have the intention of acting seriously and truly absolving.35 The meaning of these words is that in the minister the will alone of placing an action which is apparently serious is not sufficient, if the intention of truly absolving is lacking, or if there is a contrary intention. If the intention of truly absolving is lacking, the action is not a serious action, but only the simulation of a serious action. It is absurd to understand by the words the mind of truly absolving the will only of pronouncing the words in an apparently serious manner but with the internal intention of not truly absolving, but of deceiving and deluding.36


A strong argument against the opinion of external intention was the condemnation of the proposition of Farvacques in which he stated that a baptism was valid if the minister observed the outward form of baptizing but inwardly resolved not to do what the Church does.37 This decree would seem to have settled the problem of external and internal intention, but the condemnation was not directed specifically at the doctrine of Catharinus.88 Serry was of the opinion that the condemnation concerned the jocose performance of the sacrament of Baptism, and thus referred to the Protestants.39 But at the time the condemnation was made (1690) no Catholic was defending the doctrine of Luther and the Protestants, as it had been condemned by the Council of Trent.40 The interpretation of Serry was taken lightly by most theologians. They contended that from the wording of the proposition the sense of a jocose performance could not be deduced. That sense is evidently excluded, for it speaks of a minister who observes all the requirements of the external rite but with the inner resolve not to do what the Church does, which indicates that to all outward appearances the sacrament is valid. This would not be the case if the minister showed that he was not acting seriously while he performed the rites.

One of the most outspoken statements against the doctrine of external intention was made by St. Alphonsus when he commented on the condemned proposition with these words: "Note the word 'inwardly' (intus vero): therefore the Pope condemns the opinion which does not require the internal intention of doing what the Church does." 41

In his commentary on the proposition, Viva does not make any distinction as to the manner in which the external intention is used, be it open or occult. He simply states:

This is the error which was proscribed by Alexander VIII in this proposition, namely, that the intention alone of using the external rite prescribed by the Church and instituted by Christ, is sufficient, even if not only the intention of doing what the Church does is lacking, but also if the opposite intention is present.42
This was the common interpretation of the proposition. In view of the condemnation and the progress of opinion since Catharinus' time and the development of the teaching of the Church, the opinion of Catharinus is not now held by any divine and must be virtually condemned.43


That external intention is not sufficient for the validity of a sacrament is clear from the example of simulation in which there is a fictitious placing of the sign, the sacramental action, without the intention of really confecting the sacrament. In the strict sense simulation consists in the fictitious placing of the matter and the form which are used in the sacraments. This of course is always done in an apparently serious manner according to the ordinary way of confecting the sacraments, and for the sole purpose of deception. Simulation may well have all the requirements which the school of Catharinus demands for external intention, since the matter and the form are placed in an apparently serious manner. This shows the sharp contrast which exists between the two schools of thought, for in the definition which Vermeersch gives for simulation, he says that a sacrament is not confected by its use.44 The reason why such a performance does not result in a sacrament is the fact that there is no internal intention. The external intention is certainly present. Maine declares that he who simulates the actions which the Church does, and performs them only externally, cannot be said to have the intention of doing what the Church does, but only of simulating what she does; since the Councils demand that the minister have the intention of doing and not simulating what the Church does, simulation is wholly insufficient.45


One of the better examples which will demonstrate the need of internal intention is that of conditional absolution, in which the confessor pronounces the words of absolution in the usual manner with the exception of the condition which he places before the words. If the condition is not fulfilled, there is no absolution although the words are uttered sincerely. The reason for this is not the lack of matter and form since they are correctly performed. A similar case is conditional baptism from which it is apparent that the internal intention seems to be necessary for the validity of the sacrament.46

The rubrics of -the Roman Missal give the following as an example of a defective intention: "Si quis non intendit conficere, sed delusorie agere."47 Vermeersch writes that the priest who has bread before him, but merely recites] the fact and the words used by Christ, does not confect the sacrament, because he has no intention of the sacrament.48 No one would consider that consecration a true one in which the priest pronounces the words of consecration over the bread and wine in practice for his first Mass.49 If the priest has before him eleven hosts and intends to consecrate only ten, he does not consecrate any if he does not determine which ten he will consecrate.60

Lehmkuhl gives an interesting case of conscience on the point. A certain priest had lost his faith and had joined a forbidden society, after which time he began to perform his priestly duties in an external manner only. He religiously observed the correct and exact performance of the matter and the form in the sacraments he administered, but inwardly he intended not to do what the Church does and what Christ instituted.

The solution of the case declares that the sacraments conferred by the priest were null and to be repeated absolutely.51 In all these cases there is no question about the correct matter and form, but only about the lack of the inner intention necessary for valid confection. The external intention was present in each case, since the matter and the form were administered in a serious manner.


Since the Church had made no explicit condemnation of the doctrine of Catharinus, it was to be expected that no theologian would be so bold as to condemn it, though many came forth with strong statements against it. Cardinal Pallavicini thought that the doctrine was false but states specifically that it was not condemned by the Tridentine canons.52 Vasquez, after mentioning the teaching of the Protestants and the two opinions of internal and external intention, declares that the true and Catholic opinion expressly defined in the Councils, in his opinion, is that the internal intention of the minister is necessary for the validity of the sacraments, and that the opinion that the external intention is not sufficient is not only a true statement, but also that it has been defined in the Councils.53 St. Robert Bellarmine says there was no difference between the opinion of Chemnitz and the other heretics, and that of Catharinus, except for the fact that at the end of his work Catharinus subjected himself to the Apostolic See and the Council whereas the heretics ridiculed both.54 In the opinion of De Lugo the doctrine of Catharinus was closely related to that of the Protestants.55 Benedict XIV mentions that theologians of better judgment free Catharinus from the censure of heresy, but that his doctrine received a severe blow by the condemnation of the opinion of Farvacques.56


A papal pronouncement which has a direct bearing on the problem of intention was the condemnation of the following proposition by Pope Innocent XI on March 2, 1679:

In conferring the sacraments it is not illicit to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of a sacrament, the more safe one having been put aside, unless law, convention, or the danger of incurring a grave damage forbid it. Hence a probable opinion should not be used only in the conferring of baptism, priestly or episcopal orders.57

This proposition concerns the minister's intention, since the doctrine of the sufficiency of external intention is a probable opinion. Thus in practice the use of external intention alone is never permitted since the internal intention is more safe and always available to the minister.


The study of the Dogmatic Theology on the intention of the minister in the confection of the sacraments warrants the following conclusions:

1. The opinion of Catharinus and the school of external intention is not explicitly condemned, but in view of the common teaching of the great majority of theologians, the decrees of the Councils, and the condemnation of the proposition of Farvacques, it stands virtually condemned.

2. The internal intention is required for the validity of the sacraments. This, however, is not a matter of faith.

3. In practice the doctrine of external intention may never be used.

4. Provided the minister seriously performs all the sacramental rites, there is no need for being doubtful about the validity of the sacraments, for it is presumed that the minister has the requisite intention, unless he externally manifests the contrary. In the words of Pope Leo XIII:

The Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is something by its nature internal, but in so far as it is manifested externally, she is bound to judge concerning it.58

5. The common opinion is that the external intention is insufficient for a valid sacrament, and thus, whenever it is certain that a minister, in conferring any of the sacraments which cannot be repeated, uses only the external intention and does not inwardly wish to do what the Church does, the sacrament should be repeated conditionally if the case is urgent. If it is not urgent, recourse should be had to the Holy See for a decision.59

In this exposition of the teaching of the Church and the common opinion of theologians throughout the centuries it is not intended to make the ministers and the recipients of the sacraments doubtful or scrupulous about the sacraments which they administer and receive. It is rather a matter of presenting in so far as possible the official teaching on a matter of great importance. It is hoped that the matter of external intention is more in the class of theory than practice. In fact, J. O'Kane calls the question of external and internal intention very speculative, saying that in practice the internal intention is hardly ever wanting.60 It must also be recalled that the sacraments can be rendered null not only by the lack of intention, but also by the lack of correct matter and form, which could happen without the least suspicion on the part of the faithful. However, the latter could happen by accident, whereas the former could happen only through the deliberate will of the minister.

As to the objection that no one could be certain of having received the sacraments if internal intention is required, it seems futile. We are living among rational creatures and in the moral order of things we must depend upon one another for the sincerity of these actions as well as other actions of our daily life, and have the assurance that Christ protects His Church and enables her to safeguard and perpetuate the sacraments. Christ promised that He would be with His Church until the end of the world. Although men cannot be metaphysically certain of having received the sacraments, all may, according to common sense, depend upon the fidelity of Christ's ministers in the administration of the sacraments, and according to faith rely upon the indefectibility of the Church and her ministers as a body.61

1 Pourrat, P., Theology of the Sacraments, p. 349; cf. Nampon, A., Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent, Vol. II, p. 324.

2 Otten, B., A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. II, p. 291.

3 S Session XIV, can. 6 (Mansi 33, 95; DBU 902).

4 Billot, J., De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, Tom. I, p. 181: Nihilominus in contrarium est communissima theologorum doctrina, cui omnino standum

5 St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, Lib. VI, n. 20, Vol. II, p. 68: . Dicendum 1. non sufficere solam intentionem faciendi actionem externam, sed requiri intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia. Hoc est de fide contra Lutherum, qui dicebat sufficere solam intentionem ponendi ritum exteriorem, etsi ioco peractutn . . . Note the sharp contrast between the two kinds of intention.

6 Tournely, H., De Sacramentis in Genere, Q. 7, Art. 1, Praelectiones Theologicae, Vol. I, p. 111.

7 Davis, H., Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. IlI, p. 17.

8 De Sacramentis in Communi, Q. 5, Art. 3, Tractates Dogmatici, Vol. IV, p. 149.

9 De Sacramentis in Genere, Thesis 17, p. 218.

10 Commentarius in Tertiam Partem Thomae Aquinatis, Q. 64, Art. 8, Secunda Conclusio, Vol. IV, p. 173.

11 Tract. 10, De Sacramentis, Sect. I, De Sacramentis in Genere, Cap. 2, Dubium 1, Opus Theologicum Morale, Vol. IV, p. 475.

12 De Sacramentis in Genere, n. 41, De Sacramentis, p. 89.

13 Tractatus de Sacramentis in Genere, Sect. 6, Thesis 25, Prob. 1, Institutiones Theologicae de Sacramentis Ecclesiae, Vol. I, p. 149.

14 De Sacramentis in Genere, Cap. 4, Prop. 11, n. 92, Institutions Theologicae, Tract. 10, Vol. IV, p. 75.

15 Theologia Moralis, Tom. IlI, n. 165, p. 143.

16 Tractatus de Sacramentis in Genere, Cap. 3, Art. 1, Sect. II, Theologia Moralis, Vol. II, n. 1217, p. 7.

17 Compendium Theologia Moralis, n. 636, p. 554.

18 Cf. Fenton, J., The Concept of Sacred Theology, p. 71; Le Blanc, J., "Children's Limbo, Theory or Doctrine?" AER, 117 (Sept. 1947) 165.

19 Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, Tom. IlI, n. 418, ed. Desclee, p. 294.

20 De Sacramentis in Comtnuni, Disp. 6, Art. 3, Clypeus Theologiae Thomisticae, Vol. VI, p. 139.

21 De Sacramentis in Genere, Diss. 2, Cap. 8, Praelectiones Theologicae, Tom. VIII, n. 265 sqq., p. 132.

22 Tractatus de Sacramentis I, Sect. 1, Cap. 3, Art. 2, n. 115, p. 91.

23 Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. IlI, n. 477, p. 487.

24 Theologia Moralis, Lib. VI, n. 23, ed. Marietti, Tom. II, p. 70.

25 Tractatus de Sacramentis in Genere, Cap. 2, Art. 1, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, pp. 422-443.

26 De Sacramentis in Genere, Cap. 1, Art. 2, n. 50, De Sacramentis, Vol. I, p. 36.

27 Cf. Scotus, Lib. IV Sententiarum, Dist. 6, Q. 5 (Opera Omnia, Tom. XVI, pp. 563-564). In this passage he emphasizes the element of the human act in the confection of the Sacraments.

28 Cf. Sasse, I., Tractatus de Sacramentis in Genere, Sect. 6, Thesis 25, Prob. 1, Institutiones Theologicae de Sacramentis Ecclesiae, Vol. I, p. 149: lam vero qui habet solam intentionem externam sensu adversariorum, is non vult agere ex potestate ministeriali nee nomine Christi, sed solum vult ponere actionem mere materialiter facultate sua natural!. Ergo haec intentio mere externa non sufficit.

29 Summa Theologica, III, q. 64, art. 8.

30 Franzelin, J., De Sacramentis in Genere, Thesis 17, p. 229: . . . iocus non ideo reddit sacramentum irritum, quia apparet et manifestus hominibus, sed unice quatenus deest voluntas necessaria ad conficiendum sacramentum. . . .

31 Ibid., p. 229: . . . Ergo definitio declarans irritum sacramentum ratione ioci, non de manifesto solum sed etiam de occulto ioco aeque valet.

32 Mansi 31a, 1054; DBU 695.

33 Session VII, can. 11 (Mansi 33, 53; DBU 854).

34 Theologia Moralis, Lib. VI, n. 23, ed. Marietti, Vol. II, p. 70.

35 Session XIV, cap. 6 (Mansi 33, 95; DBU 902).

36 Franzelin, ]., De Sacrawentis in Genere, Thesis 17, pp. 228-229. 87 Cf. Chapter I, footnote n. 12.

38 Benedict XIV, De Synodo Dioecesana, Lib. VII, Cap. 4, n. 8 (Opera Omnia, Tom. VI, p. 196).

39 Ambrosii Catharini Vindiciae, Cap. 12, pp. 92 sqq.

40 Slater, T., A Manual of Moral Theology, pp. 29-30.

41 Theologia Moralis, Lib. VI, n. 23, Vol. II, p. 70.

42 Damnaiarum Thesium Theologica Trutina, Tom. I, Pars I, p. 492: Hie itaque est error, qui in hac propositione ab Alexandro VIII, proscribitur, quod scilicet sufficiat sola intentio adhibendi ritum externum ab Ecclesia praescriptum, et a Christo institutum, etiamsi non solum desit intentio faciendi, quod facit Ecclesia formatter, sed etiam adsit intentio opposita.

43 Slater, T., A Manual of Moral Theology, p. 30; Davis, H., Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. IlI, p. 18..

44 Theologia Moralis, Tom. IlI, n. 175, p. 152: Simulatio sacramentorum est ficta positio signi, i.e., actionis sacramentalis, quin revera sacramentum conficiatur.

45 Haine, A., Principia Theologiae Sacramentalis, Cap. 5, Dub. 7, p. 383.

46 Tournely, H., De Sacramentis in Genere, Q. 7, Art. 1, Cone., Praelectiones Theologicae, Tom. I, pp. 113-114.

47 Caput 7.

48 Theotogia Moralis, Tom. IlI, p. 145.

49 Genicot, E., De Sacramentis in Genere, Cap. 2, Sect. 1, Institutiones Theologiae Moralis, Vol. II, Tract. 12, p. 102: Defectu intentionis minima consecrat sacerdos qui ad rubricas addiscendas, verba consecrationis super panem recitat.

50 Benedict XIV, De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio, Lib. IlI, Cap. 18, nn. 7-8 (Opera Omnia, Tom. VIII, pp. 212-213).

51 Casus Conscientiae, Vol. II, p. 14, Casus 7.

52 Historiae Concilii Tridentini, Lib. IX, Cap. 6, n. 2, Tom. II, p. 28: Equidem existimo Catharini sententiam falsam esse, sed non ideo per Tridentinos canones diserte damnatam; quapropter fas illi fuit affirmare, eam Concilio non cqntradicere. Cf. Lacey, F., "Intention," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. VII, p. 381.

53 Vasquez, G., Sup. Ill Partem D. Thomae, Q. 64, Art. 5, Cap. 3, n. 29, Disp. 8, Cap. 3, Tom. II, p. 260.

54 De Sacramentis in Genere, Lib. I, Cap. 28 (Opera Omnia, Vol. IlI, p. 75) Quae opinio (Catharini) non video quid differat a sententia Kennitii et aliorum Haereticorum, nisi quod Catharinus in fine opusculi subjicit se apostolicae sedi, et concilio; illi autem rident utrumque.

55 De Sacramentis in Genere, Disp. 8, Sect. 2, n. IS, Disputationes Scholasticae et Morales, Vol. IlI, p. 373.

56 De Synodo Dioecesana, Lib. VII, Cap. 4, n. 8 (Opera Omnia, Tom. XI, p. 1%).

57 DBU 1151.

58 Bull Apostolicae Curae, 13 sept. 1896 (CSCPF, Vol. II, n. 1954, p. 345); cf. Wynne, Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, pp.
403-403 (ASS 29, 201).

59 Benedict XIV, De Synodo Dioeces., Lib. VII, Cap. 4, n. 9 (Opera Omnia, Vol. XI, p. 196); St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, Lib. VI, n. 23, Tom. II, p. 71.

60 Notes on the Rubrics of the Roman Missal, Chapter 2, n. 139, p. 47.

61 Devine, A., The Sacraments Explained, p. 177.

Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:01 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.