I have been wrestling with the answer to a canonical puzzle that has me stumped. Maybe a reader can shed some light on it for me.
First, it is said that a sacrament to be valid must contain the following: Material and Form that must be as prescribed for the sacrament and that the Intention of the priest or bishop must intend to do what the Church intends. Now what happens if the priest or bishop does not intend to do what the Church intends? Let me propose 1 of a number of scenarios that I can imagine happening.
SCENARIO 1.
Over 1000 seminarians, most who became priests and a few who became bishops, were inserted into the Church by Bella Dodd and they were, according to her, Communists, Freemasons and Homosexuals whose intent was to destroy the hierarchy of the Church. Now Bella related this to Bp. Fulton J. Sheen who converted Bella, and she also testified under the penalty of perjury this information to the Senate Committee on UnAmerican Activity.
Now if these people joined to destroy the Church rather than to spread the faith and to do that which the Church desired could they possibly have the intention of the Church they hate?
So would their Masses, their Absolutions and in the case of a Bishop, their ordinations be valid. For it seems that in my understanding of the validity of sacraments that all three of the conditions (matter, form and intention) must exist and it is obvious that the right intention is not present.
So do we have invalidly ordained priests and bishops in the hierarchy? For if we do, it would be almost impossible to straighten out since many of these men came into the Church during the 50’s and we have no idea if these programs of infiltration stopped after Bella Dodd’s stopped this activity and to my knowledge we have no data on whether many more entered in as well.
How can we have confidence in the sacraments if this is the case? If it is true that their sacraments are invalid, then it seems to me that the only way to purge this corruption is to first rout out the offenders from our midst. But even good and holy clerics may have been invalidly ordained. So it seems that we would also have to give them a conditional ordination, like a conditional Baptism, in order to assure that our sacraments are once again something that we can have great confidence in as being authentic and valid. And if somehow, the Church protects the sacraments against such sacrilege, how does it do that?
Any answers out there? I would like to know the Church’s response to such a scenario and know how it would fix this problem if it truly exists.
All Along the Watchtower 
I prefer my baloney on a bun with mayo. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Why do you call it baloney? You have no answer? I’ve looked for in Canon Law and can’t find it and I’ve looked for articles about it The closest I got was on a Canon Law blog where the Canon Lawyer admitted that a bishop who witheld the intention to ordain would not ordain the priest. So it is possible and not baloney.
And it is a matter of record concerning the people that were placed into seminary by the Communist Party in the US by Bella Dodd and her cronies.
So you can take sarcasm somewhere else: the question is legit and you simply have no answer. Don’t that upset your day that for once you are without one.
LikeLike
There’s plenty of common sense on the subject of intention in Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. St. Thomas Aquinas too. Sufficiency is really sufficient is what it boils down to when it comes to intent.
Bella Dodd is a whole roll of baloney. You’re taking the word of a Communist who supposedly renounced her Communist ways, yet spent an awful lot of time trying to sow the seeds of doubt in the validity of the Sacraments after her alleged conversion to Christ among the faithful. Now if I wanted to strike at the Church for my Communist pals, I’d fake a conversion, gain a bunch of attention and then spread hateful lies about the Church’s priesthood so as to injure the faith of those I despise. If you want a true Communist plot, look no further then her baloney story itself. She’s the Communist who infiltrated the Church with a scheme to undermine to trust of some in their own priests.
That having been said, what does that mean for those who further her cause against Christ’s Priesthood for her? Ever been accused of being Communist Scoop? YOu’ve aligned yourself with a very notorious one. Just sayin’. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Well you are a better reader of souls, whom you never met, than was Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen then, it appears. You must be very full of yourself for being so much smarter than he was; a saint that has yet to be raised to the altar.
LikeLike
Scoop why evade the elephant in the room? Bella Dodd was a Communist infiltrator herself. In order to become believable, she even snowed Fulton Sheen. Ya know he worked with thousands of sinners, not all of them converted. Bill Wilson, the founder of Alcoholic Anonymous was one of his failures. He worked on him for over ten years and failed. Bill W. remained Protestant till death. A careful reading of statements made by Ms. Dodd, you’ll find her ulterior motives exposed – to undermine the faith of Catholics in their priests and their sacraments. And I’ve proposed to you, that you too are furthering her cause by claiming her lies are truth for her. I do not believe she ever left off being a Communist desiring the end of the Catholic Church.
Matthew 7:15-20 is very helpful for this little discussion – “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.”
Ms. Dodd and those who use her works to bear witness against the Priesthood of Jesus Christ serve no one but their true master. Wanna guess who I think that is or shall I tell you? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
What you believe to be true is irrelevant. The senate took her seriously, Sheen took her seriously, the author of AA-1025 published by Tan makes the same point. Not to mention that the documents that were released after the fall of the Soviet Union have produced documents very that a plan was, in fact, in practice.
But it is irrelevant. I am putting forth a real life possibility: an apostate infiltrating the Church as a Trojan Horse. You think men are without such sin? You think that among those who hate the Church it has not been tried and perhaps succeeded in their efforts. You think that Sodomitical Narcissists have not entered for the sole purpose that the Church provided a fertile hunting ground? And if they do not believe the Church and they are smart enough it is not inconceivable that some of them may have reached the heights of bishop. Were their sacraments valid without belief in what the Church teaches? They can’t possibly have the intentions necessary that Canon Law calls for. So I simply ask a question that I still have received no definitive answer for. And you have none either; so why try to fake that you do?
LikeLike
Scoop, do you know what a strawman is? You’ve gotten better at building them. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
I do. But this isn’t one of them. It is a genuine possibility that the Church must have an answer for. If you don’t have one see if you can get one so that you can show me in Church law or tradition something that shows us how this type of corruption is guarded against by the Church. Obviously, the 1917 Code of Canon Law had in place did not prevent it . . . and it was all but erased in the new version: http://the-american-catholic.com/2018/08/11/the-elephant-in-the-sacristy/
So is there something in place to prevent it or not? Or are you going to tell me if they tried it they Holy Spirit would strike them dead or something. You’ll have to do better than that.
LikeLike
Laughable! Want an answer to the evil of corruption? Christ is the answer.
Judas sat down at the same table as our Blessed Lord at the Last Supper. He was known among the Apostles as a sinful man. He just didn’t get it and what he did was make sure Jesus got it, literally. Of him, Christ’s own words say it all: It were better for him, if that man had not been born. Mark 14:21(c).
Corruption has been among the Church even before its birth at Pentecost in the person of Judas. We’ve had problems within and from without ever since the Ascension. It isn’t supposed to be a bed of roses, but a crown of thorns. Big Headaches Scoop. Big ones! That’s the trial by fire that burns away the dross, the refiner’s fire that leaves all impurities ashes in the dust.
Jesus was very aware of the corrupt heart and mind of Judas and His words to us tell us that Hell awaited him and his suffering there would be very great, so great indeed that it would be better for Judas had he never been born. That’s about as horrible a fate as there can be. And that is what awaits all those who work against the Church and sit with us in Church at the Holy Banquet and receive their just condemnation as they partake of the Eucharist as if they are worthy.
Nothing escapes the Judgments of our God, nothing. Those who work against Christ and His mystical body. the Church will be justly condemned unless they repent of their evil works before they die.
Like I said of Ms. Dodd, by her fruits you will know her true master. It wasn’t Jesus. BTW, not everyone who testifies before the Senate is telling the truth and sometimes even the Senators themselves aren’t exactly seeking the truth either. Why I’d even bet some of the Senators might be telling a few lies themselves. Hello? Because someone gave testimony before a committee doesn’t mean what they stated is true. Only a fool would believe that. Do you believe everyone who takes the stand in a court of law is telling 100% truth because they swore they would? Even if they believe what they say, it often is proven they are wrong. That’s what giving testimony is all about: trying to find out the truth. Ms. Dodd was simply carrying out a plot of her own and her Communist pals were filled with glee. So what if a few of these liars and haters of the Church agreed with her fantasy. It only proves they were all plotting against the Church and took advantage of her antics before the cameras, etc.
Besides that, who cares? We have enemies, some human some supernatural in nature. It’s part of the plan. Remeber our enemies that we were told by our Blessed Lord we’d have to fight against to follow Him, you know the three – the world, the flesh and the devil. You can’t get out of it. If you follow Him, you will have trouble with all 3, but John 16:33 tells us this: “These things I have spoken to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you shall have distress: but have confidence, I have overcome the world.” Nuff said. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
I see you dodge the question.
1. The Code of Canon Law states that the intention of the cleric must be to do what the Church intends to do.
2. Why is that there if nobody has ever or will ever invalidate the sacraments?
3. Would a man who wasn’t baptized but forged the documents be validly ordained?
4. Would a person who is an apostate (not a heretic) be able to have the intentions of the Church?
The question is sound but you still are too proud to think you don’t have an answer. I’ve put it to a priest and a deacon at this point and my wife who has a degree in theology from Ave Maria University and nobody yet has an answer.
But they did not try to deflect the legitimacy of the question as you do. That is the cowards way out.
LikeLike
BTW read this: https://www.nationalreview.com/2007/01/moscows-assault-vatican-ion-mihai-pacepa/
The National Review is not known for passing about fake news. You can accept this or deny it but there are many others who have reported it as well.
Note that in the article it says that some of the priests were now bishops. So the question I ask is germane to the known facts.
LikeLike
LikeLike
I once asked this question to good brother Chalcedon. Does it matter if the priest is a raging homosexual child molester as to the validity of the things he confers on his subjects. He said nomatter how desperately wicked the priest is , what ever things he performs or grants to the faithful are valid. Its the office the priest holds that does the magic or what ever it is you guys think the priest does for you. Of couse I don’t fall for any of that hocus pocus. The Lord is my Shepherd.
LikeLike
He is right if the priest’s intentions are to do what the Church intends. But if not, then his answer is not clear.
LikeLike
So, a logical follow up to your proviso of the intent of the priest……How do you know the priests intentions? If he doesn’t tell you,you don t know. OK, lets say that a priests intentions were not the intentions of the church, and he only wanted to destroy the church, as some have mentioned. But the sacrament or whammy or what ever you needed was essential to your salvation….then you die without this, uh, grace or what ever it was you needed.
Now that I think about it, I saw that either you or good sister ginny said that god honors it if the recipient takes it in good faith.
Sheesh….the next time someone tells me that the CC isn’t a legalist works religion….I swear im gonna punch him in the nose.
LikeLike
Bozo, it is wise to presume good will. The false witness against the Priesthood is the real problem. Undermining the faith of others in their priests and their sacraments. Scoop is basing his “confusion” upon a Communist’s false claims. He’s taking her works against the Church a few steps further. Gee whiz kiddies!!!! Like because he said it is true we’re to believe that many of our priests aren’t even priests at all and all their sacraments are faked! Oh dear! Is my Baptism even real? This is no small slander. It is a bold-faced attack upon my Church and it is meant to undermine the innocent trust of others in their Church. Scoop is a supporter of SSPX and borderline Sedevacantist. He does not work to build up the Body of Christ, the Church but to destroy her. I’ve asked a good question he will continue to evade: why align yourself with an infamous Communist infiltrator who worked against the Church of Christ in our midst and what does that make you if you do? It ain’t rocket science. 1 + 1 = 2. Lie down with dogs get up with fleas. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
I’m not adept enough to answer Scoop, however, I just read this in the youth Catechism preparing for the ministry after summer:
“If a a sacrament is administered by someone who is unworthy, does it fail to have its effect?”
“No. The sacraments are effective on the basis of the sacramental action that carried out ‘ex opere operato’”
Of course, the above is if I’m reference of mortal sin or state of the soul of the priest. So, does it apply to your questions? I’m not for certain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, that is something most know as well: that a priest in mortal sin with the right intention has valid sacraments.
I’m interested as to what happens when the priest or bishop withholds the intention of the sacrament in question to be what the Church intends for it to be.
It is a puzzle.
LikeLike
I suppose there can just be a development of ex opere operato then is no problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t have any earthly idea. I can’t get a definitive answer for anyone I’ve spoken to about it. So I guess it has to remain a murky issue without Church teaching to rely on. For it seems Canon Law is clear on this and yet to rely on it to the letter seems to admit to the introduction of a complete corruption like leaven in bread.
LikeLike
The other problem (Scenario II) with ex opera operato is the one where a malicious person forges a Baptismal certificate and joins a seminary and is ordained without any intention other than that which is malicious to the Church. A Trojan Horse, so to speak. For if that is true, anyone who does the action properly leaves the sacrament valid: a woman, a layperson etc. Many little problems arise unless there actually is a solution that I haven’t yet run across.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very few asks these questions. I think in many respects, locally, there’s not much concern. For one, the head pastor at my parish is from a town an hour away. Our Bishop was ordained by Cardinal George. I suppose I’d have to look to who ordained these guys but I think your concern would be more prominent in ecclesial leadership near Rome. Or if in the United States in larger diocese l.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think 3 bishops co-consecrate new bishops to minimize such a scenario. As for the individual sacraments, my understanding is that if a Catholic receives an invalid sacrament by a priest in good faith and obviously was unaware, God’s won’t withhold grace on account of a technicality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think that is right Steve although some diocese’s and circumstances won’t allow that. But it is a good point and probably done for the same reason that I am asking about it.
That is true if the technicality isn’t a requirement for a valid Sacrament (matter, form and intent). Otherwise if we were served tacos and beers we could say that God provides the Grace to us even though the matter was invalid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
validity of sacraments that all three of the conditions (matter, form and intention) must exist and it is obvious that the right intention is not present.
Jesus spoke of little else.
LikeLike
Scoop you have to take a look at this thread. I think this is what irks me the most about Orthodoxy is that just makeup history and when presented with sources that say otherwise they close their eyes and ears and keep repeating.
LikeLike
I enjoyed reading your debate on that thread. I have a lot of respect for Orthodoxy, but one thing that irks me to no end is the anti-western polemics one so easily encounters among them. I very well could be mistaken on this, but I suspect the Coptic Orthodox are one of the few apostolic churches who don’t have the blood of persecution on their hands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I could sort of see his argument if part of Orthodoxy wasn’t the Russian Orthodox Church. Plus, I just don’t understand how he can equate war and battles as not promulgating forced conversions. More or less that’s how it also happened in the West. If it was more “systematic” historical research has shown that like the Franciscans in the American West, conversion was through soft coercion of extra benefits.
But other than that, I am with you, I have a lot of respect of the spirituality of Orthodoxy but my encounter with their view of historicism is found wanting especially when I pretty much said don’t take my word for it, here are expert historians published at university presses which assure peer reviews.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah I get the impression the Russian Orthodox Church is the militaristic arm of Orthodoxy, if such a thing could be said. Historical revisionism aside, I think the author made a valid point about how we sometimes overstate the cultural diversity of Catholicism as evidence for the veracity of our church’s claim to be the one true church. I think there’s much to be said for our global reach and cultural diversity, but I can imagine that argument becoming more moot, and therefore not something we should emphasize too heavily, as Orthodoxy spreads and slowly becomes more international and inculturated around the world.
LikeLike
That was amusing. 🙂
LikeLike
Read my most recent responses him just now. I know you’ll agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You need to go back to my post on validity of sacraments by infiltrators in the Church and read the comments of Ginny and her final calumny of myself for having the audacity to even raise the question.
LikeLike
Scoop just so you know how the Church feels about certain crimes against her committed with the intention to disturb the faith of her members, such as this article intends, here is the exact Canon under which the proper authorities have every right to charge you: “Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.”
Now, I don’t know how far you’re willing to go should your local Chancery issue a warning regarding your activities here, its called a Montium, but if they did, they’d be on solid grounds IMHO. Since you decided to join the Church, you became subject to her governance and bound to keep her rules. You may not have been aware of the gravity of the actual crimes against the Church you are committing by attempting to disturb the faith some have in their priests and sacraments, but the fact that you’ve claimed to have looked over Canon Law already for your “answer,” I’m not so certain ignorance of the offense could be your defense.
It is clear from this short essay and subsequent discussion, that you do intend to excite contempt against the Church, her members, her priests, etc. in regard to her priests and her sacrament’s validity. This is injurious to good morals as well. It is possible for you to be charged.
Nuff said. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
So once again you jump to conclusions that you cannot in any way support with fact. Show me where I have exhibited the following; blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church.
So you think that asking a simple question regarding Canon Law does these things. The Church does not fear questions, Ginny. They should provide answers to any question that it is presented. It may shake your faith but it doesn’t shake mine, my wife, my pastor or my Deacon. It is simply a question. And it is a question that they have no answer for at this time. I’m respectfully asking for someone who knows (obviously not you) to shed some light on how the Church can assure that those who infiltrate the Church are not doing damage to the Sacraments and the Faith. Its a simple question.
You used to love Voris . . . is he guilty as well. Is National Review guilty of some crime against the Church for simply stating the facts that they have gathered on this infiltration: I can give many examples. Would you like a link to a story at the Catholic News Agency or perhaps one from Reuters. I can go on and on. This has been widely reported. But it makes no difference.
There must be a reason for the Church to require proper intention otherwise, if all intentions are meaningless and there is no way to invalidate a sacrament why did the Church see fit to insist that it must be in keeping with the intentions of the Church?
You simply have run out of ways to defend something that isn’t being attacked. You do not have an answer and so you attack the question and the questioner. Since when is asking a question a serious crime? You way in over your head . . . and you are making the Church look as foolish as you do at this moment. The Church will not answer this question as you have . . . by attacking the question but will give an answer should I find the right person that can do this. I fully expect that these is some way this puzzling phenomenon can be addressed and in a way that gives the faithful confidence that evil men cannot do great harm to the Church or to its Sacraments.
So we will end this here. You are ignorant of the answer but won’t admit it and therefore all of this is simply another monologue of haw Ginny is head and shoulders above any com mention on things Catholic. You have now dismissed the testimony of Sheen, Hildebrand, un-American activities committee, and the news reporting of a major news organization that is known for its accuracy in reporting. So excuse my while I smile at your flimsy attempt to charge me with some non-existent crime against the Church. That is far worse than a conspiracy theory it is just plain calumny. And I would appreciate no hearing any more from you unless you have something of interest to say regarding the answer to a question that must have been somewhat on the mind of Hildebrand at the time when he heard of this infiltration. I am sure that internal to the Vatican this question has emerged. I cannot be the first to have asked it. In fact I know I am not for the question was brought out in a piece I read about a month ago and it has me stumped. I can’t answer. You can’t answer . . . so I put in the public for someone who might know will be able to answer. I think we’re finished here.
LikeLike
Ginny, your explanation is the same one used against Galileo and more recently the four Cardinals who wanted Bergoglio to answer the dubia. The same is now going on with the disgraced ex-cardinal McCarrick. Do we believe all of those who lived with and around him for 40 years who didn’t know anything? Or do we have the courage to ask questions?
LikeLike
UPDATE: since nobody could give me the answer to the question of the post, I found the answer in the most unlikely of sources; the SSPX. I thank them for posting this theological explanation which allays my fears and those of other serious Catholics.
You can read it here: http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/validity_of_holy_orders.htm
LikeLike
Pingback: UPDATE: I found an answer to my question regarding the intention of an apostate cleric and the validity of the Sacraments that they perform. | All Along the Watchtower
Pingback: UPDATE: I found an answer to my question regarding the intention of an apostate cleric and the validity of the Sacraments that they perform. - News for Catholics