The Road to the Sacraments is Paved With Right Intentions

 

Responding to my previous entry, a reader of this blog rightly asked--

Now I understand the importance of using the proper words, but I am wondering why the principle of right intention cannot apply to a situation like this? I mean, how many times do words of the eucharistic prayer get fumbled unintentionally...  Does that invalidate a Mass?

My interlocutor is correct:  "[H]ow many times do words of the [E]ucharistic prayer get fumbled intentionally..."?  At the back of his mind, I'm sure, he is thinking of the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul V, de Defectibus, where the saint decreed:

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament.  If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

This principle serves as a helpful analogy towards resolving my interlocutor's important question, because the sacramental intention serves as the third element in the 'triangulation' of conditions requisite for a valid sacrament:  form (or, the "sacramental word"), matter, as well as intention.  Pope Pius V points to a correct sacramental intention as a kind of 'fail-safe' in the event that the Words of Institution had words added or subtracted "which did not change the meaning" as effecting a valid sacrament.  In fact, he elaborates in the event of a genuine mistake in repeating the verba testamenti:

If the celebrant does not remember having said the usual words in the Consecration, he should not for that reason be worried.  If, however, he is sure that he omitted something necessary to the Sacrament, that is, the form of the Consecration or a part of it, he is to repeat the formula and continue from there. If he thinks it is very likely that he omitted something essential, he is to repeat the formula conditionally, though the condition need not be expressed. But if what he omitted is not necessary to the Sacrament, he is not to repeat anything; he should simply continue the Mass.

Four scenarios are laid down:  (1) If the celebrant cannot remember whether the verba testamenti was said, he oughta, like, chillax!  Or (2) if the celebrant is certain that something necessary was omitted, relax, repeat, and carry on.  Unless (3) the celebrant thinks that something indeed was omitted, he ought to repeat the Words conditionally.  Finally (4) if something nonessential was omitted (say, the "enim"), move on, bro.

If anything, Pope Pius V does not want us to wrapped around the axle about accidental mistakes in the sacramental celebration, as the first stipulation makes very clear:  "If the celebrant does not remember having said the usual words in the Consecration, he should not for that reason be worried," presumably because ill-remembering something likely means that the celebrant did not intend to do otherwise than what the Church intends, and such intentionality serves as a fail-safe to ensure validity.

Transposing the same principle to sacramental Baptism, If I were to  absent-mindedly say "We baptise you..." while I meant to say "I baptise you..." then a valid baptism would likely have taken place.  On the other hand, sacramental intention cannot be used as in lieu of prescribed sacramental words, principally because the sacramental words enshrines sacramental intentionality; in fact, St Thomas Aquinas explains that the sacramental words serves as a signification which dovetails the word with the sacraments repeated over sacramental matter (S.th., 3a, q. 64, art. 8).  Hence the Sacred Congregation explained in its accompanying "Doctrinal Note" to the Responsum:

In this light must be understood the Tridentine injunction concerning the necessity of the minister to at least have the intention to do that which the Church does.  The intention therefore cannot remain only at the interior level, with the risk of subjective distractions, but must be expressed in the exterior action constituted by the use of the matter and form of the Sacrament.  Such an action cannot but manifest the communion between that which the minister accomplishes in the celebration of each individual sacrament with that which the Church enacts in communion with the action of Christ himself:  It is therefore fundamental that the sacramental action may not be achieved in its own name, but in the person of Christ who acts in his Church, and in the name of the Church.

That being said, the 'triangulation' of sacramental word, matter, and intention must work as 'three out of three' and not, say, two or even one out of three:  Referencing matter, the intention is exteriorised by the sacramental word.  Mistakes in the recitation do not necessarily invalidate the sacramental confection in every case, but this does not thereby warrant changing the sacramental word, because this would make the word and intention desynchronous with each other, in which case the very purpose of words would be defeated (cf B. Lonergan, Verbum:  Word and Idea in Aquinas [Toronto:  University of Toronto Press, 1997]).

Therefore, meaning the sense of the words, "We baptise you..." with its concomitant sense of assuming the body of the Church (rather than Christ) serves as Capital Grace thus disrupts the sacramental intention, since the "I" of the correct formula has Christ as Head of the Church and as Capital Grace and as the Actant of the sacramental celebration has been replaced with erroneous theology.  If, on the other hand, I'm celebrating a baptism and my mind wanders for a bit to Fr Hood's unfortunate story, and for that I accidentally say "We baptise you..." while meaning to say "I baptise you" and meaning to express the Church's faith in Christ and not the Church as the invisible Presider of the celebration, then the sacrament is likely to be valid.  That, I think, is the scenario that my interlocutor has in mind, in which case he is correct.

And thus the exception, they say, proves the rule.