Michelina said:
No, it does not. The Minister of the Sacrament places a contrary intention, ergo the child is not baptized. If he were a person of no faith at all, the sacrament would be valid if the baptizer simply wanted to do 'whatever it is the Church does' (quod facit ecclesia). But a contrary intention invalidates. This is the difference between non-belief and disbelief. Non-belief does not invalidate, so long as the matter and form are correctly conjoined.
The Catholic Church has never accepted all non-Catholic Baptisms. Generally, we have regarded the baptisms of some Churches as valid and those of other Churches as not valid, depending on the intention of the Minister (I use 'Minister' in the Catholic sense) and other factors. But today, there is less homogeneity within churches and nothing should be assumed.
Certainly with the description quoted above, the 'baptism' suffers from 'defectum intentionis', a defect of intention.
hi Michelina
This is what I was trying to touch on in my post . . but I have a different understanding than you seem to do above . .
My understanding is that for the sacrament to be invalid, it has to be actually, actively and consciously intended not to be a sacrament . . it requires that the person know it is supposed to be a sacrament, but intends for it not to be a sacrament . . intends for the person not to be forgiven their sins, or saved . . then that invlaidates the baptism . .
The intention has to be a purposeful intention, rather than a wrong understanding . . .
One is wrong understanding . .the other is actively intending something not to take place . .
The same with marraige . . if 2 baptized persons get married . . they have conferred the sacrament of marriage upon each other regardless of their understanding of the sacrament . . but it is invalidated if one purposefully intends for it not to be a sacrament . .
It doesn't matter who marries them, or what their intention is . . .
In the early Church, when catachuments were imprisoned before they could be baptized; just before they were put to death, they could request a pagan to baptize them . . .
Just becaue someone doesn't understand what baptism really is, that does not invalidate baptism . . but if someone does understand, and intends for it forgiveness of sins to not be given, then it is invalid . .
The rule that is used, that I am aware of, is if it is done in the trinitarian formula . . .
I guess, from what I have read, is that if people who baptize infants do not understand that baptism washes away sins and is the new birth (even if they know "others" think baptism does this), and deny that it does this out of ignorance, the test as to intent would be, if they did understand that it really did wash away sin, and was the new birth, and then they would intend it to be the full scrament that it is, then there is an absence of intent for it not to be sacramental . . and so would be valid . . .
But if they would still intend for it not to be sacrametal even if they did really understand what it is and what it confers, then that baptism would be invalid . . there would then be malice involved to actually deny the sacrament . . but that is not the same as ignorance . .
Do you believe this is wrong?
Peace in Him!
Wouldn't there be some garlic involved there, too!!
