Sunday, November 30, 2014

The Doctrine of Intention Examined

The Duty Of Evangelical Christianity.

It is essential that every protestant evangelical who represents the Gospel cannot afford to give any apathy with regards to what Rome represents with regards to its dogma’s, sacraments, interpretative teachings and doctrines in many area’s because it sets to undermine the authority of scripture that comes from God and replacing this with man’s authority even if what Rome teaches even if it is very close to scripture itself containing much error and has leavened its entire system with hypocrisy, it exults tradition in many practical ways in placing its own supremacy over the word of God.

Rome claims infallibility that is mediatorial and imperialistic it represents a theocracy and has its own government that carries a whole lot of implications with regards to faith and salvation, none of its claims can ever be founded or gain any scriptural support with regards to its various teachings, especially when it comes to area’s like the priesthood of its clergy in this you have the Mass to offer Christ as a sacrifice for the absolution of sins, this means that Rome itself is a fundamental and foundational rejection of Jesus Christ who is our only redeemer and upon close examination of the sacraments go on to nullify the Grace of God and Rome forces itself onto the will of the people who Rome is supposed to be responsible for taking a powerful hold over many people’s lives.

It has been the work of those men before me whom have spent their lives in investigating the claims made by Rome for our own benefit often resulting in their own sacrifice throughout history because they rejected even as much as the idolatry committed that the average catholic apologist is so keen to justify and defend.

Studying Rome’s doctrine of justification shows they have separated themselves from the New Testament scriptures and brings with it that human effort is needed for God to accept any sinner this amounts to departing from any truth of the scriptures themselves and would rather demand elegance from the people to the Roman See.

What is the Duty of the Protestant Evangelical Church ?

(Book: Roman Dogma And Scriptural Truth P222) The first duty of Protestants, as it seems to me, is TO AWAKE FROM APATHY, WHICH SO WIDELY PREVAILS AMONG THEM, TO THE PERIL OF ROMISH AGRESSION. Let us frankly acknowledge the fact that there exists a deplorable amount of indifference to this peril in our protestant churches today. It is a menace, however, which is no imaginary danger, existing only in the fears and hatreds of sectarian zeal, but a formidable reality. The conquest of England and Scotland for the Pope is, let me repeat, one of the dearest aims of the Roman Church, an aim to which her energies have been solemnly dedicated for over sixty years, and which is being prosecuted with the most intense devotion and inspired by special liturgical services.

In May 1869 the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Britain ordered that public as well as private prayers and intercessions should be offered up constantly to God for the conversion of England, and that the exposition and benediction if the blessed sacrament on the second Sunday of every month should be for this intention.



It for the reasons mentioned above that this should remain the duty of every evangelical to make sure that the Yoke of Rome remains broken our constant war is not against Catholics but the system that has so many under the yoke of Rome, this is the system that we continue to war against because of Rome’s direct assault and its testimony against the scriptures themselves, we must teach and train our youth in guarding them as Rome has done with their youth against so called contamination from the separated brethren and its influences, it duty of the non-Catholic evangelical church to give the world our example of scriptural living as at the moment the world is more focused on what Rome does, demonstrating why Rome is at fault and encouraging people to look to the scriptural Gospel as the only power of God that leads to salvation and not one that claims the authority of Tradition etc.

https://archive.org/stream/cihm_72104#page/n5/mode/2up



What is the Doctrine of Intention?

The doctrine of intention is one of the most important subjects in Roman Catholicism, one document states it is that the priest in performing his sacred duties should have the intention in doing what the Church has ordered. That is, that he should have in his mind fixed upon the particular work in which he is engaged, considering the serious character of the sacraments and discharging his office with the due solemnity. It is, that he is not to imagine himself simply performing an outward act, but exercising a sacred function for the spiritual benefit of the recipient, and consequently that he should with all sincerity really intend to do everything that is required.


These objects may be considered very excellent and be regarded as evidence of the anxiety of the Church to promote the spiritual welfare of her children; this doctrine was referred to and favourably considered in the Council of Constance held in 1415, and also in the Council of Florence, A.D., 1438 but was more definitely decided and settled as a decree of the Church in the Council of Trent which commenced in 1545.

The Cannon Law was given by the Council of Trent in this regard that said CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.


This doctrine embraces all the seven sacraments without the required intention on part of the priests each one is null and void and the recipients receive none of the spiritual benefits.


Is the Doctrine of Intention Biblical?

(Book: Our Brief Against Rome p118)

This Doctrine of ‘Intention’ is derived from the words in Canon XI. Of the seventh session of the Council of Trent, which concerned the due efficacy of the Sacraments If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.  But the 12th Canon which follows teaches that ministers, even in mortal sin, provided they observe all things essential to a Sacrament, do really and truly confer the Sacrament.

In fact there is the greatest possible confusion of thought and contradiction of language among Roman writers concerning this doctrine of intention. Some follow the learned Cardinal Bellarmine, who says: ‘No one can be certain, with the certainty of faith, that he receives a true Sacrament, because the Sacrament cannot be valid without the intention of the minister, and no man can see another’s intention.’

If this be the case, no priest can be sure that he is a priest, not even the Pope himself. No one can be sure of absolution at the confessional, or that the requiem mass offered for the repose of a soul is genuine, or indeed that any mass whatever has any value; for a true consecration can, according to the Roman theory, only be effected by a rightly ordained priest.

Other Roman writers, as in the Catholic Dictionary, minimise the doctrine, and reduce it to almost nothing. Thus a Roman writer of authority says: ‘The priest need not intend to produce the effect of the Sacrament or to perform the rite of the Church as a Sacrament, or to do what the Catholic and Roman Church does; it is enough that he intends in some general way to do what the Church does, whatever his notion about the Church, the Sacrament, its effect and object may be.’

Others again say that ‘the serious performance of the exterior rite is all that is required.’



The whole matter is at present in the greatest uncertainty. Yet the infallible voice of the Pope will not speak Ex Cathedra (pronouncements of the pope that are considered infallible), and remove the painful confusion which no prevails. The reason for this may be found in the fact that the Doctrine of Intention places a convenient weapon in the hands of the priesthood. Under it the laity must remain for ever in a state of dependence upon their clergy.

A question was asked in the Book Modern Romanism examined P298

Is it true that the Doctrine of Intention taught by the Church of Rome has at any time invaded the sacraments and orders as administered by that Church?

It is not difficult to know why the Church invented the doctrine, nor has the “living voice” determined what degree of intention is required in her Sacraments. Some think it was adopted as a counterpoise to the doctrine of the ex opera operato, i.e. sacramental efficacy “through the mere act performed,” and so to secure a certain amount of faith and reality on the part of all concerned in the use and administration of the sacraments. The language of the 11th canon (Sess. Vii. Council of Trent) is very elastic: “If any one saith that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required for the intention of at least doing in what the Church does, let him be anathema.”

Its proposal was strongly opposed by the Bishop of Minori, who was at present at the Council: “The bishop thought they ought to consider what grief of mind it would occasion a father of tender feeling towards a dying son, if it occurred to him to doubt the intention of the priest who was baptizing his child,” setting forth also the effect of a baptism without intention as invalidating the confirmation, communion, and ordination of the child if he should become a man, a priest, and a bishop, with all rites which such a bishop might perform. This is more than a possible result, considering the multitude of priests and bishops, and the skeptical and immoral characters which have been numbered amongst them. Hence, Roman theologians have given the dogma very different interpretations, some maintaining a great reality in the doctrine, and others reducing it to a nonentity. Thus some have maintained that the intention to perform the external ceremony suffices, but Pope Alexander VIII. Condemned this opinion in 1680. This casts doubt of all absolution, which many theologians admit, but they are unable to rectify; and reply to the argument that it is contrary to Divine Justice that patient sinners or helpless infants should “be dammed through the malice of a priest,” Farraris can merely say “that they are damned for their sin, actual or original; God has duly provided the means for their salvation, and is not bound, even if He could, to prevent the malice of His minister.”

It is the Church of Rome that considers that an intention has to be on the part of the Priest to administer the sacrament whether it is according to tradition of the church this is necessary for the sacrament’s to be effective in this there is no distinction whether the intention is internal or external a minister has to be convinced in his own mind otherwise this so-called sacred act cannot be accomplished.

The problem with ritualism it removes the whole believe in the sufficiency of God’s Grace alone is enough to justify us through the blood of Christ that had been shed already and after this Christ sacrifice is not ever continuing, nothing we can ever do be it by the deed of penance can ever grant us God’s forgiveness because in this system forgiveness of temporal sins can never be assured, the bible says all sin is forgiven upon believing that Christ death on the cross alone is sufficient for salvation that we remember him by what he did on the cross by seeing what the bread and wine represents in memorial only.

It is biblical to say that any Roman Catholic who claims to love the Catholic Jesus and holds to believe in the official catholic teaching with regard to salvation the scriptures would testify that it would say that person has not received salvation as the official RCC position on the Gospel is contrary to scripture as a whole would invalidate any of Rome’s claims to Apostolic teaching.

The Bible teaches is it is only by Christ alone that saves and it is by his sacrifice alone that purifies us and makes us righteous and it is by faith alone we are made right with God, not in anything we do.

Miguel Hayworth

30/11/14     






(Book: Roman Dogma And Scriptural Truth P222)
The first duty of Protestants, as it seems to me, is TO AWAKE FROM APATHY, WHICH SO WIDELY PREVAILS AMONG THEM, TO THE PERIL OF ROMISH AGRESSION. Let us frankly acknowledge the fact that there exists a deplorable amount of indifference to this peril in our protestant churches today. It is a menace, however, which is no imaginary danger, existing only in the fears and hatreds of sectarian zeal, but a formidable reality. The conquest of England and Scotland for the Pope is, let me repeat, one of the dearest aims of the Roman Church, an aim to which here energies have been solemnly dedicated for over sixty years, and which is being prosecuted with the most intense devotion and inspired by special liturgical services.

In May 1869 the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Britain ordered that public as well as private prayers and intercessions should be offered up constantly to God for the conversion of England, and that the exposition and benediction if the blessed sacrament on the second Sunday of every month should be for this intention.

No comments: