Defective Intent
Dr dear Dr: Is there a problem caused by defective intent in any canonical ceremony or even in the Eucharistic celebration for instance, say if the words of consecration are not intended correctly as written and as intended in their meaning by the legislator of the new covenant in the Cenacle in Jerusalem?
Fine. A noble question. Defective intent would not ordinarily be a big problem where there are objective texts guiding official meaning in any canonical celebration, though because intent is important say for wills and testaments and for weddings for example, since as Christ and the emperor Augustus defined it, intent is critical for the consent of the wedding pact, and as Justinian defined it too, consent and intent is important for wills and testaments, so too defective intent can become an issue, and that is why there is a huge annulment industry built up by the catholic equivalent of Doctors Commons a hundred years later.
Defective intent is critically and britically important where the validity or even just legitimacy of a major one of the 7 big sacraments is compromised in the transmission or generation phase. So yes it can be a problem for the unwary or the blind leading the blind, as the Master might have put it so ably in the distant past. Especially in the Eucharist. And thuswise as Aquinas teaches it, the intent to do what the Church intends by say reciting the “Statement of Intent” on the sacristy and vestry wall about intending to offer the Roman Mass of the Christian Way with an able and alert mind, this formula is found in the back of the Roman Missal or St Luke’s Missal, and is quite critical for the effective transmission of the Eucharistic mystery.
Spiritual realities of the New Covenant in this new era, indicated by the use of the terms Novus Ordo, have to be consciously intended by a conscious subject and accurately so - the general meaning of the consecration words must be communicated, commanded, carried forth. Also, it is why the rubrical science people like to point out that when a priest celebrates the Roman Mass, legitimately and validly, he must do so with a clear and present mind, like a clear and present danger to put it in Hollywood terms, because the rubrical laws of the Eucharist expressly state that the priest must enuntiate in the Novus Ordo the words of Consecration - clare et distincte - clearly and distinctly, these are not to be mumbled in the Novus Ordo, as used to occur in the old rite of the Extraordinary Form until the missal was reformed by those brave and sagacious Dominicans, experts on Aquinas. Clearly - they must be heard, the meaning must be intended each time, no mistakes, and if so, if there is a substantive mistake that compromises the objective general overall meaning of the ritual, the whole specific formula of Consecration must be repeated, and distinctly, the words given their due weight.
But also the priest must INTEND what the Consecrating Messiah intended when he first produced those sacred words, and he must be in a conscious and not say drunken state when celebrating those mysteries and intending those sacred words. So the best way of guaranteeing intent is to put on the mind of Christ and to utter those powerful words of the Moadib after assuming the meaning in the mind of the Christ at his Final Passover - that guarantees intent.
Automatic formularies, without intent, as Shakespeare once said, up to heaven do not go. Experts on Aquinas would recognise these sentiments of general strictness. They are not to be gainsaid. Only adopting the mind of Christ can guarantee form and so avoid defective intent. Amen to that.