Can priests validly consecrate the Elements outside of Mass?

[FrDavid96]

I remember I once asked an FSSP priest why it is that faculties are required for a priest to validly absolve, yet any priest can, according to the Latin tradition, validly confect the Eucharist - even if he is suspended from ministry, excommunicated, doesn’t follow the proper ritual, etc. etc. The priest responded that the celebration of the Eucharist is fundamentally intrinsic to the very being of a priest…it is part of what he is, ontologically, by virtue of his ordination. As a priest he can confect the Eucharist just as surely as I, as a man, can think or speak or feel. In many contexts a priest doing so could be gravely wrong, a horrible affront to the Lord, but by Christ’s will he retains the power to do so. Is this what you’re getting at Father?
I share the same struggles that Malphono does, as outlined in my earlier post, but perhaps this helps shed some light on the traditional Latin understanding of the matter.

It’s different. Confession is a different topic, and the reasons are very different.

It’s what I keep repeating about “intention.”

When the Church says that the priest must have the “intention to consecrate” that means what the Church intends it to mean in that context. It means that the priest “wants” to consecrate at that moment. Using the proper ritual (ie following the Missal) is important but it’s not a part of that requirement to have intent—not strictly speaking.

Intent is one thing. Form (using the right words) is something different.
I can try to explain the words, but that’s as far as I can go. I can’t change the meaning of the words.

Following the Missal (and saying a complete Mass) just does not come under the heading of “intent.” It comes under the heading of “form.” And when it comes to the form, all that’s required is the minimum.

Remember, I’m not saying it’s “right.” I’m merely saying that it’s possible. And it’s not just me saying it—I’m simply repeating what the Church has been saying for centuries.

The difference between East and West is not so much one of theology (on this topic). An Eastern priest would agree that a priest actually could consecrate outside of the context of the Divine Liturgy, but would probably respond by saying that the idea that any priest actually would do such a thing is unthinkable.

 

[Brendan]

. Brendan suggested that a priest muttering “this is my body” over bread at a grocery store could validly confect the Eucharist, but I would think such a priest would be 1) mentally ill to attempt such a thing and 2) intending to do something completely alien to the mind of the Church. Yes, Trent defined that “this is my body” and “this is my blood” are the necessary words, the necessary form, but isn’t that whole definition dependent upon the context of the holy sacrifice of the mass? .

Here is my actual quote - “Techically, it would be possible for a priest to stand in bread aisle of a grocery store and recite the Eucharistic Prayer with the intent of confecting all valid matter to the Eucharist.”

If you notice, I also specifically mentioned that Intent was required, this goes back to Fr. David’s excellent point about bread at the dinner table, a priest has to have the specific intent of confecting the Eucharist. It would not simply be a matter of the priest muttering the words, but if the priest actually INTENDED to consecrate the bread aisle in a grocery store, it would actually happen.

Also, I included the full Eucharist Prayer in my example. While Trent defined that that words of Institution were a requirement for any valid Eucharistic Prayer, there is some theological discussion on if it would be a violation of Form to not use a validly promulgated Eucharistic Prayer.

 

[PacoG]

It’s different. Confession is a different topic, and the reasons are very different.

It’s what I keep repeating about “intention.”

When the Church says that the priest must have the “intention to consecrate” that means what the Church intends it to mean in that context. It means that the priest “wants” to consecrate at that moment. Using the proper ritual (ie following the Missal) is important but it’s not a part of that requirement to have intent—not strictly speaking.

Intent is one thing. Form (using the right words) is something different.
I can try to explain the words, but that’s as far as I can go. I can’t change the meaning of the words.

Following the Missal (and saying a complete Mass) just does not come under the heading of “intent.” It comes under the heading of “form.” And when it comes to the form, all that’s required is the minimum.
.

As a criminal defense attorney, I must be one of the few people who understand you, Father.

An offense generally has four constituent elements: the actus reus (the act), voluntariness, the mens reas and specific intent.

For example: burglary is committed when one intentionally or knowingly enters the habitation of another without the consent of the owner and with the intent to commit theft or another felony. So there are four elements to the offense: that you enter my house; that you enter my house voluntarily; that you enter my house intentionally or knowingly (aka general intent); and that you enter my house with the intent to steal something or commit some other felony (specific intent).

So like if you entered my house by mistake thinking it was the home of your friend who gave you an open invitation to go to his house anytime, no offense has been proven because general intent is missing. If you entered my house with the intent of watching television and reading my books, the specific intent is missing and you haven’t committed burglary (maybe trespass).

The point of this post is wow. It is really interesting how Common Law concepts evolved from Ecclesiastical concepts. Our text books in law school always said that but they never gave examples from the ecclesial side of the equation.

 

[FrDavid96]

As a criminal defense attorney, I must be one of the few people who understand you, Father.

An offense generally has four constituent elements: the actus reus (the act), voluntariness, the mens reas and specific intent.

For example: burglary is committed when one intentionally or knowingly enters the habitation of another without the consent of the owner and with the intent to commit theft or another felony. So there are four elements to the offense: that you enter my house; that you enter my house voluntarily; that you enter my house intentionally or knowingly (aka general intent); and that you enter my house with the intent to steal something or commit some other felony (specific intent).

So like if you entered my house by mistake thinking it was the home of your friend who gave you an open invitation to go to his house anytime, no offense has been proven because general intent is missing. If you entered my house with the intent of watching television and reading my books, the specific intent is missing and you haven’t committed burglary (maybe trespass).

The point of this post is wow. It is really interesting how Common Law concepts evolved from Ecclesiastical concepts. Our text books in law school always said that but they never gave examples from the ecclesial side of the equation.

It’s a vocabulary thing. The Church uses certain words and phrases in very unique ways (much like the legal system) that do not always correspond to our everyday use, and can even vary within that Church usage.

When it comes to a Sacrament, “the intention to do as the Church does” has a very specific meaning—one that does not apply anywhere else.

Even though we might use the phrase “intend to do as the Church does” in some different context, such as an intent to use the correct page in the Missal, but accidentally open it to the wrong one, the matter of “intent” is an issue, but it’s a completely different issue than when we use that phrase in the context of asking whether or not a (attempted) sacrament is valid.

Back to your post about the legal system, yes indeed, much of our civil law is based on ecclesiastical laws, especially that which comes from the English heritage (post-Norman invasion). We still have some vestiges of Germanic tribal law as well. A lot of our legal precedents come from the Code of Justinian which combined Church and civil law (which had been Roman practice from the time of Romulus and Remus). That’s why businesses are closed on Sundays (until recently). Much of our legal heritage and the principles for interpreting laws are based on St. Thomas Aquinas! Law schools don’t always like to teach that. The philosophy of St. Thomas, and the principles he articulated for interpreting laws actually have a huge influence on our current system.

 

[petronus]

Personally, I tend to think it wouldn’t be “valid” (to use Western terminology). In addition to matter and form, there is also the matter of intention, that is, the priest must intend what the Church intends. In this circumstance, the Church has spoken clearly that such action is absolutely forbidden even in the case of “necessity” and ergo, it seems to me that makes the Church’s intent clear.

FrDavid96, please correct me if I’m wrong.

I do not think you are wrong .

Several years ago I was at the Eucharist on Easter Morning .

None but the priest was able to receive Communion .

Why ? He could not unlock the tabernacle .

He was a visiting priest , and when the parish priest came on the scene he could not unlock the tabernacle .

He apologised , and the people left the church without receiving Communion on this of all days .

This tells me that a priest cannot consecrate the bread outside of the full celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist . To say otherwise is to have a very strange understanding of what the Eucharist is .

 

[Heliotropium]

As a criminal defense attorney, I must be one of the few people who understand you, Father.

An offense generally has four constituent elements: the actus reus (the act), voluntariness, the mens reas and specific intent.

For example: burglary is committed when one intentionally or knowingly enters the habitation of another without the consent of the owner and with the intent to commit theft or another felony. So there are four elements to the offense: that you enter my house; that you enter my house voluntarily; that you enter my house intentionally or knowingly (aka general intent); and that you enter my house with the intent to steal something or commit some other felony (specific intent).

So like if you entered my house by mistake thinking it was the home of your friend who gave you an open invitation to go to his house anytime, no offense has been proven because general intent is missing. If you entered my house with the intent of watching television and reading my books, the specific intent is missing and you haven’t committed burglary (maybe trespass).

The point of this post is wow. It is really interesting how Common Law concepts evolved from Ecclesiastical concepts. Our text books in law school always said that but they never gave examples from the ecclesial side of the equation.

To be honest it shouldn’t really have to take an attorney to understand Fr. David. It is common sense that the law cannot forbid something that is impossible. The very existence of the law shows that the priest can do this even though it is outside of the Church’s intent. As Fr. also said, just because the priest can, doesn’t mean he should.

 

[SummitJim]

Necessary in China when priests are being hunted.

Necessary in the caves of Ireland when the…persecutors were following groups of Catholics who went for walks to caves in shifts, three or for people at a time.

Necessary in POW and concentration camps.

I can’t think of more…

My immediate thought was to say, “Ask a military chaplain for an example.”

 

[ProVobis]

Necessary in China when priests are being hunted.

Necessary in the caves of Ireland when the…persecutors were following groups of Catholics who went for walks to caves in shifts, three or for people at a time.

Necessary in POW and concentration camps.

I can’t think of more…

I would think in those situations, a priest would be more sought out for confession rather than consecration. But that’s my opinion.

 

[FrDavid96]

My immediate thought was to say, “Ask a military chaplain for an example.”

No. Not even in a military situation.

 

[FrDavid96]

Dear friends,

This topic isn’t about how people “feel” or what they think either should or should not be the answer to the OPs question.

The Church has dealt with this issue for literally centuries. The question itself is considered answered and the matter settled. Yes, it is possible for a priest to consecrate outside of the context of a full Mass. It is strictly forbidden, no matter what the circumstances. No priest can ever present any excuse for doing this. The fact is though, that the Church clearly says that it is possible.

If someone asks, or would like more information, I can try to provide more information or to clarify something. But no amount of clarification can change that the answer to the OPs question comes from the Church, and that answer is “yes” with a further qualification of “do not ever do this.”

 

[Basilian]

Coming from a more holistic Eastern perspective, I find this topic rather amusing…

For us, the holy Eucharist is a single act: Last Supper via participation in the divine liturgy.

For a priest to stand in a grocery store and start demanding that God become present in the French-bread loaf is absolutely ridiculous. Jesus Christ “obeys” the word and institution of the priest in some sense at the Liturgy, but to think He is bound to enter some sliced bread in a grocery aisle because a priest said the Anaphora is just magic.

This is why I am not a Latin at heart… and thank God for diversity of theology.

 

[Aramis]

Someone with greater knowledge may correct me, but I’d say NO. Validly consecrating the elements is Mass. If the elements are validly consecrated (even without an altar, in the middle of the desert) then Mass was said. Any time the elements are consecrated validly, a Mass has been said. Therefore, no a priest can no more consecrate the Eucharist outside of Mass than he can draw a triangular circle. It’s a contradiction.

The minimum requirements are correct intent, valid ordination, the institution narrative, the consecration prayer, and valid matter (bread of wheat and wine of grape). Those, in combination, fundamentally are the core of a Eucharistic Celebration - including the Roman Mass.

Licity requires using a text provided by the Church, the full prayers of worship and thanksgiving, correct location, permission of the bishop, the correct matter (bread of only wheat, wine of only grape), and at least one of the faithful.

There are good reasons for a consecration without what is needed for licity - but they involve situations that are well outside the norms. Priests in oppressive regimes’ prisons, priests on crashed airliners or sealiners.

 

[Brigid34]

It’s different. Confession is a different topic, and the reasons are very different.

It’s what I keep repeating about “intention.”

When the Church says that the priest must have the “intention to consecrate” that means what the Church intends it to mean in that context. It means that the priest “wants” to consecrate at that moment. Using the proper ritual (ie following the Missal) is important but it’s not a part of that requirement to have intent—not strictly speaking.

Intent is one thing. Form (using the right words) is something different.
I can try to explain the words, but that’s as far as I can go. I can’t change the meaning of the words.

Following the Missal (and saying a complete Mass) just does not come under the heading of “intent.” It comes under the heading of “form.” And when it comes to the form, all that’s required is the minimum.

Remember, I’m not saying it’s “right.” I’m merely saying that it’s possible. And it’s not just me saying it—I’m simply repeating what the Church has been saying for centuries.

The difference between East and West is not so much one of theology (on this topic). An Eastern priest would agree that a priest actually could consecrate outside of the context of the Divine Liturgy, but would probably respond by saying that the idea that any priest actually would do such a thing is unthinkable.

Father, I know you said that confession is a different thing but I wonder if confecting the Eucharist outside of Mass is tantamount to breaking the seal of the confessional or even worse since it might be a sacrilege?

 

[FrDavid96]

Father, I know you said that confession is a different thing but I wonder if confecting the Eucharist outside of Mass is tantamount to breaking the seal of the confessional or even worse since it might be a sacrilege?

They’re just different things.

Consecrating outside of Mass is not a sacrilege in-and-of itself, because that word means to take something holy and use it for an act that defiles; for example, using a blessed object for witchcraft. It could be done for a sacrilegious purpose (again “could” doesn’t mean “should”) but the act itself of consecrating is not sacrilege.

All of the above (in your post) is a serious offense; yet they deal with different issues.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

There are good reasons for a consecration without what is needed for licity - but they involve situations that are well outside the norms. Priests in oppressive regimes’ prisons, priests on crashed airliners or sealiners.

To clarify: there might sometimes be a good reason to do some part of the Mass that would otherwise be illicit (like choosing the wrong reading, or saying the Eucharistic Prayer from memory and probably getting a few words wrong, or omitting vestments). “The law does not bind in an impossible situation” so in a true emergency, and with no other options, what would otherwise be illicit in the Mass can actually be licit under the circumstances.

The reason I’m commenting here is to make the point that, given what’s already been discussed here, consecrating outside of the Mass is always forbidden. There are simply no exceptions to that. None. I can’t stress that enough. A priest in a true situation of necessity (the old Gilligans Island scenario that’s always used in the seminary) he would do as many of the parts of the Mass as he could under the circumstances. However the idea of consecrating all by itself, can never be legitimate.

 

[Brigid34]

They’re just different things.

Consecrating outside of Mass is not a sacrilege in-and-of itself, because that word means to take something holy and use it for an act that defiles; for example, using a blessed object for witchcraft. It could be done for a sacrilegious purpose (again “could” doesn’t mean “should”) but the act itself of consecrating is not sacrilege.

All of the above (in your post) is a serious offense; yet they deal with different issues.

Much appreciated, Father.

 

[petronus]

To clarify: there might sometimes be a good reason to do some part of the Mass that would otherwise be illicit (like choosing the wrong reading, or saying the Eucharistic Prayer from memory and probably getting a few words wrong, or omitting vestments). “The law does not bind in an impossible situation” so in a true emergency, and with no other options, what would otherwise be illicit in the Mass can actually be licit under the circumstances.

The reason I’m commenting here is to make the point that, given what’s already been discussed here, consecrating outside of the Mass is always forbidden. There are simply no exceptions to that. None. I can’t stress that enough. A priest in a true situation of necessity (the old Gilligans Island scenario that’s always used in the seminary) he would do as many of the parts of the Mass as he could under the circumstances. However the idea of consecrating all by itself, can never be legitimate.

Have you any authority which would validate your view that a priest can , even though it is uncanonical , make a piece of bread into the Body of Christ by saying " This is my body " ?

 

[FrDavid96]

Have you any authority which would validate your view that a priest can , even though it is uncanonical , make a piece of bread into the Body of Christ by saying " This is my body " ?

First, it’s not my “view.”

Second, while I do not have the authority to say it, the Church does.

Thirdly, I am not saying what you wrote above. I never wrote that a priest can “make a piece of bread into the Body of Christ by saying ‘This is my body’” I’m writing about the fact that a priest is able to consecrate outside of the context of a full Mass.

More directly, yes. 2000 years of the Catholic Church. That’s quite an authority.

 

[zab]

First, it’s not my “view.”

Second, while I do not have the authority to say it, the Church does.

Thirdly, I am not saying what you wrote above. I never wrote that a priest can “make a piece of bread into the Body of Christ by saying ‘This is my body’” I’m writing about the fact that a priest is able to consecrate outside of the context of a full Mass.

More directly, yes. 2000 years of the Catholic Church. That’s quite an authority.

Father, sometimes when posting on threads and people misinterpret what has been written, it leads to a trail of confusion. And while I understand what you previously posted and what you are saying here, I can see where this post could be confusing to some. So to clarify, you are saying “consecrating outside the context of the Mass is always forbidden.” And when you say, “a priest is able to consecrate outside of the context of a** full** Mass.” that is not saying that a priest can consecrate outside the context of a complete Mass. For a Mass to be complete it must contain certain things, no matter how long or short the Mass is.

 

[FrDavid96]

Father, sometimes when posting on threads and people misinterpret what has been written, it leads to a trail of confusion. And while I understand what you previously posted and what you are saying here, I can see where this post could be confusing to some. So to clarify, you are saying “consecrating outside the context of the Mass is always forbidden.” And when you say, “a priest is able to consecrate outside of the context of a** full** Mass.” that is not saying that a priest can consecrate outside the context of a complete Mass. For a Mass to be complete it must contain certain things, no matter how long or short the Mass is.

Either way, it comes out the same.

A priest can consecrate outside the context of a full Mass.
A priest can consecrate outside the context of a complete Mass.

Either way, the bread is consecrated and becomes the Body of Christ.

If the priest forgets the prayer over the offerings, it is not a full Mass. The consecration still happens.

If the priest dies during the Lamb of God, the consecration will still have happened.

If the priest has (valid matter) bread, pronounces the words of consecration, with the intention to consecrate, the consecration happens. Outside of the context of Mass, said priest would be committing a very grave offense, no matter what the circumstances.