Intention of the Minister in the Sacrament

[malphono]

This is not true. If a priest does all the motions and reads everything perfectly for the consecration but he diabolically chooses to be a satan worshiper and not confect the Eucharist, it is not the Eucharist. The Church does intend to confect the Eucharist.

This is not an easy thing to accept, I admit because us as the faithful receiving and worshipping wish to believe this cannot happen; but it can.

Good post. Indeed, it can happen, although it need not be the extreme of a diabolical choice. A merely human choice is all that it takes. But only the celebrant (and God) knows the truth. The faithful are not burdened by it: if it’s a Sunday or Holy Day, any “obligation” that may attach is met by “ecclesia supplet” and, since there’s no obligation to receive (other than the “Easter Duty”) in the first place, there’s no sin on their part.

You rightly point out that the principle of “ecclesia supplet” goes only so far. The Church can supply in some cases, but where the intent in confecting (to use Latin terminology) is lacking, the Church simply cannot supply what she does not have.

 

[Lapey]

I shouldn’t have used the phrase “out of habit” when I meant to say he had a virtual intention. You’re right; habitual intention does not suffice. However, one would be hard-pressed to find a priest who celebrates sacraments merely out of habitual intention, given that he does many things that are sufficient to activate virtual intention (e.g. vesting, walking to the confessional, sitting in the confessional, putting hosts on the corporal).

Yes, I believe this is correct. If the priest intends NOT to absolve, then the sacrament is invalid, even though he says the words (which would be the requirement of form). This is, however, gravely sinful. This, however, is an active intention to NOT do what the Church does, so it affects validity.

You are contradicting yourself in regard to confession compared to Eucharist.

Also, the fact that the hosts are on the corporal and the priest is vested do not mean the Eucharist is validly consecrated. Please explain what you mean here, I am confused.

 

[Lapey]

Good post. Indeed, it can happen, although it need not be the extreme of a diabolical choice. A merely human choice is all that it takes. But only the celebrant (and God) knows the truth. The faithful are not burdened by it: if it’s a Sunday or Holy Day, any “obligation” that may attach is met by “ecclesia supplet” and, since there’s no obligation to receive (other than the “Easter Duty”) in the first place, there’s no sin on their part.

You rightly point out that the principle of “ecclesia supplet” goes only so far. The Church can supply in some cases, but where the intent in confecting (to use Latin terminology) is lacking, the Church simply cannot supply what she does not have.

Thanks for the comments. I’ll return them right back at you…well said malphono.

 

[Coolhandlukeboy]

This is not true. If a priest does all the motions and reads everything perfectly for the consecration but he diabolically chooses to be a satan worshiper and not confect the Eucharist, it is not the Eucharist. The Church does intend to confect the Eucharist.

Also remember this point, we are discussing the validity of the sacrament. In the OP it was more towards confession, but all of the sacraments depend on the intent of the minister. In the case of Eucharist the epiclesis through elevation of the species is the “sacrament”. If within that time frame the minister’s intent is not there to confect, then there is no sacrament. If I at a baptism go through all the motions, use all proper matter and say all the proper forms of the prayers, and do not intend to baptize as the Church does, then the child is not baptized. End of story.

This is not an easy thing to accept, I admit because us as the faithful receiving and worshipping wish to believe this cannot happen; but it can.

Yes, my conclusion still remains that even though virtual intention seems to make form and matter valid, there are distinct “moments” - I guess you would call them epiclesis for the Eucharistic Celebration - where the intention MUST be actual. Such as the Consecration (**these **hosts here on the corporal), penance (I absolve **this **sinner here confessing), Baptism (I am baptizing **this **sinner here accepting).

Again, like I said above, and what I learned in the seminary was that a priest must be careful to ensure they are actually intending the hosts on the corporal to be consecrated. This has always stuck with me, as I found it extraordinary information at the time. I am visiting with a few diocesan priests tonight and intend to double check with them as well.

 

[porthos11]

You are contradicting yourself in regard to confession compared to Eucharist.

Also, the fact that the hosts are on the corporal and the priest is vested do not mean the Eucharist is validly consecrated. Please explain what you mean here, I am confused.

I have no idea what you’re referring to.

All I’m saying is that the very act of vesting, placing on the corporal, sitting in the confessional are all actions that strongly point to the minister having at least the virtual intention to do what the Church does. After all, why would he do all those things? It’s highly unlikely that a priest would go through all those motions and somehow not be at least motivated to do these things from at least a virtual intention.

I don’t know what you’re objecting to in my posts. I’m upholding the teaching that intent to do what the Church does is required for sacramental validity.

 

[Lapey]

I have no idea what you’re referring to.

All I’m saying is that the very act of vesting, placing on the corporal, sitting in the confessional are all actions that strongly point to the minister having at least the virtual intention to do what the Church does. After all, why would he do all those things? It’s highly unlikely that a priest would go through all those motions and somehow not be at least motivated to do these things from at least a virtual intention.

I don’t know what you’re objecting to in my posts. I’m upholding the teaching that intent to do what the Church does is required for sacramental validity.

Well then I guess I am confused as to why you choose to reply to my posts, because nothing I said is contrary to Church teaching and doctrine, as illustrated by Trent’s mention.

I think I understand a little better where you come from with your comments now though. You site all of the priest’s actions to prove that the priest is in fact intending to do what the Church does, in other words you are inferring that he is in fact consecrating the species with proper intent. What I have said does not go against that premise; but I do contend that even though this is a given for the vast majority of situations, we must recognize that the intent is necessary. Appearance does not guaranty validity; all of the visuals and intent does.

I now see that it appears we are saying the same thing, I am concentrating on the extremely rare, and you are concentrating on the relatively frequent. You are looking at the positive, I am pointing out the possibility of the negative.

 

[porthos11]

Yes, my conclusion still remains that even though virtual intention seems to make form and matter valid, there are distinct “moments” - I guess you would call them epiclesis for the Eucharistic Celebration - where the intention MUST be actual. Such as the Consecration (**these **hosts here on the corporal), penance (I absolve **this **sinner here confessing), Baptism (I am baptizing **this **sinner here accepting).

Again, like I said above, and what I learned in the seminary was that a priest must be careful to ensure they are actually intending the hosts on the corporal to be consecrated. This has always stuck with me, as I found it extraordinary information at the time. I am visiting with a few diocesan priests tonight and intend to double check with them as well.

No, intention may be virtual, even at those moments you indicate. When the priest puts the hosts in the corporal, he may easily at that moment have the actual intention to consecrate them in due time. But this is not always possible and would be a great burden on the priests if this were requirement were true. Even in confession, he need not have the actual intention of absolving “this” penitent, because really, who else is there? He had the intention of doing what the Church does for anyone across the grille. Virtual intention is sufficient, since he had the original intention and his actions are directly governed by that intention, even if virtual.

 

[Coolhandlukeboy]

No, intention may be virtual, even at those moments you indicate. When the priest puts the hosts in the corporal, he may easily at that moment have the actual intention to consecrate them in due time. But this is not always possible and would be a great burden on the priests if this were requirement were true.

Yes, you are correct, and this makes sense with that explanation. I have spoken with a few priests now from my diocese to confirm this.

Our diocesan vocations director said that when he was ordained he was told to make an actual intention that every consecration from that moment until death that he would intend to consecrate every host on the corporal. So even if he had a virtual intention to say Mass each day, that unless he specified otherwise, all the hosts on the corporal would become consecrated due to his actual intention made once, a long time ago.

What was really throwing me off was the “act”. Being a Thomist metaphysician, it was of the highest importance to understand the sacrament from this aspect of action, which is so essential to the Church’s understanding of God through natural theology.

Even in confession, he need not have the actual intention of absolving “this” penitent, because really, who else is there? He had the intention of doing what the Church does for anyone across the grille. Virtual intention is sufficient, since he had the original intention and his actions are directly governed by that intention, even if virtual.

My confessor/spiritual director also confirmed this, though making note that the priest must “actually intend” to hear confessions at the beginning of the confession (or like with the Eucharist, actually intend it at some point in time to include all following confessions), then virtually intending it as he hears confessions.

Just like you said, really who else is there to absolve. But the actual intention had to come before the sacrament, whether minutes before or longer if he made the actual intention generally. For him, he makes his actual intention before hearing any confessions to include all those for whom he gives absolution.

So… after a long day of worthy discussions, I feel much more enriched by the Church’s teachings! Can we finally say: there must be an actual intention before any minister performs a valid sacrament. But, this actual intention might only ever be done once, as long as all future sacraments are included in his actual intention. Thus virtual intention suffices, even if they are done every day, since by it, the minister is corresponding to his actual intention to “do whatever the Church does”?

Thoughts?

Does this sound about right?

 

[Lapey]

No, intention may be virtual, even at those moments you indicate. When the priest puts the hosts in the corporal, he may easily at that moment have the actual intention to consecrate them in due time. But this is not always possible and would be a great burden on the priests if this were requirement were true. Even in confession, he need not have the actual intention of absolving “this” penitent, because really, who else is there? He had the intention of doing what the Church does for anyone across the grille. Virtual intention is sufficient, since he had the original intention and his actions are directly governed by that intention, even if virtual.

I’m hoping I misunderstand your point, if not I’ll refer you back to Trent…

If you are saying that it is not necessary for the priest each and every time to go through all of the mental motion to think to himself, “I intend to consecrate this bread and wine…”, then yes, you are correct. However, if you are saying that if everything is right, matter, form, all the right things are done, and the words are said but he does purposefully intend NOT to consecrate, that the Eucharist is in fact consecrated, then there my good friend you are in serious error.

Now please take the time to describe your “intent” with you replies.

 

[Lapey]

Yes, you are correct, and this makes sense with that explanation. I have spoken with a few priests now from my diocese to confirm this.

Our diocesan vocations director said that when he was ordained he was told to make an actual intention that every consecration from that moment until death that he would intend to consecrate every host on the corporal. So even if he had a virtual intention to say Mass each day, that unless he specified otherwise, all the hosts on the corporal would become consecrated due to his actual intention made once, a long time ago.

What was really throwing me off was the “act”. Being a Thomist metaphysician, it was of the highest importance to understand the sacrament from this aspect of action, which is so essential to the Church’s understanding of God through natural theology.

My confessor/spiritual director also confirmed this, though making note that the priest must “actually intend” to hear confessions at the beginning of the confession (or like with the Eucharist, actually intend it at some point in time to include all following confessions), then virtually intending it as he hears confessions.

Just like you said, really who else is there to absolve. But the actual intention had to come before the sacrament, whether minutes before or longer if he made the actual intention generally. For him, he makes his actual intention before hearing any confessions to include all those for whom he gives absolution.

So… after a long day of worthy discussions, I feel much more enriched by the Church’s teachings! Can we finally say: there must be an actual intention before any minister performs a valid sacrament. But, this actual intention might only ever be done once, as long as all future sacraments are included in his actual intention. Thus virtual intention suffices, even if they are done every day, since by it, the minister is corresponding to his actual intention to “do whatever the Church does”?

Thoughts?

Does this sound about right?

Sounds like you’ve got it!

 

[porthos11]

I’m hoping I misunderstand your point, if not I’ll refer you back to Trent…

Yes, you are misunderstanding me and I don’t know why.

If you are saying that it is not necessary for the priest each and every time to go through all of the mental motion to think to himself, “I intend to consecrate this bread and wine…”, then yes, you are correct. However, if you are saying that if everything is right, matter, form, all the right things are done, and the words are said but he does purposefully intend NOT to consecrate, that the Eucharist is in fact consecrated, then there my good friend you are in serious error.

Now please take the time to describe your “intent” with you replies.

I have no idea where you are drawing these conclusions from my posts when in fact in post #18, I stated exactly this. Maybe I’m just being a dumb writer today.

I said in post #18:

If the priest intends NOT to absolve, then the sacrament is invalid, even though he says the words (which would be the requirement of form). This is, however, gravely sinful. This, however, is an active intention to NOT do what the Church does, so it affects validity.

So again, where am I saying that proper intent is not necessary?

 

[porthos11]

So… after a long day of worthy discussions, I feel much more enriched by the Church’s teachings! Can we finally say: there must be an actual intention before any minister performs a valid sacrament. But, this actual intention might only ever be done once, as long as all future sacraments are included in his actual intention. Thus virtual intention suffices, even if they are done every day, since by it, the minister is corresponding to his actual intention to “do whatever the Church does”?

Thoughts?

Does this sound about right?

Pretty much. For the intention to be virtual after the initial actual intention (which, as you say, could have been made on the day of his ordination), his actions in the future must be motivated from that intention, which is pretty much always the case. The intention need not always be actual, although it is ideal, but for as long as the original intention was never withdrawn and his actions are still driven by that original intention, even if it were not present to mind, the virtual intention suffices for a valid sacrament.

 

[Lapey]

Yes, you are misunderstanding me and I don’t know why.

I have no idea where you are drawing these conclusions from my posts when in fact in post #18, I stated exactly this. Maybe I’m just being a dumb writer today.

I said in post #18:

So again, where am I saying that proper intent is not necessary?

Let’s just chalk it up to me being a dumb reader yesterday. It’s all good.

 

[Bergon]

Notice the “quotation marks”, it’s not my words; this is a direct quote of the English translation of canon 11 of session 7 of the Council of Trent. Do you disagree with Trent? It appears you want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. I’m not interested.

If you want to debate the point, I’m good with that; but I won’t go back and forth with you just for the sake of argument.

I’m trying to understand your point and the only thing I can see is you do not understand my point. The minister’s intent has direct affect in the validity of the sacrament conferred. Do we agree?

Normally, I ignore this type of post. I just wanted to say I shall not continue discussing this issue with you. Your argument is all over the place: I would be most obliged if you would not transfer the fault of that to me.

 

[Lapey]

You are quite correct: whether or not the minister is in a state of grace does not affect the sacrament. Indeed, it is widely accepted that if sacraments depended on the state of the minister’s soul we would all be in serious jeopardy of not receiving any sacrament with considerable regularity. That the ministers of sacraments are mortal and fall into sin is accepted. The question, however, is whether the minister’s intent has any bearing on the validity of a sacrament. This intent is required for validity so it is wrong to make your statement, “This is false”. The minister’s intent must be ‘do as the Church does’, which might be better phrased to do what the Church intends. The minister must have the correct intent and his intent must be to intend what the Church intends.

Notice the “quotation marks”, it’s not my words; this is a direct quote of the English translation of canon 11 of session 7 of the Council of Trent. Do you disagree with Trent? It appears you want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. I’m not interested.

If you want to debate the point, I’m good with that; but I won’t go back and forth with you just for the sake of argument.

I’m trying to understand your point and the only thing I can see is you do not understand my point. The minister’s intent has direct affect in the validity of the sacrament conferred. Do we agree?

Normally, I ignore this type of post. I just wanted to say I shall not continue discussing this issue with you. Your argument is all over the place: I would be most obliged if you would not transfer the fault of that to me.

I am sorry if this offended you.