Is priestly intent a possible solution to politicians and others seeking, and being denied, communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FiveLinden

Guest
As I understand it the intent of the priest in consecration is important. That he intends to consecrate is consecrated; that he does not, is not.

So would the problems perceived in those who do not uphold all Catholic teaching approaching for communion be overcome is priests routinely intended to concentrate only that bread and wine which reached the lips of those fully in communion with the Church and in a state of grace?

The sacrilege of unworthy reception and the scandal of those not in communion with the Church receiving would be entirely avoided. Everyone would know that not only should, say, a politician opposed to Catholic teaching receive, but they would know that such a politician could not receive.

Since the process of consecration is spiritual and in itself miraculous I can’t see any physical problems such as the mixing of consecrated and unconsecrated wine. The spiritual intention would over-ride such material concerns.
 
Consecration occurs at the altar. All the hosts and the wine intended to be consecrated is placed on the altar. There is no partial consecretation dependent on the recipient.

If a priest distributing communion sees someone approaching for communion who should not receive, he cannot say, “oh, I take that consecrecation back.” The consecration is already complete.

So, the answer is no.
 
I think the problem with this is that while a novelist could make up this (certainly elegant-seeming!) solution for an invented religion in her novel, Catholicism isn’t a man-made religion. Mere humans didn’t make it up, and mere humans are not capable of changing it to be more convenient for us. We preserve it, and can learn more about what has already been revealed – but we can’t use magical thinking to introduce something new. Just because there’s an invisible process, doesn’t mean we can make up that it’s possible for a new and different invisible thing to happen in that space.

Does that make sense?

Basically, my understanding is that we have no reason to believe a priest’s intent is capable of programming “if/then” codes into the Eucharist. And if such a teaching can’t be traced back to the original deposit of faith, we can’t just invent it now.
 
FiveLinden said:
So would the problems perceived in those who do not uphold all Catholic teaching approaching for communion be overcome is priests routinely intended to concentrate only that bread and wine which reached the lips of those fully in communion with the Church and in a state of grace?
Click to expand...
No.

Consecration isn’t selective based on the state of grace of the person receiving. It’s also not something a priest can somehow impose selectivity on. That’s not within his priestly power.
MNathaniel said:
I think the problem with this is that while a novelist could make up this (certainly elegant-seeming!) solution for an invented religion in her novel, Catholicism isn’t a man-made religion.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This whole premise makes no sense from the Catholic perspective. It would only make sense if one thinks Catholic sacraments are some kind of a made-up game where the Church can just change the rules any time it likes.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
…
Click to expand...
A person that receives unworthily but does not know it is not sacrilegious. The clergy do not know if a person is unworthy. We are instructed not to make that determination.

Catechism
1861 … “although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.”

2284 … Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
Click to expand...
Canon law 915 is applies to those that are formally excommunicated. Canon 912 states: “Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.”
 
So, what you are asking is if a Priest could intend to Consecrate the Hosts, except for a few off to the side he intends to give people who might approach that he has determined should not recieve?
 
If this were possible the a Church would not have the sin of receiving unworthy. Because they would have implemented this long long ago.
 
I think the OP imagined that the priest, when consecrating a dish of hosts, somehow intended that Jesus would only become truly present in those destined for consumption by those in a state of grace. That way, he wouldn’t have to make a special little separate pile of Hosts For Sinners, which would no doubt be observed by those at Mass, and someone would no doubt also be keeping track of which folks were given the hosts from that pile.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I think the OP imagined that the priest, when consecrating a dish of hosts, somehow intended that Jesus would only become truly present in those destined for consumption by those in a state of grace. That way, he wouldn’t have to make a special little separate pile of Hosts For Sinners, which would no doubt be observed by those at Mass, and someone would no doubt also be keeping track of which folks were given the hosts from that pile.
Click to expand...
Either way, I think it would effectively invalidate the entire Mass, because only Consecrating part of the the Gifts is not the intention of the Church, and the Priest must intend to do as the Church does.
 
Vico said:
Canon law 915 is applies to those that are formally excommunicated. Canon 912 states: “Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.”
Click to expand...
False. Canon 915 applies to ministers of Holy Communion, for one thing. Canon 915 makes no mention of excommunication. One does not need to be formally excommunicated to be refused Holy Communion by a minister bound by Canon 915.
 
Really the possible solution already exists. And it is to not present for communion when you shouldn’t.
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
48.png
Vico:
Canon law 915 is applies to those that are formally excommunicated. Canon 912 states: “Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.”
Click to expand...
False. Canon 915 applies to ministers of Holy Communion, for one thing. Canon 915 makes no mention of excommunication. One does not need to be formally excommunicated to be refused Holy Communion by a minister bound by Canon 915.
Click to expand...
This is what I am referring to:
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for the responses so far. Some seem to be saying that a priest cannot do this and some seem to think it would be wrong for a priest to do this.

For those who say it can’t be done is there any specific teaching (as distinct from traditional practice) that says it can’t be done? As intent is required and is already restricted (in the sense that bread in an altar-server’s pocket is unaffected because of lack of intent on the part of the priest) why, exactly can intent not be restricted further? (This responds to your comment, @MNathaniel )
MNathaniel said:
Basically, my understanding is that we have no reason to believe a priest’s intent is capable of programming “if/then” codes into the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
 
FiveLinden said:
Thank you for the responses so far. Some seem to be saying that a priest cannot do this and some seem to think it would be wrong for a priest to do this.
Click to expand...
On my reading, I think those saying it would be “wrong” are referring to a priest basically having a “reconciled” plate and a “sinner’s” plate and consecrating only one but not the other, then trying to serve certain people from the sinner’s plate. The fact that a priest “cannot” do the other thing (of intending a conditional consecration such that God will only transubstantiate the hosts that will pass the lips of those worthy for it) seems generally agreed upon.

Regarding the wrongness of the spatial consecration trickery (intentionally consecrating one specific plate of hosts but not another), this seems wrong both because of going against authoritative Church practice, and on a merely pragmatic level, keen-eyed people would inevitably notice that someone was served from the sinner’s plate, and that opens a can of worms. Also, scandal: Those who aren’t keen-eyed enough to realize someone was served off the sinner’s plate, may carry on being scandalized by the appearance that Hitler, Goebbels, or Mao was offered Communion. This artificial external appearance of unity with publicly unrepentant evil-doers, undermines the reality of unity under the identity of Christ, and starts to threaten to replace the identity of unity in Christ with unity of some other, more evil identity in the eyes of impressionable parishioners and the broader public.

Regarding the hypothetical ability of a priest to intend for God to only transubstantiate those hosts that God knows will pass the lips of the ‘worthy’, this seems not revealed to be something a priest can do. It does not seem that God has told us that he will perform transubstantiation according to these parameters. When Jesus taught the apostles how to celebrate the Eucharist in remembrance of him, this method does not seem to have been part of what he taught them to do. And the Church is bound by the fullness of Tradition, and cannot contradict what came before or introduce anything completely new. And the deposit of faith from the beginning sets the precedent that the unworthy are to avoid stepping forward for Communion – not that the priests can or should somehow manage to consecrate only those hosts which would be received by the worthy.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
Since the process of consecration is spiritual and in itself miraculous I can’t see any physical problems such as the mixing of consecrated and unconsecrated wine. The spiritual intention would over-ride such material concerns.
Click to expand...
Decieving people is not good, by giving them unconsecrated hosts.
 
Suppose that it were possible for a priest to form a contingent subjunctive conditional intention, that in this ciborium only those hosts which will eventually administered to deserving persons would be transubstantiated.

Suppose further that no one outside of that Mass (the sick, invalid, homebound, hospitalized, imprisoned, et cetera) is nor will be properly disposed.

Now you will wind up reserving mundane bread in the taberbnacle, and anyone who attempts a Eucharistic visit will be at least a material idolater! (And perhaps thereby become improperly disposed for reception of the sacrament)
Nope. It is better that the sacraments are manifested ex opere operato
2️⃣ ©️ ©️
 
And of course this becomes even more of a headache wrt the species of wine. It would not be impossible for God to cause some portions of the wine to transubstantiate and some to not, and to allow the portions to mix and mingle and segregate appropriately.

But it’s not a test I’d like to put him to.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top