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

[Tis_Bearself]

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.

It’s both impossible for a priest to do it (assuming he’s not putting a separate plate of “Hosts for Sinners” out of consecration range, as we already discussed), and wrong for him to attempt it.

It wouldn’t be impossible for God to manifest/ not manifest himself in that way, as God can do anything, but it would be highly mproper for a priest to expect God to do this, as Titivillus said.

 

[Canvas]

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?

I decided to look into this. I hope someone more learned than I looks into this article about proper intentions of the Minister.

1. Catholic Doctrine:
2. It has been defined, against heretics, that it is necessary for the validity of the sacrament that there be in the minister the intention of doing what the Church does.

Council of Trent (1547) require “in the ministers, while they confect the sacraments, the intention at least of doing what the Church does.”

The Roman_Missal implicitly teaches likewise, declaring a consecration ineffectual if the priest, having before himself 11 hosts, intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he intends, “because the intention is required.”[4] This intention is certainly secret and internal.

On the Intention Required in the Minister of the Sacraments | EWTN

 

[Canvas]

1. N. B. a) There is no sacrament even with a condition concerning a necessary future event v.g. “I absolve you, if the sun rises tomorrow,” if the minister wishes that his intention depend on such a condition.

b) A condition which is hidden, and known to God alone, probably prevents the validity of a sacrament. For a sacrament ought to be administered in the human way of acting; therefore a condition which does not fall under the human condition can not be attached. In practice therefore such a condition should never be attached to the intention, lest the validity of the sacrament be rendered uncertain.

c) If the minister should hold two contradictory intentions, it must be determined which one of them prevails; v.g. the minister wishes to perform a sacred rite, but does not wish this rite be a sacrament. If the latter prevails in such a manner that it excludes the former, the sacrament is invalid; if both are equal, nothing takes place, for each negates the other; if doubt remains, the sacrament itself is doubtful.

On the Intention Required in the Minister of the Sacraments | EWTN

 

[Canvas]

The Roman_Missal implicitly teaches likewise, declaring a consecration ineffectual if the priest, having before himself 11 hosts, intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he intends, “because the intention is required.” [4] This intention is certainly secret and internal.

Can someone look into what this means? Is the author saying a Priest could or could not(theoretically) Consecrate only some of the Hosts on the Altar if he intends to exclude some (as long as he specifies to himself which will be excluded)?

I am asking specifically about Hosts placed on the Altar during Mass, not unconsecrated breads stored away out of view.

And if so, why would an intention to only pretend to Consecrate partly not invalidate the whole Consecration? Would that not be a defect in intent? Using adulterated breads and wine would invalidate the matter. Changing the words in such a way that they distort the meaning would invalidate through a defect in form.

On the Intention Required in the Minister of the Sacraments | EWTN

 

[InThePew]

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?

Consecration can’t be conducted conditionally in the way in whcih you describe - the intention is either present or it’s not and a host is either consecrated or it’s not; it certainly can’t be based on something whcih the priest, at least at the time of consecration, could have no knowledge of.

Can someone look into what this means? Is the author saying a Priest could or could not (theoretically) Consecrate only some of the Hosts on the Altar if he intends to exclude some (as long as he specifies to himself which will be excluded)?

A priest can intend to only consecrate some hosts and not others (say those on the altar as opposed to the credence table) but it needs to be clear which hosts are consecrated and which aren’t . So, the problem with ten out of eleven is which is the one that’s not consecrated? This also illustrates the problem with the OP’s theory - a host can’t be consecrated for some purposes only, nor can is suddenly revert back to being bread depending on who receives it.

 

[FiveLinden]

it certainly can’t be based on something whcih the priest, at least at the time of consecration, could have no knowledge of

Thank you for this explanation. Is this based on any other principle (other than tradition)?

A priest can intend to only consecrate some hosts and not others (say those on the altar as opposed to the credence table) but it needs to be clear which hosts are consecrated and which aren’t .

So if a priest was faced with someone he knew should not receive in the congregation (but who was not ‘notorious’, could/should the priest if it is possible leave a single host out of his intention to avoid sacrilege if this can be done without drawing attention to the situation? I know the priest should put the best possible interpretation on a situation but let’s assume he knows for sure that the congregation member should not receive.

Thank you again.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

So if a priest was faced with someone he knew should not receive in the congregation (but who was not ‘notorious’, could/should the priest if it is possible leave a single host out of his intention to avoid sacrilege if this can be done without drawing attention to the situation? I know the priest should put the best possible interpretation on a situation but let’s assume he knows for sure that the congregation member should not receive.

So you’re suggesting that the priest put a host aside on a separate table for the purpose of giving it to someone who he is “certain” should not receive? Why?

If priest is CERTAIN that someone should not receive, then he should just deny them communion. He’s not going to give them some special unconsecrated host to downplay the situation or spare them embarrassment.

This kind of “certainty” would be hard for the priest to achieve unless the person was either notorious or excommunicated/ under interdict/ the Bishop had given orders that certain persons were not allowed to receive. The only other situation I can think of is where the priest is aware that someone has previously desecrated the received Eucharist in some way, which could be due to something like mental illness rather than sin. He’s not going to give them an unconsecrated host that they can desecrate under the illusion it’s consecrated.

It also seems like the priest would be lying to the person because they’d think they were getting a consecrated Host when they weren’t.

 

[OddBird]

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?

That’s about my Protestant church’s position

That’s because my own current tradition does not think there is any objective moment you can p(name removed by moderator)oint where a significant change happens in the species, but thinks the faith of the recipient does play a role in it.

As others have pointed out, that’s not the Catholic understanding of the sacrament.

 

[InThePew]

Thank you for this explanation. Is this based on any other principle (other than tradition)?

We’ll go with tradition for now since I don’t have the time to research this in any real depth. If nothing else, consecration needs to be clear - there shouldn’t ever be any doubt as to whether or not it happened.

So if a priest was faced with someone he knew should not receive in the congregation (but who was not ‘notorious’, could/should the priest if it is possible leave a single host out of his intention to avoid sacrilege if this can be done without drawing attention to the situation?

The first problem with this is identifying said host; the second problem is ensuring that said individual receives said host.

That aside, if the person is not notorious then, while they shouldn’t receive, they also shouldn’t be refused if for no other reason that doing so would likely cause greater scandal (for example by causing others to gossip / speculate on the reasons for refusal, or drawing greater attention to the issue than would otherwise have been the case).