is this true about the Consecration?

[Monica4316]

I just wanted to make sure… is it correct to say that if a priest doesn’t intend to consecrate the Eucharist, the consecration does not occur? (I mean if he obviously doesn’t believe in transubstantiation at all and sees it as a symbol or sign). I don’t personally know any priests like this. I’m just asking to make sure of my understanding. thanks!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I just wanted to make sure… is it correct to say that if a priest doesn’t intend to consecrate the Eucharist, the consecration does not occur? (I mean if he obviously doesn’t believe in transubstantiation at all and sees it as a symbol or sign). I don’t personally know any priests like this. I’m just asking to make sure of my understanding. thanks!

Well, well, well … it is hard to say. I guess everything would be a farse.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

I just wanted to make sure… is it correct to say that if a priest doesn’t intend to consecrate the Eucharist, the consecration does not occur? (I mean if he obviously doesn’t believe in transubstantiation at all and sees it as a symbol or sign). I don’t personally know any priests like this. I’m just asking to make sure of my understanding. thanks!

Greetings Monica4316,

Yes. A priest must have the intention to consececrate the hosts and the wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. [And he must also follow the rubrics of the Mass or something like this. It is in the CIC.] If he does not have that intention then, no it would not be confected.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[jmjconder]

**IMHO - there is nothing saying the priest needs to believe. If a priest used the correct form and matter - the Consecration is valid.

The Sacrement of the Holy Eucharist is only valid based on matter and form…not intent.

If I am wrong pleae cite…**

 

[jrdvdsj]

Hmmmm…I don’t think so.

The Mass does not belong to the priest; it belongs to Christ and his Church. It is Christ’s work that consecrates the bread and wine to become his body and blood, soul and divinity. I think this is what is meant by the work of the Mass be accomplished ex opere operato. It does not depend upon the worthiness of the priest (who could possibly be worthy enough but Christ?) or upon the strength of his belief (which, being human, will always be partial, at best, until the priest “knows as he is known”).

One can slice a thousand ways, I know, with “but what if’'s,” but the simple fact is that Christ is finally present in the Eucharist not because of the worthiness of the priest or of the congregation, but because he has promised, and he truly is worthy. If you think about it, you’ll understand why: Christ is not partially present depending on the efforts of the priest; he cannot be given in percentages. Obviously, however, a poorly-said Mass can take away from our experience of the liturgy, and our own anger about these things can actually blind us to the presence of Christ present and already at work. If a priest is struggling with his own belief but willing to serve Christ and his Church this way, Christ is still present. And God bless that priest for his willingness to struggle and still serve! How many have walked away.

If the Eucharistic liturgy is poorly-said, that is probably a matter of liciety, not of Christ’s presence. If one goes to communion at a poorly-said Mass, Christ is as truly present as he would be at the Heavenly Banquet itself. What the priest did was illicit, but not invalid.

If the Mass is said in gross violation of the rubrics, then the Mass would be invalid; a priest cannot for instance consecrate pizza and soda…it’s not in memory of Jesus, at least not as we mean it in Mass. “Consecrated” pizza and soda simply would not be the body and blood of Christ.

This is not an excuse for poorly-said Masses, by the way, nor for poor faith on the part of clergy (or congregations). Nor is it an excuse for poor formation for our clergy, for the lack of spiritual support that many of them experience, or for the fact that many of them have at best rare opportunities to renew their theological education. Nor is it an excuse for a priest to dismiss the Lord’s supper as “merely symbolic” (that would be pretty inappropriate). It is just to assure you that Christ is still present despite the unbelieving or poorly prepared, or overtired-overworked-and-sloppy priest.

 

[jmjconder]

I always research my response. Looks like I am in error. Does this apply to ALL sacraments? WOW if that is true I did not know that…thank you.

Now I am concerned for many Sacraments I have received with priests that are not in union with the Catholic Church.

 

[runningdude]

I just wanted to make sure… is it correct to say that if a priest doesn’t intend to consecrate the Eucharist, the consecration does not occur? (I mean if he obviously doesn’t believe in transubstantiation at all and sees it as a symbol or sign). I don’t personally know any priests like this. I’m just asking to make sure of my understanding. thanks!

As jrdvdsj said, it would take a pretty severe defect to invalidate the Eucharist. If a Priest follows the proper form, his intent is assumed to be to do what Church intends, and the sacrament will be valid.

Even if the priest doesn’t believe or has severe doubts, his intent to follow the proper form is enough.

 

[runningdude]

I always research my response. Looks like I am in error. Does this apply to ALL sacraments? WOW if that is true I did not know that…thank you.

Now I am concerned for many Sacraments I have received with priests that are not in union with the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has a specific form that is required for its priests to confect or witness all seven sacraments. Outside of the Catholic Church, this form is not necessarily required. Depending on your situation, many of these sacraments taken outside of the Church may be doubtful or illicit, and you would have to speak with your priest about properly documenting and correcting them. If you’ve already spoken with your priest about these steps, you should not worry!

 

[ProVobis]

**IMHO - there is nothing saying the priest needs to believe. If a priest used the correct form and matter - the Consecration is valid.

The Sacrement of the Holy Eucharist is only valid based on matter and form…not intent.

If I am wrong pleae cite…**

Here’s an example: If the priest is demonstrating to seminarians how to consecrate, then he doesn’t intend to consecrate but to teach. Therefore no consecration then. There might be other such situations but generally the intention is presumed, whatever state of priest’s soul or mind is at that moment.

 

[Paxvobis]

In order for any sacrament to be valid, the one who administers the sacrament must have proper form (in this case “this is my body” and “this is…my blood”), proper form (unleavened bread and grape wine), and proper intent (changing the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ). Without any of these, a sacrament isn’t valid. Therefore, a priest who doesn’t believe in transubstantiation can not offer a Mass.

That said, every priest I know has stated at some point their belief in transubstantiation, so I think priests who don’t are few and far between.

 

[fall_fox]

I just wanted to make sure… is it correct to say that if a priest doesn’t intend to consecrate the Eucharist, the consecration does not occur? (I mean if he obviously doesn’t believe in transubstantiation at all and sees it as a symbol or sign). I don’t personally know any priests like this. I’m just asking to make sure of my understanding. thanks!

fall fox

There seem to be a lot of opinions on this one, so I will add my own. I believe that if everything is correct, proper bread & wine, and the proper works are said, despite the unbelieving priest, the body and blood of Jesus are still confected. I feel this would happen because, whether with or against his will, the priest is in Persona Christi and it is Jesus himself that is doing the consecration because Jesus isn’t controlled by our notion of time. It is not a reenactment of the last supper, it is the last supper.

 

[FrDavid96]

I just wanted to make sure… is it correct to say that if a priest doesn’t intend to consecrate the Eucharist, the consecration does not occur? (I mean if he obviously doesn’t believe in transubstantiation at all and sees it as a symbol or sign). I don’t personally know any priests like this. I’m just asking to make sure of my understanding. thanks!

Monica,

The short answer (to the question “the consecration does not occur?”) is no. It does occur.

There are lots of different possibilities here. Please allow me to explain…

In order to consecrate, the priest must have the “intention to do as the Church does.” Therefore, a priest who says the words of consecration without the intention to do as the Church does would not be consecrating. For example, a real priest who plays a priest in a movie (not recommended, but just an example).

Also:
If a priest has the specific intention “not to consecrate” then there is no consecration.
Again, the movie actor, or some other scenario where a preist (legitimately or not) has the specific intention not to consecrate–no consecration.

A priest who for some reason wants to deceive the congregation in church, and who goes through the Mass having the intention not to consecrate, then no consecration.

However:
A priest who has the intention to consecrate, even if he does not believe in Transubstantiation, still consecrates. Because his intention to do so (and the fact that he is doing as the Church does) is sufficient even if his belief is lacking.

A priest who does not believe in Transubstantiation but who has “the intention to do as the Church does” does consecrate. Because it’s not the personal belief (or lack of it) of the priest that matters. Even if he denies the possibility of consecration but still has the intention to do as the Church does, then there is a consecration.

Here’s a quote from De Defectibus:

1. The intention of consecrating is required. Therefore there is no consecration in the following cases: when a priest does not intend to consecrate but only to make a pretense; when some hosts remain on the altar forgotten by the priest, or when some part of the wine or some host is hidden, since the priest intends to consecrate only what is on the corporal; when a priest has eleven hosts before him and intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he means to consecrate. On the other hand, if he thinks there are ten, but intends to consecrate all that he has before him, then all will be consecrated. For that reason every priest should always have such an intention, namely the intention of consecrating all the hosts that have been Placed on the corporal before him for consecration.
2. If the priest thinks that he is holding one host but discovers after the Consecration that there were two hosts stuck together, he is to consume both when the time comes. If after receiving the Body and Blood, or even after the ablution, he finds other consecrated pieces, large or small, he is to consume them, because they belong to the same sacrifice.
3. If, however, a whole consecrated host is left, he is to put it into the tabernacle with the others that are there; if this cannot be done, he is to consume it.
4. It may be that the intention is not actual at the time of the Consecration because the priest lets his mind wander, yet is still virtual, since he has come to the altar intending to do what the Church does. In this case the Sacrament is valid. A priest should be careful, however, to make his intention actual also.

A priest should have both the intention to “do as the Church does” and the intention to consecrate. If he has only the intention to do as the Church does, that is sufficient for consecration.

 

[Like]

fall fox

There seem to be a lot of opinions on this one, so I will add my own. I believe that if everything is correct, proper bread & wine, and the proper works are said, despite the unbelieving priest, the body and blood of Jesus are still confected. I feel this would happen because, whether with or against his will, the priest is in Persona Christi and it is Jesus himself that is doing the consecration because Jesus isn’t controlled by our notion of time. It is not a reenactment of the last supper, it is the last supper.

Yes! This is my understanding also, only I’m not sure of your last sentence.(the wording as such)

 

[FrDavid96]

Followup

What I missed earlier is this:

There is a difference between “a lack of intention-to-consecrate”
and an “intention not-to-consecrate.”

 

[Like]

Followup

What I missed earlier is this:

There is a difference between “a lack of intention-to-consecrate”
and an “intention not-to-consecrate.”

Agreed

Sorry father, you posted while I was typing my post.

 

[LilyM]

As jrdvdsj said, it would take a pretty severe defect to invalidate the Eucharist. If a Priest follows the proper form, his intent is assumed to be to do what Church intends, and the sacrament will be valid.

Even if the priest doesn’t believe or has severe doubts, his intent to follow the proper form is enough.

Not quite. Let’s say you have a priest demonstrating how the Eucharistic Prayer is done - for a group of seminarians or something.

He may have unconsecrated wafers and altar wine and water on hand - say he wants to show them when they need to mix the water and wine, when to elevate the host etc.

He may do all the actions and say all the words, have all the correct matter present and even believe in transubstantiation, but his intent is not to confect the Eucharist, merely to teach others how it is done.

In such circumstances I doubt that God is going to transubstantiate those hosts and wafers - lack of intent does indeed invalidate a sacrament, and in this case the priest had no intent to confect the Eucharist.

 

[nicoleandrian]

In order for any sacrament to be valid, the one who administers the sacrament must have proper form (in this case “this is my body” and “this is…my blood”), proper form (unleavened bread and grape wine), and proper intent (changing the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ). Without any of these, a sacrament isn’t valid. Therefore, a priest who doesn’t believe in transubstantiation can not offer a Mass.

That said, every priest I know has stated at some point their belief in transubstantiation, so I think priests who don’t are few and far between.

Your statement isn’t according to what the Church states. What you think is meant by the word “intent” is not synonymous with the word “belief”. Intend means to follow the proper protocol. It has nothing to do with whether the priest believes in the transubstantiation. The intent is assumed by using the form. The priest does not have to believe in the Eucharist transubstantiation. Case in point is the Miracle of Lanciano. The priest did not believe yet the host bled. What they mean by “having the intention to do what the Church does” means to say the consecration “This is my body… This is my blood…” The priest also has to use pure flour and water wafers with no added substance such as honey or anything else and wine. As long as they do that it is valid.

 

[Mark1970]

Just an comment/observation really which may be relevant to the thread. There’s a video/DVD in circulation, I believe it was made by the SSPX a number of years ago, with one of their priests demonstrating how to celebrate the EF Mass. The priest who was demonstrating the Mass deliberately made a point of saying at various points in the demonstration, “I’m withholding my intention to consecrate because this is only done as a demonstration, so in case any of you watching are worried, the consecration will not occur even though I’m saying the words and performing the actions.”

 

[Mark1970]

Monica,

The short answer (to the question “the consecration does not occur?”) is no. It does occur.

There are lots of different possibilities here. Please allow me to explain…

In order to consecrate, the priest must have the “intention to do as the Church does.” Therefore, a priest who says the words of consecration without the intention to do as the Church does would not be consecrating. For example, a real priest who plays a priest in a movie (not recommended, but just an example).

Also:
If a priest has the specific intention “not to consecrate” then there is no consecration.
Again, the movie actor, or some other scenario where a preist (legitimately or not) has the specific intention not to consecrate–no consecration.

A priest who for some reason wants to deceive the congregation in church, and who goes through the Mass having the intention not to consecrate, then no consecration.

However:
A priest who has the intention to consecrate, even if he does not believe in Transubstantiation, still consecrates. Because his intention to do so (and the fact that he is doing as the Church does) is sufficient even if his belief is lacking.

A priest who does not believe in Transubstantiation but who has “the intention to do as the Church does” does consecrate. Because it’s not the personal belief (or lack of it) of the priest that matters. Even if he denies the possibility of consecration but still has the intention to do as the Church does, then there is a consecration.

Here’s a quote from De Defectibus:

1. The intention of consecrating is required. Therefore there is no consecration in the following cases: when a priest does not intend to consecrate but only to make a pretense; when some hosts remain on the altar forgotten by the priest, or when some part of the wine or some host is hidden, since the priest intends to consecrate only what is on the corporal; when a priest has eleven hosts before him and intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he means to consecrate. On the other hand, if he thinks there are ten, but intends to consecrate all that he has before him, then all will be consecrated. For that reason every priest should always have such an intention, namely the intention of consecrating all the hosts that have been Placed on the corporal before him for consecration.
2. If the priest thinks that he is holding one host but discovers after the Consecration that there were two hosts stuck together, he is to consume both when the time comes. If after receiving the Body and Blood, or even after the ablution, he finds other consecrated pieces, large or small, he is to consume them, because they belong to the same sacrifice.
3. If, however, a whole consecrated host is left, he is to put it into the tabernacle with the others that are there; if this cannot be done, he is to consume it.
4. It may be that the intention is not actual at the time of the Consecration because the priest lets his mind wander, yet is still virtual, since he has come to the altar intending to do what the Church does. In this case the Sacrament is valid. A priest should be careful, however, to make his intention actual also.

A priest should have both the intention to “do as the Church does” and the intention to consecrate. If he has only the intention to do as the Church does, that is sufficient for consecration.

Fr David,

Can I ask a couple of questions based on your post even though it’s not the subject of this thread?

Regarding the intention to do as the church does, isn’t this also used in the case of emergency baptism, which may be performed even by non-Christians? My understanding is that anybody - whether Christian or not - can validly baptize in an emergency as long as they have the intention to “do as the church does”.

My second question relates to Holy Orders, I have heard an argument that one of the reasons (but not the only one) why non-Catholic orders became invalid at the time of the Reformation was that the reformers specifically rejected the Catholic concept of priesthood and so didn’t have the intention of ordaining men as Catholic priests, so their intention to “do as the Church does” was missing. So the men they “ordained” were not truly ordained in the Catholic sense and so unable to transmit Holy Orders to anyone else. Is there any weight to this argument?

Thanks.