Valid consecration of the Eucharist?

[Verbum_Caro]

Ok, so since he intends to use the correct matter, correct wordings and gestures regardless of his beliefs, the consecration is valid, whether or not he believes that what he does produces the effect… It sounds to me that this is a safeguard (of course Our Lord would do that) to ensure that the Sacraments are valid, regardless of the Priests shortcomings, whether it be belief or a poor memory, or what ever… At least there has to be an outward sign of an invalid Sacrament, so someone couldn’t be ‘duped into not receiving valid Sacraments’. Right?

Right.

You hit on precisely the explanation found in the Catechism of Trent (The Roman Catechism) which explicates for parish priests the decisions of the Council of Trent. The Catechism of Trent is referring back to the Canon that I referenced earlier (“intend to do what the Church does”) when it says:
Since the ministers of the Sacraments represent in the discharge of their sacred functions, not their own, but the person of Christ, be they good or bad, they validly perform and confer the Sacraments, provided they make use of the matter and form always observed in the Catholic Church according to the institution of Christ, and provided they intend to do what the Church does in their administration. Hence, unless the recipients wish to deprive themselves of so great a good and resist the Holy Ghost, nothing can prevent them from receiving (through the Sacraments) the fruit of grace.
VC

 

[Timothysis]

I ended up having to go there for Mass this morning, as the family was involved in a ministry fair. And Praise God, he did all the correct actions during the consecration, and did not say anything heretical during his homily. BUT, instead of focusing on our Dear Lord and giving thanks and praise, I’m begging God that he does not say anything that my children should not hear… So, yes, I am definitely trying to go to other parishes as much as possible… Please pray for all our Priests!! The good ones are so attacked, and others just need help as we all do to grow in Faith, Love and Trust.

Thanks so much!! I’ve just joined CA and I can already tell, this is the place for me. God Bless!!!

I’m glad to hear that things went well today. Hopefully, things will improve over time!!! Good luck to you.

 

[bquinn]

Right.

You hit on precisely the explanation found in the Catechism of Trent (The Roman Catechism) which explicates for parish priests the decisions of the Council of Trent. The Catechism of Trent is referring back to the Canon that I referenced earlier (“intend to do what the Church does”) when it says:
Since the ministers of the Sacraments represent in the discharge of their sacred functions, not their own, but the person of Christ, be they good or bad, they validly perform and confer the Sacraments, provided they make use of the matter and form always observed in the Catholic Church according to the institution of Christ, and provided they intend to do what the Church does in their administration. Hence, unless the recipients wish to deprive themselves of so great a good and resist the Holy Ghost, nothing can prevent them from receiving (through the Sacraments) the fruit of grace.
VC

Oh, that’s what I was looking for. Thank you!!! That puts my heart at rest!!

 

[bquinn]

I’m glad to hear that things went well today. Hopefully, things will improve over time!!! Good luck to you.

Thank you, and maybe with prayer I’ll get the courage to try and meet with him about one of the other issues at a time. I’ll need to study up on my apologetics. Good thing I’ve found a great spot to do that!!

 

[Digitonomy]

The Council of Trent sounds like he must definitely have intent, but Aquinas seems to say if his intent is to carry out the actions/words of the Church, that’s enough, without needing to believe in the Sacrament. So as long as he uses the correct ‘formula’, the Eucharist is valid.

Simply using the correct formula does not ensure validity without some minimal intent to let happen what may happen. Whether he believes in the real presence or not, a priest could choose to just go through the motions and put on a show, without confecting the Eucharist. This has probably happened from time to time at seminary training and rehearsals for masses training altar servers, etc. Some would call this a counterintention, but as you see it doesn’t have to be a very active counterintention.

bquinn:

Is Aquinas considered absolute teaching of the Church. (infallible?)

No. A number of things stated by Aquinas have been rejected by the Church. However, for the most part his work is very solid and a foundation of modern Catholic theology.

 

[Jimdandy]

Have you tried sitting quietly with Jesus in adoration and praying for this Priest?

We all should pray daily for our shepherds.

 

[bquinn]

Have you tried sitting quietly with Jesus in adoration and praying for this Priest?

We all should pray daily for our shepherds.

Absolutely!! I’ve spent several hours at Adoration praying for him, as well as offering up many Rosaries… Oh, I know the power of prayer can do so much. Look at St. Augustine!

Honestly, that’s why I came here looking for answers, as I don’t want to speak about it to anyone who would know him. I absolutely do not want to cause scandel for any of God’s ministers, and the pain it causes Our Dear Lord and Our Lady when one speaks uncharitably about our Priests. That’s why it has been so difficult, because what hurts Their Hearts more, reporting him to authorites,(Papal Nuncio) or the souls he’s leading away from the true teachings of Christ?? I had hoped the one Priest I had talked to, would be able to speak to him and help him, so all would be helped, without causing any scandel… But that has not happened. (Or maybe it has, since he did do much better this past Sunday???- at least in action)

 

[bquinn]

Simply using the correct formula does not ensure validity without some minimal intent to let happen what may happen. Whether he believes in the real presence or not, a priest could choose to just go through the motions and put on a show, without confecting the Eucharist. This has probably happened from time to time at seminary training and rehearsals for masses training altar servers, etc. Some would call this a counterintention, but as you see it doesn’t have to be a very active counterintention. No. A number of things stated by Aquinas have been rejected by the Church. However, for the most part his work is very solid and a foundation of modern Catholic theology.

I assumed Aquinas wasn’t infallible, even though he’s a Doctor of the Church, as I thought he had some teachings contrary to what is now infallible teaching. (Regarding Immaculate Concepton, right?) But, the Catechism of Trent seemed to be clearer on the subject, and makes me think that the counterintent would have to be more obvious. Or is that just hopeful thinking??

 

[Verbum_Caro]

This has probably happened from time to time at seminary training and rehearsals for masses training altar servers, etc. Some would call this a counterintention, but as you see it doesn’t have to be a very active counterintention.

Digitionomy,

Aquinas actually addresses this in the Summa, III, 64, 10:

The minister’s intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially if it be manifested outwardly.

Reply to Objection 2: The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament.

A priest teaching, for instance, would be a counter-intention, in the sense that he intends to do something other than confer a sacrament: teach, illustrate, etc.

VC

 

[Digitonomy]

But, the Catechism of Trent seemed to be clearer on the subject, and makes me think that the counterintent would have to be more obvious. Or is that just hopeful thinking??

If a priest is performing a mere demonstration of the consecration, I don’t think he has to fervently pray “Please Lord, don’t let this bread and wine become your body and blood.” I think it suffices to simply lack the intention to consecrate. (Such demonstrations are no doubt discouraged to prevent “accidents” where the body and blood would actually be confected.) Neither do I think the intention to consecrate has to be very strong - the priest must simply allow that whatever is going to happen will happen with regard to transsubstantiation. That’s a pretty fine line. We’re splitting hairs here, so I’ll let the more learned here weigh in on whether I’ve gone half a hair too far.

 

[Digitonomy]

Digitionomy,

Aquinas actually addresses this in the Summa,

When I invited the more learned to weigh in, I wasn’t expecting Aquinas himself!

 

[bquinn]

If a priest is performing a mere demonstration of the consecration, I don’t think he has to fervently pray “Please Lord, don’t let this bread and wine become your body and blood.” I think it suffices to simply lack the intention to consecrate. (Such demonstrations are no doubt discouraged to prevent “accidents” where the body and blood would actually be confected.) Neither do I think the intention to consecrate has to be very strong - the priest must simply allow that whatever is going to happen will happen with regard to transsubstantiation. That’s a pretty fine line. We’re splitting hairs here, so I’ll let the more learned here weigh in on whether I’ve gone half a hair too far.

To me these two seem quite obvious fo the reasons VC said in is reply:

Aquinas actually addresses this in the Summa, III, 64, 10:

The minister’s intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially if it be manifested outwardly.

Reply to Objection 2: The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament.

So it’s obvious to all that the intention to teach in a seminary is not the intention to confect, unless intent to do both at once…

But if the Priest has full intent to do what the Church teaches in ‘form’, but in his mind is thinking 'this is just a ritual, I’m just doing it so I don’t get in trouble by these people who actually believe something is happening here…" To me that’s not really intent, but is it counterintent? He’s not praying that it doesn’t happen… AS the teacher is doing it for another reason, this Preist is also doing it for another reason, right?? So then could it be counter intent?

 

[Digitonomy]

But if the Priest has full intent to do what the Church teaches in ‘form’, but in his mind is thinking 'this is just a ritual, I’m just doing it so I don’t get in trouble by these people who actually believe something is happening here…" To me that’s not really intent, but is it counterintent? He’s not praying that it doesn’t happen… AS the teacher is doing it for another reason, this Preist is also doing it for another reason, right?? So then could it be counter intent?

The priest is doing it because that’s his duty and one of his responsibilities as the priest celebrant. So I would say he probably has the minimal intent to do what the Church intends. Even if he thinks it’s just a charade, he’s at least not adding to the charade, just doing his job.

Aquinas, as is often the case, clarifies the issue that I presented in a murky way. If a priest isn’t going through the motions to teach, or to make a mockery, why is he doing it? His intent in most cases is simply to do what the Church intends.

It’s also worth considering that few people, especially priests, are 100% atheists. There’s usually going to be some shadow of a doubt that God may exist. And thus for a priest, there will usually be a shadow of a doubt that consecration might be taking place, even if they’re 99% sure it isn’t. So unless they’re feeling especially defiant toward God, they’ll go through the ritual with doubt-filled but willing intent.

 

[Nickkname]

I have a question that I can’t seem to find anywhere. Several people in a particular parish are upset because their Priest has said he does not believe in the infallability of the Magisterium or the Pope, he does not believe in purgatoy, he’s not a proponent of the Church’s teaching on life issues, he does not show honor to Our Lady.

He has not said he doesn’t believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but some of his actions infer he does not. To get to the question, they are worried that they are not receiving the eucharist when they go to Mass, because they don’t believe he has intent when he does the consecration. Can anyone tell me whether or not the consecration would be valid?? And can you back it up with any Church doctrine?? I thought I saw somewhere that it would be valid, as it is independent of the state of the soul of the Priest. Help please!! Thanks!!

I think all the sacraments require the correct formula and the intention, so if the Priest dosen’t have the intention, it isn’t valid. I’m sorry to hear about this. May the parish be delivered from evil and the Priest saved from himself.