Valid Intention to Confect the Eucharist

[Ottoviani]

We know that for a priest to validly confect the Blessed Sacrament [or any other sacrament] he must use the correct matter, form and have the intention to do what the Church does.

My question is, how do we know if a priest has the correct intention since we are not mind readers?

Say a priest uses the correct matter in Consecrating [wheaten unleavened bread in the Latin Rite, leavened in the Uniates]
The correct words of Consecration [form]

But to himself thinks that he does not want to transubstantiate [intention]

Is it a valid Mass?

 

[superamazingman]

We know that for a priest to validly confect the Blessed Sacrament [or any other sacrament] he must use the correct matter, form and have the intention to do what the Church does.

My question is, how do we know if a priest has the correct intention since we are not mind readers?

Say a priest uses the correct matter in Consecrating [wheaten unleavened bread in the Latin Rite, leavened in the Uniates]
The correct words of Consecration [form]

But to himself thinks that he does not want to transubstantiate [intention]

Is it a valid Mass?

Nope. Not at all.

In some cases, when the priest doesn’t really believe in the real presence, but still intends to do what the church does (by virtue of celebrating Mass), that can be valid, but if he makes a conscious effort not to consecrate the elements, then it is not valid.

 

[Ottoviani]

Nope. Not at all.

So in theory we never know when we are going to Mass?

I was wondering if the intention is inextricably bound to the Form, as in the Miracle of Lanciano, where the priest did not believe he was transubstantiating the host, and the bread turned into the physical bleeding flesh of Christ.

Or is this different, in that this priest was unsure as opposed to having no intent at all to do what the Church does?

 

[Ottoviani]

Nope. Not at all.

In some cases, when the priest doesn’t really believe in the real presence, but still intends to do what the church does (by virtue of celebrating Mass), that can be valid, but if he makes a conscious effort not to consecrate the elements, then it is not valid.

Just read your addition.
Thank you.
So a priest would have to be overtly malicious to inwardly not want to transubstantiate?

 

[Leon_Bloy]

So in theory we never know when we are going to Mass?

I was wondering if the intention is inextricably bound to the Form, as in the Miracle of Lanciano, where the priest did not believe he was transubstantiating the host, and the bread turned into the physical bleeding flesh of Christ.

Or is this different, in that this priest was unsure as opposed to having no intent at all to do what the Church does?

I thought of that miracle when I first read your post, actually.

I would not get terribly worried about it. This kind of thinking - I am assuming you are just speculating “for fun” here, though - can lead if one is not careful into an abyss of doubt and loss of faith.

Anyway, the Council of Trent made it very clear that it’s pretty hard to invalidate a mass. Read what they said in their Catechism.

Also, one reason a priest must have the “intention” is - here is an example:

A parish decides to put on a play. In this play, there might be a mass that takes place (go along with me here for the sake of the analogy). If the priest plays the fictional role of another priest in the play and recites the words of consecration over valid matter, has he now in reality confected the Eucharist? Clearly his intention - since he is operating as an actor in a play - would be no. But obviously, no priest with any prudence would put himself in that situation.

So I think the Church has always said that a general intention to actually be celebrating the mass - even if just going through the motions - is sufficient.

 

[Ottoviani]

I thought of that miracle when I first read your post, actually.

I would not get terribly worried about it. This kind of thinking - I am assuming you are just speculating “for fun” here, though - can lead if one is not careful into an abyss of doubt and loss of faith.

Anyway, the Council of Trent made it very clear that it’s pretty hard to invalidate a mass. Read what they said in their Catechism.

Also, one reason a priest must have the “intention” is - here is an example:

A parish decides to put on a play. In this play, there might be a mass that takes place (go along with me here for the sake of the analogy). If the priest plays the fictional role of another priest in the play and recites the words of consecration over valid matter, has he now in reality confected the Eucharist? Clearly his intention - since he is operating as an actor in a play - would be no. But obviously, no priest with any prudence would put himself in that situation.

So I think the Church has always said that a general intention to actually be celebrating the mass - even if just going through the motions - is sufficient.

Your analogy is good and well taken.
Kind of like a priest who is teaching a seminarian to say Mass.
He would not have the intention to Consecrate when it came to that part of the instruction.

A priest once told me that even though he has no intent to say Mass during this instruction, he still has no bread or wine in his hands.

I am not personally worried about this issue since I know the personal goodness of the priests I usually go to for Mass,

Rather I am considering the fact that we really don’t know strange priests [ones we do not know] minds and in theory they might not have the correct intention.

Could you please quote Trents words on this, that you alluded to earlier?

 

[Anna_Claire]

Hope it’s not a worry. We wouldn’t know unless he made an announcement. A priest in that state of mind would be a rarity indeed. Why look for problems anyway?

 

[Digitonomy]

Rather I am considering the fact that we really don’t know strange priests [ones we do not know] minds and in theory they might not have the correct intention.

Even if we know a priest, we can’t read his mind. On the other hand, if you don’t know a “strange” priest, you don’t even know that he’s really a priest, let alone the usual issues of form, matter, and intent. So 100% certainty is impossible to come by. However, it is exceedingly unlikely that any priest would maliciously hold the intent not to consecrate the bread and wine. So unlikely that I doubt any person currently on this board has ever been to such a mass.

 

[Luvtosew]

Its impossible to know whats in the real heart or mind of anyone including Priests, one must take it in faith. I believe or want to that the major majority of Priest have every good intention of doing what they should be doing and totally believe in what they are doing. If a Priest didn’t he should step down. Its in Gods hand not ours to know this stuff.

 

[Luvtosew]

Its impossible to know whats in the real heart or mind of anyone including Priests, one must take it in faith. I believe or want to that the major majority of Priest have every good intention of doing what they should be doing and totally believe in what they are doing. If a Priest didn’t he should step down. Its in Gods hand not ours to know this stuff, meaning if God wants it to happen I believe its going to happen no matter the intent of the Priest involved. God is all powerful.

 

[superamazingman]

So in theory we never know when we are going to Mass?

In theory, yes, we don’t really know. However, unless there’s a serious reason not to, we can trust our priests are doing it right, since it would be gravely sinful to pretend to celebrate Mass like that.

 

[superamazingman]

Just read your addition.
Thank you.
So a priest would have to be overtly malicious to inwardly not want to transubstantiate?

Yep.

 

[runningdude]

The Catechism of Trent’s teaching: cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-e.htm

Basically, it goes into great detail about each part of the ritual, and how its omission would be sinful, but not invalidate the Eucharist. The idea that the priest, celebrating mass according to the rules, would invalidate the mass by his deliberate intention is not even addressed.

So many safeguards would have to be thwarted to get to that point, that it seems such a scenario was never considered a true possibility worth addressing.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

The Catechism of Trent’s teaching: cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-e.htm

Basically, it goes into great detail about each part of the ritual, and how its omission would be sinful, but not invalidate the Eucharist. The idea that the priest, celebrating mass according to the rules, would invalidate the mass by his deliberate intention is not even addressed.

So many safeguards would have to be thwarted to get to that point, that it seems such a scenario was never considered a true possibility worth addressing.

Thanks, runningdude… I was about to pull my Catechism of Trent off the shelf at Cardinal Ottaviano’s request

 

[Cristiano]

We know that for a priest to validly confect the Blessed Sacrament [or any other sacrament] he must use the correct matter, form and have the intention to do what the Church does.

My question is, how do we know if a priest has the correct intention since we are not mind readers?

Say a priest uses the correct matter in Consecrating [wheaten unleavened bread in the Latin Rite, leavened in the Uniates]
The correct words of Consecration [form]

But to himself thinks that he does not want to transubstantiate [intention]

Is it a valid Mass?

The form is to use the words of consecration.

The intent of doing what the Church does is shown by doing it during the Mass. You cannot do a willful act without intending it.

An example of possibly not being valid would be for a real priest doing a complete pretend Mass in a movie.

 

[Ottoviani]

Thank you all.
Question answered.

We must trust in our priests.

 

[Cristiano]

Thank you all.
Question answered.

We must trust in our priests.

I think that the real problem is when some non ordained idiot goes to a parish claiming to be a real priest and starts to celebrate the Mass. That happened more than once and it is scary.

 

[Ottoviani]

I think that the real problem is when some non ordained idiot goes to a parish claiming to be a real priest and starts to celebrate the Mass. That happened more than once and it is scary.

Wow!
I believe this has happened but never heard the facts on this.
Can you cite some instances please?

 

[Cristiano]

Wow!
I believe this has happened but never heard the facts on this.
Can you cite some instances please?

I need to do a search it but last time it happened was a couple of years up North. This is the reason why the bishops now ask for very specific documentation from visiting priests before giving permission to celebrate the Mass. Long time ago priest were only asked to show their celebret, a few years ago they started to have a special ID card with their picture on it.

 

[Ottoviani]

I need to do a search it but last time it happened was a couple of years up North. This is the reason why the bishops now ask for very specific documentation from visiting priests before giving permission to celebrate the Mass. Long time ago priest were only asked to show their celebret, a few years ago they started to have a special ID card with their picture on it.

The celebret does have the photo on it.
At least the ones I have seen.