Case LXI: Whether a Ciborium Left Outside the Corporal Through Forgetfulness Has Been Consecrated

This question has been discussed before ^* without arriving at a positive answer. It is important enough to deserve closer attention.

^* See THE CASUIST, vol. I, p. 279.

We will distinguish two cases. The consecrator actu sees, or has in mind, the Ciborium or the small Hosts, which, owing to oversight, are placed outside the corporal, or he does not think of them actu, but had thought of them previously.

1. In the first case, when he actu thinks of them, the Hosts are really consecrated, his intention covers them as well as the large Host. Nor can the objection be valid that a consecration joined to a grievous sin can not be presupposed of a priest. For 1. In casu the intentio consecrandi and the consecration of the matter outside of the corporal has actually taken place, and thus there can be no question of being only supposed praesumptio enim cedit facto; 2. The consecrator commits no sin at all, if he consecrates a matter ex oblivione extra corporale relictam, and consequently the objection is without foundation.

It should not be argued the priest has, or should have at least, the intention to commit no grievous material sin. Such an intention is inconceivable, for a material sin does not depend upon the intention, but solely upon the action. The intention can not prevent material sin. He who through an oversight takes another’s property, domino invito, has committed a peccatum materiale furti although he may have had the intention not to commit any peccatum materiale. No one, therefore, has such intention, because it would be quite useless and without avail. Therefore in casu valide there has been consecration; LEHMKUHL (Theol. Mor., II, n. 125, 1): They are most certainly consecrated. Consecration has taken place even in case the consecrator had intended never to consecrate a ciborium outside the corporal. For this intention can not prevent that in casu valid consecration ensues, because hic et nunc the intention does not exercise its influence. Should the consecrator observe that the ciborium is outside the corporal then his intention may have effect, otherwise not at all. Similarly one commits a sin who has resolved to commit the sin, no matter how firmly he may have had the general intention to commit no sin. That intention simply no longer exercises any influence. It has remained mere habitualis, indeed it is implicite discontinued.

Even if shortly before he renewed the intention so to consecrate, as he has intended, i. e., super corporale and then pronounce over the ciborium extra corporale the words with the intentio consecrandi, without thinking of a condition, then it is really consecrated, because that intention, although renewed, yet had no effect. If it had been in effect, the priest would first have ascertained that the ciborium was super corporale, or would have made his intentio with a condition. The intentio conficiendi sacramentum remained completely unaffected, and therefore also the effectus, the confectio sacramenti, It is exactly the same case as if someone, without noticing it, has two

Hosts in his hands, and has the intentio to consecrate what he has in his hands, although he has also the intentio never to consecrate two large Hosts. All authorities agree that both are consecrated, and this is stated also in the rubricae miss (de defect. VII, 1-2):“If a priest having eleven hosts, though thinking there are ten hosts, nevertheless willed to consecrate all those he had before him, then all will be consecrated.” “If a priest, thinking that he holds one host, should find after the consecration that there were two joined together, in consuming them let him consume both together.”

The intentio just to consecrate one Host has no effect, as the intentio consecrandi extends in reality over everything that is in his hands, over two Hosts therefore.

Of course both Hosts would not be consecrated if the two intentions had entered into a relation one with the other, if the consecrator for instance had formed the intentio: I will, if there are two Hosts, only consecrate the upper one. But then the intentio would not have extended to everything that was in his hands. If, however, the intentio consecrandi extends to everything that is in the hand, the intention non consecrandi two Hosts, even though renewed, is without effect. It runs, so to say, alongside, but does not modify the other intention, indeed it is implicite canceled. And so it is in our case. If the consecrant united the two intentions, if for instance he had said: I will consecrate the ciborium if it is not extra corporale, then the ciborium extra corporale would not be consecrated; the intentio then would have had no reference to the ciborium at all. In our case, however, he does not unite the two intentions. He thinks of the ciborium, has the intentio of consecrating it, without having in mind his previously renewed intention not to consecrate a Host extra corporale, therefore not modifying his intentio correspondingly. Had he had that intention in mind he would have placed the ciborium upon the corporal, or would have duly amended his intentio consecrandi. Thus that other intention is for the consecratio of no more influence than if it had not been made. There is often a mistake made in viewing the matter by assuming that a conditioned intention is present, that eo ipso the condition and the conditioned intention are somehow present in the will. It is concluded: they are in the same faculty, therefore also in the same act. An intention is not conditioned unless the condition is made. Now this is not the fact just because one at some time resolved of doing something only conditional. Hence so often post factum the self reproach: “I wanted to do this in that way, or, under this or that condition.”

We think we have proved, therefore, that the intentio was unconditioned and positive, as this alone could produce a doubt of the valida consecratio.

2. If the consecrator does not think actu of the ciborium, but had it brought upon the altar for his Mass, or had seen how it was brought upon the altar, and then intended the consecration, then again it is valide consecrated, though the ciborium by oversight remained outside the corporal. Of course the ciborium would have to stand beside the corporal and not somewhere in cornu altaris, because otherwise the hoc would not be true. (In our case there is question merely of the intentio, and it is presumed that all conditions in regard to form, etc., were fulfilled.)

And the reason for this assertion is that the intentio for the small Hosts was virtualis; for the priest approaches the altar in casu, with the intention of consecrating both, namely the large host and the small ones. And because he undertakes the work from this intention, he has a virtual intention. The intentio virtualis is defined by St. THOMAS as follows: It is not necessary that intention always be actually joined to the work; it suffices that the work proceed from the intention (In. IV, D. 6, q. 1, a. 2, ad 4).

In our case there is the same intentio which St. THOMAS describes in an example: “When a priest approaches to baptize, he intends to do concerning the person to be baptized what the Church does; if afterward, in the very exercise of the act, his thought is carried away to other things, the sacrament is effected by virtue of the first intention” (3, q. 64, a. 8, ad. 3).^* And then if later the intentio becomes actualis for the large Host that changes nothing in the intentio for the small Hosts, as it is not affected. If the Hosts were upon the corporal, all agree that, by virtue of the first intentio, the small Hosts are consecrated (St. ALPHONSUS, Lib. VI, n. 217; Lacroix, Lib. V. p. 1, n.; LAYMANN, Lib. V, tract 4, c. 2, n. 14). The latter does not even mention this circumstance, stating: But if a priest, before he goes out to offer sacrifice, is notified about hosts placed upon the altar that are to be consecrated, and proposes to consecrate them, but afterward entirely forgets, they must nevertheless be considered consecrated, since in such a case neither the presence of the hosts nor the priest’s virtual intention is lacking, as (the names of writers) teach and as is gathered from the Rubrics of the Mass (On Defects VII, 4): If the intention is not actual in the consecration because of wandering of mind, but is virtual, since in approaching the altar he intends to do what the Church does, the sacrament is effected.

^* Without sufficient reason, it appears to us, and opposed to earlier authors, (cf. St. ALPHONSUS) LEHMKUHL maintains: “If during Mass the priest thought in no way about the particles and they were left outside the corporal, the consecration is doubtful in practice, because the will to consecrate is not certainly established... For the prior notification made, for example, by a server indeed caused the priest to have the intention of afterward taking the particles for consecration, but it is not certain that he actually took them or actually carried out the intention; since that will conceived before Mass cannot certainly be called a determination of the matter to be consecrated persisting at the time of consecration, but was probably only a proposal afterward to take those particles and include them in the consecration; whether this was done remains doubtful.” For what reason, then, should the voluntas ante Sacrum not be perdurans? If one at the beginning of a task makes an act of the will, it prevails if not retracted perdurans the same, as if made during the task. And where the intentio virtualis is described, it is almost always thought of as ante opus, i. e., not merely ante confectionem sacramenti, but also before all liturgical acts connected therewith. And, finally, is the propositum postea illas particulas in consecratione includendi not already the virtualis intentio? Or is there a difference between propositum illas consecrandi and p. illas in consecratione includendi? It need not further be expressed, and there remains in consequence no reason for a doubt.

LAYMANN, therefore, as well as the Rubrics, speaks quite positively without entering upon the circumstance whether the Hosts be upon the corporal.

It remains then only to prove that that circumstance does not change the effect. The reason for denying this is, because, since an intention to consecrate outside the corporal would have been a grave sin, you are not presumed to have had that intention (St. ALPHONSUS). We have already demonstrated the invalidity of this objection. There can be no question of a praesumptio, because a positive virtualis intentio, not retracted, was certainly present, and, furthermore, because it is no sin to consecrate Hosts ex oblivione extra corporale relictas.

We maintain after all this, that the view (that the Hosts are consecrated) is the correct one. We believe we have proved sufficiently, (sub. 1), that intentions running alongside are of no value because they do not at all affect the intentio just then present, they remain without effect upon it. Everything argued sub. 1 applies also in 2, because both cases differ only in so far as in the first case an intentio actualis, in the second only virtualis, was present. And thus would be proved that also for this case the intention to consecrate was unconditional and positive.

From the remarks sub. 1, about intentions never to consecrate Hosts extra corporale, it follows necessarily that all intentions made in general, or concurrently in particular, are of no influence upon the intentio perficiendi sacramentum. The sole advantage they have is that which every good resolution brings with it, namely to make a man more careful about certain things. In order to have an influence upon the intentio consecrandi, they must every time be brought into connection with the same. If then in a perfectio sacramenti the intentio is merely virtualis, this condition must have been added to the intentio beforehand, and if it is actualis, it must now be added. If this is not done the intentio is not conditioned, no matter how many purposes, which might or should act as conditions, may exist in the will actualiter or habitualiter. The might and the should do not count.

For this reason it seems the advice, to resolve under what circumstances one will or will not consecrate, is of no value if the resolution is to prove later the validity of a consecration. It is, however, to be recommended to make his intentio always as the Rubrics recommend: Every priest ought always to have this intention, namely of consecrating all those which he has placed before him to be consecrated.^* One, therefore, should omit conditions (for instance si est super corporale) as they may subsequently cause embarrassment.

^* This intentio, as there found, is positive and unconditional, and for this reason applies also to the small Hosts which by oversight were left extra corporale. This is not the case of the other expression in the Rubrics: if some Hosts through forgetfulness remain upon the altar... he does not consecrate them. For (1) in altari may be everywhere upon the altar, i. e., in cornu altaris, and then the form hoc would no longer be true; (2) they may be Hosts of which the priest knows nothing at all, and knows not whether he may consecrate them; (3) it seems as if the words there since he does not intend to consecrate anything except what he sees belonged also to this sentence. That would mean that these Hosts were not consecrated, if the priest makes the intentio to consecrate only what he actually sees, and then in forgetfulness does not look at them.

Fr. BREMER.