Case LXVI: Two Consecration Cases

[Ciborium extra corporale—super corporali.] I. A certain priest met with the following embarrassing accident. Before Mass this priest directed the sexton to place the ciborium, well-filled with hosts, upon the altar, so that he might consecrate them during the Mass. The sexton places the ciborium upon the altar, where the priest at the beginning of the holy service notices it, standing beside the chalice and outside the corporal. At the offertory the priest forgets to offer up also the small particles, and he likewise forgets at the consecration to place the ciborium upon the corporal and to uncover it. Hardly is the consecration over when he, to his utter consternation, catches sight of the ciborium, outside the corporal. What is to be done? Are the small hosts consecrated or not? Must he repeat the words of consecration absolutely, or only conditionally? Only a few hosts are left in the Communion-cup, there is a considerable number of communicants, and this is the last Mass; this thought is deciding; in his dilemma the priest repeats the formula conditionally, and then administers Holy Communion from this ciborium. To solve this case, we will in the first place answer the question, What conditions are necessary for the validity of the consecration?

For the validity of the consecration there is required, in the first place, as in the case of every Sacrament, the intention on the part of the dispenser to do as the Church does, and here a mere virtual intention suffices. Furthermore it is required that the proper matter be physically present; this is conditioned by the words hoc and hie; furthermore, that the matter be meant in individuo, where again the mere virtual intention suffices. The physical presence is naturally to be understood morally, corresponding to the meaning of the words and the nature of the function; so, for example, a host concealed under the corporal, or enclosed in the tabernacle, can not be considered physically present; on the other hand, it is not essential that the materia be actually held by the hands, or that it must be seen, for the hosts in the ciborium may be covered, “for the contents are reckoned together with the container and are morally made present.” (Laymann, L. V. Tr. IV. c. II.)

In our case both conditions for the validity of the consecration, namely the physica praesentia materiae and the intentio ministri are, though only virtualiter, present; the first condition, because the ciborium, filled with particles, was standing on the altar beside the corporal; the second, because the priest, before Mass, and while vesting in the sacristy, had the actual intention to consecrate the small hosts, for he directed, for that purpose, the sexton to put the ciborium upon the altar, and when ascending to the altar he actually noticed it there. This intention formed directly before Holy Mass, continued virtually, as the celebrant in proof of the actual intention performed the ceremonies of Holy Mass. As the actual intention, formed before Holy Mass, virtually takes effect in the act of offering, and as the liturgical act of offering relates to the actual materia of the offering, as well as to the particles, it can hardly be said that the intention continues virtually in regard to the materia primaria but not also in regard to the present materia superaddita, seu secundaria.

Since therefore the conditions for validity are present, the ciborium appears to have been validly consecrated. Hence St. Alphonsus (n. 25) teaches, quite generally, without excepting our case; “He who brought the smaller hosts to the altar, about which he did not explicitly think when consecrating the larger host and which he did not uncover, ought not repeat the consecration.” Laymann also (L. V. Tr. IV. cp. II. n. 12) considers in this case the consecration valid, because both conditions praesentia physica and intentio virtualis are attendant. “If a priest, before going out to offer the sacrifice, is reminded of hosts placed on the altar that are to be consecrated (therefore not necessarily upon the corporal, because put there before Holy Mass)... and intends to consecrate them, but afterward forgets them entirely, they ought to be regarded as none the less entirely consecrated, since in such a case neither the presence of the hosts nor the priest’s virtual intention is lacking.”

The Salmanticenses hold (de Euch. cp. 4, n. 125), that the consecration is valid, if the priest has the hosts brought upon the altar but at the time of consecration forgot about them, and in proof they go on to say "quia intentio virtualiter perseverat;" without making any distinction as to whether the ciborium stood upon the corporal or beside it.

It is an instance of irregularity only that the ciborium was standing outside the corporal, there can be no question of sin, because knowledge and intention were lacking. And yet it is just this circumstance, which is claimed by some authorities to cancel the intentio virtualis otherwise present. These authorities admit under the circumstances of our case that the physical materia is present and also that the priest has virtually the intention, though the materia superaddita be forgotten at the consecration, and that consequently the consecration is valid, but only then, if the ciborium at the consecration stands upon the corporal; this they regard a conditio sine qua non. So Bucceroni (II. n. 511, 3): “The consecration is valid if someone before the sacrifice was reminded of hosts already placed on the altar that were to be consecrated, even though while consecrating he did not remember them or did not even uncover them at the offertory, provided they are present on the corporal, because the preceding intention virtually perseveres.” These authors therefore make exception of the case, when the ciborium stands outside the corporal. But according to the Salmanticenses (de Euch. p. 4, n. 125), it is only "nonnulli" who make the exception: " provided they are upon the corporal," and their reason for making the exception is because a priest is not to be presumed to have willed to consecrate improperly and unlawfully. (Salm. l. c.)

So also Aversa (de Euch. g. z. Sect. 2) a priest is not presumed to wish to commit a grave sin, such as it would be to consecrate in that manner. Likewise Holzmann (II. tr. 3, cp. 2, art. 2) in his case holds that all six hosts present are consecrated even when the celebrant erroneously supposes that there are only five upon the following general principle:... “according to the rite of the Church, a priest is judged—in the particular case as he regularly is accustomed and ought—to have the intention of consecrating all the matter which he has before him, or which either he himself or another with his consent brought to the altar, if it can be lawfully consecrated.”

The argument advanced is therefore: one can not presume the intentio consecrandi in the priest if a circumstance exists, unknown to the celebrant, which, if known to him, would prevent him from consecrating, so as not to consecrate unlawfully.

But this argument does not seem able to stand the test, because in its application and in its consequences it leads too far.

It would certainly be grievously sinful to offer up the holy sacrifice in an unconsecrated chalice, or with a badly broken host, or in wine not mixed with water at the offertory, or in wine which has soured though still valid material. If now one of these unlawful conditions were present without the priest being aware of it, it would have to be assumed according to the general principle above mentioned that the consecration was invalid, “because it could not be lawfully consecrated, because a priest is not presumed to will to commit a grave sin.” The advocates of the above-mentioned principle, however, admit the validity of the consecration in the cases named. Why, then, should the principle apply in a case when the ciborium is extra corporale, and not to the other forbidden conditions? That is not easy to understand. Such restriction would seem purely arbitrary.

Nevertheless Roncaglia (de Euch. p. 2, q. 8) seeks to solve the difficulty by discriminating between the actual sacrificial materia as materia primaria, and the particles to be consecrated as materia secundaria seu superaddita; the priest intends at any rate the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass, notwithstanding a present but unknown defect; has, however, the intention only to consecrate modo licito the particles present in the ciborium, as materia secundaria, which is well reconcilable, as the essence of the Mass exists in its integrity without the consecration of the particles added thereto. Hence, according to this opinion, the sacrifice of the Mass would be valid with a fermented or badly broken host, with an unconsecrated chalice, with sour wine, with wine unmixed with water; the consecration of the particles, on the contrary, would be invalid if the ciborium stood outside the corporal, if the extra hosts were of fermented bread, etc.

Even in this restriction to the secondary materia it does not appear as if the principle could be defended.

Not to uncover the ciborium at the consecration would, if it happened knowingly, be a grievous sin according to a few theologians, and this is a condition which concerns the particles, therefore, in this case, according to Roncaglia, the consecration would be invalid, at least in the opinion of those authors who regard the non-uncovering as grievously sinful. Yet in reality would even they doubt the validity of such a consecration? Furthermore, let us suppose that the hosts contained in the ciborium are fermented, which is forbidden sub gravi; the priest, however, has placed the ciborium upon the corporal; in this case the validity of the consecration will generally be admitted, whether the priest forgets about the particles at the consecration and therefore has only virtual intention, or whether by the uncovering of the ciborium he manifests his actual intention; and yet it is here a question of the secondary material

Or let us presume the following cases, so as to return to the case positio extra corporale, the pyxis stands outside the corporal, which the priest does not notice, and at the consecration he removes the cover; or, the priest uncovering the pyxis moves it nearer, whereby its base slips under the edge of the corporal, so that the pyxis still remains outside the corporal; in these cases no one will doubt the validity of the consecration, though we have here the forbidden case "extra corporale," and though it is here a question of secondary material

Both these last-mentioned cases are distinct from our case only by the fact that the priest in the former has actual intention, and in our case merely virtual intention.

This accidental distinction, however, does not actually matter, as both the actual and the virtual intention suffice for the validity; in the opinion of those authorities there would have to be added to both kinds of intentions: sub intelligitur conditio, si sit licite consecrabile.

If we sum up all these suppositions, we come to the following conclusion; either the principle mentioned must be allowed to apply in its full extent or not at all, a middle course does not seem possible; as however even the advocates of the principle do not let it govern universally, it seems as if this principle would have to be dropped as not tenable.

Hitherto we have viewed this principle "non est praesumendus sacerdos illicite consecrationem facere velle," from the outside as it were, namely, in its application and in its consequences; if we now consider the same according to its nature and essence, it proves itself equally untenable.^*

^* In our argument we have pointed out that in regard to the transubstantiation of the Eucharistic species the discussed principle in its logical application leads too far, and left aside the fact that this principle would also be made to apply to the other Sacraments, of which it would likewise have to be held "non praesumitur sacerdos velle committere grave peccatum." It is easily seen of what grave consequences it might be if the priest, in administering the Sacraments, Holy Baptism, for instance, had always the intention to administer the Sacrament only if no condition be present which is forbidden sub gravi.

According to this principle the proof of the invalidity of the consecration in the case before us is taken "ex praesumpta intentione celebrantis," meaning: one can not suppose that the celebrant has simply the intention to consecrate under all circumstances, whether forbidden conditions exist or not, but it is rather to be supposed that he has the intention not to do anything at Holy Mass that might be a grievous sin, therefore only to consecrate (at least the materia secundaria) when the permissibility is endangered by no weighty qualifications. It is presumed accordingly that the priest has in a manner an intentio conditionata, in so far as he either in every single consecration of the particles makes this condition, or that he once and for all resolves upon this general intention: I shall never intend to consecrate, if a condition exists which if realized would make the consecration gravely unlawful. If a priest really has this intention the consecration is, of course, invalid if such condition be present, because the original intentio conditionata by the entering of the contemplated condition becomes an intentio absoluta. Where however such intention is lacking, then it must be held praesumpta ilia voluntas nulla est.

The question is, have priests really, as a general thing, the conditional intention only to consecrate, si sit licite consecrabile? It would appear that hardly any priests make this general condition beforehand nor regularly in each single case, as otherwise the hesitation and the doubt about validity or invalidity of the consecration, as soon as after the consecration an impeding condition is discovered, would be utterly inexplicable, for of course if they had really had this conditional intention, they would be aware of it, and there could be no doubt that the consecration was invalid.

The reason why hardly any one has this conditional intention, is, because under these circumstances the non-observance of a prescribed form will be no sin, as in all these cases ignorantia is presupposed. Besides, one might be placed in considerable embarrassment by this conditional intention, if, for instance, no consecrated particles are at hand, when needed for the Communion of the faithful. It seems, however, that a distinction must be made as to whether it is a question of consecrating a few particles upon the paten, or whether the priest intends to consecrate a larger quantity in the ciborium. In the first case, the priest has the tacit intention only to consecrate what there is contained upon the corporal, and for that reason the celebrant may properly consider as not consecrated, any particles found outside the corporal after the consecration. In the second case the priest has not the intention to consecrate only that which is lying on the corporal, when perhaps inadvertently he has let the ciborium stand outside the corporal. This distinction is evident by the nature of the proceeding, because the single particles are placed, from the beginning, upon the paten and therefore upon the corporal, while, on the contrary, the ciborium stands in the beginning outside the corporal, and only during the Holy Mass is placed upon it.

It may be gathered from the above that the principle referred to is hardly admissible and that much rather the following general tenet may be adhered to: It can not be held that a priest has not the intention to consecrate, when, without his knowledge, a condition, not interfering with the essence of the Sacrament, is present, which if knowingly tolerated would be a grievous sin. The universal practice of the Church supports this tenet, because whenever the valid administration of a Sacrament is questioned, inquiry is always made whether the substantial elements are present, but not whether also the accidental elements were observed, even if sub gravi prescribed.

This terminates our speculative discussion, and the result is that the validity of the consecration under the conditions mentioned is far more probable than its invalidity.^*

^* Lehmkuhl considers as more probable in our case the Invalidity of the consecration because he holds that the priest's intention before the sacrifice of the Mass had probably been only "PROPOSITUM particulas assumendi et in consecratione includendi." This verdict was not touched upon in the above discussion, for the reason that our purpose was chiefly to refute the argument ex praesumpta intentione celebrantis.

The important question now demands our attention: What principle is to guide us in practice? Although the authorities differ in the theoretical explanation, yet they agree in their view of the actual instance, that the particles are to be again consecrated conditionally, as the validity of the consecration is not quite certain; it does not, however, follow that our speculative discussion is superfluous, for it brings about a more profound understanding of the matter, and sheds a bright light upon obscure points. While St. Alphonsus designates the verdict of the invalidity of the consecration as communis, the Salmenticenses as we have seen above declare that it is only nonnulli who argue the invalidity. Since, therefore, the matter is not decided we may be guided in practice by P. Lehmkuhl who writes: “Therefore, if the consecration remains doubtful, the particles must either be consecrated again conditionally in the following Mass, or—what seems preferable for the sake of greater reverence unless some inconvenience arises from another source—must be consumed by the celebrating priest after receiving from the sacred chalice and before the ablution.” The latter, of course, is possible only when there are very few particles. St. Alphonsus also advises that since the matter in the practice remains always res dubia, it is reasonable to agree with what Pope Benedict XIV teaches, namely, that this ciborium should again be consecrated.

From the above we may now review the priest's action in the present case. He did not do well in repeating the consecration conditionally during THE SAME MASS, for as the actual matter of sacrifice has already been consecrated this repetition of the consecration was equal to a consecratio sub una specie, which is never permitted, not even if the Viaticum were called for by a dying person. The celebrant should therefore have reserved the ciborium for another Mass, and the faithful should have been directed tocome to Holy Communion upon the following day.

II. On account of its similarity we will quote briefly a second case which, no doubt, has happened to many a priest: A priest orders the sexton, before Mass, to put the ciborium containing the hosts upon the altar, in order to be consecrated. At the commencement of Holy Mass the celebrant places the ciborium upon the corporal, beside the chalice, but during Mass he entirely forgets about it; he does not uncover it at the consecration, hence at the end of Mass he takes it for granted that the ciborium has not been consecrated; he has it carried back into the sacristy, in order to consecrate it the following day.

The solution of this case is plain from our argument in the first case. According to St. Alphonsus (n. 217) it is sententia communis, that the consecration is valid if the ciborium stands upon the corporal even if at the consecration it is entirely overlooked. In reality all the requisites for its validity are present, namely the praesentia physica, and, moreover, the intentio virtualis, which the priest manifests sufficiently by having the ciborium brought to the altar, and by his placing it upon the corporal. There was, of course, an omission of a circumstance prescribed by the rubrics, namely, the ciborium was not uncovered, still the non-observance of this accidental circumstance does not interfere at all with the validity of the consecration; in the first place, moralists admit almost universally that it is not decreed sub gravi to uncover the ciborium and, secondly, even supposed it be an obligatio gravis, its wilful omission therefore a grievous sin, yet this would not prejudice the validity, because the principle non praesumitur sacerdos velle committere grave peccatum, has according to our examination no weight. Hence it follows that in this second case the priest could have distributed these particles to the faithful in Holy Communion, without any doubt or hesitation.