A most bizarre event at Mass - Unconsecrated Wine

[malphono]

Yes, I see your point and I agree. Still, it seems to me that “validity” doesn’t exactly refer to the Mass, as a whole. If I intend to go to Mass but for some reason the consecration didn’t occur, I would say that I didn’t go to Mass, period, not that I went to an invalid Mass. My reason for maintaining this minor (and, practically, useless) distinction is that, as a student of canon law, I do not think I will find anywhere in the law the notion of an “invalid Mass.” But, there is more to life than canon law. Maybe some other magisterial document speaks about an “invalid Mass.”

Regarding the validity/invalidity of the consecration if one species is not consecrated–canon law only says that to consecrate one species without the other is always absolutely forbidden (c. 927) without saying it is invalid. I suppose the hesitance in saying it is invalid arises from the fact that, as the GIRM says, a priest can simply say the words of consecration over the wine once he notices he mistakenly put water in the chalice. Consequently, I have to conclude the consecration of the bread was effectual (valid) and the Lord is already present under that form, even though the wine was not properly consecrated. So, Father goes through the Eucharistic prayer, etc. He receives the Sacred Host. He receives from the chalice and notices it’s water. He consecrates the wine and receives the Precious Blood. He does not try to consecrate the “bread” again and, also, he does not receive another Host. (Does he?)

There is a difference of opinion on this, however, as other posts make clear.

I am not a canon (or civil) lawyer but my canon lawyer friends (there are several in that grouping, but one in particular who comes from a long line of lawyers) continually harp on the fact that the law is the law. It deals with liceity. Starting from that point, I will posit that it explains why you’re unable to find reference to “invalid Mass” in the CIC: when any of the 4 elements required for validity are missing, there is, (in Western parlance), no Eucharist confected. Which means to me that the Mass cannot have been valid since there was no Mass. The absence of validity means nothing took place, which renders the question of liceity moot.

In the example cited, the defect in Form was corrected. So, assuming the other 3 criteria were present, the Eucharist was confected and the Mass was valid. Now, had the defect not been corrected, the Eucharist would not have been confected since there is no provision for using a single species. Even the canon cited is very clear on that point.

As to whether the obligation of the faithful was fulfilled or not, I would think the obligation mitigated and dispensed, since they were present in anticipation of a valid Mass. Most (if not all) present would probably never have known of the error. It was through no fault of their own that the priest erred and there was no Mass.

The much-discussed Anaphora of Ss Addai and Mari as used by the Assyrian Church of the East has no Institution Narrative, yet even Rome accepts the validity of the Sacrament. But even there, the 4 requirements hold, the difference being that the Anaphora is considered a unit, which means (in Western terms) it is the Form. Let’s say, e.g., that an ACoE priest skipped (whether deliberately or otherwise) half of the Anaphora. Would the Eucharist be valid? The short answer is, as I see it, no, and that precisely because the Anaphora is a unit and constitutes the Form. (Some folks will argue that, in lieu of an Institution Narrative, it all happens at the moment of the Epiklesis, but that doesn’t quite fit in with Syriac theology and tradition: the Western concept of a precise moment is alien to it. The Anaphora is a unit. )

 

[benedictgal]

I am not a canon (or civil) lawyer but my canon lawyer friends (there are several in that grouping, but one in particular who comes from a long line of lawyers) continually harp on the fact that the law is the law. It deals with liceity. Starting from that point, I will posit that it explains why you’re unable to find reference to “invalid Mass” in the CIC: when any of the 4 elements required for validity are missing, there is, (in Western parlance), no Eucharist confected. Which means to me that the Mass cannot have been valid since there was no Mass. The absence of validity means nothing took place, which renders the question of liceity moot.

In the example cited, the defect in Form was corrected. So, assuming the other 3 criteria were present, the Eucharist was confected and the Mass was valid. Now, had the defect not been corrected, the Eucharist would not have been confected since there is no provision for using a single species. Even the canon cited is very clear on that point.

As to whether the obligation of the faithful was fulfilled or not, I would think the obligation mitigated and dispensed, since they were present in anticipation of a valid Mass. Most (if not all) present would probably never have known of the error. It was through no fault of their own that the priest erred and there was no Mass.

The much-discussed Anaphora of Ss Addai and Mari as used by the Assyrian Church of the East has no Institution Narrative, yet even Rome accepts the validity of the Sacrament. But even there, the 4 requirements hold, the difference being that the Anaphora is considered a unit, which means (in Western terms) it is the Form. Let’s say, e.g., that an ACoE priest skipped (whether deliberately or otherwise) half of the Anaphora. Would the Eucharist be valid? The short answer is, as I see it, no, and that precisely because the Anaphora is a unit and constitutes the Form. (Some folks will argue that, in lieu of an Institution Narrative, it all happens at the moment of the Epiklesis, but that doesn’t quite fit in with Syriac theology and tradition: the Western concept of a precise moment is alien to it. The Anaphora is a unit. )

That is why my PV was very quick to take care of the situation after I had brought it to his attention.

 

[Digitonomy]

any of the 4 elements required for validity

Form, matter, and intent - what am I missing?

malphono:

Now, had the defect not been corrected, the Eucharist would not have been confected since there is no provision for using a single species. Even the canon cited is very clear on that point.

Are you suggesting that since the GIRM doesn’t describe a proper way to confect a single species, it therefore can’t be done?

If the bread and wine can only be transubstantiated in tandem, this raises some interesting questions. At the mass benedictgal described, was the bread transubstantiated in the stomachs of the congregation after communion, even though the priest’s intent at the time was presumably limited to the wine on the altar?

My understanding is that in general, a sacrament depends on physical presence - so you can’t have your sins absolved over the phone, you can’t marry someone by mail, and the priest during mass at his parish can’t transubstantiate the hosts in the hospital chapel across town. Normally, we assume that only the hosts and wine on the altar (or adjacent to the altar, at enormous events) get transubstantiated. Is it possible that the first row or two are close enough that the confection “took,” but the shy latecomer standing at the very back of the basilica was out of luck? What of those who left directly after communion, hopped on the interstate and were 10 miles away by the time the priest took care of the wine issue?

 

[malphono]

Form, matter, and intent - what am I missing?

Valid priestly Orders. Please refer to Benedictgal’s earlier [post=4998238]post[/post].

Are you suggesting that since the GIRM doesn’t describe a proper way to confect a single species, it therefore can’t be done?

If the bread and wine can only be transubstantiated in tandem, this raises some interesting questions. At the mass benedictgal described, was the bread transubstantiated in the stomachs of the congregation after communion, even though the priest’s intent at the time was presumably limited to the wine on the altar?

My understanding is that in general, a sacrament depends on physical presence - so you can’t have your sins absolved over the phone, you can’t marry someone by mail, and the priest during mass at his parish can’t transubstantiate the hosts in the hospital chapel across town. Normally, we assume that only the hosts and wine on the altar (or adjacent to the altar, at enormous events) get transubstantiated. Is it possible that the first row or two are close enough that the confection “took,” but the shy latecomer standing at the very back of the basilica was out of luck? What of those who left directly after communion, hopped on the interstate and were 10 miles away by the time the priest took care of the wine issue?

Obviously, it’s impossible to consecrate both species together. First one, then the other. In the situation bededictgal described, the defect was corrected, therefore the Mass was valid. I’m not at all sure where you’re going with the rest of the statement. Whatever it is, though, it rather seems to underscore what I said about the Anaphora being a unit. As a “cradle Oriental” I personally can’t conceive of a “precise moment” when the Real Presence becomes manifest.

 

[Digitonomy]

Obviously, it’s impossible to consecrate both species together. First one, then the other. In the situation bededictgal described, the defect was corrected, therefore the Mass was valid. I’m not at all sure where you’re going with the rest of the statement.

It sounded earlier like you were suggesting that no transubstantiation takes place at all unless both species are consecrated. Sorry that I misunderstood.

 

[The_Prodigal]

I appreciate the responses regarding my query about what constitutes a valid mass, but I am unsatisfied. There simply is no canonical or liturgical definition of this concept. I understand it is a popular notion but with many different interpretations.

Interestingly what we now call the Liturgy of the Word used to be called the mass of the catechumens, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the mass of the faithful. Were they really considered two separate masses ? (a rhetorical question )

When I hear the priest say the words “Ite missa est,” I respond “Deo gratias,” and that is enough for me.

 

[BSHoop96]

1. **Since the Hosts are tinctured, that is contain a bit of wine, **and since we don’t have to receive from the Chalace to have received the entire “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity” of Christ, I’m not sure why this error (which is not an ommission of intent) would nullify the entire sacrifice.
   Peace
   James

??? Can you explain this please?

 

[benedictgal]

I appreciate the responses regarding my query about what constitutes a valid mass, but I am unsatisfied. There simply is no canonical or liturgical definition of this concept. I understand it is a popular notion but with many different interpretations.

Interestingly what we now call the Liturgy of the Word used to be called the mass of the catechumens, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the mass of the faithful. Were they really considered two separate masses ? (a rhetorical question )

When I hear the priest say the words “Ite missa est,” I respond “Deo gratias,” and that is enough for me.

I do not think that we should delve into the realm of antiquarianism here, which is where, unfortunately, I think we are straying. Antiquarianism is basing ourselves completely what happened way back when.

The bottom line is that in order for the Eucharist to be valid, there needs to be the intent, form, matter and a validly ordained priest. Three out of four does not cut it. While the consecration of the species of bread was valid, the consecration of the wine did not happen and thus it rendered the Mass null and void.

Furthermore, if the celebrant had intincted the Body of Christ into the unconsecrated wine, that would not have made a difference, since the consecration of the wine did not occur. One consecrated species touching another unconsecrated species does not make things valid.

 

[The_Prodigal]

I do not think that we should delve into the realm of antiquarianism here, which is where, unfortunately, I think we are straying. Antiquarianism is basing ourselves completely what happened way back when.

The Mass is still the Mass. To refer to traditional understandings of the Mass as having enduring value is not antiquarianism at all; it applies the hermeneutics of continuity.

The bottom line is that in order for the Eucharist to be valid, there needs to be the intent, form, matter and a validly ordained priest. Three out of four does not cut it. While the consecration of the species of bread was valid, the consecration of the wine did not happen and thus it rendered the Mass null and void.

Just as it is wrong to apply the term “valid” (which properly has limited scope of application in sacramental theology) to the liturgy as a whole, so it is erroneous to appropriate the phrase “null and void” from the civil law and apply it to the Mass. It is meaningless in the ecclesial context.

Using technical sounding terms implies that there are technical criteria for deciding whether a Mass has actually taken place. If such criteria exist, then one ought to be able to point them out.

 

[benedictgal]

The Mass is still the Mass. To refer to traditional understandings of the Mass as having enduring value is not antiquarianism at all; it applies the hermeneutics of continuity.

Just as it is wrong to apply the term “valid” (which properly has limited scope of application in sacramental theology) to the liturgy as a whole, so it is erroneous to appropriate the phrase “null and void” from the civil law and apply it to the Mass. It is meaningless in the ecclesial context.

Using technical sounding terms implies that there are technical criteria for deciding whether a Mass has actually taken place. If such criteria exist, then one ought to be able to point them out.

With all due respect, we are not discussing the hermeneutics of continuity. The issue at hand is the validity (or invalidity) of the Eucharist. Since the form was not used, the wine was not consecrated. Both the bread and the wine must be consecrated in order to have a valid Eucharist. Since this did not happen, it was rendered invalid, and, unfortunately, it did not fulfill the Sunday obligation.

 

[diggerdomer]

With all due respect, we are not discussing the hermeneutics of continuity. The issue at hand is the validity (or invalidity) of the Eucharist. Since the form was not used, the wine was not consecrated. Both the bread and the wine must be consecrated in order to have a valid Eucharist. Since this did not happen, it was rendered invalid, and, unfortunately, it did not fulfill the Sunday obligation.

Why would both need to be consecrated to have a valid Eucharist? I thought communion under one species was sufficient?

 

[JRKH]

With all due respect, we are not discussing the hermeneutics of continuity. The issue at hand is the validity (or invalidity) of the Eucharist. Since the form was not used, the wine was not consecrated. Both the bread and the wine must be consecrated in order to have a valid Eucharist. Since this did not happen, it was rendered invalid, and, unfortunately, it did not fulfill the Sunday obligation.

On this point I will take a small issue.
Since, as you say, there seems to have been no valid Eurcharist, the Mass was “invalid”. However it is, in my opinion, not correct to say that it did not “fulfill the Sunday obligation.”
This makes it sound as though I committed a sin because I did not attend a valid mass. Of course as someone else pointed out, since those attending mass went in expectation of participating in a valid mass, AND since apperently no one understood that the mass saw rendered moot by the error, no one who attended the mass failed to keep their Sunday Obligation.

I hope that makes sense.

Peace
James

 

[cricket36]

Why would both need to be consecrated to have a valid Eucharist? I thought communion under one species was sufficient?

The priest HAS to receive under BOTH species to have a valid Mass because the Sacrifice for him includes both. Thus, if the wine was mistakenly not consecrated, the Mass is not valid.

On the other hand, the people do not have to receive both species. They may receive one or the other or both species since the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity resides completely in the Bread; or in the Consecrated Wine.

 

[diggerdomer]

The priest HAS to receive under BOTH species to have a valid Mass because the Sacrifice for him includes both. Thus, if the wine was mistakenly not consecrated, the Mass is not valid.

On the other hand, the people do not have to receive both species. They may receive one or the other or both species since the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity resides completely in the Bread; or in the Consecrated Wine.

Do you have any teachings from the Church you can cite to help us better understand this? I’ve never heard of it. Thanks.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The priest HAS to receive under BOTH species to have a valid Mass

Hi cricket,

Can you elaborate on that, perhaps with some citations? I haven’t run across anything that says the Mass is invalid in such a situation.

Thank you,

VC

 

[cricket36]

Hi cricket,

Can you elaborate on that, perhaps with some citations? I haven’t run across anything that says the Mass is invalid in such a situation.

Thank you,

VC

This is the closest I could find. The reference was concerning the celebrant who cannot use gluten in the hosts. I’m sure there is a better reference since this doesn’t explain the “Why?”

Priest as Sole Celebrant * usccb.org/liturgy/innews/1103.shtml

***The priest celebrant must always receive Holy Communion under both forms. **-may take a small amount of a regular host; or
-may use a low-gluten host.

Otherwise, he may not celebrate Eucharist individually. -may take a small amount under the form of wine; or
-may use mustum.

• If the priest is able to take only a small amount of wine, then what remains may be consumed by a layperson. -may take a small amount of a regular host and may take a small amount under the form of wine; or
  -may use a low-gluten host and mustum.

Otherwise, he may not celebrate Eucharist individually.

 

[diggerdomer]

This is the closest I could find. The reference was concerning the celebrant who cannot use gluten in the hosts.

Thanks. I didn’t think the topic of this thread was this exceptional non-normative situation, so barring any reference you can find from Church teaching I’ll continue to believe as I’ve been taught all my life that there is no requirement for the priest to receive under both species in order for a Mass to be valid.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Otherwise, he may not celebrate Eucharist individually.

Thanks cricket.

The issue, I think, is that the above describes what is allowed (or, rather, not allowed). It is mandatory for a priest to communicate under both species, and to not do so intentionally would be a grave offense. But, I haven’t seen anything that says it would invalidate the Mass.

You might find that the priest’s communion completes the sacrifice – but, again, this doesn’t mean that no sacrifice has taken place (surely Christ’s action is complete), but rather that which belongs to the complete integrity of the sacrifice of the Mass is lacking. Still, it doesn’t seem (as of yet) that there is a statement that it is invalid.

Again, I haven’t found anything that says it would make the Mass invalid. (I have seen things that say that it still is valid).

If you find anything let me know. Until then, perhaps we ought to qualify the statement that lack of a priest’s communion makes the Mass invalid.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
VC

 

[agapewolf]

I don’t understand why putting the term “valid or invalid” on the mass is helpful.

The bread and wine are consecrated separately. So, if the priest consecrates the bread correctly, then genuflects, then either forgets to consecrate the wine or does not consume it, does the Body of christ then go back to being bread? Of course not. That part was still valid.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

does the Body of christ then go back to being bread? Of course not. That part was still valid.

agapewolf,

Quite true!

I’ve avoided giving my opinion on the virtue or lack of virtue in describing a Mass itself as valid or invalid. What I was concerned with was the idea that if a priest doesn’t communicate under both species (presumably both validly consecrated) that the Mass was “invalid”.

VC