Fair enough, but what confuses me is if you accept the validity of the transubstantiation of the bread without consecration of the wine, which part of dans0622’s thinking were you finding fault with? I’ll repost, since I’m a bit late in replying to all this:
This is taken from Fr. McNamara’s Liturgical Column, as featured on Zenit:
The consecration of the host was valid. The consecration of the chalice was not, for the priest’s intention to consecrate cannot supply for the lack of proper sacramental form.
As a consequence the Mass, which requires the consecration of both species, was not valid. Those who received the host at communion were in the same state as those who receive Communion outside of Mass.
Prodigal,
I’m not sure I follow your point. I’ve always been in agreement that the sacrifice has not occurred until both species are consecrated. I think I’ve said so on this thread (or another concurrent one, I forget!) Did you think I indicated otherwise?
DISCLAIMER: Catholic Answers has turned over the archive to Catholic-Questions.org and no longer owns, manages, or moderates the forums. For additional apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.
