A most bizarre event at Mass - Unconsecrated Wine

[agapewolf]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but, I’ve always thought that the consecration happens at the same time for BOTH species when the priest lays his hands over the bread and the wine and asks the Lord to turn them into his body and blood. By the time he says the words “Take this all of you and eat…” for the bread, and “Take this all of you and drink…” for the wine, both have already been consecrated into the body and blood of Christ.

So, doesn’t the consecration happen at the same time for both species and not separately for the bread and then for the wine?

No. You are speaking of the epiclesis.

The consecration happens seperately at the “this is my body” and “this is my blood”. The priest genuflects after each one, so we know that the bread can be consecrated into the body , but the wine isn’t the blood yet.

There is one small exception in an eastern/orthodox (can’t remember which), when one of their eucharistic prayers does not include the words of consecration (this was on a catholic answers show years ago). The consecration happens at the epiclesis in this one particular instance.

 

[SenorHorace]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but, I’ve always thought that the consecration happens at the same time for BOTH species when the priest lays his hands over the bread and the wine and asks the Lord to turn them into his body and blood. By the time he says the words “Take this all of you and eat…” for the bread, and “Take this all of you and drink…” for the wine, both have already been consecrated into the body and blood of Christ.

So, doesn’t the consecration happen at the same time for both species and not separately for the bread and then for the wine?

That’s the epiclesis where the priest is calling down the Holy Spirit. The actual consecration takes place with the words of institution: “Take this, all of you, and eat/drink…” individually for each species.

 

[kurtmasur]

No. You are speaking of the epiclesis.

The consecration happens seperately at the “this is my body” and “this is my blood”. The priest genuflects after each one, so we know that the bread can be consecrated into the body , but the wine isn’t the blood yet.

There is one small exception in an eastern/orthodox (can’t remember which), when one of their eucharistic prayers does not include the words of consecration (this was on a catholic answers show years ago). The consecration happens at the epiclesis in this one particular instance.

Interesting.

I was just doing some research on this topic and it turns out that there is some disagreement between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church about the precise time of actual consecration. According to the wikipedia entry about the Epiclesis, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the priest explicitly invokes the Holy Spirit to come upon these gifts to make them holy, whereas in the Catholic Church no specific words are responsible for the process of transubstantiation, but the consecration is not complete without saying Christ’s words of institution:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiclesis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_Institution

 

[The_Prodigal]

Both species must be consecrated in order for the Mass to be valid, as the Sacrifice involves the Body and Blood of the True Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.

Even forgetting to Consecrate the wine would not invalidate the Mass. The Mass would be incomplete because the celebrating priest must receive BOTH forms to complete the Mass.

Could someone please enlighten me as to the Church’s definition of the term “valid” when it applies to Mass?

 

[m134e5]

Last Sunday I was stunned when Father inadvertently failed to Consecrate the Wine!!!
He went directly from the consecration of the Host to the Holy Holy…
Even our Deacon missed it.
The mass proceeded and we all took from the Chalice per usual.

This was most certainly not deliberate and I wouldn’t want to embarass Father or our Deacon over it, but it raised a question in my mind.

Did we recieve the Blood from the Chalice or simply wine? By that I mean would the wine be consecrated by “intent” even though the form was lacking?

Just curious.

Peace
James

If the priest made that big of a mistake, someone needs to point it out. Mistake or not, it’s a big one and not acceptable- ever. Be charitable about it, but you really should say something.

 

[Gertabelle]

Interesting.

I was just doing some research on this topic and it turns out that there is some disagreement between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church about the precise time of actual consecration. According to the wikipedia entry about the Epiclesis, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the priest explicitly invokes the Holy Spirit to come upon these gifts to make them holy, whereas in the Catholic Church no specific words are responsible for the process of transubstantiation, but the consecration is not complete without saying Christ’s words of institution:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiclesis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_Institution

“According to Wikipedia”??? I’d laugh, but I see you’re being serious.

Dear one, the correct source for definitive Roman Catholic teaching would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). I’m not sure what the source is for the Orthodox, but I’m pretty sure it’s not wikipedia Try this website for a complete online version of the CCC.

usccb.org/catechism/

If you go to the index, you can search for just about anything you want to know about Catholic teaching. Personally, I was amazed and overcome when I first began reading it. I expected a rule book – what I got was a love letter.

OK, to answer your question about when, I found this is CCC:

**1375 **
It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.

It is my understanding that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the bread becomes the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ at the words “This is my body.” Likewise, with the wine at the words, “This is my blood.” Someone else may have other documents to back this up.

Thanks for asking all these great questions! I loved taking the time to look up this stuff and read through it again

God bless you!

Gertie

 

[graceandglory]

It is early and I have not had all my coffee yet, but. I believe the Holy, Holy, Holy comes before the Consecration.
**
If the words of Consecration are not spoken over the chalice then there is no Blood of Christ, simply do not receive from the chalice.** This has happened before.

But what if you want some wine?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

But what if you want some wine?

Stop at the store on the way home!

 

[kurtmasur]

“According to Wikipedia”??? I’d laugh, but I see you’re being serious.

Yeah Wikipedia, I know. Sure anybody can write whatever they want there, but nevertheless the site in general is quite good and not “full of inaccuracies” as some people make it out to be. The reason I decided to post those 2 links to it were because they cited their references, in particular they cited the Catholic Encyclopedia’s definitions of these terms.

Actually, before consulting Wikipedia for help, I was hoping to find my answer to my question in the Canon Law text, but it didn’t really say anything in regards to when exactly the consecration takes place. But thanks for showing me the relevant text on the Catechism

 

[kurtmasur]

1375
It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.

Still, my question about people kneeling when the priest says the epiclesis (“Let Your spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ”) is still unanswered. Even the bells at the altar are sounded. And during papal masses, I’ve noticed that even the Swiss Guard have a protocol to kneel on one knee as soon as the Pope says the epiclesis.

So, what’s the rationale in kneeling at the epiclesis when the consecration in fact happens at the words of institution (This is my body?)

Shouldn’t we instead all wait to kneel until the words of institution instead?

 

[benedictgal]

Still, my question about people kneeling when the priest says the epiclesis (“Let Your spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ”) is still unanswered. Even the bells at the altar are sounded. And during papal masses, I’ve noticed that even the Swiss Guard have a protocol to kneel on one knee as soon as the Pope says the epiclesis.

So, what’s the rationale in kneeling at the epiclesis when the consecration in fact happens at the words of institution (This is my body?)

Shouldn’t we instead all wait to kneel until the words of institution instead?

You are quoting from the Cathechism, which, while it is a supremely important document, is not one of the liturgical documents of the Church. The entire Eucharistic Prayer is important. We are entering into the moment of the Sacrifice.

Now, your comment regarding the Swiss Guard kneeling at the Episclesis makes my point. In Italy, Mexico and other parts of the world, the norm, which is the universal one (because that is how it appears in the Latin GIRM), notes that the faithful must kneel at the epiclesis and stand at the Memorial Acclamation. I live in the Texas side of the Texas-Mexico border. When I have had to assist at Mass in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, the faithful kneel at the epiclesis and stand at the Memorial.

In the United States, our adaptation to the GIRM, which was granted recogitio by the Holy See, notes that:

In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration.

That is why what you see here in the United States is different from what you see in other parts of the world.

 

[dans0622]

Could someone please enlighten me as to the Church’s definition of the term “valid” when it applies to Mass?

Hello The_Prodigal,

The way it has been explained to me is this: technically, the word “valid” does not apply to Mass. In this area of the life of the Church, “validity” applies to Sacraments, specifically, the Blessed Eucharist. So, you can speak about a valid consecration of the Eucharist or valid matter/form of the Eucharist, etc… Generally, though, people consider the *Mass *“invalid” if transubstantiation did not occur, for whatever reason. It’s an understandable conclusion but not as precise as it could be. There might be contrary views out there…

Dan

 

[RUINATION_IPA]

Could someone please enlighten me as to the Church’s definition of the term “valid” when it applies to Mass?

This was in the Q&A in the Wanderer a couple years back but they basically said that the Mass wouldn’t have been a Mass and that it would not fulfill the Sunday obligation since the sacrifice did not takes place which requires the consecration of both species (which symbolises the death of Christ; the seperation of His Blood from His Body.

I’m not sure if this would affect the host, which sounds like it was properly consecrated, but no sacrifice took place; hence no Mass.

 

[drforjc]

Hello The_Prodigal,

The way it has been explained to me is this: technically, the word “valid” does not apply to Mass. In this area of the life of the Church, “validity” applies to Sacraments, specifically, the Blessed Eucharist. So, you can speak about a valid consecration of the Eucharist or valid matter/form of the Eucharist, etc… Generally, though, people consider the *Mass *“invalid” if transubstantiation did not occur, for whatever reason. It’s an understandable conclusion but not as precise as it could be. There might be contrary views out there…

Dan

Dan, it is the double transubstantiation that accomplishes the sacrificial action of the Mass, which is essential. You cannot have a Mass if its most important part is not present.

 

[JRKH]

Dan, it is the double transubstantiation that accomplishes the sacrificial action of the Mass, which is essential. You cannot have a Mass if its most important part is not present.

I guess that we’re not getting any clearer here.

I guess I should post this on the ask an apologist forum.

Peace
James

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I guess that we’re not getting any clearer here.

James,

Wait a tic – maybe it can be cleared up! What is it that seems unclear at the moment?

VC

 

[benedictgal]

I did manage to get hold of someone from EWTN yesterday afternoon. I asked them aboujt validity and such and I was told that in order for the Mass to be valid, there had to be matter, form, validly ordained priest and intent. While the matter was there (the wine) and the intent was probably there, and the priest was legitimate, the fact that the form (words of institution) was missing rendered it invalid. Thus, one would have had to attend Mass again in order to satisfy the obligation. That is why when I witnessed the incident with my parochial vicar, he wasted no time trying ot correct that matter in a hurry.

As I was on my cell phone, I did not get the documentation, but, a follow-up call should let me have the information in order.

 

[dans0622]

Dan, it is the double transubstantiation that accomplishes the sacrificial action of the Mass, which is essential. You cannot have a Mass if its most important part is not present.

Hi drforjc,

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.

Dan

 

[JRKH]

I have asked the question on the Ask an Apolgist forum and I hope to recieve an answer from them, though I know that they don’t always answer every question.

As to things still being confusing, I guess I am still unclear as to the extent of the problem that this error caused. Some thoughts:

1. Obviously the failure, while completely inadvertent, as a large problem. However, since it was a completely unintentional error, there would be some “mitigation of sin” (for lack of a better term) for both the Priest and the congregation.
2. 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.
3. If no one in Church realized that the omission would invalidate the Sunday obligation, It would seem that no one could incur sin due to this.
4. It appears from the various answers recieved on this thread, that this is such an unusual occurance, that, as a whole, we are not quite sure what ramifications are

Peace
James

 

[agapewolf]

As I said before, I heard this on Catholic answers:

The bread and wine are consecrated separately. We see this demonstrated when the priest genuflects after “this is my body” but before “this is my blood”.

The bread was consecrated into the body of Christ.