A most bizarre event at Mass - Unconsecrated Wine

[diggerdomer]

Unfortunately, I get the impression that diggerdomer is not only splitting hairs but is setting himself up as the arbiter of what is valid and unvalid.

I wonder if diggerdomer went to confession and asked the priest a question, whether he would accept the answer. Or whether this same kind of questioning would continue in the confessional or outside.

I’m trying not to be cruel or judgemental though I am afraid this is how I will come across. I simply don’t understand why diggerdomer continues this line of questioning.

Thank you for your concern. I certainly don’t think you intend to come across as cruel or judgmental. I hope no one else gets that impression either.

I’m sorry if you or anyone got the idea that I was setting myself up as arbiter. I’m not. I’m simply asking for a better understanding of the topic raised in this thread regarding validity of the Eucharist. I’ve heard claims about it I don’t understand, and I can’t find any reference to address the question myself, and so far I haven’t gotten the answer here either. Oh well.

And not that it’s on topic, but since you asked, of course I would accept an answer from a priest in confession. And I certainly would not quibble with him if he didn’t say the words of absolution exactly verbatim, or if he wasn’t wearing a stole or any other minutiae that in another setting, outside the liturgical event, might raise questions in someone’s mind about validity etc. I would celebrate the sacrament and trust God to provide as always.

Thank you again for your sincere concern, and sorry again if I’ve offended.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

When the principal celebrant does not consume both species the Sacrifice is incomplete. An incomplete Sacrifice does not make for a valid Mass.

ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur133.htm

Walking Home, and others,

First, please take my assurance (for what it is worth) that I strive for utter and complete orthodoxy – If anything I say is not consistent with the authentic magisterial teaching of the Church it ought to be rejected.

The reason I felt it necessary to state the above is because what follows is: a)I question the surety of the statement “the Mass is invalid if the priest does not communicate under both species”; b) a possible contradiction of Walking Home; and c) a possible agreement with diggerdomer (whom I have heretofore tended to *disagree *with on several issues – no offense intended, dd.)

Now to it:

Walking Home, you pointed us to Fr. McNamara above. Unfortunately he elsewhere says this (correctly, I believe):

     This situation is different from one illustrated by a reader from the          United Kingdom in which a priest forgot to receive from the chalice          before distributing Communion and remembered only after the chalice had          been emptied. 
    
    Technically this would be called an irregularity, as the priest is          obliged to receive under both kinds. This error also occurs sometimes at          large concelebrations at which, due to lack of careful planning, some          priests are left by the wayside in the distribution of the chalice.

** While it should not happen, it does not affect the validity of the Mass** for either priest or faithful. The only thing to be done about it is to learn the lesson the hard way, ask forgiveness for any culpable negligence, and be more careful and attentive the next time.

Walking Home you are correct, of course, that the priest’s communion completes the sacrifice (this is the teaching of the Church). But what does that mean, exactly? It seems to me something distinct from “the sacrifice is incomplete”. How so? Because completing the sacrifice means that the sacrifice has already occurred (i.e. at the double consecration). It is not, then, a matter of the sacrifice being incomplete in the sense of not occurring, I would say. Your phrase “the sacrifice is incomplete” would certainly be appropriate to describe a priest forgetting and not yet consecrating the precious blood. . . because until he or another priest does so the sacrifice would not have occurred.

Strictly speaking, though, the above doesn’t tell us about the validity or lack of validity (to use those terms) of the Mass – it just tells us that the sacrifice occurs after the double consecration. Regarding the priest’s communion, we know that it belongs to the integrity of the Mass. Here is Mediator Dei:

1. The august sacrifice of the altar is concluded with communion or the partaking of the divine feast. But, as all know, the integrity of the sacrifice only requires that the priest partake of the heavenly food.

Later the Holy Father restates it as the communion belonging to the “integrity of the Mass” (115)

We find the same in the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

the Communion of the priest is not the sacrifice, but only the completion of, and participation in, the sacrifice; it belongs therefore not to the essence, but to the integrity of the sacrifice.( “Sacrifice of the Mass,” J. Pohle, The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1914 (San Diego, Catholic Answers, 2007)

As to whether or not this lack of integrity means the Mass itself is invalid, I’m leaning towards no. Fr. Hardon says in his Catholic Dictionary, under Double Consecration:

The separate consecration of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. This separate consecration constitutes the essence of the Mass as a renewal of Calvary. It symbolizes the death of Christ caused by the separation of his body and blood. All other parts of the Mass are not absolutely essential, even the priest’s Communion, which, though gravely binding, belongs rather to the integrity than to the essence of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

St. Thomas in the Summa mentions two kinds of integrity: that which belongs to the essence of a thing and that which belongs to its use. I think here we might being speaking of the latter type of integrity.

I’ll just note again, that whatever else it is, the priest’s communion if gravely binding. Very serious in Canon Law. It also seems to be a Divine command on the part of Christ to his priests.

So, that is where I am at the moment. Can anyone help me see it more clearly?

Walking Home, I welcome your thoughts. Do you know of any authoritative source that might help clear this up?

Thanks,
VC

P.S. JRKH, you are right, too, that the above discussion doesn’t bear directly on your question. I think it might have some oblique bearing though. Hope you don’t mind.

 

[benedictgal]

I agree here.
Also we are getting off of a specific point for those who attend such a mass.

First of all, In the case in the OP, The Priest DID intend to consecrate the wine but failed to do so due, presumably, to some medication he had taken. So - in all of the discussion about validity - we must rmemeber that the mistake was unintentional.

Second, for the benefit of uniformed parishoners, such as myself, how could such an unintentional error be a failure on our part to complete the Sunday Obligation? We went intending to attend Mass and, at least until I posted here, I thought I had attended mass.

So in all of the back and forth about validity etc. how does this really effect the parishoners who attended the mass and were unaware that this unintentional error was such a serious problem?

Peace
James

The incident I relayed about my parochial vicar merits repeating. I am sure that he intended to consecrate the wine. However, there were some serious goings-on during the Mass that discombulated him. The matter was valid. And, my friend is certainly a validly ordained priest. However, the fourth element, the form was missing.

It’s not like the Meatloaf song were “two out of three ain’t bad.” We need all four elements in order to have a valid Eucharist. If even one of these is missing, then there is no valid Eucharist and hence, no Mass.

That is why after Communion, my friend went through the consecration of the wine and he consumed the Precious Blood. That is why he thanked me for pointing out this to him as soon as I could. Had the matter not been addressed quickly, the faithful would not have satisfied their Sunday obligation.

 

[agapewolf]

The incident I relayed about my parochial vicar merits repeating. I am sure that he intended to consecrate the wine. However, there were some serious goings-on during the Mass that discombulated him. The matter was valid. And, my friend is certainly a validly ordained priest. However, the fourth element, the form was missing.

It’s not like the Meatloaf song were “two out of three ain’t bad.” We need all four elements in order to have a valid Eucharist. If even one of these is missing, then there is no valid Eucharist and hence, no Mass.

That is why after Communion, my friend went through the consecration of the wine and he consumed the Precious Blood. That is why he thanked me for pointing out this to him as soon as I could.

By stating this then, the host that everyone received was not consecrated until the blood was. This is incorrect. They are consecrated seperately.

 

[benedictgal]

By stating this then, the host that everyone received was not consecrated until the blood was. This is incorrect. They are consecrated seperately.

Both of these must be consecrated in order to have a valid Mass. I never brought up the issue of receiving Holy Communion. You did. What I referred to was the fact that while there were three of the four elements to ensure validity of the Eucharist, the form was not present because it was not used; hence, the Eucharist was rendered invalid.

 

[malphono]

agapewolf:

I still can’t wrap my head around the fact that the body of Christ is there, then if the wine is not consecrated, or the priest does not consume the blood of CHrist if it is, that all of a sudden the body of Christ is UNconsecrated and not valid anymore. We are bound by time with this…

I agree here.
Also we are getting off of a specific point for those who attend such a mass.

First of all, In the case in the OP, The Priest DID intend to consecrate the wine but failed to do so due, presumably, to some medication he had taken. So - in all of the discussion about validity - we must rmemeber that the mistake was unintentional.

Second, for the benefit of uniformed parishoners, such as myself, how could such an unintentional error be a failure on our part to complete the Sunday Obligation? We went intending to attend Mass and, at least until I posted here, I thought I had attended mass.

So in all of the back and forth about validity etc. how does this really effect the parishoners who attended the mass and were unaware that this unintentional error was such a serious problem?

I’ll not get into the business of the priest’s communion, except to say that I believe Verbum Caro is essentially correct in his interpretation.

As to the question of the consecration itself, the rubrics are very clear that both species must be consecrated. There is, and never has been, such a thing as a “single species” Mass. Verbum Caro’s quote from Fr. Hardon says quite the same thing. In other words, one cannot have one without the other.

Think of titration in chemistry class. (Yes, I know it’s not the best analogy, but I think it works to illustrate the point.)

There are two separate tubes containing two separate substances. When combined, those two substances merge to form a third, which is distinctly different from the first two. One without the other would mean that the third substance has not been formed.

All the while assuming the presence of the other 3 requirements (i.e. matter, intent, and a validly ordained priest), the words of Institution over one species + the words of Institution over the second species together bring about the actual Consecration. One without the other would mean that the Consecration has not taken place.

I’m already on record in an earlier post in agreeing that, in the OP’s scenario, the obligation should be considered mitigated.

 

[agapewolf]

Receiving the host or not…does not matter. That’s not the issue here…it was to bring about the actual point…does the Body of christ then become unconsecrated? If you’re gonna get hung up about the “story” which is not the issue, let’s try another route. The priest consecrates the bread into the body, genuflects, then drops dead. There is no other priest available to consecrate the wine. What do you do with the body of CHrist already consecrated? Put it in the tabernacle, or put it away in the sacristy?

It has its own time of consecration…they are consecrated separately…

 

[malphono]

Receiving the host or not…does not matter. That’s not the issue here…it was to bring about the actual point…does the Body of christ then become unconsecrated? If you’re gonna get hung up about the “story” which is not the issue, let’s try another route. The priest consecrates the bread into the body, genuflects, then drops dead. There is no other priest available to consecrate the wine. What do you do with the body of CHrist already consecrated? Put it in the tabernacle, or put it away in the sacristy?

It has its own time of consecration…they are consecrated separately…

The consecration is simply not complete until such time as both species are consecrated. If, (God forbid) the priest were to expire immediately after the words of institution over the bread, another priest would have to complete the Mass. Until such time as another priest can complete the Mass, the first species should be stored in a safe place. The tabernacle would be best, but it must be separate from anything else there: I’d suggest using something like the old Maundy Thursday routine with the Host on the paten on top of an empty chalice, bound with a purificator.)

 

[dans0622]

Hello all,

The only additional points I have are these: first, canon law speaks of validity many times, not just liceity. And, the basic principle is that if the law does not expressly say validity is at stake, then validity is not at stake (c. 10).

Second, in the matter at hand, when the law could have said “A consecration of one element without the other is invalid,” it did not say that but said that such an act is absolutely forbidden. This article of the Summa is illuminating, as to why the law does *not *say that this act is invalid: newadvent.org/summa/4078.htm#article6

The fundamental point of what St. Thomas says is that the consecration of the Host happens at the words of the priest (“This is my body.”). The priest speaks in the present tense–“is”–consequently, this is a valid consecration, no matter what happens next. If you have time, check the link…I added my own interpretation to what he said.

Dan

 

[Verbum_Caro]

dans,

I agree with your interpretation. There are several scenarios that Church has addressed regarding an “interruption” in the Mass. All of them, though, seem to indicate that once the bread has been consecrated the Real Presence of Christ is upon the altar.

Of course, there isn’t any sacrifice until the Blood is consecrated. Hence the utmost urgency in having the priest (or another priest if the first one is incapacitated) consecrate the wine.

I don’t have time to find it right now, but there is a list of possible scenarios. If I recall, too, there was (or is?) an instruction (or perhaps a small t-tradition?) that the congregation be not permitted to leave until the wine is consecrated!

But, even if the congregation has left. . . at some point the priest, or another priest, would consecrate the wine and thereby effect the sacrifice – even though time has elapsed. The congregation that had left (as is the case in the OP’s scenario?) would not have been present for a sacrifice. But they would have been present for the transubstantiation of the bread.

Any corrections?
VC

 

[benedictgal]

Hello all,

The only additional points I have are these: first, canon law speaks of validity many times, not just liceity. And, the basic principle is that if the law does not expressly say validity is at stake, then validity is not at stake (c. 10).

Second, in the matter at hand, when the law could have said “A consecration of one element without the other is invalid,” it did not say that but said that such an act is absolutely forbidden. This article of the Summa is illuminating, as to why the law does *not *say that this act is invalid: newadvent.org/summa/4078.htm#article6

The fundamental point of what St. Thomas says is that the consecration of the Host happens at the words of the priest (“This is my body.”). The priest speaks in the present tense–“is”–consequently, this is a valid consecration, no matter what happens next. If you have time, check the link…I added my own interpretation to what he said.

Dan

However, the fact that the wine was not consscrated is a very grave problem. If both elements are not consecrated, then, the Mass did not happen. Were your line of thinking possible, why did my parochial vicar rush to immediately consecrate the wine after I told him what had hapened?

Three out of four elements in the Eucharist does not constitute validity. All four have to be present. If one is missing, then it is invalid.

 

[Digitonomy]

Were your line of thinking possible, why did my parochial vicar rush to immediately consecrate the wine after I told him what had hapened?

Because, as dans0622 mentioned, consecrating one without the other is absolutely forbidden.

benedictgal:

Three out of four elements in the Eucharist does not constitute validity. All four have to be present. If one is missing, then it is invalid.

Can you clarify, are you suggesting that the transubstantion of the bread does not take place if not followed by consecration of the wine?

 

[dans0622]

However, the fact that the wine was not consscrated is a very grave problem. If both elements are not consecrated, then, the Mass did not happen. Were your line of thinking possible, why did my parochial vicar rush to immediately consecrate the wine after I told him what had hapened?

Three out of four elements in the Eucharist does not constitute validity. All four have to be present. If one is missing, then it is invalid.

Hi Benedictgal,

Yes, it is a very grave problem. There is no doubt about that. When the Code says that consecrating one element without the other (or both outside of Mass) is “absolutely forbidden,” the same words are used (nefas est)as when the Code speaks about the seal of confession and how any betrayal of that seal is “absolutely forbidden.” These words have the clear implication that these are obligations of the highest order. The reasoning behind this obligation gets into sacramental theology, which is not my strong suit, but “Do this in memory of Me.” is clear enough, I suppose.

As I see it, the problem with your last statement is that, for the bread, nothing was missing–form, matter, intention, ordained priest. Everything was present. Nothing else can be done to make the consecration of the bread valid and no subsequent action, or lack of action, can undo the consecration. That’s the way it seems to me, anyway.

Dan

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Can you clarify, are you suggesting that the transubstantion of the bread does not take place if not followed by consecration of the wine?

** Digit** and dans,

In rereading benedictgal’s other posts in this thread, it seems to me that she does hold that the bread once consecrated remains consecrated, even if the wine is never consecrated. But, perhaps I should let benedictgal speak for herself!

VC

 

[benedictgal]

** Digit** and dans,

In rereading benedictgal’s other posts in this thread, it seems to me that she does hold that the bread once consecrated remains consecrated, even if the wine is never consecrated. But, perhaps I should let benedictgal speak for herself!

VC

That is right. As I responded to agapewolf’s comments, I never said anything about the Body of Christ. I have been speaking to the matter of the non-consecration of the Precious Blood and the grave consequences surrounding that.

That is why as soon as I alerted my parochial vicar to what had happened, he wasted no time correcting the situation. He once told me that if anything ever happened during any of his Masses to please find a way to flag him, short of flayling my arms like an airtraffic controller.

 

[The_Prodigal]

dans,

I agree with your interpretation. There are several scenarios that Church has addressed regarding an “interruption” in the Mass. All of them, though, seem to indicate that once the bread has been consecrated the Real Presence of Christ is upon the altar.

Of course, there isn’t any sacrifice until the Blood is consecrated. Hence the utmost urgency in having the priest (or another priest if the first one is incapacitated) consecrate the wine.

I don’t have time to find it right now, but there is a list of possible scenarios. If I recall, too, there was (or is?) an instruction (or perhaps a small t-tradition?) that the congregation be not permitted to leave until the wine is consecrated!

But, even if the congregation has left. . . at some point the priest, or another priest, would consecrate the wine and thereby effect the sacrifice – even though time has elapsed. The congregation that had left (as is the case in the OP’s scenario?) would not have been present for a sacrifice. But they would have been present for the transubstantiation of the bread.

Any corrections?
VC

Verbum Caro, Thomas Aquinas addresses similar situations. See here, especially Objection 1 and his Reply. There is absolutely no provision for leaving one of the species unconsecrated; Aquinas holds that the sacrifice isn’t complete until both are consecrated in the correct order. As has been pointed out in the thread. to say that something is forbidden is not the same as saying that it is not valid.

 

[benedictgal]

Verbum Caro, Thomas Aquinas addresses similar situations. See here, especially Objection 1 and his Reply. There is absolutely no provision for leaving one of the species unconsecrated; Aquinas holds that the sacrifice isn’t complete until both are consecrated in the correct order. As has been pointed out in the thread. to say that something is forbidden is not the same as saying that it is not valid.

However, St. Thomas Aquinas, while making some very powerful statements, is not the same as liturgical law. There was no provision for leaving one species unconsecrated because they never thought to do so.

Remember, too, that St. Thomas Aquinas was wrong about one of the Marian dogmas. I am not saying that we should completely discount St. Thomas, as I have quoted him myself, but, Jesus did not consecrate just one species; he consecrated both. It is not a one and done issue.

 

[stbruno]

Years ago, we had a elderly priest who occasionally would have memory lapses, who has now gone to his eternal rest…do the consecration twice. Only the deacon and those members in the choir at the time, recognized his error but rather than confuse him even more, he completed the second consecration. We are church of human beings, thankfully God loves us warts and all.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Verbum Caro, Thomas Aquinas addresses similar situations. See here, especially Objection 1 and his Reply. There is absolutely no provision for leaving one of the species unconsecrated; Aquinas holds that the sacrifice isn’t complete until both are consecrated in the correct order. As has been pointed out in the thread. to say that something is forbidden is not the same as saying that it is not valid.

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?

VC

 

[Digitonomy]

"Verbum Caro:

Digit and dans,
In rereading benedictgal’s other posts in this thread, it seems to me that she does hold that the bread once consecrated remains consecrated, even if the wine is never consecrated

That is right. As I responded to agapewolf’s comments, I never said anything about the Body of Christ. I have been speaking to the matter of the non-consecration of the Precious Blood and the grave consequences surrounding that.

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:

dans0622:

The only additional points I have are these: first, canon law speaks of validity many times, not just liceity. And, the basic principle is that if the law does not expressly say validity is at stake, then validity is not at stake (c. 10).

Second, in the matter at hand, when the law could have said “A consecration of one element without the other is invalid,” it did not say that but said that such an act is absolutely forbidden. This article of the Summa is illuminating, as to why the law does not say that this act is invalid: newadvent.org/summa/4078.htm#article6

The fundamental point of what St. Thomas says is that the consecration of the Host happens at the words of the priest (“This is my body.”). The priest speaks in the present tense–“is”–consequently, this is a valid consecration, no matter what happens next. If you have time, check the link…I added my own interpretation to what he said.

benedictgal:

However, the fact that the wine was not consscrated is a very grave problem. If both elements are not consecrated, then, the Mass did not happen. Were your line of thinking possible, why did my parochial vicar rush to immediately consecrate the wine after I told him what had hapened?

Three out of four elements in the Eucharist does not constitute validity. All four have to be present. If one is missing, then it is invalid.