Consecration

[PJD1987]

Is it possible for the consecration of the bread to be valid and yet the consecration of the wine be invalid, or vice versa? The reason I ask is today at the Mass the Priest said the words of consecration correctly for the bread/body, but changed the words for the wine, and thus I was wondering…or is the whole thing rendered invalid by the changing of words for one or the other.

 

[ProVobis]

How did he change the words? It could have been illicit but still valid.

DeDefectibus gives a lot of leeway in validation.

 

[PJD1987]

How did he change the words? It could have been illicit but still valid.

DeDefectibus gives a lot of leeway in validation.

Well he said “This is my blood that will be shed for all, men, women and children in the whole world…”

So I wasn’t sure how big of a deal this was, but it struck me as a little strange…however the “This is my blood” part was still there.

 

[ProVobis]

Well he said “This is my blood that will be shed for all, men, women and children in the whole world…”

So I wasn’t sure how big of a deal this was, but it struck me as a little strange…however the “This is my blood” part was still there.

He clearly didn’t follow the text but I don’t see how this makes the consecration invalid. If he had said something like “This is my blood for those of German descent,” for example, I would say the validity could very well be questioned.

 

[PJD1987]

He clearly didn’t follow the text but I don’t see how this makes the consecration invalid. If he had said something like “This is my blood for those of German descent,” for example, I would say the validity could very well be questioned.

Thanks for the info. Just wasn’t sure what exactly makes the consecration invalid or not. And also, as to the original question, is it possible for the body to be consecrated validly and the blood to not be.

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks for the info. Just wasn’t sure what exactly makes the consecration invalid or not. And also, as to the original question, is it possible for the body to be consecrated validly and the blood to not be.

I’ll leave that answer to a theologian but for all intents and purposes it seems to be a moot point. If the wine isn’t consecrated, then there is no Body and Blood of Christ and therefore not a valid Mass. There is no such thing as a half-valid Mass.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

I’ll leave that answer to a theologian but for all intents and purposes it seems to be a moot point. If the wine isn’t consecrated, then there is no Body and Blood of Christ and therefore not a valid Mass. There is no such thing as a half-valid Mass.

Each species is consecrated separately, so it’s possible to have one and not the other. That said, it’s not a valid Mass.

It’s one thing for priests to ad lib during Mass. It’s a whole different, and significantly graver offence to screw around with the sacraments. This should be reported to the bishop ASAP.

 

[ivdaeorum]

I think that the Mass would still be valid but I think the Priest may have committed a sin. Although the Priest from what I can tell didn’t change the meaning of consecration, he altered some of the words. If the Priest added or substituted words that did not mean the same thing then the Sacrament would not be valid. This was decreed by the Papal Bull of St. Pius V.

 

[ProVobis]

I think that the Mass would still be valid but I think the Priest may have committed a sin. Although the Priest from what I can tell didn’t change the meaning of consecration, he altered some of the words. If the Priest added or substituted words that did not mean the same thing then the Sacrament would not be valid. This was decreed by the Papal Bull of St. Pius V.

Indeed.

dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm