Does this make the Consecration invalid?

[Inquiringperson]

Not crossing himself but making the cross with his hand over the Hosts or large Host.

Yes… The epiclesis… Not the consecration.

Yes, that’s during the epiclesis, not the Consecration (although in Eucharistic Prayer 1, the blessing is done before the Epiclesis I think I’ll double check on that when I have a chance). Don’t worry, what Father omits to do with the sign of the cross won’t have any effect on the validity of the consecration.

 

[DeniseNY]

Alma, welcome to these boards where people will judge when asking a simple inquiry. Don’t ask why, I have no idea.
In answer to your question, I agree with someone else who said, the intention to consecrate is what matters, not leaving out a word. In my parish there are many visiting priests; each says the prayers just a bit different regarding the exact wording. All is well.

I think some don’t realize how their comments come across. Others; however, I think know exactly how they come across and get a kick out of it.

In any event, just ignore it.

 

[Faith1960]

Yes… The epiclesis… Not the consecration.

So, not doing that…does that make the Eucharist invalid?

 

[Reuben_J]

When the priest in my parish pronunces the words of the Consecration during Mass, he omits the word ‘saying’.
For example, Eucharistic Prayer II is written like this:

“He took bread and, giving thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying:
Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my Body…”

Instead, the priest in my parish says:
“He took bread and, giving thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples.
Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my Body…”

It worries me that by supressing the word ‘saying’ it seems that it is him and not our Lord the one who is saying: 'Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my Body…"

Am I exagerating?

Does the omission of the word ‘saying’ make invalid the Consecration?

Should I express my concern to him?

What do you think?

Alma

I guess it is okay.

Remember, the words being used in the mass have been refined along the centuries. We just want the most appropriate words. The intention and the meaning are always still the same.

A single word missing would not invalid the mass and therefore not the consecration.

Today a lector concludes by saying ‘the word of the Lord’. It was ‘this is the word of the Lord’ before the revision. Would all the masses before, where the latter was used, make the readings invalid or being inefficacious? Certainly not.

I would see it that way and would not be too fastidious in how a celebrant chooses his word. Of course, it is another matter altogether if he deviates from the word of the prayers and says something else.

And yes, you can talk to him casually. Phrase your question in such a way to appear as a general question. I have many priest friends due to years being involved in the church, such questions of course is no problem for me to bring to a priest. Remember they serve us as clergy and give them the benefit of discretion in how they choose to perform the rites, as long as it is not a great deviation, then everything should be alright.

God bless.

 

[The_Serpent]

The “Catechism of the Council of Trent” states that not all the words are essential for the consecration.