Assuming you didn’t misunderstand him, it would still be valid. This issue was address by the Church (I think at the time of Pius XII). You can also find it addressed in the Summa of St Thomas. What was specifically addressed is the question of whether or not the consecration would be valid if the Priest mispronounced the Latin word using the wrong ending of the word. The conclusion is that this would not invalidate the sacrament.
Also, remember Ecclesia supplet, that is, the Church provides, out of her treasury of grace, the proper remedy for the defect of the minister’s actions.
OMG!
:bigyikes:The text must be followed to the letter. No short cuts at the consecration.
No one said anything about short cuts. The issue was the *possible *mis-pronounciation of a single word, in Latin at that.
You can’t “say something silently.”But at a TLM, the consecration is said silently by the priest.
Another poster brought up a good point: in the TLM, the Consecration is said silently. Even if the priest spoke it in a low tone, your ears are sharp enough to distinguish between “pro multis” and “pro multus?” And you state *"…unintentionally, I think." *What are the chances that a priest saying a TLM would *intentionally *use a wrong word?
Actually multus and multis are both “many.” Pro multus is only wrong in the grammatical sense. Are we always grammatically perfect in everything, especially if spoken from memory? I always had to think two or three times when reciting the Confiteor or the Nicene Creed.
While it would be sinful for a priest to willfully omit the entire consecration and use only “This is My body” and “This is My blood” it would not be a defect that invalidates the Mass. The issue was discussed in Sacramental Theology texts long before Vatican II, in favor of it being valid but illicit.
You’re right. It is valid, but ilicit. The idea is to have a valid and a licit consecration. A pronunciation mistake or grammatical mistake is not willful. Therefore, as long as the words are said as close as possible, the validity and licaity do not suffer. We have to remember that sometimes when someone is reading Latin very quickly, as is the case for a priest who is not a master of Latin, it is going to be a while until he has the whole thing memorized and can do it without mispronouncing words. This is not the same as cutting corners. I do agree with you on this point. It would be sinful to omit certain words. But depending on the words omitted, there still may be a valid consecration. But the case that the OP mentioned seems to have been a mispronunciation. That’s not willful.
I know all the words should be said, but not all of it is required to confect the Eucharist. It is certainly illicit, but not invalid.
I’ll add to that. It’s illicit if the Pope says it is. He is the supreme liturgist. In those situations where he says that it is not, then it’s not.
