Invalid Consecration and how to handle it

[Fr_Larry]

I’m just asking for a link to some Church document so I can put other people’s minds to rest.

I’m not scrupulous and I’m not the liturgical police.

Who else expressed concern it wasn’t valid?

 

[smichhertz]

Who else expressed concern it wasn’t valid?

Not on the thread, others at the mass I attended. Sorry, Father, should have clarified that.

Plus, it’s just handy to know. Other threads like this have popped up before and I haven’t seen any with a clear answer.

 

[benedictgal]

And I’m sure you’re right, I’m just asking for a link to some Church document so I can put other people’s minds to rest.

I’m not scrupulous and I’m not the liturgical police.

Here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

1. The Matter of the Most Holy Eucharist
   [48.] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition.123 It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament.124 It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.125

[49.] By reason of the sign, it is appropriate that at least some parts of the Eucharistic Bread coming from the fraction should be distributed to at least some of the faithful in Communion. “Small hosts are, however, in no way ruled out when the number of those receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral needs require it”,126 and indeed small hosts requiring no further fraction ought customarily to be used for the most part.

[50.] The wine that is used in the most sacred celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice must be natural, from the fruit of the grape, pure and incorrupt, not mixed with other substances.127 During the celebration itself, a small quantity of water is to be mixed with it. Great care should be taken so that the wine intended for the celebration of the Eucharist is well conserved and has not soured.128 It is altogether forbidden to use wine of doubtful authenticity or provenance, for the Church requires certainty regarding the conditions necessary for the validity of the sacraments. Nor are other drinks of any kind to be admitted for any reason, as they do not constitute valid matter.

1. The Eucharistic Prayer
   [51.] Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. "It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers"129 or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.130

The Church teaches that in order for the Holy Eucharist to be validly consecrated, four items are needed:

1. Valid Matter
2. Valid Form
3. Validly Ordained Sacred Minister
4. Intent

 

[smichhertz]

Here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum states:

The Church teaches that in order for the Holy Eucharist to be validly consecrated, four items are needed:

1. Valid Matter
2. Valid Form
3. Validly Ordained Sacred Minister
4. Intent

So correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see anything in there that states as long as the priest intends to say the form correctly, it is still valid. Is there another document or something that states that? Or something in Church teaching that implies that? I’m just trying to figure out where the whole “as long as the priest intended to say it right” originated from.

 

[Stylites]

I’d remain silent.

Lets say you said something that caused the priest to reflect and decide he WAS too old to celebrate the mass and retire.

Chances are the next priest you get . . .

Hope springs eternal, eh? Your characterization of priests was uncalled for, and I would recommend that you contact a moderator to see if they can remove it for you.

 

[TrueLight]

I don’t understand why some people are jumping on him. He is only asking a question.

 

[Little_One0307]

So correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see anything in there that states as long as the priest intends to say the form correctly, it is still valid. Is there another document or something that states that? Or something in Church teaching that implies that? I’m just trying to figure out where the whole “as long as the priest intended to say it right” originated from.

It’s implicitly implied in the document and all throughout Church Tradition and History. If the priest has every intention of consecrating the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus then it will happen. Priests make mistakes and sometimes during the Consecration, but cant’ we just trust Jesus that if the priest fully intends to do this, then it will happen. It’s not the priest ultimatley who is being questioned here, The Priest stands in persona Christi, one is ultimately questioning Christ and wondering if everything has to be correct every single time.

I am sure the Apostoles [and I mean every sign of respect here. Sometimes I hate that facial expressions cannot be conveyed in a post] fumbled here and there when learning how to do the Mass for the first time. And yet woul they be questioned? I am sure they had every intention of bringing about the Consecration, with the power of Christ, every single time they celebrated Mass.

God bless.

 

[smichhertz]

I don’t understand why some people are jumping on him. He is only asking a question.

Yeah I did feel a little under the guns at the beginning.

I think it’s just because there are people out there who are like the liturgical police and constantly harass the priests about trivial details during mass, confession, etc. And I think a lot of the posters jumped to the conclusion that I was one of them, but I’m not. This is the first time I have ever been at a mass where I have doubted validity, and I’m just trying to get a clear understanding so myself and others at that mass know what to do in the future.

 

[smichhertz]

It’s implicitly implied in the document and all throughout Church Tradition and History.

Okay I don’t see where in the document its implied, at least not in what benedictgal quoted. Sorry if I’m just missing something obvious, again, just trying to understand.

If the priest has every intention of consecrating the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus then it will happen.

I completely agree, why would Jesus deny the faithful the Eucharist because of a silly mistake?

 

[OraLabora]

And I’m sure you’re right, I’m just asking for a link to some Church document so I can put other people’s minds to rest.

I’m not scrupulous and I’m not the liturgical police.

I don’t think we can rely on the Church to have a document to cover every possible slip-up or situation.

Surely this is an issue where common sense should prevail? Jesus uses imperfect instruments to administer his sacraments: men (and for the sacrament of holy matrimony, men and women). No better example can be found than St. Peter himself, to whom Jesus conferred authority over His entire Church.

People are human, I have seen holy men make liturgical mistakes all the time, for instance using the reading from the wrong year.

Surely the priest’s faith and intent, along with the valid matter, are what count. I would agree with Fr. Larry to let this one go. There are much more serious liturgical abuses to deal with.

 

[JMJSHJ]

You know what? You need to let this go. If what you said is true he intended to say it properly but made a mistake. In his mind at the time he said it properly. It’s just that his brain didn’t relay the information to his mouth properly. If he knew the proper way to do it but chose to alter it anyway, that could be an entirely different matter.

Hey you need to understand that the OP’s question is perfectly fine and valid.

 

[TimothyH]

And I’m sure you’re right, I’m just asking for a link to some Church document so I can put other people’s minds to rest.

I’m not scrupulous and I’m not the liturgical police.

This is an important point.

It is right to be concerned but we must always be aware of the things which God has made us responsible for and those which he has not given us responsiblity.

The responsibility for liturgy and consecration has been given by God to his individual priests and thier superiors. There is a time and a place for us to speak up. One of the things I learned however as an altar server, as one who has intentionially placed himself at the bottom of the liturgical food chain, is not to offer my opinion when it has not been asked of me.

-Tim-

 

[smichhertz]

The responsibility for liturgy and consecration has been given by God to his individual priests and thier superiors. There is a time and a place for us to speak up. One of the things I learned however as an altar server, as one who has intentionially placed himself at the bottom of the liturgical food chain, is not to offer my opinion when it has not been asked of me.

As a fellow altar server, I totally agree. It’s not our place.

 

[Fr_Larry]

Hey you need to understand that the OP’s question is perfectly fine and valid.

It is indeed a valid question but it has been answered by me and many others correctly. It’s time to accept that answer and move on, hence my response.

Fr. Larry