Invalid when a priest doesn't consume under both species?

[Woodstock]

I am asking the question below on behalf of another. Will you please be kind enough to explain the below from a Roman Catholic perspective to him?
*
“If a Mass is invalidated when the priest fails to consume under both forms how is the Consecration which took place a few minutes earlier rendered null and void? How are the Elements deconsecrated?”*

Which he asks after a Roman Catholic said to him: “It is necessary for the priest to consume under both forms for a valid liturgy.”

Thank you!

 

[AJV]

I am asking the question below on behalf of another. Will you please be kind enough to explain the below from a Roman Catholic perspective to him?
*
“If a Mass is invalidated when the priest fails to consume under both forms how is the Consecration which took place a few minutes earlier rendered null and void? How are the Elements deconsecrated?”*

Which he asks after a Roman Catholic said to him: “It is necessary for the priest to consume under both forms for a valid liturgy.”

Thank you!

The elements are not deconsecrated. They remain consecrated and the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[AJV]

I am asking the question below on behalf of another. Will you please be kind enough to explain the below from a Roman Catholic perspective to him?
*
“If a Mass is invalidated when the priest fails to consume under both forms how is the Consecration which took place a few minutes earlier rendered null and void? How are the Elements deconsecrated?”*

Which he asks after a Roman Catholic said to him: “It is necessary for the priest to consume under both forms for a valid liturgy.”

Thank you!

(I hope someone else will comfirm what I’m saying- just in case it’s erroneous)

First off, the elements do not become ‘de-consecrated’ or anything of the kind. They remain the Body and the Blood of Christ.

The thing is, when many people say the Mass is not valid they usually take it to be the elements are not consecrated. But strictly speaking, the Mass is not valid applies firstly to the sacrifice.

In the Mass, the sacrifice is accomplished through the “double consecration” i.e. the consecration of the bread and then of the wine unto the Body and Blood of Christ. This is where the “essence” of the sacrifice is said to be.

By the “transubstantiation” of bread into the Body of Christ and of wine into His Blood, His Body and Blood are both really present: now the Eucharistic Species under which He is present symbolize the actual separation of His Body and Blood.

Thus the commemorative representation of His death, which actually took place on Calvary, is repeated in every sacrifice of the altar, seeing that Jesus Christ is symbolically shown by separate symbols to be in a state of victimhood

No double consecration = no sacrifice= no Mass (which goes for the effects and fruits gained by the sacrifice).

But what happens if for example, the priest consecrates the bread but not the wine? The Body of Christ will be present on the altar. However there will still be no sacrifice and the Mass would be to be invalid. Hence the graces you would get would be solely those associated with the Eucharist as a sacrament and the reception of the Body of Christ. That is, presuming you receive communion. This isn’t meant to answer your friend’s question, just provide an idea of how the “sacrament” and the “sacrifice” though very closely connected, are separated, and how it is possible to have validly consecrated elements without a sacrifice (=invalid Mass).

Now where does the communion of the priest fit in? In the first place it is commanded by Christ, so anyway it is of obligation and can never be omitted. Regarding the communion, there were two ideas on its necessity- I’m not sure whether the Magisterium has pronounced definitively on either one. Though most lean towards the second- for example, I think that is the one supported by the encyclical of Pius XII Mediator Dei.

1. the communion is essential to the sacrifice
2. the communion is integral to the sacrifice.

The (2) opinion, which, from what I’ve been able to gather and read (but I could be wrong) is the one that is most commonly agreed on. According to this, the “essence” of sacrifice lies in the double consecration but the communion is only necessary for it’s integrity or completeness. No communion, incomplete sacrifice.

An analogy I heard once, might be helpful in explaining essence and integrity. Essence is what makes something what it is, integrity is what completes something. Bones are essential for a skeleton, but if I cut off the arm, the skeleton will lack integrity. It will still be a skeleton but not a perfect skeleton.

 

[AJV]

I am asking the question below on behalf of another. Will you please be kind enough to explain the below from a Roman Catholic perspective to him?
*
“If a Mass is invalidated when the priest fails to consume under both forms how is the Consecration which took place a few minutes earlier rendered null and void? How are the Elements deconsecrated?”*

Which he asks after a Roman Catholic said to him: “It is necessary for the priest to consume under both forms for a valid liturgy.”

Thank you!

(I hope someone else will comfirm what I’m saying- just in case it’s erroneous)

First off, the elements do not become ‘de-consecrated’ or anything of the kind. They remain the Body and the Blood of Christ.

The thing is, when many people say the Mass is not valid they usually take it to be the elements are not consecrated. But strictly speaking, the Mass is not valid applies firstly to the sacrifice.

In the Mass, the sacrifice is accomplished through the “double consecration” i.e. the consecration of the bread and then of the wine unto the Body and Blood of Christ. This is where the “essence” of the sacrifice is said to be.

By the “transubstantiation” of bread into the Body of Christ and of wine into His Blood, His Body and Blood are both really present: now the Eucharistic Species under which He is present symbolize the actual separation of His Body and Blood.

Thus the commemorative representation of His death, which actually took place on Calvary, is repeated in every sacrifice of the altar, seeing that Jesus Christ is symbolically shown by separate symbols to be in a state of victimhood

No double consecration = no sacrifice= no Mass (which goes for the effects and fruits gained by the sacrifice).

But what happens if for example, the priest consecrates the bread but not the wine? The Body of Christ will be present on the altar. However there will still be no sacrifice and the Mass would be to be invalid. Hence the graces you would get would be solely those associated with the Eucharist as a sacrament and the reception of the Body of Christ. That is, presuming you receive communion. This isn’t meant to answer your friend’s question, just provide an idea of how the “sacrament” and the “sacrifice” though very closely connected, are separated, and how it is possible to have validly consecrated elements without a sacrifice (=invalid Mass).

Now where does the communion of the priest fit in? In the first place it is commanded by Christ, so anyway it is of obligation and can never be omitted. Regarding the communion, there were two ideas on its necessity- I’m not sure whether the Magisterium has pronounced definitively on either one. Though most lean towards the second- for example, I think that is the one supported by the encyclical of Pius XII Mediator Dei.

1. the communion is essential to the sacrifice
2. the communion is integral to the sacrifice.

The (2) opinion, which, from what I’ve been able to gather and read (but I could be wrong) is the one that is most commonly agreed on. According to this, the “essence” of sacrifice lies in the double consecration but the communion is only necessary for it’s integrity or completeness. No communion, incomplete sacrifice.

An analogy I heard once, might be helpful in explaining essence and integrity. Essence is what makes something what it is, integrity is what completes something. Bones are essential for a skeleton, but if I cut off the arm, the skeleton will lack integrity. It will still be a skeleton but not a perfect skeleton.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I am asking the question below on behalf of another. Will you please be kind enough to explain the below from a Roman Catholic perspective to him?

“If a Mass is invalidated when the priest fails to consume under both forms how is the Consecration which took place a few minutes earlier rendered null and void? How are the Elements deconsecrated?”

Which he asks after a Roman Catholic said to him: “It is necessary for the priest to consume under both forms for a valid liturgy.”

Thank you!

The term “incomplete” should be used instead of “invalid” when describing this situation. The Mass is not invalid and the Consecration is not invalidated. The Mass however is incomplete until the main celebrant consumes both forms.

 

[Brendan]

The term “incomplete” should be used instead of “invalid” when describing this situation. The Mass is not invalid and the Consecration is not invalidated. The Mass however is incomplete until the main celebrant consumes both forms.

It would disagree. Note what is being described as invalid

]It is necessary for the priest to consume under both forms for a valid** liturgy**."

The Sacrament itself is valid, but the liturgy is not.

Using the analogy of the Passover, the Lamb has been procured, but it was not killed and eaten. Not much good against the Angel of Death, is it

In this case, Christ is present on the Altar, but there is more to a valid Mass than simply the Confection of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, not simply of Christ being there. Christ was at Cana too, but that’s not the event that Christ commanded to be done in Remembrance of Him.

No, the event being commerated is Calvary, and for that, Christ must be Sacrificed.

And that Sacrifice is accomplished in the consumation of both species by the priest.

 

[AJV]

It would disagree. Note what is being described as invalid

The Sacrament itself is valid, but the liturgy is not.

Using the analogy of the Passover, the Lamb has been procured, but it was not killed and eaten. Not much good against the Angel of Death, is it

In this case, Christ is present on the Altar, but there is more to a valid Mass than simply the Confection of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, not simply of Christ being there. Christ was at Cana too, but that’s not the event that Christ commanded to be done in Remembrance of Him.

No, the event being commemorated is Calvary, and for that, Christ must be Sacrificed.

And that Sacrifice is accomplished in the consumation of both species by the priest.

Brendan, am I reading you correctly- you are saying that no sacrifice would take place?

I would say rather, insofar as the analogy can stand, than it is that the Passover Lamb has been procured and killed but not eaten. Since the eating pertains to the completeness of the action, the action isn’t complete. But the Lamb being killed, the blood is applied on the doorpost and that ‘takes care’ of the Angel of Death?

In any case, I would like to offer Fr. Pohle’s overview in Dogmatic Theology IX.

The position of the Communion in the Mass may be briefly described as a participation and completion of the sacrifice. The essence of the Mass does not consist in the Communion for the simple reason that the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be consumed until the sacrifice proper is completed.

a) Nevertheless there have been some eminent theologians (e. g. Ledesma and Dominicus Soto) who held that the sacrifice consists in the Communion of the priest, as being the destruction of the Victim, to which the Consecration forms merely a condition and prelude.

[ME: the essentiality theory]
Soto says : " The death of Christ is not represented in the Consecration. The Consecration takes place in order that He may be immolated whilst He is consumed; for this is a picture of the death and burial of Christ. And in the consumption of the Blood we have an image of its effusion." But this theory can hardly be reconciled with the following declaration of the Tridentine Council : “If anyone saith that … to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat, let him be anathema.”

[ME: the coessentiality theory]
Equally untenable is the view defended by Bellarmine, De Lugo, and Tournely, that Communion, as a kind of destruction, is at least a co-essential factor in the constitution of the Mass. If this were the case, then the Last Supper would have been a true sacrifice only on conditionthat Christ had given Communion to Himself as well as to His Apostles. For this, however probable it may appear, we have absolutely no evidence. Moreover, the celebrant of the Mass does not receive Communion as the
representative of Christ, but in his own person and for his own personal benefit.

Nevertheless, the consumption of the Host and of the contents of the Chalice, though a kind of destruction, does not satisfy the demand of these theologians because the sacrificial transformation of the victim must take place on the altar, and not in the body of the celebrant, whilst the partaking of the two elements can at most represent the burial, but not the sacrificial death of Christ.

b) We have shown that the Communion of the priest does not belong to the essence of the sacrifice. It does belong, however, to its integrity. The Communion of the priest marks the completion of the sacrifice. ……There can be no perfect sacrifice of the unbloody kind without a sacrificial banquet. Consequently, the Communion of the priest belongs to the integrity of the Mass.

Elsewhere in the volume, he treats the idea of destruction and (i) whether it is necessary (ii) in what ways it may be said to exist in the double consecration- here mentioning also the idea of self-abasement as a kind of destruction, and the mystic slaying of the Victim through the mystical separtion of the Body and Blood.

 

[Woodstock]

The Sacrament itself is valid, but the liturgy is not.

Are you intending to say that the Eucharist is valid but the liturgy illicit? The consecration is either valid or invalid while the liturgy is either licit or illicit.

 

[ClaireS]

I’m no liturgist but it seems logical to me that if the priest received under one species he received both the body and blood of Jesus so the mass would be both valid and licit although not everything was done properly. I could envision a situation where an alcoholic priest discovers just before Sunday mass that he is out of mustum (the wine he uses that has no or very little alcoholic content) so he consecrates the wine but doesn’t consume it; it is consumed by others at that mass.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’m no liturgist but it seems logical to me that if the priest received under one species he received both the body and blood of Jesus so the mass would be both valid and licit although not everything was done properly. I could envision a situation where an alcoholic priest discovers just before Sunday mass that he is out of mustum (the wine he uses that has no or very little alcoholic content) so he consecrates the wine but doesn’t consume it; it is consumed by others at that mass.

He is prohibited from celebrating Mass by the USCCB rules if he cannot consume even the smallest amount of both elements.

 

[ClaireS]

So that would mean the mass was illicit but not invalid?