Is this Mass valid?

[benedictgal]

I’m afraid you were mistaken. Even in a concentration camp or deserted island, invalid matter (a rice cake, a brick, rye bread, a pork chop) cannot become the Body of Christ. Valid matter which would otherwise be illicit in the Roman Rite (a dinner roll, bread with fruit or honey added, etc.), can be used if there is no other alternative.

In other words, circumstances do not control or affect what material can validly be used to confect the Eucharist. They control whether the priest commits a sin by using something other than unleavened bread made only from wheat flour and water.

According to Redemptionis Sacramentum:
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.
It therefore appears that a reasonable standard is whether the bread would “ordinarily be considered wheat bread.” Despite the remarks made above about Wonder Bread, it is not composed of a majority of artificial ingredients, and I expect it would generally be considered wheat bread (sorry, bread snobs).

Mark, again, you did not read what I wrote. I stated that while what is used for the Easter Rites could be validly consecrated, it would still be ilicit and a grave abuse in the Latin Rite. What I wrote when you pulled that quote (without bothering to insert the whole thing) was implicit on it being valid matter in the Eastern Rite.

I would be most appreciative if you were to read the context of what I have written instead of pulling things and making them stand alone without their explanation.

 

[DexUK]

I’m reminded of a episode from 19th century France, where a curé (parish priest) went a little bonkers. He was passing a bakery, went inside, and spoke the words of Institution with hands raised over the bread. The poor baker freaked and once the priest left, he shooed-out his customers and locked the doors. He then went, accompanied by a couple of witnesses, to the bishop and explained what had happened. The bishop promptly compensated the baker for his entire wares, and sent some of his staff to remove and consume the bread.

I wonder what would have happened if the same priest, while still somewhat out of control of his marbles, had entered a vineyard or a wine warehouse and consecrated all the wine in the barrels?

Very expensive for the Bishop, no doubt, but would he have been forced to consume the entire stock?

Would he have been permitted to decant the wine from the barrels into bottles for storage such that it wouldn’t spoil and reserve it as pre-consecrated wine in the same way that pre-consecrated hosts are reserved?

Come to think of it, I thought it was licit to bury the sacrament if under the form of bread or pour it if under the form of wine to (holy) ground if it is impossible for one or other to be consumed?

 

[ProVobis]

As an example, let’s take a baguette made in the traditional way. The ingredients are wheat flour, water, salt, and yeast, so yes, it qualifies as “valid matter” for Mass. How about buttermilk biscuits? The ingredients there include wheat flour, but also dairy and baking powder, in addition to the salt. Doesn’t sound like “valid matter” to me. Whether one wants to believe it or not, WonderBread and its ilk are made with a variety of substances, including rather large amounts of potato flour (or potato starch), among other things, to the degree that the ingredients list of such products read like a chemistry primer. Some may consider them “valid matter” but I do not.

Who would make the final decision on its validity? The bishop? I’m sure most of us just presume the Mass we attend is valid.

 

[benedictgal]

I wonder what would have happened if the same priest, while still somewhat out of control of his marbles, had entered a vineyard or a wine warehouse and consecrated all the wine in the barrels?

Very expensive for the Bishop, no doubt, but would he have been forced to consume the entire stock?

Would he have been permitted to decant the wine from the barrels into bottles for storage such that it wouldn’t spoil and reserve it as pre-consecrated wine in the same way that pre-consecrated hosts are reserved?

Come to think of it, I thought it was licit to bury the sacrament if under the form of bread or pour it if under the form of wine to (holy) ground if it is impossible for one or other to be consumed?

The grapes would have been invalid material becausewine is necessary for the consecration. Thus, the grapes would not have been consecrated. As far as the wine is concerned, even that has its won requirements:

[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.

So, in this case, even the validity of the wine in your hypothetical would be suspect.

 

[MarkThompson]

Mark, again, you did not read what I wrote. I stated that while what is used for the Easter Rites could be validly consecrated, it would still be ilicit and a grave abuse in the Latin Rite. What I wrote when you pulled that quote (without bothering to insert the whole thing) was implicit on it being valid matter in the Eastern Rite.

I would be most appreciative if you were to read the context of what I have written instead of pulling things and making them stand alone without their explanation.

I was well aware of all the context, especially when, unaccountably, you declared: “Unless circumstances are grave (ie: persecution, natural disaster, war), valid matter should be used.”

Would you care to elaborate on that? Do you have anything to say that could conceivably make that a reasonable statement? Do you think in time of persecution or other grave circumstances that a rice cracker or rye bread should be used? Or do you acknowledge that there would be no Eucharist and only the grave sin of simulating a sacrament?

 

[benedictgal]

I was well aware of all the context, especially when, unaccountably, you declared: “Unless circumstances are grave (ie: persecution, natural disaster, war), valid matter should be used.”

Would you care to elaborate on that? Do you have anything to say that could conceivably make that a reasonable statement? Do you think in time of persecution or other grave circumstances that a rice cracker or rye bread should be used? Or do you acknowledge that there would be no Eucharist and only the grave sin of simulating a sacrament?

Mark, I implied that whatever is used for the Eastern Rites would be valid, but, not licit. Again, you are the one who is adding words to my post and pulling what I say out of context.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Isn’t there a difference between (1) the Eucharist being valid, and (2) the Mass being valid? Most discussion (on this board, at least) seems to deal with the former, but they’re not the same thing. If a priest grabs some bread and wine, says the words (and consumes them, for argument’s sake here) you had a valid Eucharist, but not a valid Mass. If the priest had accepted a stipend for the Mass, it would not count and he would have to say a full Mass or return the stipend. If you were present on Sunday, it would not meet your Mass obligation. It’s not a valid Mass, but it was a valid Eucharist. I don’t think there’s any contradiction there at all.

So it clearly follows that if, in the course of what would otherwise be an ordinary Mass, the priest says the words and everything else but, for whatever reason, neglects to consume the Sacred Species, you nevertheless have a valid Eucharist: people who receive have taken Communion, it can be reserved and used for Viaticum, and it would be a sacrilege to throw the species away. They are no longer bread and wine. The issue I think Father Z was discussing is whether a Mass has been said.

But the Eucharist can only be valid within a Mass, right?
And you can only Concecrate once per Mass. Meaning there is no Consecration even if the priest has the proper form, intent and matter when it is done during the distribution of Communion, because they ran out of Hosts.
Doesn’t a valid Eucharist depend on a valid Mass and vice versa?

 

[ProVobis]

But the Eucharist can only be valid within a Mass, right?
And you can only Concecrate once per Mass. Meaning there is no Consecration even if the priest has the proper form, intent and matter when it is done during the distribution of Communion, because they ran out of Hosts.
Doesn’t a valid Eucharist depend on a valid Mass and vice versa?

We were discussing valid Masses, which don’t require you to receive communion at all.

However, you do inspire this question: which pieces of bread are consecrated for communion? Any bread on the altar? Must it be uncovered? What about bread hidden underneath the cloth?

 

[MarkThompson]

Mark, I implied that whatever is used for the Eastern Rites would be valid, but, not licit. Again, you are the one who is adding words to my post and pulling what I say out of context.

There’s no call to be mean-spirited here, Benedictgal. Exactly the same matter is valid in the Eastern as in the Western rites. So what could you possibly have been implying when you said that one should use valid matter “unless circumstances are grave”?

If you misspoke, feel free to admit it and everyone can easily move on. All you have to say is, “I made a mistake, I misspoke.”

But the Eucharist can only be valid within a Mass, right?
And you can only Concecrate once per Mass. Meaning there is no Consecration even if the priest has the proper form, intent and matter when it is done during the distribution of Communion, because they ran out of Hosts.
Doesn’t a valid Eucharist depend on a valid Mass and vice versa?

A valid Mass definitely depends on a valid Eucharist, but not vice versa. As far as I know, the Church’s teaching is that the Eucharist can be confected by a priest who uses the right words, matter, intent, regardless of the setting.

 

[benedictgal]

But the Eucharist can only be valid within a Mass, right?
And you can only Concecrate once per Mass. Meaning there is no Consecration even if the priest has the proper form, intent and matter when it is done during the distribution of Communion, because they ran out of Hosts.
Doesn’t a valid Eucharist depend on a valid Mass and vice versa?

However, the validity of the Mass does not depend on whether or not we receive Holy Communion. If the priest runs out, he cannot go back and re-consecrate. He can fraction as much as he can while distributing, but, it’s not licit to engage in a do-over.

 

[ConstantineTG]

We were discussing valid Masses, which don’t require you to receive communion at all.

However, you do inspire this question: which pieces of bread are consecrated for communion? Any bread on the altar? Must it be uncovered? What about bread hidden underneath the cloth?

but a valid Mass would have to have a valid Sacrifice, so there must be valid Consecration, right?

I know that the validity of Mass doesn’t depend on people receiving the Eucharist, I’m just talking about consecrating the bread and wine, that you cannot do that outside of Mass, nor can you have a Mass that doesn’t have Consecration of the bread and wine. So they are co-dependent in a way.

 

[ConstantineTG]

A valid Mass definitely depends on a valid Eucharist, but not vice versa. As far as I know, the Church’s teaching is that the Eucharist can be confected by a priest who uses the right words, matter, intent, regardless of the setting.

Oh, I must have missed that. I always thought that the Consecration must be done always at a specific point within a Mass.

 

[ConstantineTG]

However, the validity of the Mass does not depend on whether or not we receive Holy Communion. If the priest runs out, he cannot go back and re-consecrate. He can fraction as much as he can while distributing, but, it’s not licit to engage in a do-over.

Of course, I was not implying that. I’m just saying that for the Mass to be valid, there must be a valid Consecration, and thus the Eucharist. And thats regardless if the people receive or not. But definitely the priest must receive.

 

[MarkThompson]

but a valid Mass would have to have a valid Sacrifice, so there must be valid Consecration, right?

Yes, as far as I know that is definitely correct.

I know that the validity of Mass doesn’t depend on people receiving the Eucharist, I’m just talking about consecrating the bread and wine, that you cannot do that outside of Mass, nor can you have a Mass that doesn’t have Consecration of the bread and wine. So they are co-dependent in a way.

Consecrating the bread and wine can be done outside of Mass, in the sense that it is possible to do and you would wind up with 100% authentic Eucharist. It is not permitted, however; in fact it is a very grave sin. So, for instance, consider Canon 927 of the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.
As the canon recognizes, the consecration can be done outside the eucharistic celebration (i.e. Mass), but it is absolutely forbidden.

 

[MarkThompson]

Of course, I was not implying that. I’m just saying that for the Mass to be valid, there must be a valid Consecration, and thus the Eucharist. And thats regardless if the people receive or not. But definitely the priest must receive.

As far as I’m aware, the priest is required to receive for their to be a completed Mass, but not for the Eucharist itself to have been validly confected. If the priest says the words and everything else but neglects to receive, he cannot (for example) accept a stipend for the Mass, because the Mass was not validly completed. But the bread and wine cannot just be thrown out, they are legitimately the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, as far as I know that is definitely correct.

Consecrating the bread and wine can be done outside of Mass, in the sense that it is possible to do and you would wind up with 100% authentic Eucharist. It is not permitted, however; in fact it is a very grave sin. So, for instance, consider Canon 927 of the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.
As the canon recognizes, the consecration can be done outside the eucharistic celebration (i.e. Mass), but it is absolutely forbidden.

I see where I got confused now
You’re right, it did not say that the Eucharist cannot be consecrated outside of a Eucharistic Celebration, but as per Canon Law, it is forbidden no matter what

I wonder why is it so? Is this just to make sure there’s no contrary law to The Last Supper? Or perhaps because in the first few years of the ministry of the Apostles, there was not structured Liturgical celebration. So the Law wouldn’t be contrary to history, but makes sure that going forward we do it the right way given were we are today with the celebration of Mass?

 

[ConstantineTG]

As far as I’m aware, the priest is required to receive for their to be a completed Mass, but not for the Eucharist itself to have been validly confected. If the priest says the words and everything else but neglects to receive, he cannot (for example) accept a stipend for the Mass, because the Mass was not validly completed. But the bread and wine cannot just be thrown out, they are legitimately the Body and Blood of Christ.

I see your point. I miss that part regarding the validty of Mass

 

[ProVobis]

but a valid Mass would have to have a valid Sacrifice, so there must be valid Consecration, right?

Yes, and he has to consume both validly consecrated species to complete the valid Holy Sacrifice (of Mass).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, and he has to consume both validly consecrated species to have a valid Sacrifice.

Yep, I forgot that completes the Sacrifice of the Mass

 

[ProVobis]

Yep, I forgot that completes the Sacrifice of the Mass

Now you got it.