Liturgical Abuse?

[Andrew_11]

Today at mass I saw somthing I have never seen before, when the priest was consecrating the bread, he did not hold up an individual wafer and break it, he held up the bowl of wafers as he consecrated it, and broke nothing. Was the eucharist valid? licit?

 

[NetNuncio]

First of all, during the consecration, he shouldn’t break anything. The fractioning of the host should occur at the Fraction Rite, which occurs while the schola and/or congregation is singing the Agnus Dei.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal says the priest “takes the bread, and, raising it a little above the altar, says: “He took the bread, gave it to his disciples and said: Take this, all of you and eat it: THIS IS MY BODY which will be given up for you.” He shows the consecrated host to the people, places it on the paten, and genuflects in adoration.”

Now it is clearly implied that he should take a single host in his hand and explicitly says that he should show the host to the congregation.

Question 1: Is this valid? Yes. The words of the consecration must be altered (no pun intended) in order for the consecration to become invalid.

Question 2: Is this licit? Calling it illicit would probably be a bit harsh. The priest, if he isn’t showing the host at the time that he should be, is clearly not following the rubrics as he should, but I don’t know if calling it illicit is fair.

My bigger worry is that you seem to be used to the priest breaking the host at the consecration, which is blurring the symbolism of breaking the host during the Fraction Rite.

Adam

 

[Andrew_11]

NetNuncio:

My bigger worry is that you seem to be used to the priest breaking the host at the consecration, which is blurring the symbolism of breaking the host during the Fraction Rite.

Adam

What I meant was he did not break the host at all.

 

[NetNuncio]

That is definately a liturgical abuse. The General Instruction is clear that the host should be broken and a small particle should be mingled with the precious blood during the Fraction rite. If there is no FRACTIONING, I guess the whole idea of a FRACTION rite is fairly pointless.

With that in mind, do not fear too much…The Mass is still valid.

Adam

 

[kleary]

NetNuncio:

First of all, during the consecration, he shouldn’t break anything. The fractioning of the host should occur at the Fraction Rite, which occurs while the schola and/or congregation is singing the Agnus Dei.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal says the priest “takes the bread, and, raising it a little above the altar, says: “He took the bread, gave it to his disciples and said: Take this, all of you and eat it: THIS IS MY BODY which will be given up for you.” He shows the consecrated host to the people, places it on the paten, and genuflects in adoration.”

Now it is clearly implied that he should take a single host in his hand and explicitly says that he should show the host to the congregation.

Question 1: Is this valid? Yes. The words of the consecration must be altered (no pun intended) in order for the consecration to become invalid.

Question 2: Is this licit? Calling it illicit would probably be a bit harsh. The priest, if he isn’t showing the host at the time that he should be, is clearly not following the rubrics as he should, but I don’t know if calling it illicit is fair.

My bigger worry is that you seem to be used to the priest breaking the host at the consecration, which is blurring the symbolism of breaking the host during the Fraction Rite.

Adam

The validity of the consecration could be questionable…since the priest did not break the Sacred Host then the priest may not be intending to do what the Church does, I.E., offer the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of God the Son, now what appears to be bread, to God the Father in reparation for sin. If the priest does not intend to do what the Church intends then I believe it is invalid.

The same for a priest who breaks the host before the words of consecration are said… namely he does not intend to offer Jesus to the Father in Sacrifice, therefore he does not break the Host when it is Jesus.

Ken

 

[palmas85]

Could be something entirely different, but I recall my good friends the Sisters of the Most Precious Blood :bigyikes:, back in South Texas in the mid 80’s, would do this when there was no Priest available. Allegedly the Hosts had been previously consecrated. Not that it really mattered to them, they would say the Cosecration anyway.

 

[NetNuncio]

palmas85:

Could be something entirely different, but I recall my good friends the Sisters of the Most Precious Blood :bigyikes:, back in South Texas in the mid 80’s, would do this when there was no Priest available. Allegedly the Hosts had been previously consecrated. Not that it really mattered to them, they would say the Cosecration anyway.

:banghead:

I pray to God that time has passed. It seems the 80s was to The Latin Rite what the 60s was to Western Civilization. A complete anarchical MESS.

The priest should try to consecrate enough hosts for the entire congregation. He should estimate to the best of his ability. If he is short, he can resort to the tabernacle, if he has extra hecan put them there. That, however, has little to do with the fact that the priest should break the host and follow all perscribed rites during the Fraction Rite.

Adam