One invalid, both invalid?

[_veritas]

If the matter for the bread is invalid (completely non-wheat!), and that means that there is no objective Body of Christ consecrated according to Church teaching, what impact does this have on the consecration of the wine?

I would assume that the wine would be validly consecrated, and thus only those who partake of the wine are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ objectively.

Or does the lack of valid matter for the bread mean that the entire consecration is rendered invalid?

Are there any official statements on this situation?

+veritas+

 

[deogratias]

You will probably get a lot of opinions on this question but probably a priest needs to answer it.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Veritas,

I’ve never seen this issue addressed, but my opinion is the same as yours. To get an authoritative answer you will need not a priest but a canonist. It may be possible to get a response from Rome on this.

Deacon Ed

 

[CD4]

What a great question…I neve thought of this one…

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think that both must be consecrated for a valid consecration.

However that is derived from general reading on the subject. I don’t recall seeing a specific discussion of this question.

 

[_veritas]

Well, FYI, I just spoke to a priest friend of mine who, while not a canonist, has been a priest for 25 years and is very orthodox and knowledgeable about liturgy and such… he said that he thought that the consecration of the wine would still be valid, assuming all the usual conditions for it (valid matter, words, intention).

He also agreed with me that the use of non-wheat bread made the attempted consecration of the bread invalid. So, objectively speaking, only those who received the Precious Blood received Christ in the Eucharist. The others, who most likely are unknowingly participating in idolatry, he considers as making a spiritual communion (equal graces as they would upon actually receiving Communion, just not the objective reality of it.)

And, he did also suggest that I talk to another priest who lives in the rectory with him, who is a canonist on the archdiocesean tribunal… I hopefully will try to speak with him soon about this too.

+veritas+

 

[deogratias]

This is the logical answer but somewhere it must be written because it must have come up before. However I cannot find it treated as a tandem subject.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

If the priest attempts to Consecrate both and one form of Matter is determined to be invalid the other is Consecrated and the Faithful who receive that form receive Holy Comminion. If the priest knew (the bread or contents of the chalice) before hand were invalid he sins gravely.

 

[_veritas]

Ok, new info…

I ran into a deacon friend today who is also a canon law lawyer and is on the Archdiocesean tribunal (this is NOT the priest that I was going to talk to, but they work together and are both canonists )

He could not cite a specifc statement for me either, at least not something that says flat out “if one species is incorrectly consecration the other is also invalid”… but his opinion on it is that without the valid consecration of both species, there is no Mass and therefore no transubstantiation at all.

I believe he did cite canons that talk about the invalidity of consecrating either species separately outside of Mass, and also pointed out that the canon that speaks about the definition of valid matter does not separate bread from wine (ie, there is only one canon for both, not two canons, one for bread and one for wine). He said that it is clear from canon law that in order for there to be a valid Mass at all, both the bread and wine must be of valid matter and consecrated correctly with the proper intention. Therefore, even if the consecration of the wine is done correctly, if the consecration of the bread is invald it renders the entire consecration invalid (and vice versa).

I will continue to seek further answers on this, hopefully I will be able to speak to the priest canonist as well. Now I’m really curious!!

If anyone else finds out anything else, please share!

+veritas+

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Try going to the vatican website, they have a canon law section.

vatican.va/archive/cdc/index.htm

The section of importance is in book 4, part I, title 3, chapter 1
The canons are #'s 924 - 930

These are the two canons which stand out to me:

Can. 924 ?1. The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed.

?2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling.

?3. The wine must be natural from the fruit of the vine and not spoiled.

and

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.

Notice, there is no mention of validity in the canon.
I am not an expert, but the canons appear to be avoiding the issue of validity of consecration altogether.
The canon simply forbids individual consecration from ever happening. (at least outside of mass).

The canon, 927, does appear to imply that it is possible to consecrate seperate elements since the act is forbidden, not the “attempt” or “mockery”, but the act itself.
I would speculate that reason it is forbidden is that it contradicts the context that Jesus gave the command to “do this”.

I have seen other documents which explain that the matter of the wheat host is considered valid (but illicit) even when mixed with other matter, so long as it is still commonly considered wheat bread.
Absolute perfection of the sign, then, is not required for valid consecration.

I’ll look some more, but I haven’t seen a definitive answer.

lol.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

“He could not cite a specifc statement for me either, at least not something that says flat out “if one species is incorrectly consecration the other is also invalid”… but his opinion on it is that without the valid consecration of both species, there is no Mass and therefore no transubstantiation at all.”

I do not think it is clear that this is only his opinion. I have after posting my comments hit the books both after Vatican II and the new Code to material before Vatican II. (The material before has much more detail in it) However I have not been able to find anywhere where it says that if one element is invlaid, the other element does not Consecrate.

Most refer to the Mass being incomplete or invlaid. Even the Canon about the elements never being Consecrated alone or outside the Mass. Leave the door open a crack. I have read stories where priests in prison camps would celebrate with other prisoners Holy Communion with small pieces of bread, without any wine being available.

 

[loyola_rambler]

What’s painful in all of this is that I honestly doubt Jesus Himself would be splitting the hairs that the RCC has been splitting in this debate.

Confusing, though, is the position of the Church that there are “recipes” for creation of the eucharistic host which use the very minimum amount of wheat. Why confusing? Because the canon cited above is very clear that host must be “only wheat”. Isn’t the special “low wheat” formula corrupting the canon?

Something tells me this will all be revisited the next time they address the rule book. But until then, we’re going to see too much of this in the media.

 

[mercygate]

+veritas+:

Well, FYI, I just spoke to a priest friend of mine who, while not a canonist, has been a priest for 25 years and is very orthodox and knowledgeable about liturgy and such… he said that he thought that the consecration of the wine would still be valid, assuming all the usual conditions for it (valid matter, words, intention).

+veritas+

Intention is important. Could it truly be said that a priest who knowingly attempts to consecrate invalid matter has the intention of the Church? This is a REALLY difficult question.

 

[CD4]

<<<I have read stories where priests in prison camps would celebrate with other prisoners Holy Communion with small pieces of bread, without any wine being available.>>>

Does this mean that their Masses were invalid? I have alsway wondered about the Masses offered in captivity…Where the bread and wine might not be “kosher” to speak…(sorry)…

 

[t_times]

WHEN THE PRIEST DROPS A PIECE OF THE COOKIE INTO THE WINE WOULD IT NOT MAKE THE WINE INVALID? SO THEREFORE THEIR BOTH INVALID.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

t times:

WHEN THE PRIEST DROPS A PIECE OF THE COOKIE INTO THE WINE WOULD IT NOT MAKE THE WINE INVALID? SO THEREFORE THEIR BOTH INVALID.

Since the addition of the fermentum takes place after the consecration it would not affect the validity of the consecration.

I still feel unqualified to provide a definitive answer to the question that was originally asked, but do feel I can address this issue:

<<<I have read stories where priests in prison camps would celebrate with other prisoners Holy Communion with small pieces of bread, without any wine being available.>>>

Does this mean that their Masses were invalid? I have alsway wondered about the Masses offered in captivity…Where the bread and wine might not be “kosher” to speak…(sorry)…

We have to be aware that as long as it is “bread” made from wheat it is valid although it may also be illicit. Masses celebrated under these circumstances would be valid in spite of using illicit material.

Deacon Ed

 

[Huiou_Theou]

t times:

WHEN THE PRIEST DROPS A PIECE OF THE COOKIE INTO THE WINE WOULD IT NOT MAKE THE WINE INVALID? SO THEREFORE THEIR BOTH INVALID.

Cookie?
Do you mean the sacred host after consecration?
If that is what is being referred to, they were valid at consecration at which point they ceased to BE wheat and wine.
There is no more valid or invalid after consecration, there is Just the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus, with the interface/accidents/species (physical properties) of bread and wine.

 

[_veritas]

Update on my original question

I was able to speak briefly with the priest-canonist that I had mentioned earlier… he disagrees with the deacon-canonist I had previously talked this over with, but also cites the exact same canon laws…

The priest-canonist says that the invalid consecration of the bread (in this case, due to invalid matter) will not affect the valid consecration of the wine (assuming that the three requirements for validly are met for this species). Vice-versa is also possible. He also states that as long as there is the valid consecration of one of the species, the “Mass” is valid. The invalidity of the other species is still objectively invalid, however, and therefore the Mass itself is to be considered gravely illicit. He was shocked to hear of such a thing happening, and encouraged quick follow-up by those who had observed it (the parish still has not responded to my inquiry for clarification, so I have little to go on myself… :nope.

On the other hand, a not-so-encouraging observation – One might be inclined to think that if one species is invalidly consecrated purposefully by the priest, that the validity of the other is also called into question – even if the other one appeared to be done “correctly”. If the priest cares little for the integrity of the sacrament, willfully and with proper understanding of Church teaching, it is logical for his superiors to consider that his intention may not be correct to begin with. If this is the case, *then *both species may not be valid, even if the other species is using valid matter… (*whew, *with me so far? ) Basically, to sum this up, while the occassion of an invalid consecration of one species does not necessarily mean that both species are invalid (and that the Mass is invalid), it is to be corrected as though that were the case – this level of illicitness on the part of the priest throws it all into question, and needs to be urgently dealt with, either through personal contact or letter(s).

So… I have asked one priest, one deacon-canonist, and one priest-canonist… Basically the priests are in separate agreement that the other consecration could still be valid if the conditions are met. Only the deacon-canonist takes the “all or nothing” stance.

Dunno. I’m more inclined to go with the priests’ answers, considering they are priests after all… but I do trust the knowledge of the deacon too. Hmmmm!! Maybe, after all, we *have *found something that hasn’t been dealt with fully before!! :whacky: Wacky, huh?

Kinda interesting to ponder though, right? I love these deep theological Church law discussions!!

+veritas+

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Deacon Ed:

Since the addition of the fermentum takes place after the consecration it would not affect the validity of the consecration.
…
We have to be aware that as long as it is “bread” made from wheat it is valid although it may also be illicit. Masses celebrated under these circumstances would be valid in spite of using illicit material.
Deacon Ed

Generally, the priests I see place a portion of the azyma into the chalice. Under the RCC laws, fermentum is not supposed to be used.

Is that what you mean by illicit material, fermentum?
If so, I agree. (Canon 926).
If not, which material is illicit?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

This is from the IGMR/GIRM which was approved by Rome.

1. If the priest notices after the consecration or as he receives Communion that not wine but only water was poured into the chalice, he pours the water into some container, then pours wine with water into the chalice and consecrates it. He says only the part of the institution narrative related to the consecration of the chalice, without being obliged to consecrate the bread again.

It points out clearly that the wine and bread can be (and implies that they always ARE) consecrated seperately during mass.
The words of institution, then, take effect at the moment they are spoken and since the word body and blood are temporally seperated, so is the consecration.

The epiklesis, though, has not been discussed.
Deacon Ed, could you shed any light on that?