One invalid, both invalid?

[debeater]

+veritas+:

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? )

I agree with your reasoning except for one point. The “intention” that matters is not the intent to do the correct thing but the intent to “do what the Church does.” For example, even someone who does not believe in the effects of Baptism can validly administer the sacrament (in an emergency) if they have the intent to “do what the Church does” in Baptism. That is, even if the minister personally believes it does nothing more than make the recipient wet, as long as the other conditions are met then the Baptism is still valid.

So, if the priest believes that he can “do what the Church does” to a rice wafer as well as a wheat wafer, it would seem that his intent is sufficient for validity. He is wrong, of course, and the rice wafer is still invalid matter (and therefore not consecrated), but we need not fear for the effects of his intention on the wine.

Deborah

 

[_veritas]

debeater:

I agree with your reasoning except for one point. The “intention” that matters is not the intent to do the correct thing but the intent to “do what the Church does.”

Yes, I agree with you. I apologize if I was unclear, I guess I was assuming people knew what I meant by “intent”.

Basically, what I was trying to say was that if a priest knowingly goes against the Church by the use of invalid matter, does it not throw his very intention (ie, his will to do what the Church does) into question as well? He already has intentionally gone against the Church in this respect, and cares little for the sanctity of the sacrament… that would then raise a red flag for me in regard to his intention in the first place.

Granted, chances are that most of these abuses are due to ignorance, and if the priest honestly does not know that he is using invalid matter, then there is little reason to question his intention. I pray that this is the case, because non-willful ignorance can be corrected.

All I was getting at was that if someone is willfully going against the Church in this key aspect by choice, it is not a stretch to wonder if they are intending to “do what the Church does” at all… Scary. :nope:

+veritas+

 

[Pug]

loyola rambler:

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?

Loyola,

Are you talking about low gluten and not “low wheat”? Gluten is a kind of protein in several flours, but wheat flour usually has a lot of it. It makes it easier for bread to be leavened and rise. Some wheat flour has more and some less gluten. Wheat comes in many strains. I think there is such a thing as a host made from a wheat flour with low gluten. But maybe you mean something else entirely?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Pug:

Loyola,
Wheat comes in many strains.

As an aside, which strain is the original?
It seems in terms of time and genetic selection, that wheat has most likely been “improved” in the last 2000 years, but
I don’t think it makes too much difference, becuase I havent seen any restrictive rules concerning wheat varieties…

 

[Trad_Catholic]

It really isn’t so difficult. Every Priest knows you need wheat to confect the Sacrament. If he does not use wheat hosts, then he does NOT have the correct intention; therefore, he cannot confect the Blessed Sacrament, either in the “bread” or the wine.

 

[bob]

I have read somewhere that priests who are recovering alcholics or allegic to wine can consecrate mass with non-alcholic wine.

If that is so, isn’t it the same situation here?

 

[_veritas]

bob:

I have read somewhere that priests who are recovering alcholics or allegic to wine can consecrate mass with non-alcholic wine.

If that is so, isn’t it the same situation here?

Priests who are unable for whatever reason to consume normal sacramental wine are allowed, with the permission of their ordinary (bishop) to use a special wine called “mustem”, which is unpasteurized grape juice that has been allowed to just barely ferment – it is still considered “wine” however, not just grape juice, and definitely not the same as the Welch’s in the grocery aisle!

If a “non-alcoholic” liquid is used that is not mustem and and/or not made from the juice of grapes, then it is invalid matter. The only valid matter for the Precious Blood is grape wine.

Also, while the laity may in certain circumstances be allowed to receive consecrated mustem, *they too *must have obtained permission to do so.

So, a priest who consecrates mustem without permission can do so validly, but it will be illict (against the laws of the Church). Likewise with the laity who receive consecrated mustem without permission – it is valid Communion, but illicit.

Priests who cannot even drink mustem (or, on the other hand, who cannot eat even a small fraction of the wheat hosts) are not allowed to celebrate Mass themselves, they can only concelebrate with at least one other priest who can consume both species. (The main priest-celebrant at a Mass must receive Communion from both the Body and the Blood – no one else is obligated to do this)

Hope that helps,

+veritas+

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

“Priests who cannot even drink mustem (or, on the other hand, who cannot eat even a small fraction of the wheat hosts) are not allowed to celebrate Mass themselves, they can only concelebrate with at least one other priest who can consume both species. (The main priest-celebrant at a Mass must receive Communion from both the Body and the Blood – no one else is obligated to do this)”

The priest who can only receive one element can receive permission from his Bishop to celebrate Mass and only receive under one from of Communion. If possible it would be best that a concelebrant would receive in place of the main-celebrant.

 

[_veritas]

Br. Rich SFO:

The priest who can only receive one element can receive permission from his Bishop to celebrate Mass and only receive under one from of Communion. If possible it would be best that a concelebrant would receive in place of the main-celebrant.

usccb.org/liturgy/innews/1103.htm

The celebrating priest must always consume both species, or he cannot be either 1) the only celebrant of the Eucharist, or 2) the main celebrant at a concelebration – he can only concelebrate.

No bishop has the authority to go against this, the only thing that a bishop can give permission for is to use mustem instead of regular wine. (The priest can use the approved low-gluten hosts on his own if need be).

(for some reason this USCCB article was not coming up tonight… the USCCB server must be down for some reason. Hopefully the link works by the time you read this…)

+veritas+

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

usccb.org/liturgy/innews/1103.htm

The celebrating priest must always consume both species, or he cannot be either 1) the only celebrant of the Eucharist, or 2) the main celebrant at a concelebration – he can only concelebrate.

No bishop has the authority to go against this, the only thing that a bishop can give permission for is to use mustem instead of regular wine. (The priest can use the approved low-gluten hosts on his own if need be).

(for some reason this USCCB article was not coming up tonight… the USCCB server must be down for some reason. Hopefully the link works by the time you read this…)

+veritas+

I will read it. Thanks for the link. If correct and a Bishop cannot disense from it, then, I was told wrong and we have a major problem here.

 

[LaVada]

Hi all:
Most of this discussion is beyond my expertise but interesting indeed. In the back of my mind, though, is the fact that the Priest offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass “must” be able to consume “both” The Body and Blood of our Lord. N. B. Not only be able to but must do so.
My reason for posting, however, is my concern that only one other person picked up of the post by T times on Aug 20. I Surely pray that this was not a Catholic who used the term “cookie”!!! The correct term that “must” be used is host - Host if Consecrated - host if unconsecrated. Words are absolutely (name removed by moderator)ortant. If the person is non-Catholic, please respect our deep love of our Lord and of Him in the Blessed Sacrament. Most of us do not go to non-Catholic boards and make disparaging remarks.
Mary, Mother of The Eucharist, pray for us.
Peace on earth to men of good will.
LaVada

 

[_veritas]

The link to the liturgy document from the USCCB is working now… I just wanted to clarify what I said above.

Where I was in error has to do with the permissions to use mustem or low-gluten hosts – it appears that the priest has the authority to use mustem/low-gluten (under his bishop of course), and the priest is able to give permission for the laity to receive mustem/low-gluten as well. So – it is no longer solely up to the bishop to grant permission for the use of either mustem or low-gluten.

HOWEVER – the rest of what I said still stands. The priest-celebrant (alone or as the main celebrant) must consume both species, if he cannot consume any portion of either, or consume the appropriate alternative (mustem/low-gluten), then he can only concelebrate. (The article has a great chart towards the bottom that says what is allowable for each person’s role during the liturgy)

+veritas+

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

usccb.org/liturgy/innews/1103.htm

The celebrating priest must always consume both species, or he cannot be either 1) the only celebrant of the Eucharist, or 2) the main celebrant at a concelebration – he can only concelebrate.

No bishop has the authority to go against this, the only thing that a bishop can give permission for is to use mustem instead of regular wine. (The priest can use the approved low-gluten hosts on his own if need be).

(for some reason this USCCB article was not coming up tonight… the USCCB server must be down for some reason. Hopefully the link works by the time you read this…)

+veritas+

You are correct. If I’m reading it correctly.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Trad_Catholic:

It really isn’t so difficult. Every Priest knows you need wheat to confect the Sacrament. If he does not use wheat hosts, then he does NOT have the correct intention; therefore, he cannot confect the Blessed Sacrament, either in the “bread” or the wine.

I am not certain of that – a priest who consecrates water accidentally does in fact confect the host into the Blessed Sacrament seprately.
– Ignorance of his error is the presumption –
A priest who was improperly trained, but who did receive holy orders might use something which is invalid out of ignorance.
He also may believe (erroneously) that he is doing what the church does when consecrating matter other than wheat.
( History is often stranger than fiction! )

For example, barley, is a candidate from the multiplication of loaves. It would be wrong (AFAIK), but conceivable to think Jesus turned it into his body. See the discourse which follows it in John 6:9, 22, 26. The words “give thanks” are literally eucharisted in Greek.
Or, what if the priest has mild dimensia?

The intention of the priest is merely to desire to do as the church does. The intention is seperate for each consecration. The consecration of the wine and the bread are seperate, so it follows one could be consecrated without the other.

Take the case of heretics and the sacrament of baptism.
They do not agree with the church on many realted issues, but he church maintains that baptism performed by heritics can be valid.
Agreement with the church is irrelivant, the only part which matters is to intend to do what the church does – baptise.

I agree that a priest who would willingly consecrate matter which he knows is invalid casts doubts on his intention. But perhaps one final scenario would be the most likely and nightmarish.
The priest knows the consecration of wine is valid, and the consecration of rice is futile. His intention might be to just consecrate the wine as the church does, since the person would thereby receive the whole Blessed Sacrament (Body Blood Soul and Divinity) under the species of wine. He might even think he is doing the person a mercy by his illicit behaviour.