Priest consumed no Precious Blood

[ac_claire]

Actually I was wrong. A priest who requires the use of mustum cannot typically preside at a Mass with concelebrants.

“D. In general, those who have received permission to use are prohibited from presiding at concelebrated Masses. There may be some exceptions however: in the case of a bishop or superior general; or, with prior approval of the ordinary, at the celebration of the anniversary of priestly ordination or other similar occasions. In these cases the one who presides is to communicate under both the species of bread and that of , while for the other concelebrants a chalice shall be provided in which normal wine is to be consecrated.”

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFMUSTM.HTM

I’m confused about this. I understand that it’s the rule, but why can’t these priests concelebrate? What’s the Church’s reasoning, in other words?

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Thank you for finding that for me Is it correct, then, to say that this was a valid but illicit Eucharist? Do I have any obligation in the matter, ie do I need to avoid receiving when he does this?

Perhaps the priest usually uses mustum and just realized that there was none and he felt obliged to say the scheduled mass. If this happens often you could politely question him about it.

In any case, you should have no qualms about receiving communion at that mass. The mass is valid, the Sacrament is valid.

 

[Bluegoat]

The accidents of wine are still there even if it is substantially the Blood of Christ. Drink enough and drive home and you leave yourself open to a DUI.

I once went to a wedding where the priest consecrated way too much - I think he thought most of the attendees were Catholic, but I guess they were not. He was rather tipsy when he left the church.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Our ushers are the last to receive Communion, and they will very kindly either finish the chalice or at least drink what they can handle. That reduces what gets left for the deacon, too.

 

[Holly3278]

In our parish, we do not have the Blood of Christ because of flu season and because so many people in the parish misunderstood it.

Please tell me that the priest consecrates the wine as well as the hosts during Mass. If he does not, I am not sure but I think that would be some kind of major liturgical abuse to not consecrate both elements.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Please tell me that the priest consecrates the wine as well as the hosts during Mass. If he does not, I am not sure but I think that would be some kind of major liturgical abuse to not consecrate both elements.

It is absolutely forbidden to consecrate one element without the other.

 

[ML561]

Heavens above, is that all you have to concern yourself with? You must have way too much time on your hands if you are worrying about whether or not your priest is consuming the Blood of Christ. It would seem more fitting if you were concerning yourself with whether or not YOU are able to receive the Eucharist. In other words, mind your own business. It is petty issues like these that so many people want to focus on in this forum that are making me consider unsubscribing and gettting my answers from my parish priest instead of from people who seem to suffer from severe scrupulosity.

 

[Digitonomy]

Heavens above, is that all you have to concern yourself with?

I didn’t see the OP state this was all he had to concern himself with.

ML561:

It would seem more fitting if you were concerning yourself with whether or not YOU are able to receive the Eucharist.

It’s uncharitable to assume he’s not.

ML561:

It is petty issues like these that so many people want to focus on in this forum that are making me consider unsubscribing and gettting my answers from my parish priest instead of from people who seem to suffer from severe scrupulosity.

You’re certainly free to do that, but for me I’ve found the best approach is to avoid threads or forums that I consistently find frustrating or unsatisfying. If you come upon an objectionable post once you’re already in a thread, it’s too late for that, but skipping to the next post isn’t that tough. And, you can always use the “ignore” function if the poster is repeatedly inane, combative, etc - so long as he isn’t a moderator of his own user forum, in which case that function doesn’t work.

Anyway, it’s worth keeping in mind that while some may get a bit scrupulous and accusatory on topics like this, many of us love the nitty gritty technical details of these topics. So while it may not be your cup of tea, that’s no reason to discourage others from posting here.:tiphat:

 

[EvelynEVF]

Wow, ML561. I guess you didn’t notice that I very careful posted only minimal details, enough to get a clear answer to my question, but not to identify the priest. I never criticized him. Shoot, I don’t think I said a thing about him except that he didn’t drink the Precious Blood and I wanted to know if that should affect my actions in any way. I haven’t really participated in the thread, since my question is answered and that’s all I wanted.

I could have quietly asked my spiritual director, but I am aware that there is a certain amount of friction between SD and the priest in question, and I felt no need to possibly create a near occasion of sin, or make it sound like I was looking to criticize the priest. I figured anonymous was better.

Believe me, I spend plenty of time making sure that I’m okay to receive.

Something anomalous happened, and I came here to find out if there were consequences to that anomaly that I needed to know about. Period.