Priest only consecrated the host but both species were offered

  • Thread starter Thread starter jtodisco
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jtodisco

Guest
At this evening’s vigil Mass the priest got lost after he said the prayers consecrating the bread so that it would become the Body of the Lord. He paused after doing this, looked through the book next to him, and after some awkward silence went on to the next part of the Mass without ever consecrating the wine so that it would become the Blood of the Lord. However, Communion was offered under both species. I was unsure whether to receive the cup or not because I was not sure if the wine was still wine or was the Precious Blood? The priest clearly seems to have intended to consecrate both. But I only received the host instead of the cup since I know that one does not need to receive both species in order to receive our Lord entirely since He is entirely present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in either species.

So my questions are: If the priest appears to have intended to consecrate the wine does that mean it was consecrated/went through transubstantiation? Or did the wine remain only wine because of the priest’s failure to say the prayers of consecration over the cup?
 
Mass would be invalid, the wine would still be wine, but I believe the hosts would be consecrated.
 
Does anyone know if it is possible to silently consecrate the offerings? Or must the words be said out loud? I’m saying this because it could be that the priest said the consecration of the wine in his head. Of course, he would still be required to lift up the chalice and bow afterwards I think.
 
marty1818 said:
Mass would be invalid, the wine would still be wine, but I believe the hosts would be consecrated.
Click to expand...
That is the opinion of St. Thomas in the Summa. But in his explanation of his answer, he points out that some of the earlier doctors of the Church had a different view of this question.
 
It was pretty obvious that the priest forgot to say the prayer of consecration over the wine. He paused, got confused, flipped around through the book next to him, and then as he began the next part of the Mass he paused a second (which is when I think he realized that he had forgotten to consecrate the wine) and then continued with the Mass.

He’s a nice guy and I have no doubt it was an honest mistake, but it doesn’t change the fact that things got messed up. He didn’t say the prayer of consecration, nor did he lift up the chalice, or pour the wine and water into the chalice (apparently there was wine already in the priest’s chalice and the other two cups). None of this was how Mass at this parish normally operates. Anyway, later in the Mass he did hold up both the chalice and the paten. And like I said the faithful were offered both species.

Anyway, I’m glad I did not receive the chalice if what everyone is saying about this is accurate. I was worried about bowing before a cup of wine that hadn’t actually gone through transubstantiation and then saying “Amen” in response to “the Blood of Christ”. I don’t fault any of the other parishioners who received both species, but it did worry me and I’m glad I refrained if the wine remained unconsecrated due to the priest’s error during the Mass.
 
NovusAugustus said:
Does anyone know if it is possible to silently consecrate the offerings? Or must the words be said out loud? I’m saying this because it could be that the priest said the consecration of the wine in his head. Of course, he would still be required to lift up the chalice and bow afterwards I think.
Click to expand...
If by silently you mean his mouth isn’t moving at all, no, that would be invalid. He has to pronounce the words. In parts of the traditional Latin Mass there is a vox secreta (secret voice) which is inaudible to the congregation, but he’s still saying the words (even if in a whisper). I’m not sure if the Novus Ordo has levels of voice, but I know they can’t just think the words in their head.
 
jtodisco said:
Anyway, I’m glad I did not receive the chalice if what everyone is saying about this is accurate. I was worried about bowing before a cup of wine that hadn’t actually gone through transubstantiation and then saying “Amen” in response to “the Blood of Christ”. I don’t fault any of the other parishioners who received both species, but it did worry me and I’m glad I refrained if the wine remained unconsecrated due to the priest’s error during the Mass.
Click to expand...
I hardly think anyone (especially God) would fault you or even have an ‘issue’ in the situation you described.
If the worst thing that anyone does in a given day is to ‘bow before a cup of wine that hadn’t actually gone through transubstantiation’ because a priest made an error…🤷 then all is good ;)…IMHO!
 
…the kind of stuff you witness these days…how can a priest possibly forget to complete the Words of Institution…I can hardly consider this an accidental mistake…it’s the one part of Holy Mass that matters more than anything else…and there’s no flipping to do, because the words are right there and usually in a bigger font…! I hope it never happens and it was a one-time issue, otherwise something ought to be done…
 
R_C said:
…the kind of stuff you witness these days…how can a priest possibly forget to complete the Words of Institution…I can hardly consider this an accidental mistake…it’s the one part of Holy Mass that matters more than anything else…and there’s no flipping to do, because the words are right there and usually in a bigger font…! I hope it never happens and it was a one-time issue, otherwise something ought to be done…
Click to expand...
I almost have to wonder if the Priest didn’t have some kind of brief medical episode. Isn’t it the very next section of the page from what he would have just read?
 
h(name removed by moderator)forlife said:
I hardly think anyone (especially God) would fault you or even have an ‘issue’ in the situation you described.
If the worst thing that anyone does in a given day is to ‘bow before a cup of wine that hadn’t actually gone through transubstantiation’ because a priest made an error…🤷 then all is good ;)…IMHO!
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone who received the chalice today was doing anything wrong. Most parishioners probably either didn’t notice or didn’t think much of it. I know this makes me sound like I’m over-analyzing things or being too critical, but the consecration of the bread and wine to make them the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ is pretty much the most important aspect of the Mass. My worry was that since I saw this that if I had gone up to receive the unconsecrated wine that I would be doing exactly what some Protestants who don’t believe in the Real Presence accuse us Catholics of doing (namely, committing idolatry). Seeing what I saw I could not in good conscience bow to a cup of regular wine or say “Amen” to the declaration “the Blood of Christ” to regular wine. It would be like saying those things to wine at a Lutheran service, etc.

Again, I don’t think any of the parishioners were knowingly doing anything like that. And the priest seems to have made an honest mistake, but I just don’t know how he didn’t notice. Or if he did, why he didn’t just acknowledge his mistake and go back and say the prayer of consecration? I’ve seen priests mess up, it happens. But every other time I’ve seen a priest mess up they apologize and go back and fix their mistake almost immediately.

Anyway, I just want to reiterate that I’m NOT condemning anyone. I just wanted to make sure that I was right in assuming the wine remained unconsecrated since the priest failed to say the prayer.
 
You were correct not to adore the chalice, because you were aware that the chalice had not been consecrated and therefore to adore it would have been the sin of idolatry. You were also correct not to receive from the chalice, of course.

Nobody in the church fulfilled his or her Sunday obligation. Those who realized that the chalice had not been consecrated and that therefore Mass had not been celebrated were obligated to hear another Sunday Mass, and committed a sin if they did not do so. Those who did not realize it committed no sin.

A competent set of altar servers would never have let this happen.
 
aemcpa said:
A competent set of altar servers would never have let this happen.
Click to expand...
I’m interested to hear about what you think an altar server should have done in a situation like this. Stand up from kneeling position, approach the altar, and tell the priest he missed a part of the mass?
 
aemcpa said:
You were correct not to adore the chalice, because you were aware that the chalice had not been consecrated and therefore to adore it would have been the sin of idolatry. You were also correct not to receive from the chalice, of course.

Nobody in the church fulfilled his or her Sunday obligation. Those who realized that the chalice had not been consecrated and that therefore Mass had not been celebrated were obligated to hear another Sunday Mass, and committed a sin if they did not do so. Those who did not realize it committed no sin.

A competent set of altar servers would never have let this happen.
Click to expand...
If there were a later mass available then there would be an obligation.

Altar servers? Not all are as well trained as the acolytes of old, but you would hope the importance of the Consecration would be impressed upon them regardless. And yes, I would have thought that in the guise of assisting him to find the right passage in the book one could let him know to consecrate the wine.
 
NovusAugustus said:
I’m interested to hear about what you think an altar server should have done in a situation like this. Stand up from kneeling position, approach the altar, and tell the priest he missed a part of the mass?
Click to expand...
The master of ceremonies would do that, yes. He is charged with ensuring Father is at the right place in the Missal anyway. If Father got lost in the book, then the MC should have known where he left off and directed him to the correct page to continue.
 
aemcpa said:
The master of ceremonies would do that, yes. He is charged with ensuring Father is at the right place in the Missal anyway. If Father got lost in the book, then the MC should have known where he left off and directed him to the correct page to continue.
Click to expand...
Are we talking about an EF or an OF? I’m assuming the OP is talking about an OF, as he mentions Communion under both kinds. At all the OFs I’ve been to, I’ve yet to see an MC, except when the Permanent Deacon is there.

I think it’s unrealistic to expect an ordinary altar server to correct the priest (for that is what it would amount to) when they could be as young as 7 years old.
 
paperwight66 said:
Are we talking about an EF or an OF? I’m assuming the OP is talking about an OF, as he mentions Communion under both kinds. At all the OFs I’ve been to, I’ve yet to see an MC, except when the Permanent Deacon is there.

I think it’s unrealistic to expect an ordinary altar server to correct the priest (for that is what it would amount to) when they could be as young as 7 years old.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons why all the servers in our parish are adult men.
 
paperwight66 said:
Are we talking about an EF or an OF? I’m assuming the OP is talking about an OF, as he mentions Communion under both kinds. At all the OFs I’ve been to, I’ve yet to see an MC, except when the Permanent Deacon is there.

I think it’s unrealistic to expect an ordinary altar server to correct the priest (for that is what it would amount to) when they could be as young as 7 years old.
Click to expand...
Our parish has an MC at OF Masses too, and they are always in high school or older and have been serving for many years. I understand that that is not the case everywhere, but my point is that that’s a problem.
 
Master of Ceremonies! lol

Our church only has the priest 90% of the time!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top