Priest only consecrated the host but both species were offered

[R_C]

I’m interested to hear about what you think an altar server should have done in a situation like this.

As others said, this is why we have the figure of Master of Ceremonies standing next to the priest and gently pointing with his extended hand the part that was to be read next. However in the Ordinary Form - with a few beautiful exceptions - this figure is found only in Pontifical High Masses in St. Peter’s Basilica

General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 106.

It is appropriate, at least in cathedrals and in larger churches, to have some competent minister, that is to say a master of ceremonies, to oversee the proper planning of sacred actions and their being carried out by the sacred ministers and the lay faithful with decorum, order, and devotion.

Also: deacons? Young altar servers are great indeed, but we need to see those who share in the Holy Orders around during the celebration of Holy Mass. If in a Parrish there are deacons (and priests not celebrating at that time) we should not have lay EMHCs standing around with the Blessed Sacrament, for it is the role of the clergy to be present and aid the celebrant. This is a bit off-topic, but worth mentioning, because the General Instruction has many parts that greatly contribute to the Eucharist which are not often observed. We’ve seen two in this thread - a third one would be the communion paten to be held under the chin by an altar server.

 

[malphono]

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.

If indeed the situation was as described in OP, the fact that there was no Mass was not the fault of anyone in the congregation. Whether anyone besides the OP noticed or realized what had happened (or, more to the point, what had not happened), their “obligation” **was **fulfilled. They were present in good faith expecting Mass. The Law does not punish them for that.

A competent set of altar servers would never have let this happen.

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.

That depends, even in the Usus Antiquior. Some priests will not take correction at all.

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.

It’s nice that you have them, but Masters of Ceremonies are quite a rarity, even in the Usus Antiquior. But even when they’re present, the laymen I’ve encountered in that role generally don’t quite “cut the mustard” as the saying goes.

 

[aemcpa]

If indeed the situation was as described in OP, the fact that there was no Mass was not the fault of anyone in the congregation. Whether anyone besides the OP noticed or realized what had happened (or, more to the point, what had not happened), their “obligation” **was **fulfilled. They were present in good faith expecting Mass. The Law does not punish them for that.

If I show up to church for a scheduled 5 pm Mass and the priest never shows up, and I wait for an hour and leave, have I fulfilled my obligation? Of course not. The obligation is not to “be present in good faith expecting Mass”. We don’t just “put the time in” - we have to attend Mass, and no Mass happened. If a person understood that fact, and was able to attend another Sunday Mass but didn’t, that person committed a sin. A person who didn’t realize it or wasn’t able to make another Mass did not sin because he was legitimately impeded from fulfilling his obligation, but that is not the same thing as actually fulfilling the obligation.

By the way, it’s a sad state of affairs when maybe one person in 100 would fail to notice that the sign of peace was omitted (which is actually a legitimate option), but we’re trying to argue that most of the church didn’t notice that the chalice wasn’t consecrated.

 

[malphono]

If I show up to church for a scheduled 5 pm Mass and the priest never shows up, and I wait for an hour and leave, have I fulfilled my obligation? Of course not. The obligation is not to “be present in good faith expecting Mass”. We don’t just “put the time in” - we have to attend Mass, and no Mass happened. If a person understood that fact, and was able to attend another Sunday Mass but didn’t, that person committed a sin. A person who didn’t realize it or wasn’t able to make another Mass did not sin because he was legitimately impeded from fulfilling his obligation, but that is not the same thing as actually fulfilling the obligation.

It’s not a matter of “putting in time” but rather one of disposition. The business of “putting in time” (i.e. to meet the “obligation”) is what I would say the majority does when they actually go to Mass, but never mind that.

In the case presented in the OP, the Law would not require anyone in that congregation (whether they noticed the error or nor) to go searching for another Mass. The Law does not exist to be a burden on the faithful.

And even in the second example cited, if a congregation was present for Mass and the priest simply failed to show, the onus does not fall on the congregation. Granted that, if there was another Mass scheduled an hour later in the same, they would have to attend in order to fulfill the “obligation” but if, for example, it was the last (or only) Mass of the day in that church, they would not have to run searching for a Mass in another church that had a later Mass. The same would be true in the case where there was no other church in the vicinity. The Law does not not impose hardship on the faithful.

As a further example, say that Mass was in progress and the church had to be evacuated because of a fire. Are the congregants “obliged” to to elsewhere for Mass? No, of course not.

In all three cases, the members of the congregation who were present did nothing wrong. They did, in fact, do their duty in attempting to fulfill their “obligation” and the fact that there was no Mass is not their problem.

Ask a Canon Lawyer.

By the way, it’s a sad state of affairs when maybe one person in 100 would fail to notice that the sign of peace was omitted (which is actually a legitimate option), but we’re trying to argue that most of the church didn’t notice that the chalice wasn’t consecrated.

Maybe, but in fairness, the majority of congregants do not necessarily know the specifics of what must be done. Plus, there is the error of what I’ve called in the past “magic words syndrome” meaning that Mass is more than simply a valid Consecration (to use Western terminology).

 

[NovusAugustus]

Would an ordinary altar server be obliged to help, not just a Master of Ceremonies? Our parish doesn’t have a Master of Ceremonies so I’m curious what my personal obligation would be in a case like this as an ordinary altar server.

Also, how late would be too late in a case like this? If someone stopped the priest at any time before the, “Through him and with him and in him,” elevation could the priest go back, consecrate the wine, and then finish the Eucharistic prayer? Or would he need to consecrate both elements before he even starts the next part of the prayer?

 

[LilyM]

Would an ordinary altar server be obliged to help, not just a Master of Ceremonies? Our parish doesn’t have a Master of Ceremonies so I’m curious what my personal obligation would be in a case like this as an ordinary altar server.

Also, how late would be too late in a case like this? If someone stopped the priest at any time before the, “Through him and with him and in him,” elevation could the priest go back, consecrate the wine, and then finish the Eucharistic prayer? Or would he need to consecrate both elements before he even starts the next part of the prayer?

Forget the ‘through him, with him and in him’. Consecration of both species is critical to the Mass and the congregation meeting their Sunday obligation. If h became aware at any time during the Mass (ie ay any point prior to the dismissal at the end) the priest would have to go back, consecrate the wine and partake of it to ensure the validity of the Mass. He need not distribute it to others or anything - there is no requirement for anyone but him to receive the precious Blood.

And it is so important that I as a laywoman would have tried to bring it to his attention (ie gone up to one of the altar servers at an approproate time or told him as I was receiving communion or something) if noone else had.

 

[Zekariya]

If the Mass was invalid, one has not fulfilled their Sunday obligation. That said, one’s culpability for missing Mass is greatly if not fully diminished as the priest was at fault for missing something crucial and one had no reason to expect no Mass.

 

[aemcpa]

It’s not a matter of “putting in time” but rather one of disposition. The business of “putting in time” (i.e. to meet the “obligation”) is what I would say the majority does when they actually go to Mass, but never mind that.

Disposition is not sufficient to fulfill one’s obligation. One must actually do what one is obliged to do unless legitimately impeded.

In the case presented in the OP, the Law would not require anyone in that congregation (whether they noticed the error or nor) to go searching for another Mass. The Law does not exist to be a burden on the faithful.

The obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days is a burden placed on the faithful. All obligations are.

And even in the second example cited, if a congregation was present for Mass and the priest simply failed to show, the onus does not fall on the congregation. Granted that, if there was another Mass scheduled an hour later in the same, they would have to attend in order to fulfill the “obligation” but if, for example, it was the last (or only) Mass of the day in that church, they would not have to run searching for a Mass in another church that had a later Mass. The same would be true in the case where there was no other church in the vicinity. The Law does not not impose hardship on the faithful.

The Mass is question was a Saturday evening anticipated Mass, so it was far from the last opportunity to attend Mass for most people. I already qualified my statement with “if a person was able to attend another Sunday Mass”.

As a further example, say that Mass was in progress and the church had to be evacuated because of a fire. Are the congregants “obliged” to to elsewhere for Mass? No, of course not.

I disagree. It depends on how far along the Mass was and other factors. The priest is obliged to complete the Mass once it is begun.

In all three cases, the members of the congregation who were present did nothing wrong. They did, in fact, do their duty in attempting to fulfill their “obligation” and the fact that there was no Mass is not their problem.

They did nothing wrong, but that doesn’t mean they fulfilled their Mass obligation. If they are able to fulfill it by actually attending Mass (which they haven’t done) and do not, then they HAVE done something wrong.

Ask a Canon Lawyer.

Will do.

 

[malphono]

I disagree. It depends on how far along the Mass was and other factors. The priest is obliged to complete the Mass once it is begun.

Amidst a fire? Really …? Oh please … no way, no how does Canon Law (name removed by moderator)ose such a burden on anyone.

I should point out that the evacuation came before the the Institution Narrative. Had it been after, yes, the celebrant would have been required to complete the Mass at a later time if that were possible, but even if it were not possible, it still has nothing to do with the so-called “obligation” of the faithful.

I should also note that, in the circumstances as they were, your insistence on a letter-perfect interpretation of law would be in opposition to the diocesan bishop/ordinary who happened to be the celebrant on that occasion. FWIW, my buck is on the bishop (whom I happen to know personally, but never mind that).

They did nothing wrong, but that doesn’t mean they fulfilled their Mass obligation. If they are able to fulfill it by actually attending Mass (which they haven’t done) and do not, then they HAVE done something wrong.

No, they have not.

Ask a Canon Lawyer.

Yes, I think that would be in order.

And with that, I end my involvement on this carousel (aka cercle fermé) from which there is no exit.

 

[aemcpa]

Amidst a fire? Really …? Oh please … no way, no how does Canon Law (name removed by moderator)ose such a burden on anyone.

The obligation of the priest to finish the Mass he has started and the obligation of a Catholic to hear Mass on Sunday are unrelated. But the simple fact is that a Catholic is obliged to hear Mass on Sundays and holy days unless legitimately impeded. The mere fact that one showed up for Mass and Mass didn’t happen is not ipso facto a legitimate impediment.

 

[Mike30]

Does it really mattrer? If the Priest forgot or had a lapse it’s no big deal. I would’t worry about it in the least.

 

[LilyM]

Does it really mattrer? If the Priest forgot or had a lapse it’s no big deal. I would’t worry about it in the least.

Yes it does really matter. Making mistakes is one thing but failing to do what is necessary to correct them where possible - especially in regards the Mass which is the source and summit of our faith - is inexcusable.

A mistake has been made by the priest here. It is difficult to imagine that he remained unaware during the rest of the Mass of his mistake. It could and should have been rectified. Failing that, the congregation are meant to, where possible, rectify the error themselves by attending another Mass.

Think of a jeweller working on a precious but fragile gem. Through an honest mistake he cuts a fraction of an inch in the wrong direction and the stone shatters into fragments. Is he to blame? No. Can he patch the stone back together with glue, pretend it is still good and try to sell it to a customer? No. A new stone simply has to be obtained, no way around it, and he IS to blame of he fails to do so.

 

[jtodisco]

I am sad to see that my initial question has caused so much arguing between people.

I understand why people feel strongly about this matter. I do too, hence the reason I was concerned enough to start this thread. I agree with those who are insisting that this is much more than “no big deal”. It is a big deal. At the same time, even I who was at this Mass can’t know how many of the parishioners realized the gravity of the priest’s error. So I will not judge the other parishioners and don’t think anyone else should be judging them en masse either.

I did go to another Mass (this was a Saturday evening vigil Mass, so I simply went to a Sunday morning Mass). I have not spoken with the priest for several reasons, the main two being that this is the first time I’ve ever witnessed him (or any priest) make this mistake before and so I am hopeful that it will remain a one time mistake. Secondly, I do not know the priest at this parish very well and I hope that one of the EMHC’s who were present will have noticed and spoken to him about this already in private. If this ever happens again then I will obviously be sure to politely discuss this with the priest myself.

 

[aemcpa]

I am sad to see that my initial question has caused so much arguing between people.

I understand why people feel strongly about this matter. I do too, hence the reason I was concerned enough to start this thread. I agree with those who are insisting that this is much more than “no big deal”. It is a big deal. At the same time, even I who was at this Mass can’t know how many of the parishioners realized the gravity of the priest’s error. So I will not judge the other parishioners and don’t think anyone else should be judging them en masse either.

I did go to another Mass (this was a Saturday evening vigil Mass, so I simply went to a Sunday morning Mass). I have not spoken with the priest for several reasons, the main two being that this is the first time I’ve ever witnessed him (or any priest) make this mistake before and so I am hopeful that it will remain a one time mistake. Secondly, I do not know the priest at this parish very well and I hope that one of the EMHC’s who were present will have noticed and spoken to him about this already in private. If this ever happens again then I will obviously be sure to politely discuss this with the priest myself.

I don’t think anybody on this thread judged the people there en masse. But facts are facts - nobody attended Mass at that church on Saturday night. And you, being aware of the situation, made the extra effort to fulfill your obligation. I don’t know what others were aware of, but if people were aware of the problem and able to go to another Mass and didn’t, that’s a problem.

 

[Mike30]

Yes it does really matter. Making mistakes is one thing but failing to do what is necessary to correct them where possible - especially in regards the Mass which is the source and summit of our faith - is inexcusable.

A mistake has been made by the priest here. It is difficult to imagine that he remained unaware during the rest of the Mass of his mistake. It could and should have been rectified. Failing that, the congregation are meant to, where possible, rectify the error themselves by attending another Mass.

Think of a jeweller working on a precious but fragile gem. Through an honest mistake he cuts a fraction of an inch in the wrong direction and the stone shatters into fragments. Is he to blame? No. Can he patch the stone back together with glue, pretend it is still good and try to sell it to a customer? No. A new stone simply has to be obtained, no way around it, and he IS to blame of he fails to do so.

Sorry, I don’t see it as a big deal. Priests are humans and humans make mistakes. Simple. Maybe he realized it later. Maybe he didn’t. In the garnd scheme of things is it really so important?

But then again I guess the OP could report him to the Bishop as many on this forum seem to advocate for every little thing, or failing that he could call the Swiss Guard or the local office of the inquisitor, oops, sorry we don’t have that anymore do we, mea culpa:blush:, and have the offender carted off to the Vatican prison to do penance.

As far as the congregation goes, I was told that if the Priest had the right intention but made an honest mistake it was OK and the congregation was not at fault and therefore incurred no penalty whatsoever…

Guess I was wrong.

Oh well, if you have the number of the Swiss Guard just forward it and we’ll get that Priest extradicted for sure:thumbsup

 

[LilyM]

Sorry, I don’t see it as a big deal. Priests are humans and humans make mistakes. Simple. Maybe he realized it later. Maybe he didn’t. In the garnd scheme of things is it really so important?

But then again I guess the OP could report him to the Bishop as many on this forum seem to advocate for every little thing, or failing that he could call the Swiss Guard or the local office of the inquisitor, oops, sorry we don’t have that anymore do we, mea culpa:blush:, and have the offender carted off to the Vatican prison to do penance.

As far as the congregation goes, I was told that if the Priest had the right intention but made an honest mistake it was OK and the congregation was not at fault and therefore incurred no penalty whatsoever…

Guess I was wrong.

Oh well, if you have the number of the Swiss Guard just forward it and we’ll get that Priest extradicted for sure:thumbsup

Penalty? Consecrating the precious blood is a penalty? Going to another Mass is a penalty? We do these things willingly (or ought to) because we love God and do not desire to serve or worship Him in a halfhearted, slapdash, near-enough-is-good-enough manner. Not see it as some sort of punishment!

 

[jtodisco]

But then again I guess the OP could report him to the Bishop as many on this forum seem to advocate for every little thing, or failing that he could call the Swiss Guard or the local office of the inquisitor, oops, sorry we don’t have that anymore do we, mea culpa:blush:, and have the offender carted off to the Vatican prison to do penance.

I am the OP and I suggest you read what I’ve actually written in this thread. I do not appreciate your distortion of my concerns or what I felt was the correct response. I didn’t report anyone or even once suggest doing so. I repeatedly asserted that this was a mistake and that priests are human beings like the rest of us. No one is denying that and neither am I. My concerns centered on the fact that I was unsure about the consecration. I take the Holy Eucharist very seriously considering that is is Our Blessed Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Your words are very uncharitable and you seem to have no love for God in the Holy Eucharist. Perhaps you don’t even believe in the Real Presence?

Or perhaps that’s me being uncharitable and distorting what you’ve said? Doesn’t feel very nice does it?

 

[Mike30]

Penalty? Consecrating the precious blood is a penalty? Going to another Mass is a penalty? We do these things willingly (or ought to) because we love God and do not desire to serve or worship Him in a halfhearted, slapdash, near-enough-is-good-enough manner. Not see it as some sort of punishment!

Hey you’re the onle climbing all over this Priest and screaming that the congregation should know better and do something. Wher is your charity? Where is your compassion? Do you know the state of that Priests soul that you can judge him in the way you are so obviously doing?. Forget him for a second, you judged everyone in the congregation except the OP. Pretty serious stuff especially since you weren’t even there and are going only on hearsay evidence at beast.

I never said anything about consecrating the Precious Blood being a penalty. Where in the world did you get that idea? You implied that because the Priest didn’t that he may have incurred one and that if the congregation knew and didn’t do something about they incurred one… Don’t try to put words in my mouth. I gave the Priests the benefit of the doubt as I did the Parishners. You quite obviouisly did not.

Maybe you should try to do the same.

Sheesh.

 

[LilyM]

Hey you’re the onle climbing all over this Priest and screaming that the congregation should know better and do something. Wher is your charity? Where is your compassion? Do you know the state of that Priests soul that you can judge him in the way you are so obviously doing?. Forget him for a second, you judged everyone in the congregation except the OP. Pretty serious stuff especially since you weren’t even there and are going only on hearsay evidence at beast.

I never said anything about consecrating the Precious Blood being a penalty. Where in the world did you get that idea? You implied that because the Priest didn’t that he may have incurred one and that if the congregation knew and didn’t do something about they incurred one… Don’t try to put words in my mouth. I gave the Priests the benefit of the doubt as I did the Parishners. You quite obviouisly did not.

Maybe you should try to do the same.

Sheesh.

Giving priests and congregations the benefit of the doubt is fine, and yes I was somewhat harsh in that regard. Thank you for the reminder.

Saying, as you did, that it doesn’t matter, is entirely different. And not at all helpful.

Even if priest and congregation were blameless on this occasion because they didn’t know better, the matter cannot simply be left there. instruction as to what our Sunday obligation actually is, and its importance, and the significance and effect of what the priest did as it impacts on fulfilment of that obligation, is clearly needed here, and I have tried to give it.