Priest pours the wine?

[MarkThompson]

Mark,

So if I understand you correctly, Cardinal Mahony allows for priests to be able to pour the wine once it’s been consecrated? But this, if not for him saying it was okay, would normally be illicit, correct?

And when you say “preference” in the second paragraph… is it really a matter of preference on the priest’s part, or does he really need to be following the rules? Because this is exactly what the priest at my parish does… he consecrates 2 large decanters (plus his individual chalice) and then he and other EHMCs pour into separate chalices.

Right, I didn’t mean it was an issue of preference. People, however, will often have a preference on things that are not genuinely issues of preference. Some are in a position to enforce their preferences even when they are not legitimately entitled to do so. Imagine a frontier judge, who might say, “Yep, that’s the law they passed back east in Washington DC, but it ain’t how I see it, and you’s in my courtroom, pardner.” That’s what I’m talking about.

I haven’t bothered to look for the letter from Cardinal Mahony either, but it was a hot topic of conversation here a couple of weeks ago.

 

[FrDavid96]

Right, I didn’t mean it was an issue of preference. People, however, will often have a preference on things that are not genuinely issues of preference. Some are in a position to enforce their preferences even when they are not legitimately entitled to do so. Imagine a frontier judge, who might say, “Yep, that’s the law they passed back east in Washington DC, but it ain’t how I see it, and you’s in my courtroom, pardner.” That’s what I’m talking about.

I haven’t bothered to look for the letter from Cardinal Mahony either, but it was a hot topic of conversation here a couple of weeks ago.

archdiocese.la/archbishop/letters/redemptionis_sacramentum.html

I’ll just offer the link without comment

 

[NeedImprovement]

When you studied this, was there any discussion of the hypothetical limits of what could be consecrated, distance-wise?

Again, during Papal Masses, you will see a lot of priests gathered near the altar, in about a 100-ft circumference, each holding ciborria. Obviously, you can’t have all of these vessels up on the altar with the Holy Father. He intends to consecrate what the priests are carrying in the ciborria, and these can number roughly thousands of hosts for the massive crowds at either the basilica or at St. Peter’s Square. Just imagine the hundreds of thousands of hosts that the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had to consecrate for the funeral Mass of the Venerable Pope John Paul II. Obvously, several thousand ciborria could not be placed on the altar that day.

I might just add to this that usually, elements which are not sense perceptible to a priest, couldn’t really be consecrated, because the priest couldn’t verify their existence [speaking exclusively of the Eucharistic elements and species here - not the special blessings from the pope sometimes imparted via TV or radio on special occasions].

Although one would assume then that as long as the elements could be seen by a presider or concelebrant no problem is presented , and that (considering benedictgal’s example) the whole question of distance would pose no problem anyway since each concelebrant held a ciborium which he intended to consecrate directly in front of him, this still doesn’t cover that subject in its entirety -

The faithful of our parish had the privilege of attending several consecutive occasions where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was celebrated solely by a visiting priest - a presider, who was blind.

I didn’t even realize it at the first Mass I attended because I had arrived late. It was one of those occasions where I was praying with my head bowed in parts and my eyes closed during other parts. When I finally realized it was during Communion . I wasn’t watching while the extraordinary minister guided him down the 3 steps from the sanctuary. I approached him to receive Holy Communion. He held up the consecrated Host, said, “The Body of Christ”, to which I responded , “Amen” and I held out my tongue to receive with my eyes closed. There was a pause of maybe 7 seconds or so, and then he said “Oh… you want… Okay - Could you guide my hand with your hand?” . I guided his hand and he placed the consecrated Host perfectly on my tongue. Since I was last in line to receive, I quickly added, " I’m sorry Father…I didn’t know…I arrived late", to which he replied " Sir, no, don’t worry - That’s okay."

When I got back to my pew, I told Jesus in Holy Communion that I felt just about knee-high to an amoeba (I know - they don’t have knees…:doh2 . Then I continued to tell Him just how great He was and thanked him for the privilege of being able to attend such a Holy Mass .

… Not a story I usually share with people (don’t want everyone knowing how well I live up to my screen name at times ), but thought I might throw it out there for you guys - my fellow members, because it illustrates how in exceptional situations, it becomes much more than simply a question of hypothetical distance.

 

[Digitonomy]

Again, during Papal Masses, you will see a lot of priests gathered near the altar, in about a 100-ft circumference, each holding ciborria…Obvously, several thousand ciborria could not be placed on the altar that day.

And yet, this approach was not used at Yankee Stadium. Instead remote caches of preconsecrated hosts were scattered about the stadium. There were time constraints in that they didn’t want the TV audience to have to wait 45 minutes while priests trekked from the altar up to the upper decks and then distributed to thousands up there. In consideration of the time contstraints why were preconsecrated hosts chosen, rather than Benedict having the intent to consecrate the hosts in each and every ciborium in the building, even if not on the altar?

I might just add to this that usually, elements which are not sense perceptible to a priest, couldn’t really be consecrated, because the priest couldn’t verify their existence

This seems like a useful guideline that could explain the Yankee Stadium event.

FrDavid96 suggested that hosts in another room could not be consecrated. I wondered whether in a case of extreme necessity, a mass for large numbers of people could be celebrated in a warren of closets. Your guideline clarifies this as well - such a mass could indeed be celebrated, but the bread and wine must be crammed into the closet with the priest, or at least an adjacent one that he can observe.

 

[benedictgal]

And yet, this approach was not used at Yankee Stadium. Instead remote caches of preconsecrated hosts were scattered about the stadium. There were time constraints in that they didn’t want the TV audience to have to wait 45 minutes while priests trekked from the altar up to the upper decks and then distributed to thousands up there. In consideration of the time contstraints why were preconsecrated hosts chosen, rather than Benedict having the intent to consecrate the hosts in each and every ciborium in the building, even if not on the altar?

How do you know that they were preconsecrated?

 

[Digitonomy]

How do you know that they were preconsecrated?

I read a story on the preparation for the event - I think in my diocesan paper, perhaps online.

 

[Brendan]

How do you know that they were preconsecrated?

That was what was done at the Mass in Wash D.C. as well. There were tabernacles set up (with lights) at a few points thorughout the stadium.

While there is no specific requirement that matter to be consecrated be within line of sight, that is the usual practice.

Otherwise, one could really have a single, worldwide Mass where the Pope intends to consecrate all matter in all ciboria worldwide, and just have local Deacons distribute.

While most likely valid, it would be a better example for the Holy Father to restrict himself to matter visable on the altar, and use preconsecrated hosts.

 

[Brendan]

One other thing, at the close of the D.C. Mass, the it was announced that at the final blessing, the Holy Father would intend to bless all religious articles the faithful brought for that purpose.

We brought a bag of Medals and a few rosaries to give to family and friends for that very reason.

 

[benedictgal]

That was what was done at the Mass in Wash D.C. as well. There were tabernacles set up (with lights) at a few points thorughout the stadium.

While there is no specific requirement that matter to be consecrated be within line of sight, that is the usual practice.

Otherwise, one could really have a single, worldwide Mass where the Pope intends to consecrate all matter in all ciboria worldwide, and just have local Deacons distribute.

While most likely valid, it would be a better example for the Holy Father to restrict himself to matter visable on the altar, and use preconsecrated hosts.

I wonder, though, with the Tabernacles set up, just how, logistically-speaking, they would have been protected. Obviously, someone would have had to stay there by each one since these, I would imagine, were set up a day before.

 

[NeedImprovement]

And yet, this approach was not used at Yankee Stadium. Instead remote caches of preconsecrated hosts were scattered about the stadium. There were time constraints in that they didn’t want the TV audience to have to wait 45 minutes while priests trekked from the altar up to the upper decks and then distributed to thousands up there. In consideration of the time contstraints why were preconsecrated hosts chosen, rather than Benedict having the intent to consecrate the hosts in each and every ciborium in the building, even if not on the altar?This seems like a useful guideline that could explain the Yankee Stadium event.

FrDavid96 suggested that hosts in another room could not be consecrated. I wondered whether in a case of extreme necessity, a mass for large numbers of people could be celebrated in a warren of closets. Your guideline clarifies this as well - such a mass could indeed be celebrated, but the bread and wine must be crammed into the closet with the priest, or at least an adjacent one that he can observe.

You raise other really interesting questions. The above quoted post got me wondering what would happen if a priest (hypothetically a prisoner) were in a cell and a prisoner in an adjoining cell wished to receive Holy Communion (- no way to administer Communion to the other physically).

Imagine that the prisoner and priest-prisoner are in near enough proximity to communicate verbally, although they can’t see each other. (I realize this is a real stretch,…uch: but…) Next, let us suppose that the lay-prisoner had the elements of bread and wine in his posession and that both prisoners wished to celebrate (in each’s capacity) a Mass together- this presupposes that the prisoner-priest would also have the elements of bread and wine in his posession.

Could the priest consecrate the elements in the prisoner’s cell along with those in front of him because of the extenuating circumstances ? Would an audible sense perception combined with faith be enough ? It makes me think of the friends of the paralytic in the Gospel [Luke 5:17-26] who lowered their friend through the roof after removing tiles. Jesus not only granted their request/desire, he went one step further and forgave the paralytic all his sins - before the physical healing.

It’s a shame I never got close enough to ask that blind priest how he personally viewed the stating of intention which Fr David 96 spoke of. I recall him purifying the chalice and drinking the ablution after Communion - and then he folded the corporal and placed it on the paten in the usual manner. It would be interesting however to know precisely how he determines to his satisfaction, the presence of the elements beforehand.

I could tell you that while attending the celebrations of the Masses at which he (the blind priest) presided, there was never even the faintest question in my mind as to whether the consecration ergo transubstantiation took place.

I have to stop here…I’m noticing smoke starting to come out of my ears.

 

[Digitonomy]

I wonder, though, with the Tabernacles set up, just how, logistically-speaking, they would have been protected. Obviously, someone would have had to stay there by each one since these, I would imagine, were set up a day before.

This is a good question. I didn’t realize there were actual tabernacles. My guess is that the tabernacles were set up the day before, but the hosts may have been put in just a few hours before that same day. They probably had a mass earlier that day, or the day before, with exactly the massive amounts of hosts you describe crowding the altar of a local church - or perhaps St Patrick’s.

 

[Brendan]

I wonder, though, with the Tabernacles set up, just how, logistically-speaking, they would have been protected. Obviously, someone would have had to stay there by each one since these, I would imagine, were set up a day before.

One would have imagined that they were set up empty the day before and guarded by stadium security.

Then the Sacrament was reposed in early morning.

They were set aside with prei deiu in front when we arrived at the stadium. And quite a number of people were praying in front prior to Mass.

 

[FrDavid96]

You raise other really interesting questions. The above quoted post got me wondering what would happen if a priest (hypothetically a prisoner) were in a cell and a prisoner in an adjoining cell wished to receive Holy Communion (- no way to administer Communion to the other physically).

Imagine that the prisoner and priest-prisoner are in near enough proximity to communicate verbally, although they can’t see each other. (I realize this is a real stretch,…uch: but…) Next, let us suppose that the lay-prisoner had the elements of bread and wine in his posession and that both prisoners wished to celebrate (in each’s capacity) a Mass together- this presupposes that the prisoner-priest would also have the elements of bread and wine in his posession.

Could the priest consecrate the elements in the prisoner’s cell along with those in front of him because of the extenuating circumstances ? Would an audible sense perception combined with faith be enough ? It makes me think of the friends of the paralytic in the Gospel [Luke 5:17-26] who lowered their friend through the roof after removing tiles. Jesus not only granted their request/desire, he went one step further and forgave the paralytic all his sins - before the physical healing.

It’s a shame I never got close enough to ask that blind priest how he personally viewed the stating of intention which Fr David 96 spoke of. I recall him purifying the chalice and drinking the ablution after Communion - and then he folded the corporal and placed it on the paten in the usual manner. It would be interesting however to know precisely how he determines to his satisfaction, the presence of the elements beforehand.

I could tell you that while attending the celebrations of the Masses at which he (the blind priest) presided, there was never even the faintest question in my mind as to whether the consecration ergo transubstantiation took place.

I have to stop here…I’m noticing smoke starting to come out of my ears.

I’ll have to think about that “prisoner” scenario for a while, but my instincts tell me “no.” The elements must be actually present for the priest to consecrate them. If they’re in another room, I doubt it. It’s not “line of sight” but “present”

As for the blind priest, remember that the standard is that whatever is on the corporal is consecrated. A priest who has the “intention to do what the Church does” by definition has the intention to consecrate whatever is on the corporal.

The priest can certainly feel the host, so he knows it’s there to consecrate–after all the host is held in the fingers of both hands at the consecration, so this is a given. As for the wine, likewise he can use other senses to tell it’s there; he knows that he poured it and when he bows toward the chalice at the consecration, he can smell the wine just as a sighted priest can. As far as the other hosts in the ciborium, I suppose he could “feel” for them, but I rather think that he trusts whoever is helping him to setup things. When it comes time for the offertory, he can place the ciborium on the corporal with relatively little effort. Remember, that he’s been doing just this everyday of his life from his ordination to the time he went blind, so the motions can become a bit “automatic” --not in a negative sense, but in the sense that the actions become second nature.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I’ll have to think about that “prisoner” scenario for a while, but my instincts tell me “no.” The elements must be actually present for the priest to consecrate them. If they’re in another room, I doubt it. It’s not “line of sight” but “present”

As for the blind priest, remember that the standard is that whatever is on the corporal is consecrated. A priest who has the “intention to do what the Church does” by definition has the intention to consecrate whatever is on the corporal.

The priest can certainly feel the host, so he knows it’s there to consecrate–after all the host is held in the fingers of both hands at the consecration, so this is a given. As for the wine, likewise he can use other senses to tell it’s there; he knows that he poured it and when he bows toward the chalice at the consecration, he can smell the wine just as a sighted priest can. As far as the other hosts in the ciborium, I suppose he could “feel” for them, but I rather think that he trusts whoever is helping him to setup things. When it comes time for the offertory, he can place the ciborium on the corporal with relatively little effort. Remember, that he’s been doing just this everyday of his life from his ordination to the time he went blind, so the motions can become a bit “automatic” --not in a negative sense, but in the sense that the actions become second nature.

Thanks FrDavid96. I could follow all of this without a trace of smoke coming from the ears.


To clarify a little more, the blind priest appeared to be quite young. My estimate would be perhaps 35 years old at the time described (although there is no way to be absolutely sure). Additionally, he belonged to a religious order. These would lead me to believe that he may have already been blind before he first felt the “call.”

 

[bsaucer]

When amounts of bread and wine to be consecrated at a Mass are so large as to exceed the practicality of placing them on the altar , they should be placed nearby and may also be consecrated. But the priest’s chalice and paten should always remain on the corporal and everything is hinged on the priest’s intention as to whether the elements become consecrated or not.

Is it remotely possible for a person to sneak a host into mass and have it consecrated by somehow placing it on or near the altar?

 

[benedictgal]

Is it remotely possible for a person to sneak a host into mass and have it consecrated by somehow placing it on or near the altar?

The priest has to have the intent to consecrate it. Remember, there are four things necessary for a valid consecration to occur:

1. Form
2. Matter
   3. Intent
3. Validly ordained minister

If something is missing, then, the consecration did not occur and is thus an invalid act.

 

[DeepeningFaith]

Is it remotely possible for a person to sneak a host into mass and have it consecrated by somehow placing it on or near the altar?

Hypothetically? Yes. It would be a very rare situation I think and has a .5% chance of actually happening. If the corporal is always on the altar (and it shouldn’t be!) someone could place a host underneath of it. Then there would have to be wine and hosts not on the corporal and the Priest intends to consecrate everything on the altar. I say that this is very unlikely to happen because as far as I know, the Priest doesn’t usually intend to consecrate anything that they don’t know is on the altar. Someone mentioned a blind Priest. That would up the chances, MAYBE, to 2% likelihood.

Pax

 

[benedictgal]

Hypothetically? Yes. It would be a very rare situation I think and has a .5% chance of actually happening. If the corporal is always on the altar (and it shouldn’t be!) someone could place a host underneath of it. Then there would have to be wine and hosts not on the corporal and the Priest intends to consecrate everything on the altar. I say that this is very unlikely to happen because as far as I know, the Priest doesn’t usually intend to consecrate anything that they don’t know is on the altar. Someone mentioned a blind Priest. That would up the chances, MAYBE, to 2% likelihood.

Pax

To further complicate the issue, there are some parishes down here where the priest leaves both cruets up on the altar with him, although off to the side. However, I do not believe that he intends to consecrate the wine in the cruet next to the one holding the water.

 

[FrDavid96]

Is it remotely possible for a person to sneak a host into mass and have it consecrated by somehow placing it on or near the altar?

No. That’s why I keep repeating that the intention to consecrate applies to the corporal, not the altar. Someone would have to “sneak” the host onto the corporal itself. If an extra host is on the altar (but not the corporal) it would not be consecrated.

If the priest places extra hosts on the altar but not on the corporal (which he should not do anyway, but he may do it), he would have to specifically have the intention of consecrating those other hosts. If it is there, but he’s unaware of it, then he can’t have the intention to consecrate it. After all, one cannot be both unaware and aware at the same time–it defies logic.

 

[FrDavid96]

The Papal Bull de Defectibus from Pope St Pius V explains intention. Until 1973, it was always printed in the Sacramentary (Missal). Here’s an excerpt:

VII - Defect of intention

1. The intention of consecrating is required. Therefore there is no consecration in the following cases: when a priest does not intend to consecrate but only to make a pretense; when some hosts remain on the altar forgotten by the priest, or when some part of the wine or some host is hidden, since the priest intends to consecrate only what is on the corporal; when a priest has eleven hosts before him and intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he means to consecrate. On the other hand, if he thinks there are ten, but intends to consecrate all that he has before him, then all will be consecrated. For that reason every priest should always have such an intention, namely the intention of consecrating all the hosts that have been Placed on the corporal before him for consecration.
2. If the priest thinks that he is holding one host but discovers after the Consecration that there were two hosts stuck together, he is to consume both when the time comes. If after receiving the Body and Blood, or even after the ablution, he finds other consecrated pieces, large or small, he is to consume them, because they belong to the same sacrifice.
3. If, however, a whole consecrated host is left, he is to put it into the tabernacle with the others that are there; if this cannot be done, he is to consume it.
4. It may be that the intention is not actual at the time of the Consecration because the priest lets his mind wander, yet is still virtual, since he has come to the altar intending to do what the Church does. In this case the Sacrament is valid. A priest should be careful, however, to make his intention actual also.

I am intentionally not including a hyperlink to the text because the only online versions I have been able to find (and I’m too lazy to type all of that myself) are posted on websites which try to use it to show that the novus ordo Mass is invalid, and I do not want to be a participant in nor encourage such websites.