Priest's ability to consecrate bread and wine

  • Thread starter Thread starter georgewithfaith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

georgewithfaith

Guest
How would a priest who loses both hands (say because of a terrible accident) be able to consecrate bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus?
 
It is my understanding that he couldn’t.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on NewAdvent.org:
St. Isaac Jogues was allowed by Pope Urban VII the very exceptional privilege of celebrating Mass, which the mutilated condition of his hands had made canonically impossible; several of his fingers having been eaten or burned off. He was called a martyr of Christ by the pontiff. No similar concession, up to that, is known to have been granted.
Click to expand...
St. Isaac’s hands were missing fingers because of the torture he endured as a missionary. For this reason, the Holy Father granted him the “exceptional privilege” of continuing to celebrate mass. So, in your scenario, the priest in question would not be able to celebrate mass without permission from the Holy Father.

I am not a canon lawyer, so I may not have the full (or even the right) answer.

Gertie
 
Gertabelle said:
It is my understanding that he couldn’t.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on NewAdvent.org:

St. Isaac’s hands were missing fingers because of the torture he endured as a missionary. For this reason, the Holy Father granted him the “exceptional privilege” of continuing to celebrate mass. So, in your scenario, the priest in question would not be able to celebrate mass without permission from the Holy Father.

I am not a canon lawyer, so I may not have the full (or even the right) answer.

Gertie
Click to expand...
I believe this might have changed too. It might be different now.
 
georgewithfaith said:
How would a priest who loses both hands (say because of a terrible accident) be able to consecrate bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus?
Click to expand...
He can because he is a priest and he uses the proper words and the proper matter. Anything else is a discipline of the Church. Just to make sure, I am not saying that a discipline of the Church is a minor or negligible factor. I am just saying that there is a substantial difference between could and should, just look at what secularized priests can do in case of emergencies.
 
But the rubrics require not just words, but actions. The priest is to elevate the host at the words of consecration. I’m not so sure you can dispense with the actions any more than you can dispense with the words. Not that I know either way, but don’t assume.
 
A priest who has lost both his hands may still be able, with practice, to perform the actions of the Mass.

It would be a decision for the priest’s bishop to make. Bishops may allow priests with a range of disabilities to say Mass.

In the circumstances described in the OP a bishop may allow a priest with no hands to say Mass with another priest to assist. If the bishop believes this may scandalise the faithful he could also determine that the priest may only celebrate in private.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
A priest who has lost both his hands may still be able, with practice, to perform the actions of the Mass.

It would be a decision for the priest’s bishop to make. Bishops may allow priests with a range of disabilities to say Mass.

In the circumstances described in the OP a bishop may allow a priest with no hands to say Mass with another priest to assist. If the bishop believes this may scandalise the faithful he could also determine that the priest may only celebrate in private.
Click to expand...
There have been incredible advances in the fields of robotics and prostheses. It is possible he could have artificial hands made. Even a prosthesis with just a ‘thumb/index finger’ grip could grasp the host and probably the chalice as well.
 
Gertabelle said:
St. Isaac’s hands were missing fingers because of the torture he endured as a missionary. For this reason, the Holy Father granted him the “exceptional privilege” of continuing to celebrate mass. So, in your scenario, the priest in question would not be able to celebrate mass without permission from the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
Even the Holy Father cannot make a dispensation to turn the invalid into the valid. If St. Isaac had not asked for the dispensation, he could have celebrated Mass illicitly, but validly.
 
manualman said:
But the rubrics require not just words, but actions. The priest is to elevate the host at the words of consecration. I’m not so sure you can dispense with the actions any more than you can dispense with the words. Not that I know either way, but don’t assume.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that the Consecration is effected through the words of the proper minister with the proper intent, onto the valid matter. I believe it is the Roman understanding that the Consecration does not require elevation for validity. Of course the rubrics are meant to be followed.
 
Spirithound said:
It is my understanding that the Consecration is effected through the words of the proper minister with the proper intent, onto the valid matter. I believe it is the Roman understanding that the Consecration does not require elevation for validity.
Click to expand...
This is clear from the fact that the elevation is an innovation, from perhaps the 13th Century IIRC. It’s also quite doubtful in my mind that any contact with the bread is necessary, since a) the wine is consecrated with direct contact, and b) the other hosts on the altar are consecrated without direct contact.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
There have been incredible advances in the fields of robotics and prostheses. It is possible he could have artificial hands made. Even a prosthesis with just a ‘thumb/index finger’ grip could grasp the host and probably the chalice as well.
Click to expand...
Raising the bread and cup is not what makes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. In the Byzantine Rite, they are not raised at the words of institution. And in fact, if there is a deacon, it is the deacon who raises the diskos with the bread, and the chalice with the wine, after the words of institution, while the priest continues with the prayer, “we offer to You, Your of your own, in behalf of all and for all.”
Spirithound said:
It is my understanding that the Consecration is effected through the words of the proper minister with the proper intent, onto the valid matter. I believe it is the Roman understanding that the Consecration does not require elevation for validity. Of course the rubrics are meant to be followed.
Click to expand...
As I posted above, the Byzantine Rite doesn’t elevate at the same moment and the deacon further does the elevation. The rubrics can be disregarded if it is impossible to be met. The Church doesn’t impose what is impossible to be met.
 
Some Anglican priests adopted the same liturgical words when consecrating the bread and wine. I wonder whether it would have the same effect ie. it will change to the true body and blood of christ (though some anglicans denied it and it is merely a symbol).😃
 
Singapore_Nick said:
Some Anglican priests adopted the same liturgical words when consecrating the bread and wine. I wonder whether it would have the same effect ie. it will change to the true body and blood of christ (though some anglicans denied it and it is merely a symbol).😃
Click to expand...
I think that there is till one missing factor and that is the celebrant being ordained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top