Unconsecreated Bread intincted in Consecrated Wine

[JesuXPIPassio]

My father died less than two weeks ago and we had a Mass celebrated at a wake for him. The priest got a head-count of how many people would be receiving the Eucharist, but when the time came, more people came up and there weren’t enough hosts. So, what he died was take unconsecrated bread, dipped it in the Precious Blood, and presented it to each communicant as “The Blood of Christ.”

Is that licit? I’ve never seen that done before. I would thought he would have either offered them the Precious Blood or just went aside and consecrated more Hosts.

 

[FrDavid96]

My father died less than two weeks ago and we had a Mass celebrated at a wake for him. The priest got a head-count of how many people would be receiving the Eucharist, but when the time came, more people came up and there weren’t enough hosts. So, what he died was take unconsecrated bread, dipped it in the Precious Blood, and presented it to each communicant as “The Blood of Christ.”

Is that licit? I’ve never seen that done before. I would thought he would have either offered them the Precious Blood or just went aside and consecrated more Hosts.

Yes it’s illicit, and shouldn’t be done. Let’s hope that this was an “emergency” situation and the priest did the best he could think of at the moment. It certainly sounds like he didn’t plan it that way. Most of the time, if the priest is running short the best action is to start breaking the individual hosts in half, but it’s not always possible to catch this one in time. So it shouldn’t have been done, but he was careful to make it clear that the communicants were receiving the Precious Blood only (yes, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity all present but not a consecrated Host).

For the second part, no the priest cannot consecrate more hosts if he finds himself running out at Communion time. This would be a very serious abuse, even though it would be “possible.”

 

[Brendan]

Father is correct, illicit and thus should only be done in unusual circumstances.

I myself saw this once, a visiting priest ran out of hosts and did not have the key to the tabernacle.

Also, the Byzantine Catholics do something similar, where they intinct the consecrated species of bread in unconsecrated wine.

They do this on days where they do not celebrate the Divine Liturgy; it is called the Liturgy of the PreSanctified Gifts.

 

[japhy]

The priest got a head-count of how many people would be receiving the Eucharist, but when the time came, more people came up and there weren’t enough hosts. So, what he died was take unconsecrated bread, dipped it in the Precious Blood, and presented it to each communicant as “The Blood of Christ.”

From the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum 96: “The practice is reprobated whereby either unconsecrated hosts or other edible or inedible things are distributed during the celebration of Holy Mass or beforehand after the manner of Communion, contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical books.”

In my opinion, the priest should have 1) checked the tabernacle for more hosts, 2) started breaking individual hosts in half as needed, or 3) let the remaining people receive from the Chalice alone. And if the Chalice ran out, the priest could make a point to explain to those people who could not receive that it is not incumbent upon them to receive Communion at every Mass they attend, and teach them to make a spiritual Communion instead.

 

[Phemie]

From the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum 96: “The practice is reprobated whereby either unconsecrated hosts or other edible or inedible things are distributed during the celebration of Holy Mass or beforehand after the manner of Communion, contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical books.”

Another relevant article in Redemptionis Sacramentum is:

[104.] The communicant must not be permitted to intinct the host himself in the chalice, nor to receive the intincted host in the hand. As for the host to be used for the intinction, it should be made of valid matter, also consecrated; it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.

 

[japhy]

it is altogether forbidden to use non-consecrated bread or other matter.

Ah, good catch. I thought there was something more specific than I had found, but I just pasted the first thing that seemed relevant.

The charitable thing to do is to presume that the priest was completely unaware that what he was doing was illicit; it was an extreme case, and he was probably unprepared for it.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
Also, the Byzantine Catholics do something similar, where they intinct the consecrated species of bread in unconsecrated wine. **

**The Presanctified Lamb is usually dyed with the Precious Blood. The same is done with the Reserved Gifts for the sick.

There’s also the theory by some Eastern theologians of “contact consecration.”

Of course, if a particle of the Lamb dyed with the Precious Blood is placed in wine or water, would not the dried Blood go back into solution as a liquid again?**

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

My father died less than two weeks ago and we had a Mass celebrated at a wake for him. The priest got a head-count of how many people would be receiving the Eucharist, but when the time came, more people came up and there weren’t enough hosts. So, what he died was take unconsecrated bread, dipped it in the Precious Blood, and presented it to each communicant as “The Blood of Christ.”

Is that licit? I’ve never seen that done before. I would thought he would have either offered them the Precious Blood or just went aside and consecrated more Hosts.

In the Latin Rite it would not be licit to do. What he should have done when he noticed the number of Hosts would not be enough, would have been to begin breaking them into two or even four smaller pieces. 10 Hosts can be distributed to 40 people this way.

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

In my opinion, the priest should have 1) checked the tabernacle for more hosts, 2) started breaking individual hosts in half as needed, or 3) let the remaining people receive from the Chalice alone. And if the Chalice ran out, the priest could make a point to explain to those people who could not receive that it is not incumbent upon them to receive Communion at every Mass they attend, and teach them to make a spiritual Communion instead.

Quick note, it was at a funeral home, so there wasn’t any Tabernacle.

And actually, it was done by more than one priest and at more than one Mass. I didn’t mention this in my original post because I thought it would complicate the direct question, but here the custom is to have wakes every night after the person dies until burial, and funeral homes have rooms where the families would stay because they’d be there all day throughout the whole time. Anyway, we had four Masses not including the Funeral Mass; at two of them, the same thing happened, and they were with two different priests.

Too bad they didn’t keep up with Redemptionis Sacramentum. At a parish where I attend weekday Masses, a couple of the priests still break the bread during the “He broke the bread” part. Funny how the Vatican went through all the trouble of learning what the priests’ deficiencies worldwide are, made a whole document about it, just for the document to be passed off.

I’m curious, is it ever an option to have a second, discreet Consecration? I know that there is a provision just in case if the priest accidentally tries to consecrate water, forgetting the wine – he could quietly do a proper Consecration – so since they do allow a quiet second one in that case, will they allow a quiet second one in the case of the lack of Eucharistic Hosts?

 

[FrDavid96]

Quick note, it was at a funeral home, so there wasn’t any Tabernacle.

And actually, it was done by more than one priest and at more than one Mass. I didn’t mention this in my original post because I thought it would complicate the direct question, but here the custom is to have wakes every night after the person dies until burial, and funeral homes have rooms where the families would stay because they’d be there all day throughout the whole time. Anyway, we had four Masses not including the Funeral Mass; at two of them, the same thing happened, and they were with two different priests.

Too bad they didn’t keep up with Redemptionis Sacramentum. At a parish where I attend weekday Masses, a couple of the priests still break the bread during the “He broke the bread” part. Funny how the Vatican went through all the trouble of learning what the priests’ deficiencies worldwide are, made a whole document about it, just for the document to be passed off.

I’m curious, is it ever an option to have a second, discreet Consecration? I know that there is a provision just in case if the priest accidentally tries to consecrate water, forgetting the wine – he could quietly do a proper Consecration – so since they do allow a quiet second one in that case, will they allow a quiet second one in the case of the lack of Eucharistic Hosts?

If (again IF) this is happening on a regular basis, then there is more this than what appeared at first. Once is an accident and sometimes we have to make-do. A priest truly has a responsibility to ensure that there is enough Eucharist to distribute at every Mass. Of course, anyone can make a mistake, and anyone can unintentionally repeat the same mistake–I do sincerely hope that’s what’s happening here.

On the second part, “in theory” a priest could consecrate the bread alone at communion-time, however that is a serious abuse and should not be done. The Church anticipates the possibility that a priest might not consecrate the wine into the Blood because a mistake like that can be quite easy, especially if the priest is in the habit of using white wine (and the color of the wine does not matter). But accidentally not-consecrating the bread is a difficult thing to do even if he tries. Since the consecration of the wine is required for a valid Mass, the provision is there to allow for it later, but as for the bread all that is required for validity is that at least one host be consecrated, so there’s not the same strict necessity involved in consecrating more hosts.

 

[The_Prodigal]

The Presanctified Lamb is usually dyed with the Precious Blood. The same is done with the Reserved Gifts for the sick.

I wonder if you could explain how this is done. What quantity of each is used? How are the Presanctified Lamb and the Precious Blood brought into contact?

There’s also the theory by some Eastern theologians of “contact consecration.”

Of course, if a particle of the Lamb dyed with the Precious Blood is placed in wine or water, would not the dried Blood go back into solution as a liquid again?

If the Presanctified Lamb is already dyed by the Precious Blood, why is there a need to immerse again in any liquid irrespective of the question whether contact consecration took place?

 

[Aramis]

I wonder if you could explain how this is done. What quantity of each is used? How are the Presanctified Lamb and the Precious Blood brought into contact?

By immersion. Other than that, I can not say.

If the Presanctified Lamb is already dyed by the Precious Blood, why is there a need to immerse again in any liquid irrespective of the question whether contact consecration took place?

The precious body, when dried, is pretty much the accidents of a crouton. Hard, sharp, and red or purple. Potentially painful to consume, especially if Father flings too hard, and hits the back of your throat.

By reconstitution in wine, the experience for the communicant is normalized, and no “need” for water to wash down the precious body is felt.

 

[japhy]

The precious body, when dried, is pretty much the accidents of a crouton.

I chuckled. Do I need to mention that at my next confession?