Valid consecration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter I_trust
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

I_trust

Guest
Years ago a priest forgot to consecrate the wine.

He was told of his mistake prior to distribution of the Eucharist to the faithful, but after he consumed.

This priest made an announcement and kind of shrugged it off, saying they just wouldn’t be distributing the wine.

Where the hosts validly consecrated?

Was the Mass invalid, or valid but illicit and incomplete?

Should I have refrained from receiving?

Did I have an obligation to go to Mass again?
 
  1. The priest should have applied what was paragraph 321 from the GIRM in this circumstance, once he was told of his error, since the situation of failing to consecrate the contents of the chalice is analogous to the error described – whether because the contents of the chalice is incorrect as described in the GIRM or by failure to consecrate at all, as in your situation:
  1. If after the Consecration or as he receives Communion, the Priest notices that not wine but only water was poured into the chalice, he pours the water into some container, pours wine with water into the chalice and consecrates it, saying the part of narrative relating to the Consecration of the chalice, without being obliged to consecrate the bread again.
In the instance you are citing, he would have said the institution narrative for the chalice and then, after elevating the chalice, immediately resumed wherever he was in the Mass.
  1. The hosts were consecrated because, at the moment the first set of the words of institution were spoken over them, they ceased to be bread and were the Body of the Lord. (If the priest dies between the two consecrations, the sacrifice should be completed by another priest continuing the Mass from the second consecration forward…it is the only time a priest may consecrate one element without the other – the first priest because death prevents him from consecrating the chalice and the second priest consecrating only the wine as the hosts are indeed already consecrated.)
  2. The Mass was not valid since both species were not consecrated and consumed by the priest celebrant and the sacrifice was therefore left incomplete.
  3. You could receive from the hosts consecrated since they were the Body of Christ but one should not have received from the chalice, knowing it was unconsecrated, since it was, of course, not the Blood of Christ.
  4. In this particular instance, and because of the particular circumstance, although the obligation to hear Mass was not fulfilled since the Mass was invalid, the law would not oblige you to seek out another Mass because what you attended was not a Mass solely through the error of the priest.
 
It wasn’t invalid; illicit perhaps, but not invalid.

If it was invalid, you are not responsible for that, or accountable for it.

You would NOT be required to attend another Mass, because although you question the validity of the Sacrament, there is only an absolute requirement to receive once a year, during Lent.

It appears that there was no question about the validity of the Mass, so if it was a Sunday Mass, you met your Sunday obligation.

Relax…spend more time reflecting on the good news of Jesus Christ than a rule book!
 
I_trust said:
Did I have an obligation to go to Mass again?
Click to expand...
IMO, you attended in good faith and need not attend another Mass for that Sunday. Whether the Mass is actually valid or not, that’s on the priest.
 
A failure to consecrate either the bread or the wine, whether intentionally or accidentally, would render the Mass that the priest has attempted to offer invalid. It is assuredly not a matter of liceity but of validity. In this case, an essential element that must be present is not present – and its absence renders the Mass invalid.

This is a very basic principle of sacramental theology and, specifically, the theology of the Eucharist.
 
Neofight said:
It wasn’t invalid; illicit perhaps, but not invalid.

If it was invalid, you are not responsible for that, or accountable for it.

You would NOT be required to attend another Mass, because although you question the validity of the Sacrament, there is only an absolute requirement to receive once a year, during Lent.

It appears that there was no question about the validity of the Mass, so if it was a Sunday Mass, you met your Sunday obligation.

Relax…spend more time reflecting on the good news of Jesus Christ than a rule book!
Click to expand...
Sadly, the Mass WAS invalid. The Mass is more than just the consecration of one species; it requires the consecration of* both* species AND their consumption, otherwise, there is no Sacrifice.
 
I have a question about the OP. Did the priest say the entire Eucharistic prayer or did he omit part of it. How did he “forget” the wine?
 
porthos11 said:
Sadly, the Mass WAS invalid. The Mass is more than just the consecration of one species; it requires the consecration of* both* species AND their consumption, otherwise, there is no Sacrifice.
Click to expand...
Not necesarily…what you and the guy posting before you failed to take into account was the disposition of the priest…if he did so intentionally, it was invalid. If he did so by oversight it was merely illicit.

There is often the same mistake when a sin of grave matter is committed without full consent or full knowledge and still some insist it is a mortal sin when it is really venial.
 
Neofight said:
Not necesarily…what you and the guy posting before you failed to take into account was the disposition of the priest…if he did so intentionally, it was invalid. If he did so by oversight it was merely illicit.

There is often the same mistake when a sin of grave matter is committed without full consent or full knowledge and still some insist it is a mortal sin when it is really venial.
Click to expand...
Not in sacramental theology. The opening post was clear: he forgot to consecrate the wine. This means what was in the chalice was not consecrated, even if the bread was. If the priest forgot to consecrate the wine, the wine was not consecrated. There is no “automatic” consecration; the required sacramental form was not met. The disposition of the priest doesn’t matter, whether it was intentional or not. That determines whether sin was committed. It does not affect the fact that the wine remains unconsecrated.

So even though the Body of Christ is present, the lack of the double consecration means there is no Sacrifice. So even if the consecration of the Bread was valid, the Mass itself is invalid, unless he exercised the required action to consecrate the wine and continue the Mass (that action is to pray the words starting at “Simili modo postquam cenatum…”)
 
I did not fail to take into account the disposition of the priest…it is irrelevant. And the analogy offered between moral theology and sacramental theology is unsustainable.

Porthos11 is exactly correct in what he states and how he states it.

Whether the priest left out an essential element deliberately or accidentally is utterly immaterial from the perspective of sacramental theology. The Mass, as described, was invalid because the priest failed to effect one of the two consecrations, which also prevented him from consummating the sacrifice by consuming both consecrated elements.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
**I did not fail to take into account the disposition of the priest…it is irrelevant. ** And the analogy offered between moral theology and sacramental theology is unsustainable.

Porthos11 is exactly correct in what he states and how he states it.

Whether the priest left out an essential element deliberately or accidentally is utterly immaterial from the perspective of sacramental theology. The Mass, as described, was invalid because the priest failed to effect one of the two consecrations, which also prevented him from consummating the sacrifice by consuming both consecrated elements.
Click to expand...
Exactly, that’s why the example of a priest collapsing or dying in between the consecration of the hosts and the wine is kind of a “go to” example. It cannot possibly be intentional, but it still requires that another priest complete the consecration for the Mass to be valid.

However, in the OPs example, the priest DID intentionally skip the consecration of the wine, not initially, but once it was brought to his attention. The GIRM gives a clear second opportunity to complete the consecration at that point which he chose not to do.
 
Corki said:
The GIRM gives a clear second opportunity to complete the consecration at that point which he chose not to do.
Click to expand...
I think De Defectibus, the standard by which the EF goes by, also says the same thing.
 
You are correct, Pro Vobis, about the content of De Defectibus.

Corki…you are also correct. I chose to glide over the fact that he was informed before the distribution of Communion of his failure to say the words of consecration over the chalice – and yet chose not to act. I do not know why, being informed of what he had done, he did not resolve the situation. I hope it was because he did not know that this remedy was available to him and did not realize in the moment what to do…as fantastic and implausible as that seems. Perhaps he was impeded because of age or medical condition or the effects of medicine clouding his thoughts.

In truth, the moment he learned of his error was the perfect moment (I cannot think of a better one, actually) to have simply refilled his chalice, briefly supplied the second consecration, and then immediately consumed the Precious Blood…that would have resolved all the issues. What else can one say? It is very sad.
 
Just to clarify: for a sacrament to be validly confected, there must be simultaneously 1) valid matter, 2) valid form, 3) one who possesses the capacity and ability to administer the sacrament – 4) and the latter must have minimally the intention to do what the Church intends.

If even one of the four is absent, the sacrament is invalid.

This case is straight-forward in that while there is valid matter and there is a valid minister with the intention to confect, the failure of the priest to pronounce the form (the words of the institution narrative) over the matter relative to the second consecration means the contents of the chalice was not consecrated.

The unique nature of the Eucharist, since it is both sacrifice and sacrament, means that a failure relative to the consecration of the sacrament, in each of its constituent elements, correlates to a failure in the effecting of the sacrifice in this instance. That is why the Mass is correctly termed invalid. (Even though the bread was validly consecrated and was the Body of the Lord.)

Whether the missing essential element is by accident or not is really utterly irrelevant.

If the priest had confused the cruets and poured only water into the chalice, with a drop of wine, and said the words of consecration over the chalice, that also would also have been invalid…not because he did not say the form but in this instance because the matter to which the form was conjoined was invalid…it was a chalice with water when it needed to be wine.

Liceity (whether it was lawful) is an entirely different level of problem from validity.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
You are correct, Pro Vobis, about the content of De Defectibus.

Corki…you are also correct. I chose to glide over the fact that he was informed before the distribution of Communion of his failure to say the words of consecration over the chalice – and yet chose not to act. I do not know why, being informed of what he had done, he did not resolve the situation. I hope it was because he did not know that this remedy was available to him and did not realize in the moment what to do…as fantastic and implausible as that seems. Perhaps he was impeded because of age or medical condition or the effects of medicine clouding his thoughts.

In truth, the moment he learned of his error was the perfect moment (I cannot think of a better one, actually) to have simply refilled his chalice, briefly supplied the second consecration, and then immediately consumed the Precious Blood…that would have resolved all the issues. What else can one say? It is very sad.
Click to expand...
Knowing the priest, my best guess is that he did not know the remedy.
This happened 15 years ago, and many priests of his generation had very poor formation at the seminary (1970s).
He was a excellent homilist but the parish turned into a free for all for every type of liturgical abuse because of his lack of leadership and some very influential heterodox staff and parishioners.

12 years of:

Liturgical innovations such as:
  • dancing girls in tight leotards,
    -short songs interspersed between every other sentence during the Canon of the Mass,
    -skipping entirely the penitential rite (starting Mass at the Gloria) replacing the words Father and Lord with God
    -Lay persons (even Protestant ministers) giving “homilies”
    -skipping other parts of the Mass
    -All words gender inclusive
    -First Communion before first Confession
    -General absolution ceremonies
    -No screened confessions allowed
    -No kneeling allowed
    -No statues allowed
    -Week, nearly heretical catechetical texts
We now have great 2 priests who are trying their best to clean up the mess, so my penance is over.
 
Neofight said:
Not necesarily…what you and the guy posting before you failed to take into account was the disposition of the priest…if he did so intentionally, it was invalid. If he did so by oversight it was merely illicit.

There is often the same mistake when a sin of grave matter is committed without full consent or full knowledge and still some insist it is a mortal sin when it is really venial.
Click to expand...
No.

You do not understand what you’re writing about.

What you posted is not the criteria for determining if it was valid or not.

You’re posting information, without knowing what you’re posting.
 
ProVobis said:
I think De Defectibus, the standard by which the EF goes by, also says the same thing.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does.

De Defectibus is still the law of the Church.

The specific details are adapted (where necessary) to reflect the current Missal, but the substance of what was written in that document is still binding.

When it comes to questions of validity, De Defectibus is certainly the standard which the Church uses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top