Was the bread actually consecrated?

[benedictgal]

Dear Fr. Serpa:

We are having a very spirited debate about what constitutes a valid Mass/Eucharist.

A few months ago, my parochial vicar celebrated Mass at another parish. The abuses he witnessed were quite bad and discombobulating. However, since he was the guest, he could not do very much. He was troubled throughout the Mass. Now, when it came time for the consecration, he consecrated the hosts, but, not the wine. I tried to flag him down, but, I was in the back of the church.

When it came time for Holy Communion, I made myself be the last person in line so that I could tell him what had happend. Before he gave me Communion, I raised my hand to stop him and I told him what had happened. He thanked me, distributed Holy Communion to me and immediately went to the altar to consecrate the wine. By the way, Holy Communion under both species was not distributed.

There are some here who believe that even if the Precious Blood is not consecrated, the Mass/Eucharist is still valid. They have used St. Thomas Aquinas to back up their claims. However, I believe that in order to have a validl Eucharist, all four elements, a validly ordained minister, the intent, the matter and the form need to be present. It is not an issue of three out of four, but four out of four.

Please help.

 

[Fr.Vincent_Serpa]

Hi,

The four requirements for the validity of a consecration were present for the bread. It is illicit to deliberately consecrate only one species. But such would not invalidate the hosts that have already been consecrated. It is impossible to un-consecrate the Eucharist. Your priest handled the situation correctly–though I find it hard to understand how he could forget to consecrate the wine.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.