What happens if a priest has to hold Mass while in mortal sin?

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Br. Rich,

The Priests Communion under both forms is required to complete the Sacrifice.

I agree. This is language used, but I think “complete” may have precise meaning here. It doesn’t seem to indicate the idea of “without which not” – in other words the celebrant’s communion completes the already accomplished sacrifice by way of fulfillment. Another way to say that would be that the communion is an integral part of the mass, but not an *essential *one.

It is my understanding that when a celebrant is unable to complete the Mass, (for whatever reason) another priest is required to at some point to pick up where the other left off and complete the Mass.

That is true, and is required both by divine law and by ecclesial law. But it doesn’t seem to me that the fact that the priest is obligated to receive Holy Communion necessarily means that the sacrifice is invalid without it.

What do you have in mind when you say the celebrant’s communion completes the sacrifice? I would guess that many might interpret that as the sacrifice isn’t valid unless a priest receives holy communion. Do you mean it that way?

VC

 

[Joe_Kelley]

As I recall, in the Old Testament ones sacrifice was not complete until one partook of it. I think the same requirement carried into New.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

As I recall, in the Old Testament ones sacrifice was not complete until one partook of it. I think the same requirement carried into New.

Hi Joe,

I recall that as well, but I was under the impression that “partaking” was only done in certain instances, i.e. not all sacrifices had a “partaking” component.

In addition, even if there is a partaking, it seems to me we could ask of what is one partaking? If you are partaking of the sacrifice then it would seem to me that the partaking is subsequent to, and not necessary for, the sacrifice – if you see my meaning.

VC

 

[LilyM]

Jesus commanded the Apostles to ‘take and eat’ and ‘take and drink’, not just ‘take and bless’.

Therefore it ISN’T the sacrifice of the Mass, it isn’t doing as Christ commanded and is therefore invalid, unless the priest, successor to part of the Apostolic office, takes, eats and drinks.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hi Br. Rich,

I agree. This is language used, but I think “complete” may have precise meaning here. It doesn’t seem to indicate the idea of “without which not” – in other words the celebrant’s communion completes the already accomplished sacrifice by way of fulfillment. Another way to say that would be that the communion is an integral part of the mass, but not an *essential *one.

That is true, and is required both by divine law and by ecclesial law. But it doesn’t seem to me that the fact that the priest is obligated to receive Holy Communion necessarily means that the sacrifice is invalid without it.

What do you have in mind when you say the celebrant’s communion completes the sacrifice? I would guess that many might interpret that as the sacrifice isn’t valid unless a priest receives holy communion. Do you mean it that way?

VC

Correct, I have not used the word invalid in any of my posts in this thread (at least I hope not) and personally do not see this as the meaning implied in the material I have read when studying this a few years ago. “Incomplete” also is not applied to Christ’s Sacrifice, but to the specific act taking place here in time.

I would lean towards Illicit more, but that word also does not quite fill the need in this case either. “Invalid” goes in my opinion way too far and “Illicit” does not go far enough.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Br. Rich,

I have not used the word invalid in any of my posts in this thread (at least I hope not)

No, I don’t think you have either. You simply used the traditional language, “completed”.

and personally do not see this as the meaning implied in the material I have read when studying this a few years ago.

That’s the difficulty however. It seems to me that it is not uncommon to take the phrase “completes the sacrifice” as conveying the idea that without the priest’s communion the sacrifice does not occur. Puzzleannie wrote “the celebrant must receive communion under both forms or the sacrifice is invalid.” although that might be taken in two ways. LilyM wrote “it ISN’T the sacrifice of the Mass . . . unless the priest . . . takes, eats and drinks.”

I would lean towards Illicit more, but that word also does not quite fill the need in this case either. “Invalid” goes in my opinion way too far and “Illicit” does not go far enough.

I complete understand you sentiment here. Although it is illicit, it is not merely illicit, it is manifestly gravely illicit because it violates not just a rubric but a Divine command.

The point is, though, is the priest’s communion essential to the sacrifice? Although some have held it is, I think the contrary position, that it is integral but not essential, should win the day.

What do you think? Puzzleannie and Lily, do you want to weigh back in?

VC

 

[FrDavid96]

…
I complete understand you sentiment here. Although it is illicit, it is not merely illicit, it is manifestly gravely illicit because it violates not just a rubric but a Divine command.

The point is, though, is the priest’s communion essential to the sacrifice? Although some have held it is, I think the contrary position, that it is integral but not essential, should win the day.

What do you think? Puzzleannie and Lily, do you want to weigh back in?

VC

Hmmm.
I think I’ll throw my widow’s mite into this one. Here are my thoughts:
The lack of the celebrant receiving both the Body and Blood does not make the Eucharist which has already been consecrated invalid, nor is it required for the Real Presence. Since the consecration has already occured, nothing short of the Body of Christ ceasing to have the accidents of bread can ever “un-do” the Real Presence. Essentially, this is the definition of a valid Mass–that the Eucharist is consecrated in both species. I think (key word) that this definition applies no matter how egregiously illicit it might be.

It does not make the Mass itself invalid, but it does make the actions of that priest at that Mass invalid. Everyone who receives Communion receives the valid Eucharist. Any consecrated hosts placed in the tabernacle are truly the Body of Christ. The priest himself commits a serious sin, and makes his own personal participation in the Mass invalid (personal participation, not his act of consecrating in persona Christi); unless for a just cause he must step away and allow another priest to complete the Mass (like falling down ill for example). Just my thoughts.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

HI Fr. David,

The lack of the celebrant receiving both the Body and Blood does not make the Eucharist which has already been consecrated invalid, nor is it required for the Real Presence.

Yes, Fr. I would agree.

Since the consecration has already occured, nothing short of the Body of Christ ceasing to have the accidents of bread can ever “un-do” the Real Presence. Essentially, this is the definition of a valid Mass–that the Eucharist is consecrated in both species. I think (key word) that this definition applies no matter how egregiously illicit it might be.

That is exactly how I see it as well. (Except I might have said the “Eucharistic Species ceasing to have the accidents of bread” instead of the "Body of Christ ceasing to have the accidents of bread. . " But that’s just a nitpick.)

It does not make the Mass itself invalid (. . . ) Just my thoughts.

Yes. It is difficult for me to conceive of how the post-consecration actions of a priest could make the sacrifice invalid, given that the priest (and people) are receiving (or not receiving) the fruit of the sacrifice which has already taken place.

It seems the only way to hold that the lack of communion would invalidate the sacrifice would be to say that communion is essential to sacrifice. But I don’t think we would want to say that.

VC

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

It seems the only way to hold that the lack of communion would invalidate the sacrifice would be to say that communion is essential to sacrifice. But I don’t think we would want to say that.

VC

Well Communion IS essential to the Sacrifice, that is what we are saying. But it does not invalidate anything.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Well Communion IS essential to the Sacrifice, that is what we are saying. But it does not invalidate anything.

Hi Br. Rich,

I was using the term essential in its technical sense, i.e. necessary for validity. My inclination is that the priest’s communion is integral, but not essential, to the sacrifice of the Mass.

VC

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hi Br. Rich,

I was using the term essential in its technical sense, i.e. necessary for validity. My inclination is that the priest’s communion is integral, but not essential, to the sacrifice of the Mass.

VC

The Sacrifice of the Mass remains incomplete without the priests reception of both forms.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Exactly. Incomplete, meaning, not performed in its integrity, yet nevertheless still performed (i.e. the sacrifice still occurs).

But it seems that some take “incomplete” to mean “did not occur”. You and I both hold that even were no priest to receive Holy Communion, the sacrifice would still have been offered. Or did I misunderstand you?

VC