Wrong words used at the consecration

[Fergal]

Today at Mass our Parish Priest, who is a good man, whilst holding the host in his hands at the consecration said the words for the consecration of the wine. “Take this all of you and drink from it etc…”. From the look on his face I think he realised half way through but continued anyway to the end and then held up the Host for adoration after saying “do this in memory of me”. In the same way he took the chalice and offered the same words over it. The words of consecration over the bread were not said.

Whilst I know his intentions are always good when it comes to offering Holy Mass, would this have any effect on the validity or licitness of the Mass?

 

[Dauphin]

It seems that the Eucharist was not confected (at least under the species of bread). I believe the correct thing would have been to start the words of consecration again once he realized he was saying the wrong prayer.

 

[FrDavid96]

Today at Mass our Parish Priest, who is a good man, whilst holding the host in his hands at the consecration said the words for the consecration of the wine. “Take this all of you and drink from it etc…”. From the look on his face I think he realised half way through but continued anyway to the end and then held up the Host for adoration after saying “do this in memory of me”. In the same way he took the chalice and offered the same words over it. The words of consecration over the bread were not said.

Whilst I know his intentions are always good when it comes to offering Holy Mass, would this have any effect on the validity or licitness of the Mass?

Given the situation, it’s possible that he might have at least whispered the words “this is My body” once he realized the mistake.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Today at Mass our Parish Priest, who is a good man, whilst holding the host in his hands at the consecration said the words for the consecration of the wine. “Take this all of you and drink from it etc…”. From the look on his face I think he realised half way through but continued anyway to the end and then held up the Host for adoration after saying “do this in memory of me”. In the same way he took the chalice and offered the same words over it. The words of consecration over the bread were not said.

Whilst I know his intentions are always good when it comes to offering Holy Mass, would this have any effect on the validity or licitness of the Mass?

Ye, the bread would not have been Consecrated, only the wine. He should have stopped and started over.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Given the situation, it’s possible that he might have at least whispered the words “this is My body” once he realized the mistake.

Since he made a public oops, which no one would have faulted him for. Should he not have gone back and made sure everyone understood that it was corrected.

 

[FrDavid96]

Since he made a public oops, which no one would have faulted him for. Should he not have gone back and made sure everyone understood that it was corrected.

Yes. He should have.

I’m being hopeful.

 

[LilyM]

It does sound like, assuming he was aware of his mistake, he should have started over or at least audibly said the proper words over the Host.

The fact that he didn’t do so indicates that possibly he simply realised that SOMETHING didn’t sound quite right, but didn’t put his finger on it, and on reflection thought he must’ve said the correct words.

 

[benedictgal]

My parichial vicar had to substitute for the pastor of another parish. Unfortunately, the Mass left him very discombobulated to the point that he forgot to consecrate the Precious Blood. There were so many things that went horribly wrong in the Mass that were beyond his control that they threw him off. The music was horrible. The commentator went longer than the readings and the EMHCs were up on the altar acting like concelebrants. It was bad. Since this was not his parish, it’s not like he could pull out the whips and chords and clean house.

When it came time to distribute Holy Communion, I was the last person. He was about to give me Holy Communion when I held my hand and told him that he forgot to consecrate the Precious Blood. He thanked me and then gave me Holy Communion. He went back to the altar and, flipped the Roman Missal back to the Eucharistic Prayer and then consecrated the Precious Blood. He thanked me again after Mass.

 

[Fergal]

Given the situation, it’s possible that he might have at least whispered the words “this is My body” once he realized the mistake.

Of course he could have done this at the elevation. Here’s hoping. I am aware that elements, intention and form and required for a valid consecration. Anyway the Priest himself consumed that particular host and then the Precious Blood. The Hosts distributed to the people came from the tabernacle. Thus everyone received that day.

You know it is a little reminder to me also that sometimes we are guilty of habit during these most precious moments. At the elevation I did not know if the consecration of the bread was effected and so I did not know what to say or do at the elevation. I felt so guilty and confused. See I usually say the words of Thomas at this point but got terribly confused and knew not what to do. I internally muttered something but it made no sense whatsoever to me. Knowing that it may not have been consecrated was it better that I should have stayed internally quiet?? Saying ‘My Lord and My God’ to something you suspect strongly is not consecrated borders on idolatry. Yes??

Oh my…A line from a Psalm comes to mind “Trust in God, I will Praise Him still, My Saviour and My God”

 

[hamburglar]

What if a Priest misspeaks during the words of Consecration? I have two scenarios:

1. The Priest says “this is My Body” and then says it again, thinking he stumbled through it.
2. The Priest accidentally says “this is My Blood” when meaning to say “this is My Body.” The Priest realizes this only after he Consecrates the Blood. So now we have validly Consecrated Precious Blood, but the bread has not be transubstantiated.

What happens in these situations?

 

[palmas85]

What if a Priest misspeaks during the words of Consecration? I have two scenarios:

1. The Priest says “this is My Body” and then says it again, thinking he stumbled through it.
2. The Priest accidentally says “this is My Blood” when meaning to say “this is My Body.” The Priest realizes this only after he Consecrates the Blood. So now we have validly Consecrated Precious Blood, but the bread has not be transubstantiated.

What happens in these situations?

If it is an honest mistake on the part of the Priest why worry about it?

 

[AJV]

What if a Priest misspeaks during the words of Consecration? I have two scenarios:

1. The Priest says “this is My Body” and then says it again, thinking he stumbled through it.

The priest should be sure that there was a fault before he repeats the form of any sacrament.

Stumbling over the words of consecration would in most cases, not constitute a sufficient reason for repeating the form.

1. The Priest accidentally says “this is My Blood” when meaning to say “this is My Body.” The Priest realizes this only after he Consecrates the Blood. So now we have validly Consecrated Precious Blood, but the bread has not be transubstantiated.

What happens in these situations?

He must repeat the words of consecration over the bread, secretly if necessary (note that this does not mean mentally or without words - he must pronounce even if in a whisper)

Moral theologian used to say that the entire relevant part of the Institution should be repeated. This was in accord with the rubrics of that time, and is partially supported even by the GIRM (cf. 324) today - it was more feasible though in past times because of the silent recitation of the Roman Canon which meant that a priest could repeat the section without causing too much astonishment.

 

[passus]

If it is an honest mistake on the part of the Priest why worry about it?

Considering that the honest mistake radically affected what’s called the form of the sacrament (in this case, the words “This is my body” and “This is my blood”) to the point that they were not said at all, and since valid form no matter what is necessary for a valid sacrament, regardless of why it was left out, we still understand the bread and/or wine not to have been consecrated.

 

[Br_Mark]

Dear Fergal,

As long as the “good priest” was wearing the maniple in the appropriate liturgical color; then the Eucharist was validly consecrated.

Writer’s note: the above was said tongue in cheek.

We are not talking about magic; where with the right words from a magical book one can change a base metal into gold and we are not talking about making a recipe from a cookbook.

We are talking about a sacramental mystery. The Church of the East,for example does not have the Words of Consecration in their Divine Liturgy and it (Eucharist) has been deemed valid. In other words it is not a misplaced or miss spoken word that either makes it valid or not but the intention, the intention of the church.

Note to Benedictgal: I do not believe that a priest can go “back” and consecrate an element once it has passed. For that reason in the Latin / Western Rite of the Catholic Church once the Eucharist has been given out and there is not enough for the rest of the congregation he can not go back to the altar and consecrate some more but must go to the reserve sacrament. This is not the case in Orthodox Church where a priest can consecrate more elements within the same liturgy.

Pax,

Br Mark, OSB

 

[FrDavid96]

Dear Fergal,

As long as the “good priest” was wearing the maniple in the appropriate liturgical color; then the Eucharist was validly consecrated.

Writer’s note: the above was said tongue in cheek.

We are not talking about magic; where with the right words from a magical book one can change a base metal into gold and we are not talking about making a recipe from a cookbook.

We are talking about a sacramental mystery. The Church of the East,for example does not have the Words of Consecration in their Divine Liturgy and it (Eucharist) has been deemed valid. In other words it is not a misplaced or miss spoken word that either makes it valid or not but the intention, the intention of the church.

Note to Benedictgal: I do not believe that a priest can go “back” and consecrate an element once it has passed. For that reason in the Latin / Western Rite of the Catholic Church once the Eucharist has been given out and there is not enough for the rest of the congregation he can not go back to the altar and consecrate some more but must go to the reserve sacrament. This is not the case in Orthodox Church where a priest can consecrate more elements within the same liturgy.

Pax,

Br Mark, OSB

Thanks for the post. Well-put.

However I believe that a white maniple may be used even if it doesn’t match the rest of the vestments but only in cases of “grave necessity” and never on Good Friday.

As for the wine though, the GIRM does address this one:

1. If the priest notices after the consecration or as he receives Communion that not wine but only water was poured into the chalice, he pours the water into some container, then pours wine with water into the chalice and consecrates it. He says only the part of the institution narrative related to the consecration of the chalice, without being obliged to consecrate the bread again.

 

[YADA]

This situation is disconcerting … but I feel that one aspect of the “consecration” is being forgotten … The priest is standing “in Personal Christe” … Christ is there present as well as the Holy Spirit … Jesus knew he was leaving mere mortals to lead His Church … and it is His Church …

I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe that my God can do anything and everything that He wills …

Jesus can become Body and Blood from bread and wine with or without the priest … and PLEASE! …I AM NOT SAYING THAT MASS DOES NOT MATTER …

What I am saying is that the inadvertant mistake by a faithful priest does not mean that Jesus is prevented from being present in both the Body [what was once simple bread] and the Blood [wine] … we just loose the certainty … afterall it is not by the power of the priest that the consecration occurs … it is by the power of God . … If Jesus desired to be in the bread - He was - and why would He not desire to be joined to the faithful who came to recieve the Heavenly Food? …

Sometimes it is better to Trust in God, to let go and let God …

Pray for your priest, and all priests who dedicate their lives in service to our Lord … Good men [but men all the same!] …

 

[JReducation]

This situation is disconcerting … but I feel that one aspect of the “consecration” is being forgotten … The priest is standing “in Personal Christe” … Christ is there present as well as the Holy Spirit … Jesus knew he was leaving mere mortals to lead His Church … and it is His Church …

I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe that my God can do anything and everything that He wills …

Jesus can become Body and Blood from bread and wine with or without the priest … and PLEASE! …I AM NOT SAYING THAT MASS DOES NOT MATTER …

What I am saying is that the inadvertant mistake by a faithful priest does not mean that Jesus is prevented from being present in both the Body [what was once simple bread] and the Blood [wine] … we just loose the certainty … **afterall it is not by the power of the priest that the consecration occurs … it is by the power of God . **… If Jesus desired to be in the bread - He was - and why would He not desire to be joined to the faithful who came to recieve the Heavenly Food? …

Sometimes it is better to Trust in God, to let go and let God …

Pray for your priest, and all priests who dedicate their lives in service to our Lord … Good men [but men all the same!] …

The bold is mine. Actually, without the power of the priest, God does not act.

JR

 

[BSHoop96]

My parichial vicar had to substitute for the pastor of another parish. Unfortunately, the Mass left him very discombobulated to the point that he forgot to consecrate the Precious Blood. There were so many things that went horribly wrong in the Mass that were beyond his control that they threw him off. The music was horrible. The commentator went longer than the readings and the EMHCs were up on the altar acting like concelebrants. It was bad. Since this was not his parish, it’s not like he could pull out the whips and chords and clean house.

When it came time to distribute Holy Communion, I was the last person. He was about to give me Holy Communion when I held my hand and told him that he forgot to consecrate the Precious Blood. He thanked me and then gave me Holy Communion. He went back to the altar and, flipped the Roman Missal back to the Eucharistic Prayer and then consecrated the Precious Blood. He thanked me again after Mass.

What in the world is a commentator??? I mean, I know what it is…but what is it in the Mass???

 

[passus]

What in the world is a commentator??? I mean, I know what it is…but what is it in the Mass???

According to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal:
The commentator, who provides the faithful, when appropriate, with brief explanations and commentaries with the purpose of introducing them to the celebration and preparing them to understand it better. The commentator’s remarks must be meticulously prepared and clear though brief. In performing this function the commentator stands in an appropriate place facing the faithful, but not at the ambo (105).
Also, the role of the commentator in the Mass is discussed a little bit here.

I hope that helps.

 

[LilyM]

Dear Fergal,

As long as the “good priest” was wearing the maniple in the appropriate liturgical color; then the Eucharist was validly consecrated.

Writer’s note: the above was said tongue in cheek.

We are not talking about magic; where with the right words from a magical book one can change a base metal into gold and we are not talking about making a recipe from a cookbook.

We are talking about a sacramental mystery. The Church of the East,for example does not have the Words of Consecration in their Divine Liturgy and it (Eucharist) has been deemed valid. In other words it is not a misplaced or miss spoken word that either makes it valid or not but the intention, the intention of the church.

Note to Benedictgal: I do not believe that a priest can go “back” and consecrate an element once it has passed. For that reason in the Latin / Western Rite of the Catholic Church once the Eucharist has been given out and there is not enough for the rest of the congregation he can not go back to the altar and consecrate some more but must go to the reserve sacrament. This is not the case in Orthodox Church where a priest can consecrate more elements within the same liturgy.

Pax,

Br Mark, OSB

Brother, with all due respect, there are three requirements for a valid sacrament, not just one. And correct form (meaning in the case of the Eucharist the form of words) is thus every bit as necessary for a valid sacrament as correct intention.

I agree with you in that an unintentionally misplaced word here or there probably doesn’t matter, as long as the meaning isn’t affected. On the other end of the scale one cannot change them too much. I don’t think one can knowingly say ‘bibbety bobbety boo’ over the Eucharistic elements, even with the intent to consecrate, and confect the sacrament.

In this case - I think substituting the words ‘this is My blood’ for ‘this is My body’ IS something that changes the meaning significantly.

Consecration of the Blood is intended, and was intended by Our Lord, to be a different thing from consecration of the Body, and vice versa, otherwise the exact same words would be said over each element, or else both elements would be consecrated at the same time, or something.