From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
I cannot believe what happened at the Jubilee Mass to commemorate the consecration of our cathedral this morning
[Link to video]
Watch from just before the 37 minute mark, where the Consecration starts.
I didn’t present myself for Holy Communion because I wasn’t sure if he’d be giving me the Body of Christ that had been consecrated at a previous Mass, or an unconsecrated wafer.
Okay… there’s no explicit question here. However, there could be an implicit question: Would what the priest did at the consecration of the Host validly consecrate the Host or did it not.
For those of you who cannot see the video, the priest, who seems to be trying to be careful and stick to the book, picked up the host and promptly said the form for the consecration of the chalice, not the host. NB: The “Benedictine” Arrangement of the altar.
Before, you get worked up, things happen. Priests get distracted. In the way he was saying Mass, there’s little indication that this was malicious or mischievous. He simply blew it. Poor guy. I bet he is mortified.
That leads us to the substance of the matter, so to speak.
QUAERITUR:
If a priest says the words of consecration for the chalice over the host, instead of the consecration for host, is the consecration of that host valid?
No. According to the older sacramental manuals, the host would not be validly consecrated if the priest used the chalice form over bread, for example, saying over the host:
Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei…
instead of:
Hoc est enim Corpus meum.
The reason is that the sacramental form must signify what it effects. For the consecration of bread, the form must signify the conversion of bread into the Body of Christ. St. Thomas gives the principle clearly: “the form for the consecration of the bread ought to signify the actual conversion of the bread into the body of Christ.” The chalice form signifies the conversion of wine into the Blood of Christ, not the conversion of bread into the Body of Christ.
Matter and form must correspond. Bread is apt matter for the consecration of the Body; wine is apt matter for the consecration of the Blood. The form for the chalice does not determine bread to become the Body of Christ. (STh III, q. 78, a. 1) The priest’s intention to consecrate the host cannot supply for a substantially defective form.
The papal Bull De defectibus of Pius V gives the governing principle:
“If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the body and blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin” (No. 20).
In this case in the video, “This is the chalice of My Blood” does not signify “This is My Body.”
So the practical conclusion is: the host remains unconsecrated bread. The priest ought to have corrected the defect by pronouncing the proper form of consecration over the host. If he has already gone on the older, rubrical solution is that he must return to the point of the defective consecration and supply the proper form.
To me, taking into consideration my relatively poor eyesight, the priest both looks and sounds like he is rather young. He also sounds a bit nervous. So this raises in my mind a question. Years ago the priest who offers both forms of the Mass every Sunday told me that before VII and the resulting changes in the way seminaries operated, during the last or 6th year of seminary, seminarians would spend almost all of their time learning to say Mass properly. At the end of the SSPX video, Traditio, it mentions the time spent on learning to say the Mass after the seminarians are ordained in the spring of their 5th year. So, could the failure of priests to offer Mass properly or in a manner worthy of God be the result of poor training? My guess about the video is the priest is young and needs self-confidence which would have developed naturally if he had had more thorough training.
Prof: I wouldn’t psychoanalyze the guy from afar based on this. Nor would I assume that he doesn’t know what he is doing. One piece of info I didn’t include is that he is 2 years ordained. That said, he was probably just distracted – it happens, believe me – and screwed up. With the ubiquitous and iniquitous microphone, everyone heard it.
Question, if the mass was con celebrated and the priest mistakenly said the words of consecration for the chalice over the host , would the correct formula of any of the con celebrating priest render a valid consecration of the host?
I had this happen at a Mass I attended last year. The priest is not one to monkey around with the liturgy and it was wholly unintentional. He was horrified when he learned what had happened after the fact.
This reminds me of what happened when Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Mass at the Sistine Chapel for the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord in 2012.
When it came time to say the Words of Institution over the Chalice, His Holiness is heard saying, “Hic est enim corpus meum…” instead of saying, “Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei…”
There’s video of this moment online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBvQjeYw4DE
It’s my understanding that since the concelebrants said the correct wording the Consecration did occur. The bishop to the Pope’s left is shown saying the correct Words of Institution.
While I am outraged at genuine liturgical abuse, having seen a couple of seriously egregious examples that went so far as to call the validity of the consecration and the mass into question, these things as revealed in this example do happen, as Fr. Z said. The two times I saw something like this happen were both accidentally done by two different saintly and impeccably orthodox priests, including one who had been ordained in the 1950s. I feel compassion for this poor priest who obviously just got distracted somehow (perhaps the solemnity of the occasion). Thanks to him for his faithful service to the Church in his priesthood!
Father,
1. Am I correct in saying that the sacrifice of the mass was not effected since only the wine was consecrated?
2. If your answer to number one is in the affirmative, had I been in the pew and noticed what occurred, would I have a moral duty to attend Mass again?
Thank you.
It’s been so many years at this point that my memory is fuzzy, but I do remember once being at Mass at a chapel, and Fr. was making this mistake or a similar one (priest a good, conscientious man, but also very high strung. It moved one to compassion). I froze, but someone else called his attention with a loud “pzzt!”, and he did react and started again. So. Might be an option if you are in the pews, depending. Certainly easier to do in a chapel than in a cathedral or large church building.
Father, I understand what you have written, but we also believe that we receive the Lord- body, blood, soul, and divinity- in either the consecrated bread or the consecrated wine. So, it’s difficult to understand why saying the words of consecration for the wine/blood over the bread/body would invalidate.
[You say you understand what I wrote. Right? “This is the chalice of My Blood” does not signify “This is My Body.” For Mass (the Sacrifice of Calvary) to be separated, there has to be the separation of the Body and Blood through the two-fold consecration.]
Darby: 1) Yes 2) No