ASK FATHER: Priest says the consecration of the chalice over the host

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I cannot believe what happened at the Jubilee Mass to commemorate the consecration of our cathedral this morning

[I’ll post the excerpt below.]

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.