A reader writes:
Last night, we had a guest priest at Mass who accidentally messed up the words of consecration–he spoke the words for the wine over the bread, and then again over the wine; so he forgot to say the actual "This is my body." So I was left wondering if either or both forms were invalid. Now, I’m wondering if I was wrong to go forward at all since I was in doubt–is this idolatry? What they did was bring ciboria out of the tabernacle with what I assume are pre-consecrated hosts. So…should I have skipped the cup? Or was it all invalid?
This is particularly disturbing to me because I’m an adult convert, and the Real Presence of our Lord in the Mass is the one thing that keeps me Catholic sometimes….and now, I’ll never know for sure if the host at adoration or Mass has been properly consecrated. What are we supposed to do now? Am I making too much of this?
You’re certainly right to be quite concerned. Any time something like this happens it is very disturbing to the faithful, and understandably so. Here’s what I can tell you on the subject of validity:
1) The consecration of the cup is presumed valid. While it is totally forbidden under canon law to consecrate one of the species without the other (Can. 927), the praxis of the Church indicates that the consecration of each species occurs after the proper formula is said over the individual species. This is illustrated by the fact that we adore the host and the Precious Blood separately, as they are consecrated individually. Therefore, the saying of "This is the cup of my blood" over the wine should be a valid consecration.
2) The consecration of the hosts in this case is doubtful. While the proper words ("This is my body") were not said, the words that were said ("This is . . . my blood") express a theological truth since Christ is present under both forms in his body, blood, soul, and divinity. On the other hand, God may just want "This is my body" said over the hosts. (By comparison, he might not allow "This is my soul" or "This is my divinity" as valid formulas over either species, even though those are also theologically true.) Further, the hosts may not have been in a cup, in which case an element of falsehood was introduced into the formula. The validity of the the consecration of the host therefore seems to me to be quite doubtful.
As far as going forward to receive, while it would be wrong to receive an element that one knew with certainty had been invalidly consecrated, the psychological reality of the situation is such that when things like this happen that the faithful are so rattled that they don’t know what to do and just have to make their best guess. In such circumstances, they are likely acting in conformity with their conscience in difficult circumstances are are not culpable if they make the objectively wrong choice.
As far as your worries for the future, I think you may be making too much of this. Such accidents are rare, and it is overwhelmingly likely that hosts you encounter in the future are validly consecrated. Certainly, you should presume that they are and act accordingly.
What I don’t know is all of the dubiously-consecrated hosts were consumed at the Mass. If not, what the parish should do is have someone consume them conditionally as Communion. Whether they’d do that if asked, I don’t know.
Also, you should recognize that, while Jesus is present in the Eucharist, you need to be Catholic not only because of this but because the Catholic Church is Jesus’ Church, regardless of the problems it has in any given age.
Hope this helps!
20
Many years ago in my religious studies someone gave this very example as a case in which one would be justified in actually interrupting the eucharistic prayer: “Pst! Father! You forgot the words of consecration over the bread!”
Only twice in 40 years have I witnessed a mistake with the consecration. A priest who should have known better (he is a Canon Lawyer) said the formula as such: “This is my body and blood which was given and shed for many…” I didn’t realize the mistake until after mass; I confirmed it with others. It happened so fast that most did not notice.
The other was accidental but not handled correctly. A very elderly priest forgot to wait for the gifts to be brought up from the middle of the church. The consecration of the large presenter’s host and the small flask of wine were valid. When he realized his mistake, he asked for the plate of hosts to be brought up; these were distributed. I know there is an intention clause that may have made this valid.
I think it’s worthwhile to note that the priest ought to be made aware of his mistake because — if the hosts were not consecrated — the Sacrifice is not complete and the Mass will have to be offered again for whatever intention it was originally offered.
By comparison, he might not allow “This is my soul” or “This is my divinity” as valid formulas over either species, even though those are also theologically true
Do you think that really would be theologically true? I’d reckon it isn’t true … I mean, I’ve never called my body my soul. While my soul and body are united (presently) I can’t say they’re the same thing. Dom Anscar Vonier in his book “A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist” takes some pains to impress on the reader that the priest is granted the power to consecrate bread into the body of Christ, but that the presence of Christ’s soul and Divinity, while truly present, is only so because Christ is now and eternally united with his heavenly (non-sacramental) body. But if a priest were, hypothetically speaking, to consecrate bread an hour after Christ’s death on the cross, he would indeed be able to hold the body of Christ, but could not say that Christ’s soul or divinity were made present, because they were not then united to the natural body.
So, it seems improper to me to say that the Eucharist is the soul or divinity of Christ just as I don’t call my own body my soul.
What I don’t know is all of the dubiously-consecrated hosts were consumed at the Mass. If not, what the parish should do is have someone consume them conditionally as Communion. Whether they’d do that if asked, I don’t know.
If this parish is anything like mine, they might be mixed in with other (validly consecrated) hosts in the tabernacle.
I’ve often wondered about what happens when the priest makes up his own Eucharistic prayers. A man who was a priest at our parish but who has now stepped down from active duty for at least a year liked to have the choir interject bits of Christmas songs during the Eucharistic prayer. I never joined in, but it caused me to wonder how far the rules of form extend.
I probably wouldn’t lose any sleep over this. Since (I assume) the priest didn’t intend to mess things up, God has a way of making it right. This is not magic we’re talking about here.