Is A Mass Valid In Which The Consecration Of The Wine Is Omitted?

[AlanF]

Would a Mass be valid if only the bread was consecrated and the consecration of the chalice and the elevation thereof were completely omitted?

Over on the thread "What is the worst liturgical abuse you have seen personally?" we had this sequence of quotes:

A couple of years ago at a Traditional Latin Mass, the priest completely eliminated the consecration of the Precious Blood.  Was the Mass valid?  Was the Sacrifice complete?  I dinna kin.  All I know is I was scandalized like I've never been scandalized before and it is, without a doubt, the single worst abuse I've ever encountered at Mass.  Period.

How do you know that for sure every Mass I have been to this part is said silently by the Priest.

Because I've served enough Masses to know the rythym of the Canon and the priest in question does not say the Canon silently in any case.  He went from "hoc est enim corpus meum" to "unde et memores..." with no intervening elevation of the chalice. 

There's a big difference between omissions of malice and omissions owing to physical and psychical frailties.

The priest might not be culpable if it were due to frailty but that wouldn't make an invalid Mass valid.  I'm pretty sure that the Mass Dr. Bombay described was not valid.

Certainly the Mass was invalid, but from what information the poster gave, there's no indication that it was out of malice or negligence.

So I'm wondering whether that Mass would be valid. It seems to me that from the words "Hoc Est Enim Corpus Meum", the bread is consecrated and is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. When the priest elevates the Host we are definitely adoring the Body of Christ and even if the priest omits the consecration of the wine after it It can not stop being the Body of Christ. Therefore, it seems to me that the Mass is valid.

But what do I know? So I'm asking, what's the Church's teaching on this?

[spasiisochrani]

It is a disputed question. 

I once actually saw something like this happen, when a priest mistakenly consecrated the chalice twice and the Host not at all.  I pointed out the omission to the priest ("psst...Father!") and he went back and did the whole consecration again, which I think is the proper way to handle it.

[The_Harlequin_King]

It may be a valid sacrament, but the sacrifice of the Mass, which is a different thing, is incomplete. The sacrifice of the Mass is only complete when the celebrant comingles the two species back together and receives his Communion.

[glgas]

It may be a valid sacrament, but the sacrifice of the Mass, which is a different thing, is incomplete. The sacrifice of the Mass is only complete when the celebrant comingles the two species back together and receives his Communion.

The traditional view was that the intended consecration of  both species is required for the validity, and the two specii are mingled when the little particle of the bread is dropped to the cup, saying:

Haec commíxtio, et consecrátio Córporis et Sánguinis Dómini nostri Jesu Christi, fiat accipiéntibus nobis in vitam ætérnam. Amen.

May this mixture and consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be to us who receive it effectual unto eternal life. Amen.

[Clare]

Valid but sacrilegious. It's sacrilege to consecrate one and not the other.

[StSimonTrent]

No.

3 elements are requred for a Valid Mass according to Canon Law.
Form, Matter and Intent.

The form must consist of unleavened bread and wine.

[Historian]

As others have said, the consecration of the Host is valid, but there is no Sacrifice since both must be consecrated, therefore the Mass itself is invalid.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

The priest does not however assume the personal part of Christ either at the Offertory or Communion. He only does so when he speaks the words: "This is My Body; this is My Blood", in which there is no possible reference to the body and blood of the celebrant. While the Consecration as such can be shown with certainty to be the act of Sacrifice, the necessity of the twofold consecration can be demonstrated only as highly probable. Not only older theologians such as Frassen, Gotti, and Bonacina, but also later theologians such as Schouppen, Stentrup and Fr. Schmid, have supported the untenable theory that when one of the consecrated elements is invalid, such as barley bread or cider, the consecration of the valid element not only produces the Sacrament, but also the (mutilated) sacrifice. Their chief argument is that the sacrament in the Eucharist is inseparable in idea from the sacrifice. But they entirely overlooked the fact that Christ positively prescribed the twofold consecration for the sacrifice of the Mass (not for the sacrament), and especially the fact that in the consecration of one element only the intrinsically essential relation of the Mass to the sacrifice of the Cross is not symbolically represented. Since it was no mere death from suffocation that Christ suffered, but a bloody death, in which His veins were emptied of their Blood, this condition of separation must receive visible representation on the altar, as in a sublime drama. This condition is fulfilled only by the double consecration, which brings before our eyes the Body and the Blood in the state of separation, and thus represents the mystical shedding of blood. Consequently, the double consecration is an absolutely essential element of the Mass as a relative sacrifice.