05-11-2010, 02:23 PM
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:
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?
Over on the thread "What is the worst liturgical abuse you have seen personally?" we had this sequence of quotes:
(05-11-2010, 12:45 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:(05-11-2010, 12:23 PM)JayneK Wrote:(05-11-2010, 10:15 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote:(05-11-2010, 01:29 AM)DrBombay Wrote:(05-11-2010, 01:22 AM)Baskerville Wrote:(05-11-2010, 01:10 AM)DrBombay Wrote: 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?