Valid Consecration?

[dells_of_bittersweet]

This is not even close to being close to being licit. In this video, the priest ad libs the entire Eucharistic prayer and only sort of says the correct words of consecration. So the question is, is Jesus present or not? Is saying "this is my body" sufficient for valid form or do you need to get the rest of the prayer right also?

Here is the video. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=KjMWbQ7UXOE&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKjMWbQ7UXOE


ETA: there may be an issue with the link. Searching Rev. Pfleger Holy Thursday 2010 Eucharistic Prayer will probably get the job done.

Edited December 22, 2012 by dells_of_bittersweet

[Nihil Obstat]

Ugh, what a ding-dong. I have heard the name Pfleger several times...
 

I am no expert, but I do want to say that it was valid, if only just. Assuming his intention was there, and assuming he used valid matter, then I think the minimal form was there, though obviously his ad-libbing was completely unjustifiable.

Other people perhaps can comment with more authority.

[cappie]

The words necessary for the consecration of the Eucharist are called by theologians the “form” of the sacrament. It is by the power of these words that the bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ, and the wine into his Blood. The words of consecration effect the sacrament.

But what exactly are these words? What words are considered to be the “words of consecration”? Here we must note that these words differ from Mass to Mass – that is, the words of consecration in the Eastern Rites are different from those in the Latin Rite. Additionally, even within the Latin Rite, there is a difference between the more ancient form (i.e. the “Traditional Latin Mass”) and the Ordinary Form (i.e. The Novus Ordo). While the words change from Rite to Rite and while they can be modified over time, nevertheless the essential meaning of the words is always the same. The words must signify the reality of transubstantiation and of the sacrifice.

 

Thus, in the New Mass, it is most likely (though there is some dispute among theologians) that the essential “words of consecration” are “Hoc est enim Corpus meum” (over the Host) and “Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei, novi et eterni testament, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur, in remissionem peccatorum” (over the chalice). In the new English translation, these words correspond to “For this is my Body” and “For this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins”.

Notice that this does not include all of the words which the priest says while consecrating the Sacred Species – rather, only those words which signify transubstantiation (for both the Host and the Chalice, individually) and sacrifice (for the Host and Chalice, together) are generally considered by theologians to be the “words of consecration”. Hence, the words over the Host – “which will be given up for you” – do not seem to be a part of the words of consecration, strictly. Likewise, the other words such as “In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice, etc.” are not part of the words of consecration properly so-called.

 

Generally, if the priest fails to say the essential words of consecration, the Mass is invalid and the Eucharist is not consecrated.

 

In the Papal Bull of St. Pius V, De defectibus, it is specified that, “if the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the 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.”

 

Hence, if (presumably by some accident) the priest were to confuse the words of consecration, the first question to ask is: Did the essential meaning (which is transubstantiation and sacrifice) remain? If the words still communicate this meaning, then the Mass is valid. If not, then the Mass is invalid.

Let’s look at an example: “For this is the cup of my Blood, etc.” Now, the word “cup” is out of place, since the new translation says “chalice”; however, the validity of the Mass is certainly not in question, since the essential meaning remains.

Another example: The priest says, “For this is the chalice of my Blood” and then skips ahead to “Do this in memory of me”, without saying anything of the middle (about the Blood being “poured out” or, previously, “shed”). This would make the Mass invalid, since part of the essential meaning (namely, the sacrifice) is left out. In this case, the Host would be validly consecrated, but the wine would remain merely wine.

Although there may be some mistakes on the part of the priest during the pronouncement of the words of consecration – for example, I have formerly heard a priest use contractions as in “It’ll be shed” rather than “It will be shed”, over the chalice (in the old translation) – these errors do not have any negative impact on the validity of the Mass. The Eucharist is still consecrated, so long as the essential meaning of the words remains. Still, the priest is not excused of grave fault (as Pius V says), if he makes these errors purposefully or out of gross carelessness.

 

 

[Slappo]

Very informative thanks Cappie. I didn't ever think about the necessary words over the chalice needing to include the sacrificial aspect of the Blood of Christ. I think I'd always assumed "this is my blood" was sufficient, since "this is my body" is sufficient form for the host.

[Apotheoun]

I would refrain from participating in, or receiving communion at, a service like the one shown in the video.  

[Nihil Obstat]

I would refrain from participating in, or receiving communion at, a service like the one shown in the video.  

 

Yeah, I think I would have walked out.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

If you were visiting in this case Chicago and found the church by searching on the Internet, and had no way of knowing you were attending a likely invalid Mass, what would be the right thing to do? Should you walk out? What if you had plans for the rest of your day-do you need to cancel them and go to another Mass? And can you recieve Communion? Since the consecration of the bread was seemingly valid, cold you recieve just the host?

I agree that such a service should be avoided at all costs, but how should you handle such a situation should you stumble upon it?

[dells_of_bittersweet]

Also, if it is essential to include the reality of sacrifice in the words of consecration, why is it not necessary to add "which will be given up for you" to the words "this is my body?"

After watching the video again, Fr. Phleger clearly left out "which will be given up for you."

He needs prayers, as does his bishop.

[Nihil Obstat]

If you were visiting in this case Chicago and found the church by searching on the Internet, and had no way of knowing you were attending a likely invalid Mass, what would be the right thing to do? Should you walk out? What if you had plans for the rest of your day-do you need to cancel them and go to another Mass? And can you recieve Communion? Since the consecration of the bread was seemingly valid, cold you recieve just the host?

I agree that such a service should be avoided at all costs, but how should you handle such a situation should you stumble upon it?

I am just going off the top of my head here. In a perfect world you would walk out and find a different Mass. But in an imperfect world, like ours, it might be that you have already done your due diligence, at which point you would suffer through the Mass and not receive. I do not think it would be a good idea to receive Communion if there was any reasonable doubt about the validity of the consecration.

I am not a canon lawyer though, so I may be mistaken on some or any of that.