Consecration of Bread Only but Not Wine at Masses

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I just moved to my diocese a year and a half ago. I just heard today that two years ago, or just before I moved here, the then Pastor of the Cathedral, died. I think this is the right hand man to the Bishop. He had been an alcoholic. To prevent his relapsing, his masses and perhaps all masses at the Cathedral, did not use any wine, no mustum, no liquid. Only bread was consecrated at his masses. This priest was well liked and had a good reputation that lived after him and so I suppose he was there for many years but I don't know how many years this went on.

Were these valid masses?

-- Michael Hitzelberger (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 07, 2002

Answers

Hi, Mike.

I have heard it said that we should not speak of the validity or invalidity of a Mass, but rather the (in)validity of the Sacrament (Holy Eucharist).

Although I have not been able to lay hands on something 100% definitive, I believe that the priest in question failed to confect a valid Eucharist. [At the very least, he committed the most grave liturgical abuses imaginable, resulting in an illicitly celebrated sacrament.] I believe that the full text of the Eucharistic Prayer -- including both consecrations -- must be read. Therefore both Species of the Sacrament must be present on the altar, and at least a concelebrant must consume the consecrated wine -- even if the priest in question were to abstain from drinking from the chalice.

I base this opinion on the following two official texts -- the first from Canon Law, and the second from the "Notitiae" that the Vatican has published to supplement its liturgical regulations:

"Canon 924
"§1 The most holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist must be celebrated in bread and in wine to which a small quantity of water is to be added ...
"Can. 927 It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration."

"For some time different Ordinaries [bishops] have asked this Sacred Congregation for the permission to allow priests who are undergoing a treatment for alcoholism or who have undergone this treatment, to celebrate Mass with unfermented grape juice. With this situation in mind, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith authorizes the Ordinaries of the United States of America to grant to those priests who have made this request the permission either to concelebrate with one or more priests a normal Mass but without receiving Communion under the species of wine or, when this is not possible, to celebrate Mass using unfermented grape juice and to use water alone for the ritual ablutions after Communion. Also, one must avoid creating scandal for the faithful."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 07, 2002.


John,

Thank You for your quote from Canon Law.

I will add this, I live in a region of the country with a 3% Catholic population, the remainder is Protestant. I have heard of other abuses around here. One Catholic Church in our diocese let a Lutheran say the homily during mass. There is also anti-Catholic sentiment in the newspaper, one time there was a large insert devoted to the topic. Thankfully, I think my priest is true to Church teaching.

I also am concerned about this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Today the number of persons who believe in signs and seek to know the future is much greater than appears on the surface. They abound in communities where dogmatic Christianity is weak."

The more I find out about this area of the country, the more it seems foolish to settle here permanently. I am currently in an easy position to move. St. Francis de Sales lived in Geneva during the time of Calvin. Pray for us St. Francis!

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 07, 2002.


Mike

A Mass without the Species of the Blood in the Eucharistic Celebration is definitely not a Vaid Mass. It is certainly without merit and Grace. Where in the world do you live? In the backwoods? This is not normal. Do you know who the Bishop is? Write to him or better yet to a Cardinal. This needs to be corrected. It is in full violation of the Missal and the Holy See.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 07, 2002.


In order for the body to live, it must have both water and blood.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 07, 2002.

Hi, Mike.

You stated: "St. Francis de Sales lived in Geneva during the time of Calvin."

I don't know if this will have an effect on what you will do now, but I have both heard and read that St. Francis could not live in his own cathedral city, Geneva, during his episcopate. Rather, he had to live in Annecy, which still had many Catholics, because Catholicism was banned by the Calvinists in Geneva.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 07, 2002.



JOHN-- Would you tell us what this ''confect'' a valid Eucharist is??? I've seen you say this once before, and wondered what you needed this description of the Consecration for. That's a little too elitist for poor plebes like us.

In summary, I do agree with you a true consecration did not take place. Matter of fact, when a priest is unable to partake of the Precious Blood for personal reasons, isn't the Mass valid anyway, if he consumes just the Body of Christ? The faithful are all present to drink from the Cup; so a true Communion would still be possible.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 07, 2002.


Jmj

Sorry, Gene, but your criticism is definitely NOT accepted! Why?

(1) The expression "to confect the Eucharist" is a fairly common one in Catholic writing (periodicals, internet sites, etc.). If you ask an Internet search engine like "yahoo" to look for sites that have both words, "confect" and "Eucharist," you come up with over 150 sites.
The word comes from two Latin roots -- "fect" ("made") and con ("with"). It refers to the bringing into existence, through transubstantiation, of the Body and Blood of Jesus -- as though they were "made with" bread and wine. You will find it written that a bishop or priest has the power to confect the Eucharist. It has nothing to do with "concoction" or "confectionery" (candy).

(2) It should be fine if someone uses a legitimate word or phrase that is unfamiliar to you, but it is definitely not fine for you to criticize that other person when you are embarrassed by your own ignorance. When you called me "elitist" for using the word "confect," I didn't know whether to shout in anger or howl with laughter at you for being the "pot calling the kettle black." Why do I say so? You have read a lot more than I have (with your 14-year head start) -- and as a result you sometimes use words and names that are totally unfamiliar to me. The most recent examples are "pissant" and the name of a character from a Dickens book that I have not read. When you recently pinned that character's name, as an insult, on a forum visitor, he (like me) had never heard of the character. But did he or I call you an "elitist?" No. We were polite. We were ignorant, and we accepted that fact. Now you accept it too, please. Thanks.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 07, 2002.


Dear John--
I'm embarrassed by my ignorance? Haha!

Yes, but I didn't poo-poo the word confect. I just found it a bit affected, as you send it the way of ordinary folks. Didn't ''consecrate'' make enough sense? Truth is, I was ignorant of such esoteric terms for the Consecration.

You could lambast me for the use of vulgarities, I know; and you don't. A Pecksniff is a holier-than-thou Bible-thumper and hypocrite. I let it fly at someone who needed to be taken down a peg. You use confect in speaking to an uninformed, innocent person, who doen't need taking down a peg. Something akin to condescension.

But let's not go overboard about it. We can still be friends and love each other, warts and all. I'm only teasing you!

You didn't address my other questions.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 08, 2002.


Jmj

Gene,
You are just being terribly unjust.

You stated: "You use 'confect' in speaking to an uninformed, innocent person, who doen't need taking down a peg. Something akin to condescension."

I would bet a million dollars that you were the only Catholic here who interpreted my use of the word "confect" as "condescension" -- "taking [someone] down a peg." I had no such intention, and I think that everyone knows that except you.

What I stated (and I'm sure Mike understood) was, "... the priest ... failed to confect a valid Eucharist." It appears that your opinion is that I should have stated, "... the priest ... failed to consecrate a valid Eucharist." But I could not have used that phrase, because it is not accurate. A priest consecrates bread and wine. He does not "consecrate a valid Eucharist." So I just used a phrase that naturally came to mind, because I have seen and heard it many times: he "failed to confect a valid Eucharist."

I just can't understand why your mind continues to malfunction about this, Gene. I just got through explaining that you often use unfamiliar words to everyone (including "ordinary folks" [to use your term]), but no one accuses you of "condescension" or "taking [someone] down a peg." God blessed you with erudition and you are sharing it. Yes, "Pecksniff" was a good example. And I reminded you of "pissant" (which I still don't understand, since it is not in my Webster's Collegiate Dictionary). Then there was what seemed to be a yiddish term you used three or four times, about a month ago, when we had some people here pretending to be Messianic Jews. Then a few days ago, you used "cretin" in the subject line of a new thread. [Which reminds me ... I can't remember you EVER starting a new thread before that one. Congratulations!!!] Anyway, "cretin" is a word that is unfamiliar to a lot of people -- but I would never dream of saying that your use of it is "condescension." You're not going to like this, but I recommend against the Catholics using the English word "cretin" because of its nefarious origin. The word "Cretin" is French for "Christian," but it began to be used around the time of the French Revolution as a derogatory word meaning "idiot" (i.e., mentally retarded person [which each Christian supposedly was]).

Gene, I tried to post a follow-up to my previous post, in order to respond to the other part of your message -- but it was just then that the communications collapsed, and this site could not be reached for many hours. Here is what I tried to post:

As mentioned above (and also on another thread several weeks ago), the Church does not want a priest to celebrate alone without receiving from the chalice (either consecrated wine or mustum [chilled grape juice]).
The preference is for each priest to drink from the chalice. But if a priest decides that, for reasons of health or addiction, he cannot even drink consecrated mustum, then the Church wants him to CONcelebrate Mass, so that the other priest(s) can receive Communion from the chalice.
The Church does not want the priest to celebrate alone, consume only the Host, and rely on non-priests to consume the consecrated wine.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 09, 2002.


Fred

This abuse is not going on today but rather ended just before I moved here. That priest died and so the wine returned to the Cathedral mass at that time. There are lots of abuses around here. A friend of mine who I am trying to get to go to confession for the first time in years, told me a story about a priest of a parish in our diocese who told him confession was an option. He said it just made you feel more forgiven. The priest said my friend could do it the Protestant way, that is, ask forgiveness directly from God in prayer for any sin if he wanted, without a priest. He saw this same priest turn away a needy family who came to the chuch for a food and clothing handout because it was not the day that they gave out donations. There was a pile of donations right there ready to be given away. It is embarassing.

Eugene,

Yes, the priest could have consecrated the wine and bread and then let another drink it. However, he was an alcoholic. Looking at wine and being intimate with its "matter", every day, can easily be a deadly temptation for an alcoholic. Gallons of it sit in the cupboard, you are alone, and the devil loves to attack a priest. Yes, there are alcoholic or addicted priests in recovery. Fr. Corapi is one. I also here many stories of priests who go to rehabilitaion for relapsing. In Michigan, where I used to live, there is a rehab house just for recovery of relapsing alcoholic priests. In my opinion, the priest who left wine out of his mass would have been better off requesting a new assignment that did not require him to celebrate mass at all rather than do what he did.

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 09, 2002.



John

Thanks for your post.

"What I stated (and I'm sure Mike understood) was, '... the priest ... failed to confect a valid Eucharist.'"

Yes, it was clear to me what you meant and I have heard that term *confect* before but I don't use it yet. Perhaps I ought. Interesting conversation.

"As mentioned above (and also on another thread several weeks ago), the Church does not want a priest to celebrate alone without receiving from the chalice (either consecrated wine or mustum [chilled grape juice])."

I didn't know this. That would make it more clear why an alcoholic priest would be tempted into an abuse as the priest in our diocese did. Also, as an alcoholic myself, I would add, as you already know John, the "chilled grape juice or mustum" is not just grape juice but slightly fermented or with "suspended fermentation". It has a reduced alcohol content. Many alcoholics have tried to switch to "non-alcoholic" beer as a solution. It does not work, they relapse also. I think "non-alcoholic" beer has a tiny amount of alcohol but mostly just tastes like beer. Therefore, a weakened (alcoholic) soul could still be encouraging strong temptation to drink regular wine at other times by the use of even mustum at mass.

God Bless Us All

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 09, 2002.


Interesting points about the beverages, Mike. I wasn't aware of some of the things you mentioned. JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 09, 2002.

"Yes, there are alcoholic or addicted priests in recovery. Fr. Corapi is one."

Right you are, with this information. I was gifted by attending a seminar of Fr. Corapi's this past June. He did consecrate both species, but did not take of the cup. As we all know, Christ is fully present in both forms, so he did not deny himself full communion.

On a pleasant side note, I found myself sharing dinner with Fr. Corapi later that evening. Can you imagine the honor? What a wonderful witness to our faith...and what a shining example of God's saving grace this man and priest is!

-- Melissa (holy_rhodes@earthlink.net), March 10, 2002.


You are a privileged child, Melissa.
But you deserve it!
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

WE have some tapes with speeches by Fr Carapi. They are very powerful speeches with good knowledge for all to gain. His ability to capture an audience is very good. I am in the impression that he has great willpower to overcome great odds too.

Bleesed are the many who give us our faith.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 11, 2002.



Just had to put my 1 1/2 cents in (Frank has 2 cents reserved) about Fr. Corapi. My wife and I were able to attend a weekend retreat March 1 and 2, 2002 with Fr. Corapi. We both came away from that retreat fully recharged in our faith. Fr. Corapi gave 3 talks (about an hour long each) and the homily for Saturday's Mass. All four talks had us riveted. We ended up buying 5 CD's of his other talks and immediately from pulling away from the church, we played one of them in our van (we had an hour drive to pick up our kids). I guess that shows how much we couldn't get enough of him.

If any of you ever get the opportunity to attend one of his retreats, I would highly recommend it.

God Bless everyone!

Glenn

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), March 11, 2002.


Melissa,

"a seminar of Fr. Corapi's this past June. He did consecrate both species, but did not take of the cup."

I was wondering about that with Fr. Corapi. You answered my small prayer. So nice when God doesn't even make us ask! Thanks.

Since there is such a priest shortage, it seems that it would be hard for a parish priest in my diocese to get this privilege today. I mean, the two priest per mass privilege.

Remembering John mentioned this above:

"But if a priest decides that, for reasons of health or addiction, he cannot even drink consecrated mustum, then the Church wants him to CONcelebrate Mass, so that the other priest(s) can receive Communion from the chalice. The Church does not want the priest to celebrate alone, consume only the Host, and rely on non-priests to consume the consecrated wine."

How would an alcoholic guarentee he would always have another priest during a mass? Hence the Cardinal Ratzinger's letter which requests that alcoholic priests not be ordained: NORMS FOR USE OF LOW-GLUTEN BREAD AND MUSTUM

Glenn, I like Fr. Corapi's tapes too but I hope he doesn't relapse!

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 11, 2002.


I stand corrected and guilty of possibly spreading a bad rumor.

The alcoholic priest at our Cathedral, who died two years ago, always used the "mustum" or reduced alcohol wine during his masses, approved by the bishop. I found out that the Cathedral had only stopped distributing wine to the whole parish during mass when that priest was there. After the alcoholic priest died (of old age), the Cathedral once again began offering the consecrated wine to everyone. A certain amount of wine had always been consecrated in the masses.

I spoke too soon and without enough investigation, one of my weaknesses. Sorry about that...

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 18, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ