A response to the concelebration question
I received several good comments in response to my inquiry about the hypothetical instance of invalid and valid consecrations by concelebrants at the same Mass. This response was too long for the combox, but is of such detail and is so worthwhile that I’m posting here with the permission of its author, who asked to remain anonymous. I think I can reveal that this contributor has done advanced studies in theological areas:
At the very least, I think we have to say that a Mass in which principal celebrant says the wrong words of consecration is of doubtful validity. The Holy See has never issued a responsium ad dubium to this question but I would tend to lean toward the idea that the Mass is not valid in the case you mention for the following reasons.
The concelebrants do not hold the species. The principal celebrant does. It’s his hands that are holding the species and connecting his words to the species in his hands.
First, we must remember that there is a distinction between the sacrament and the sacrifice of the Mass-—the sacrament is the Real Presence in the elements, the sacrifice the offering of Christ to the Father. Traditionally, the sacrifice is effected/consummated when the celebrant receives both species. Hence, a priest who consecrates both species but receives only one has validly confected the sacrament but has not consummated the sacrifice (and while this does not invalidate the sacrament itself, it does invalidate the Mass and the priest should not receive a stipend for it). The same is true if a priest consecrates one species but unintentionally not the other (e.g., speaking the words of consecration of the bread over both species). The properly consecrated species is validly confected, even if the other is not-—although now the sacrifice is not complete until the other species is confected and received by the priest. In the Middle Ages, there were questions of what to do when a priest dies in between consecrations. Universally, the answer was always that another priest should finish with the rest of Mass so that the sacrifice may be completed. The importance of this point is not to be underestimated. The Code of Canon Law Canon 927 says explicitly, “It is absolutely forbidden, in even extreme necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the Eucharistic celebration.” The Latin here for “absolutely forbidden” is actually nefas, which has no proper English translation but is an ancient word which is related to something like “against the divine will.” It’s used only six times in the Code, and this is one of them. Though the Canon does not mention the validity of such a consecration, the importance of the sacrifice is highlighted here.
The celebrant must hold the sacred species
This issue has recently come into play with regard to extremely alcoholic priests who cannot tolerate even mustum or priests suffering celiac’s disease. Two letters from the CDF (1994 and 2003) in clarifying concerns surrounding alcoholism and Celiac disease (intolerance to wheat) make a number of interesting points:
1. They both suggest that priests with these conditions concelebrate the Mass and receive only the species that does not affect them adversely (wine or host, as the case may be). In either case, the priest needs the permission of the bishop to receive under one species.
2. A priest who cannot ingest even low-gluten hosts, is not allowed to preside individually nor to be the principal celebrant of a concelebration (presumably because he cannot receive both species). If an alcoholic priest is using mustum are generally prohibited from presiding at concelebrated Masses but can do so with legitimate approval.
These documents can be found here:
http://www.adoremus.org/CDF_Lowgluten-mustum94.html
http://www.adoremus.org/CDF_Lowgluten-mustum2003.html
Fr. Edward McNamara uses these documents to make some observations here:
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=90881
And in the follow-up section here:
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=91680
If I’m reading this right, a priest needs the permission of the bishop to receive only one species during concelebration. So, in theory, a priest need not receive both species while concelebrating, however the principal celebrant would necessarily have to do so to complete the sacrifice.
In another link, McNamara from Zenit theorizes that if a priest doesn’t have permission to receive only one species then his concelebration is illicit (and I would presume he shouldn’t take the stipend). But if by accident he does not receive both species (say, the precious blood runs out at one of these mega Masses), then he could keep the stipend.
What this shows, I believe is that the concelebrants act through the instrumentality of the principal celebrant—there is one consecration at the Mass, and, therefore, one sacrifice—not a plurality of consecrations (for each concelebrant) and a plurality of sacrifices (for each concelebrant receiving both species). Con-celebration does not mean co-celebrant, but rather “celebrating with” the principal celebrant.
This is why, I suspect, the CDF in both letters put heavy stipulations on affected priests presiding at concelebrations. (And that if a priest absolutely cannot ingest even low-gluten host, he should neither celebrate individually nor be the principal celebrant of a concelebration—the principal celebrant has to “complete” the sacrifice by receiving both species. It’s only a matter of ecclesial law, not divine law, that the concelebrants must receive both species.)
I believe this same principal applies to the confecting of the sacrament of the Eucharist—namely that the concelebrants are acting through the agency of the principal celebrant.
As long as the Roman Rite has been celebrated there has been an intricate connection between matter, form, and the intention of the Church. In the case of the consecration of the sacred species, the form, [...] the words of consecration “hoc est enim corpus meum” (This is my body) and “hic est enim calix sanguinis mei” (this is the cup of my blood) are the principal words of the institution narrative. We tend to focus on the “my body” part or “my blood” part but every word in these phrases is absolutely essential, including the words hoc/hic (this). “This (the species I am holding in my hand) is my body” “This (the species I am holding in my hand) is my blood.” Hence the emphasis of the “sacred digits” in days of old. A priest has to be able to hold the sacred species. In other words, the statement has to be true. It’s by grace. Grace makes the predicate true of the subject. The subject (the bread or wine) is truly the body and blood by grace. But this requires the principal celebrant to be holding the proper subject/species when speaking these words, otherwise the consecratory words are false.
The concelebrants do not hold the species. The principal celebrant does. It’s his hands that are holding the species and connecting his words to the species in his hands. This is why the concelebrants are always asked to speak these words soto voce, and not in a loud voice. It’s the principal celebrant who should be heard.
Finally, we can question whether it is the intention of the Church that the concelebrants “cover” for the missed words. And given the nature of the ceremony and the ritual, that does not seem to be the case (since the concelebrants are not even ritually presented as co-celebrants, and their words are supposed to be soto voce).
Part of the problem, is that a sacramental theology of concelebration has not been fully worked out. About all we know is that it’s a sign of the unity of the priesthood, but how this effects validity has not been discussed.
Certainly, the most appropriate solution for the case you raise is for one of the concelebrants to politely stop the principal celebrant and tell him what’s happened and get him to repeat the proper words of consecration. This sort of thing doesn’t happen often but it does happen more times than you’d think.
In any case, the solution is not as easy or quick as we think sometimes.
Copyright © 2002-2005
Domenico Bettinelli, Jr.
All Rights Reserved.