Hi Bill,
Thanks for the questions.
- The priest is
not allowed to sit among the congregation
during the liturgy.
- Unless he has
some communicable disease, or
other physical reason that he
has been given dispensation for,
he is not allowed to do what he
is doing during the Consecration.
Given the fact that he sits with
the congregation during the Mass,
it leads me to believe he is just
out right disobeying the rubrics.
As for the validity of the consecration,
it is not as clear cut as my brother
Mike seems to imply. So long as
he says the right words and intends
to do what the Church intends, then
the gifts, in fact, do become Jesus, the Christ.
Any and all bread on the corporal, the
white sheet on the altar or in the
paten, are consecrated at Mass,
not just the one host a priest picks
up. You don't always see this because,
often times, there are hosts, in
reserve, in the tabernacle. When
they run out of the consecrated species,
they need not consecrate more, and they
need not be handled or elevated.
When there is a Mass and Holy Communion
is to be received under both species,
typically the priest holds up the
chalice, but there is another vessel
filled with wine on the altar which
also gets consecrated, even though
the priest doesn't hold it up.
A Sacrament requires a certain minimum
form and matter for validity. In
this case, you need the right words,
the right intention, and valid bread
and wine. Gestures, while they are
an integral part of the Liturgy,
are not vital or essential. Hence
the omission of an integral component
only makes the sacrament illicit,
not invalid.
Nevertheless, just because the sacrament
is valid, there is no excuse for
ignoring the rubrics. It sounds to me like this priest
may have received some bad theology
along with his lack of obedience.
This man's blatant disobedience may
give you "just cause" to
wonder what his intention is during the consecration.
The Church has a doctrine known as Ecclesia Supplet. Briefly put, if his
intention is close enough, the
faith of the Church is sufficient.
The priest may have personal passing
doubts about the faith from time
to time, as all of us do, but so
long as the priest intends to do,
what the Church intends, despite
his doubts, the faith of the Church
is sufficient for a valid Sacrament.
It does not mean, that priest can
intend to bring about consubstantiation
or a symbolic presence, which some
might say is close enough. The priest
must intend to consecrate according
to the teaching of the Church even
if, at the time, he happens to be
struggling with that teaching.
In addition, Ecclesia Supplet
does not
apply to the required
form and matter for all the
sacraments of the Church. The
priest must follow the correct
form and matter for a valid
sacrament.
- The question is how much of an
intention does he have to have
when he speaks the words of consecration,
assuming he is using the correct
words?
To that end I agree with Mike; I
have my serious doubts about his
intention but then again, I'm not in this priest's head, nor
does anyone know what his intention
is, so I am in no position to declare
that the sacrament is invalid.
At any rate, rest assured that, at the very least, you've
received grace and a Spiritual Communion.
It might not be a bad idea to find
another parish to attend if possible.
Speaking from personal experience,
when abuses are so many and so blatant,
one tends to focus on the abuses
and does not worship the Lord properly
because of the distractions.
I repeat, I have concerns about whether
this priest has the correct intent,
but I don't know his heart. The best
thing to do is ask him. If that doesn't
get you anywhere, write to the bishop
and find another parish.
God Bless,
John DiMascio
|