Last week’s post examined the desecration of the consecrated host and the precious blood of Christ. Today’s post focuses on consecration for a sacrilegious purpose of one matter without the other or even of both, either within or outside the Eucharistic celebration, a delict reserved to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith. In the Norms Regarding Delicts Reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith of 2001, the delict was considered part of the more grave delicts. However, the revised version of 2021 puts it different from the more grave delicts against the sanctity of the most Holy Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist (SST, art 3 §2).
Canon 1382 §2 states: “A person guilty of consecrating for a sacrilegious purpose one element only or both elements within the Eucharistic celebration or outside it is to be punished according to the gravity of the offence, not excluding by dismissal from the clerical state.” While anyone can desecrate the sacred species, consecrating for a sacrilegious purpose (sacrilegum finem) means that it is a delict that can be committed only by priests who have the capacity to consecrate the Eucharist. As previously stated, one who is not a priest merely attempts the act of consecration and is guilty of attempted consecration.
The presence of a sacrilegious purpose is essential to determine this offence. As stated last week, “Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us” (CCC, 2120). Therefore, as long as there is a sacrilegious purpose, the delict exists if the consecration of one or two species is done within or outside the Eucharistic celebration.
There is clarity on the dimensions of the validity and the liceity of the sacraments. Regarding the Eucharist, the mass is valid and licit if it is celebrated by a validly ordained priest in communion with the Church and if he observes with absolute fidelity the rites established by the Church and published in the approved liturgical books. There is also clarity on the validity requirements that the bread must be made from wheat and the wine from vine grapes (cf. Canon 924). This means that if one alters the consecration words (form) or the bread and wine (matter), the consecration is invalid.
However, theologians disagree on whether consecrating only one element invalidates the sacrament. Thomas Aquinas argues for validity. In his Summa, he said: “For the truth of this phrase, “This is My body,” wherein the verb is in the present tense, it is required for the thing signified to be present simultaneously in time with the signification of the expression used; otherwise, if the thing signified had to be awaited for afterwards, a verb of the future tense would be employed, and not one of the present tense, so that we should not say, “This is My body,” but “This will be My body.” Hence it must be said that the first form does not await the second in its action, but has its effect on the instant.”
From a canonical point of view, the discrepancy is because the law does not say that doing so is invalid. Canon 10 says: “Only those laws are to be considered invalidating or incapacitating which expressly prescribe that an act is null or that a person is incapable.” Hence, since the law does not expressly say that doing so invalidates the act, one cannot apply it to such a case. Unfortunately, the revision of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which led to the 1983 Code, did not resolve this discrepancy about the validity of consecrating one element only.
Moreover, although a sacrilegious purpose is necessary to ascertain the delict, the Church strongly forbids consecrating one or the two elements outside the Eucharistic celebration. Canon 927 states: “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.” Doing this shows a blasphemous intent from the priest (cf. CCC. 2148). This prohibition also extends to consecrating one element within the Eucharistic celebration. The prohibition stems from Jesus’ establishment of the Eucharist at the Last Supper using the two elements. Hence, the theological roots of this law stem from divine law.
Therefore, to guarantee the continuous integrity of the sacraments in having both elements consecrated, the then Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments in the “General Instruction on the Roman Missal” states: “If the priest notices after the consecration or as he receives Communion that not wine but only water was poured into the chalice, he pours the water into some container, then pours wine with water into the chalice and consecrates it. He says only the part of the institution narrative related to the consecration of the chalice, without being obliged to consecrate the bread again” (n. 324). This is the only situation for which the law provides. However, it does not accommodate consecrating only one element but repairing an error. The reason is that the priest did not intend to consecrate only one element but the two.
A pastoral issue is a priest who, discovering during communion that consecrated bread will not be sufficient, decides to consecrate more bread within the same Eucharistic celebration. First, the delict studied is absent since the consecration has no sacrilegious purpose. Yet, this does not mean it is permitted; instead, it requires a reproof.
Canon 838 states: “§1 The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop. §2 It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.”
Therefore, no priest has the right to reorder the sacred liturgy. The flow of the mass is that after consecration, there is the distribution of Holy Communion. The liturgy does not accommodate for consecration – communion – consecration. Hence, while the host consecrated is valid, it is illicit and an abuse of the liturgy.
Acceptable practice is to break the consecrated hosts into smaller pieces. The priest can also distribute the wine if he has not consumed it. Against the argument that the faithful ought to receive the body of Christ, the Church emphasises due diligence for priests. Although the number of people can suddenly be more than expected, due diligence from the priest before mass and even before consecration itself prevents such situations because it is highly unlikely that the number of extra people will be so much that breaking the bread will not be sufficient to accommodate all of them.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
