Case LI: Wine Mixed with Water Consecrated

By oversight the Mass wine had been put into a bottle half filled with water, and the mixture was used for holy Mass by two priests who celebrated at the same time. When the unfortunate mistake was discovered one priest was at holy Communion, and had just consumed the wine mixed with water; the other priest, however, without having noticed the state of facts, had finished holy Mass and returned to the sacristy.

Question: What must these two priests do, in order to comply, to their best ability, with the Divine and ecclesiastical law of the integrity of the holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

1. It is to be remarked, first of all, that the mixture here spoken of, water and wine, is beyond all doubt a wholly invalid materia consecrationis. The opinion of some theologians that the consecrating material may be one-third water and two-thirds wine is rightly restricted only to the case si vinum sit generosum (St. Alph. 1. VI. n. 210), and for security’s sake the rule is made: it is advised ... that the priest, when offering in the chalice, not exceed eight or ten drops of water. Marc. n. 1524.

2. As regards the priest who has partaken of the invalidly consecrated materia, the rubic of the Missal prescribes precisely what he has to do. According to Rubr. Tit. IV. de defectu vini n. 5, he must, if possible, cause both substances to be brought, host and pure wine, then mentaliter offer and consecrate both (incipiendo “qui pridie,” etc.), and finally consume both and conclude holy Mass. In this case the holy Sacrifice is complete and the obligation of the stipend is complied with. (A complete exposition of this rubic is found in the splendid work of Benedict XIV., De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio, lib. III. cap. XV.)

3. If, on account of a much smaller quantity of water, the materia may be considered as doubtful, then both substances must nevertheless be duplicated, but consecrated only conditionally: sub conditione; si prior materia non fuerit consecrata (according to St. Alphonsus I. VI. n. 206, but opposed by the opinion of other theologians), in order that, in case the former consecration was valid, there is not committed an iteratio Missae, or a sacrificium truncatum.

4. For the other priest, who before discovery had already returned to the sacristy, the rubric contains no instruction, and most authorities who speak the defectu vini, leave him without counsel. He remembers in his perplexity the very probable opinion of theologians that the priest, after his return to the sacristy, if he has not taken off the sacred vestments, may consume any fragments of the Sacred Host consecrated at the just concluded sacrifice. (St. Alph. 1. VI. n. 251) and the precept that, if the celebrating priest, after the consecration of one species should faint or die, the holy Sacrifice should even after interruption of about an hour be continued and finished by consecration of the second species (St. Alph. 1. VI. n. 355). He concludes, therefore, that in his case the act of sacrifice was not concluded so absolutely that he might not return at once to the altar, and by consecration of proper species validate the sacrifice, provided it can be done without giving scandal to the people.

This reasoning, however, is incorrect. Cardinal Gousset states: The priest who becomes aware of the essential faultiness of the sacramental materia after he has left the altar, must not return to the same in order to repeat the consecration (II. vol. n. 175). Scavini asserts the same (lib. III. n. 177): If a priest, having already returned to the sacristy, learns that he consecrated water instead of wine, he ought no longer to supply the defect, because the Mass has already been completed. Indeed, they say that if the priest learned of the defect after the final blessing, nothing is to be supplied; otherwise it would appear more a repetition of the Mass than a repair of the defect. Thus the ancient Roman Missal printed at Venice in 1557.

The priest in our case has therefore communicated validly, but the Mass, on account of the one invalid materia, was invalid as a sacrifice, juxta séententiam communiorem et probabiliorum (St. Alph. 1. V. n. 306), whence results for him the obligation of offering another valid holy Mass for the stipend received for this particular Mass.

John Schwienbacher, C.SS.R.