Case XXIII: The Words of Consecration

Titius, a priest, somewhat scrupulous by nature, repeats the words of consecration very often in the Mass.^* Once he repeated the words of consecration over the chalice, because he had said "Hoc est enim calix sanguinis mei" instead of "Hie est." Another time he omitted the words "mysterium fidei," and therefore repeated the whole form. Another time he repeated the form of consecration over the chalice because in his haste to get through the Mass he said "sanguis" for "sanguinis." And again another time he paused in the middle of the form of consecration for the chalice until he made an act of contrition, because he feared that he might be in mortal sin. Titius's confessor is at a loss as to what judgment he shall pass on Titius.

^* See the interesting chapter on this mania in Sanford's Pastoral Medicine.

Titius did wrong in all four instances, where he repeated the words of consecration, and he merits reproof.

1. In the first instance Titius should not have repeated the words of consecration over the chalice in order to correct a grammatical mistake. "Hoc est" has identically the same meaning as the rubrical form "Hie est." It is less correct Latinity, but it is synonymous with "Hie est." "Hoc est enim calix" is not a substantial change of the form of consecration, and does not invalidate the form.

2. The omission of the words "mysterium fidei" does not invalidate the form. If all the words beginning with "novi et aeterni" and continuing to the end "peccatorum" were omitted, the form would have to be repeated, because, owing to the opinion of weighty theologians, the form would probably be invalid. But the same can not be said of the omission of one or two words, and some theologians think that the repetition of the words of consecration would be illicit, when only one or two words, like "mysterium fidei" have been omitted (cf. Lehmk., II. 129; Genicot, II. 110).

3- Pronouncing "sanguis" for sanguinis" does not give any new sense to the words of consecration. It is evident that it is only a slip of the tongue, a slight accidental error of pronunciation, and that Titius intended just what the correct grammatical form says.

4. Titius did wrong by repeating the whole form because he had interrupted it momentarily in order to make an act of contrition. Slight interruptions which scrupulous priests make in pronouncing the words of consecration do not constitute a moral interruption.

We would add that in Titius's case it is very probable that the consecration of the chalice was already accomplished when he interrupted the form to make an act of contrition (cf. Genicot n. 176,