Hi Margaret,

If the priest did not say "This is my body" and "This is my blood", it is indeed invalid.

If this is the case this is the gravest of abuses and should be reported to the bishop immediately. You had the right reaction.

As for the hosts, perhaps the ones reserved were also invalidly consecrated. If not, then you would have a mixture of consecrated hosts and unconsecrated ones with no way to tell the difference so you would have to assume all of them were invalidly consecrated.

Do contact the bishop about this promptly.

Eric Ewanco

Margaret,

I think this activity should be reported to the local bishop in writing.

The faithful of that parish are being denied the Eucharistic Sacrifice and Communion.

Hope this helps,

Mary Ann

Hi, Margaret —

I am full agreement with my fellow apologists, Eric and Mary Ann. I would write a letter to the local bishop and give him as much detail as you can remember as to what transpired. Again, it's very important that you remember where and when the priest changed the words. Obviously, you should also report your recollection of what he did with the wine.

When exactly did the priest say,

"This is He who died for us. Let us come together as family and receive him with love in communion."

instead of:

"This is My Body."

or did he say it instead of "Behold the Lamb of God " just before Communion?

The latter is a common abuse which does not invalidate the consecration as long as the priest said "This is My Body" and intended to consecrate the Eucharist according the will of the Church during the consecration.

This would be the case even if the priest lacked faith in the Real Presence. In such a case, we rely on the sufficiency the Church's faith (Ecclesia Suplex). Again, the key points are the words of institution and the intention, not the faith, of the priest.

If, on the other hand, the priest changed or replaced the key words of consecration (This is My Body) or did not intend to consecrate the Eucharist according to the will of the Church, then the Eucharist was not valid.

With respect to the wine, it sounds like it was not consecrated therefore, it remained wine.

Nevertheless, if the bread was indeed consecrated, those receiving it, received the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ under the appearance of bread, however, since the wine was not consecrated, there remains a question as to the sacrificial nature of the celebration.

Try as I might, I am unable to find an answer which addresses this question.

All that said; there is no doubt of two things:

1. The Liturgy was illicit at best and this priest is rubrically challenged.
   (I'm being charitable with that characterization.)
   
   
2. Every single Catholic of whatever Rite has a canonical right to attend a licit Liturgy in accordance with norms of that Liturgical Rite. No priest on his own authority has the right to change the Liturgy.

Below is the applicable Canon Law:

Canon 837 §1. Liturgical actions are not private actions but celebrations of the Church itself which is the sacrament of unity, that is, a holy people gathered and ordered under the bishops. Liturgical actions therefore belong to the whole body of the Church and manifest and affect it; they touch its individual members in different ways, however, according to the diversity of orders, functions, and actual participation.

Canon 846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one's own authority.

2. The minister is to celebrate the sacraments according to the minister's own rite.

Under His Mercy,

John DiMascio