No Consecration of the Bread - valid?

Today at mass (Latin Rite Ordinary Form) The priest said the words of Consecration over the wine only not the hosts. Is this valid? Is the whole mass invalid and do I need to attend another mass?

It is not your fault that the priest messed up, and I am sure it was not on purpose. It is all about the intention of the priest. If he means to consecrate both species I believe it’s valid. The only thing I am not sure about is him not saying the words. But a lot of priests do masses in other languages they do not understand and consecrate the host because they have the intention.

You have fulfilled your Sunday obligation, just because you went to Mass and potentially didn’t receive a consecrated host, you still went to Mass. You do not need to go to another Mass. I wouldn’t worry about it so much.

No, it is not a valid Mass or consecration. Both the bread and wine must be consecrated, and that separately, as Jesus did at the Last Supper. Jesus sacrificed both his body and blood on the cross at Calvary. The matter of the sacrament and sacrifice of the eucharist includes both bread and wine and the form of the sacrament includes the words of Jesus, ‘This is my body…’ and ‘This is the chalice of my blood…’

In my opinion, I don’t think God would hold it against you if you don’t attend another Mass today. You went to Mass to fulfill the Sunday obligation and the third commandment. It is not your fault that the priest said an invalid Mass. If the priest did this all the time, I would not go to his Masses and the bishop of the diocese should be notified or the pastor of the parish if the priest is not the pastor.

If this sort of thing happens, the priest is supposed to correct things by saying the words of Consecration over the bread, in a whisper.

Such corrections are to be done very discreetly, so that no one notices. Therefore, if it was done, you would not know it was done. No one would know except the priest himself.

For now, all you can do is to trust that the priest noticed it, and that he took the necessary action.

If this seems to be an indication of something more problematic, such as a pattern, or the priest is elderly to the point that it might be a problem (forgetting other things in other contexts, for example) then someone needs to politely and discreetly discuss this with him.

As far as your own obligation is concerned, you fulfilled that by attending the Mass. If something was missing (and remained missing) that has no effect on the fact that you fulfilled your own obligation.

I wonder: how can you be so certain as to make that statement? Do you know with certainty that this particular priest did not notice what happened and did not consecrate the bread quietly?

If so, how do you know?

Thank you for your input, Father!


Thank you Fr. David. This is the thorough and complete explanation of this type of occurrence that I was hoping for with all of the considerations.

Two years ago, while our priest was on vacation, we had a retired priest as a substitute priest for our parish. He was elderly, he has since passed away. He was apparently more in dementia than anyone thought at the time.

When he celebrated mass at our parish, he skipped the consecration entirely. Like went from somewhere in the preface directly to the Our Father. Don’t know if he turned too many pages, got lost, had a dementia moment, or what.

I was out of town, but my husband was in attendance. He said it was one of those moments where you are sort of saying to yourself, “did what I think happened really just happen?” He said the priest proceeded to distribute communion (we are a small parish and often have only one or no extraordinary ministers). He commingled the hosts from the altar with the hosts in the tabernacle afterwards as he reposed the blessed sacrament.

My husband contacted the dean of our deanery, the pastor at a nearby parish, and brought the entire ciborium to him for a daily mass to place on the altar and have the intention of consecrating any hosts that are not consecrated.

The dean told my husband he should have gone up to the priest, halted the mass and told the priest he skipped the consecration. That’s easy for the dean to say-- sort of bold for someone to just walk up onto the altar and halt things.

In the moment it’s sort of one of those deer in the head light moments, like “did my mind wander and I just missed the consecration or did he really not do it?”-- and my husband said he just didn’t know what to do. And no one else did either.

I say this though, because as Fr David points out in your scenario, the pastor could have quietly consecrated the hosts (whereas in our scenario it was quite evident no consecration took place at all). But, if he didn’t-- then they might have been commingled with consecrated hosts in the tabernacle after repose, unless all were consumed.

Might it be worth it to ask the priest? So if he truly missed the consecration without realizing it, he has the opportunity to take the entire ciborium from the tabernacle and place it on the altar at the next mass so he can consecrate the hosts that aren’t consecrated.

I don’t know, I guess that’s a judgment call.

In our case, the dean did just that-- placed our ciborium with his at the next daily mass he offered so that our problem was resolved.

Any priests want to weigh in on following up with the priest who said the mass?

Just an observation,

When Ignatius posted*
“Today at mass (Latin Rite Ordinary Form) The priest said the words of Consecration over the wine only not the hosts. Is this valid? Is the whole mass invalid and do I need to attend another mass?*”

The question is,
was something left out to cause his concern?

For example:

Blessed are you, Lord,
God of all creation.
Through your goodness we have
this bread to offer,
which earth has given and
human hands have made.
It will become for us
the bread of life. **

People:** Blessed be God for ever.

The priest lifts up the chalice, or cup, of wine and prays:
Priest: Blessed are you, Lord,
God of all creation.
Through your goodness we have
this wine to offer,
fruit of the vine and work
of human hands.
It will become our spiritual drink. **

People:** Blessed be God for ever.

[LEFT]Just thinking out loud,

*]could it be the lack of the priest’s response for one of these parts, because that part was missing, that caused concern for Ignatius?
*] both actions by the priest elicit a response from the people. If the priest was silent on one of them, and therefore no response from the people was given, I can see why Ignatius asks the question

Oy! You have no idea when the consecration takes place. These are NOT the Words of Institution. They are not even the epiclesis from an Easter Orthodox standpoint.

it was an example.

to go from

we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and
human hands have made. It will become for us
the bread of life.**


we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work
of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.


“Take this all of you and eat… “Take this all of you and drink, …"

Ignatius didn’t say exactly what words were missing regarding the bread, that got him concerned.

It happened once in our parish that the priest forgot to consecrate both species, just skipped over that part of the Eucharistic Prayer. Our choir director, a religious sister, went up to the altar and told the priest his about the error. He went back and consecrated the bread and wine.

Hey, things happen and they can be corrected - one way or another. Let us pray for our priests.

Of course he said exactly what words were missing…

Ignatius said: The priest said the words of Consecration over the wine only not the hosts

The “words of consecration” relative to the Eucharist means precisely the words of the institution narrative. The term is specific and it is precise.

The offertory prayer and the consecration are different prayers. What you quoted was the offertory prayer which …your point is obscure or obtuse.

Mangling, leaving out or otherwise messing with the offertory prayer is a matter of liceity…mangling, leaving out or otherwise messing with the Words of Institution raises concerns of validity…(Which I will add, Fr. D nicely explained)

They are different parts of the Mass with different import.

Ignatius was clearly referencing the consecration not a preparatory prayer.

what I gave was the beginning of the Eucharist liturgy. I know it’s different than the consecration. The elements are both distinguished at that point, and it is revealed what THEY will become, as they aren’t changed…yet

Point being,

If the 2 species were identified separately, and offered separately, in the offertory, then how does one know they weren’t both consecrated, which is Fr D’s point #5

What you quoted is not part of the Eucharistic Prayer …What you quoted is part of the Offertory. Look it up.

It has zip to do with the question or Fr,'s response which properly dealt with the Words of Institution. You need to brush up on the Mass and its parts.


The offertory has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The OP said specifically that the priest (apparently) omitted the Consecration of the bread.

We don’t know exactly what happened. What we do know is what the OP posted: that the Consecration itself (of the bread) did not occur at the proper time. What remains unknown is whether or not the priest recognized his mistake and made the appropriate (and necessary) adjustment, which is to pray the words of Consecration over the bread. A priest is required to do that, but not aloud, so at this point, only the priest himself knows whether or not he did so.

You keep posting about the offertory prayers. Again, these have nothing to do with the topic. The offertory is not the Consecration—those are 2 distinct (though obviously connected) parts of the Mass.

The NORM is of course to Consecrate New Host with every Mass, however that is not a point of a valid or non-valid Mass, so long as there were sufficient Consecrated Host for Holy Communion by the attendants

Sometimes there are an abundance of pre-other wise] Consecrated Host, which DO need to use distributed first. This is unusual, but not a new thing.

So the Mass was Valid:thumbsup:

God Bless you.

No - that is exactly wrong. A Mass is valid if the bread and wine are consecrated…you cannot do one without the other. It can be corrected as per Fr D…but the Mass is invalid if there is no consecration and there is no consecrating one species only.

You can have communion if validly consecrated hosts are available…but it ain’t Mass…

So…it may have been a valid Mass as Fr described. It may not have been. We don’t know.

It may have been an invalid Mass with the distribution of pre-Consecrated Hosts…again we don’t know.

Mass without Consecration is INVALID…Mass did not happen. The sine qua non of a valid Mass is the consecration which requires BOTH species (as well as the other usual conditions).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit