Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Consecration = valid Mass?  (Read 2211 times)

0 Members and 75 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline HeidtXtreme

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • Reputation: +40/-41
  • Gender: Male
Consecration = valid Mass?
« on: Yesterday at 04:04:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I’ve seen various opinions on this topic, from theologians, priests, and people I know. I’m not sure which one is true. If a priest has the correct intention and matter, and pronounces the words of Consecration over the bread and wine, does that suffice for a valid Mass, even if it would be an illicit Mass? Or is that simply a valid Consecration? Is it possible to separate the Consecration from the Mass (I.E. have just a valid Consecration of the Eucharist without having a valid Mass)?
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12916
    • Reputation: +8177/-2533
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #1 on: Yesterday at 04:07:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The mass is more than just the consecration.  Canon Law lays out multiple “what ifs” for if a priest dies right after the consecration.  The mass is not complete.  
    Logged

    Offline HeidtXtreme

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 90
    • Reputation: +40/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #2 on: Yesterday at 04:14:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on Yesterday at 04:07:49 PM
    The mass is more than just the consecration.  Canon Law lays out multiple “what ifs” for if a priest dies right after the consecration.  The mass is not complete. 
    But would the Eucharist be valid in such an instance. Basically my question is: Is it possible to just pronounce the words of Consecration over the bread and wine, with the proper intention, and get the Eucharist? Whether it’s in the context of an incomplete Mass or not.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12916
    • Reputation: +8177/-2533
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #3 on: Yesterday at 06:09:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: HeidtXtreme on Yesterday at 04:14:05 PM
    But would the Eucharist be valid in such an instance. Basically my question is: Is it possible to just pronounce the words of Consecration over the bread and wine, with the proper intention, and get the Eucharist? Whether it’s in the context of an incomplete Mass or not.
    That's a complex question:
    a)  If a priest simply went into a grocery store and pronounced the words of consecration, yes, it would be valid.  But GRAVELY sinful and illicit.
    b)  Anyone who received the eucharist from such an action, would also be guilty of this sin.

    The eucharist is only supposed to be offered/consecrated in a Mass, because the eucharist's PRIMARY purpose is FOR GOD THE FATHER, and to fulfill the 4 primary purposes of prayer:  A-C-T-S
    A - Adoration of God
    C - Contrition for sin
    T - Thanksgiving
    S - Supplication/asking for our needs

    The eucharist is the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary.  It is God (Christ, through the priest) offering God (Christ Himself) to God (the Father).  That's the main purpose of the eucharist and Mass.  The two go hand-in-hand.

    The SECONDARY purpose of Mass is for the faithful, as a sacrament.  To help us gain heaven.

    But the primary purpose of Mass/eucharist is to adore God, and fulfill our OBLIGATION of prayer.

    That's why the new mass is so evil...because the devil is attacking God directly, by cutting off the worship which is due to God alone, and replacing it was blasphemy and mockery.

    If a priest were to just do a consecration outside of mass, then He is sacrificing Christ for unholy reasons, because...the Mass's intentions, offertory, canon prayers is what makes the sacrifice of Calvary holy and pleasing to God.  Take away the holiness of the mass, then you just have Calvary's suffering for no purpose.  And that is illicit (illegal) but also very immoral, because it blasphemes Christ's true act of sacrifice.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15002
    • Reputation: +6218/-918
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #4 on: Today at 05:23:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: HeidtXtreme on Yesterday at 04:04:03 PM
    I’ve seen various opinions on this topic, from theologians, priests, and people I know. I’m not sure which one is true. If a priest has the correct intention and matter, and pronounces the words of Consecration over the bread and wine, does that suffice for a valid Mass, even if it would be an illicit Mass? Or is that simply a valid Consecration? Is it possible to separate the Consecration from the Mass (I.E. have just a valid Consecration of the Eucharist without having a valid Mass)?
    In an interview, Fr. Wathen spells it out the clearest I've ever seen.....

    "....Question: As far as there are three main parts of the Mass, am I right? There’s the liceity, the morality and the validity. Would you explain each of these and give a little explanation of each of these in their different areas.

    Fr. Wathen: When you use the word liceity you’re referring to the question of whether the new mass is legal.
    When you speak of validity, you are discussing whether the consecration of the mass is valid and true, whether there is truly transubstantiation.

    When you discuss the matter of morality, you are questioning whether it’s a sin either to offer the new mass or to attend it.

    I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it...."
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1360
    • Reputation: +613/-115
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #5 on: Today at 10:19:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: HeidtXtreme on Yesterday at 04:14:05 PM
    But would the Eucharist be valid in such an instance. Basically my question is: Is it possible to just pronounce the words of Consecration over the bread and wine, with the proper intention, and get the Eucharist? Whether it’s in the context of an incomplete Mass or not.

    The answer to your question is straightforward. Yes, it is possible for a priest to pronounce the words of Consecration, inside or outside of Mass, and actually consecrate the Sacrament.  Here is the Canon Law prohibiting that very thing (note the verb "consecrate" not "attempt to consecrate" is used):

    Canon 817 (1983 CIC 927)

    It is nefarious, even if urged by extreme necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other, or even both outside of the celebration of Mass.

    https://cdn.restorethe54.com/media/pdf/1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf


    Furthermore, the instruction De defectibus explains all of the ways in which a Mass can be illicit or valid. It is included in every traditional Roman Missal since Pius V.

    http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/St_Pius_V/De_Defectibus.html
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12916
    • Reputation: +8177/-2533
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #6 on: Today at 10:25:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Yes.  But to reiterate to the OP...
    1) Valid does not mean holy.
    2) Valid does not mean pleasing to God.
    3) Valid does not mean providing grace.

    A holy, pleasing and grace-filled mass must be valid, and licit, and moral.
    Logged

    Offline HeidtXtreme

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 90
    • Reputation: +40/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #7 on: Today at 01:34:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on Today at 10:19:30 AM
    The answer to your question is straightforward. Yes, it is possible for a priest to pronounce the words of Consecration, inside or outside of Mass, and actually consecrate the Sacrament.  Here is the Canon Law prohibiting that very thing (note the verb "consecrate" not "attempt to consecrate" is used):

    Canon 817 (1983 CIC 927)

    It is nefarious, even if urged by extreme necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other, or even both outside of the celebration of Mass.

    https://cdn.restorethe54.com/media/pdf/1917-code-of-canon-law-english.pdf


    Furthermore, the instruction De defectibus explains all of the ways in which a Mass can be illicit or valid. It is included in every traditional Roman Missal since Pius V.

    http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/St_Pius_V/De_Defectibus.html
    This makes sense, thank you.
    Logged

    Offline HeidtXtreme

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 90
    • Reputation: +40/-41
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #8 on: Today at 01:34:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 10:25:06 AM
    Yes.  But to reiterate to the OP...
    1) Valid does not mean holy.
    2) Valid does not mean pleasing to God.
    3) Valid does not mean providing grace.

    A holy, pleasing and grace-filled mass must be valid, and licit, and moral.
    This is very true.
    Logged

    Offline Giovanni Berto

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1447
    • Reputation: +1168/-88
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #9 on: Today at 02:47:33 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • The mass is essentially a sacrifice. It gets more interesting if we ask: even if (big if) the Novus Ordo has a valid Eucharist, is it a sacrifice? I would guess not.

    As I understand it, a valid Eucharist doesn't necessarily mean that the mass, the sacrifice, is valid.
    Logged

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5130
    • Reputation: +2007/-248
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #10 on: Today at 02:51:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Angelus on Today at 10:19:30 AM
    The answer to your question is straightforward. Yes, it is possible for a priest to pronounce the words of Consecration, inside or outside of Mass, and actually consecrate the Sacrament.  Here is the Canon Law prohibiting that very thing (note the verb "consecrate" not "attempt to consecrate" is used):

    Canon 817 (1983 CIC 927)

    It is nefarious, even if urged by extreme necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other, or even both outside of the celebration of Mass.

    I have wondered if it is more a case of "we just don't know".  I've heard the hoary old story (probably apocryphal, may not have happened, hope not) of an apostate priest who went into a bakery, pronounced the words of consecration, and consecrated every loaf of bread in the place (assuming it was valid matter in the first place, a lot of it wouldn't be, material addition of things such as sugar, milk, in some cases nuts and spices, and so on, or made out of rye flour or other things that are not wheat).  

    I have to wonder if such an attempted consecration would be valid outside of the Eucharistic sacrifice.  Whether it would be the pars tutior to assume it is valid, or that it is not valid, is something that could be debated either way.  That may be one reason the Church uses the term nefas est, which I have heard loosely translated as "don't even think of doing that!".
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12916
    • Reputation: +8177/-2533
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #11 on: Today at 03:01:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Giovanni Berto on Today at 02:47:33 PM
    The mass is essentially a sacrifice. It gets more interesting if we ask: even if (big if) the Novus Ordo has a valid Eucharist, is it a sacrifice? I would guess not.

    As I understand it, a valid Eucharist doesn't necessarily mean that the mass, the sacrifice, is valid.
    Bingo.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47500
    • Reputation: +28113/-5250
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #12 on: Today at 03:06:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SimpleMan on Today at 02:51:00 PM
    I have wondered if it is more a case of "we just don't know".  I've heard the hoary old story (probably apocryphal, may not have happened, hope not) of an apostate priest who went into a bakery, pronounced the words of consecration, and consecrated every loaf of bread in the place (assuming it was valid matter in the first place, a lot of it wouldn't be, material addition of things such as sugar, milk, in some cases nuts and spices, and so on, or made out of rye flour or other things that are not wheat). 

    I have to wonder if such an attempted consecration would be valid outside of the Eucharistic sacrifice.  Whether it would be the pars tutior to assume it is valid, or that it is not valid, is something that could be debated either way.  That may be one reason the Church uses the term nefas est, which I have heard loosely translated as "don't even think of doing that!".

    Yes, that's a famous, or, rather, infamous example among the casuists ... and I doubt anything even remotely like this ever happened.  Assuming he wasn't insane, and this was a human act ...

    this would be invalid, not simply an invalid Mass, but an invalid consecration, meaning no Blessed Sacrament ... quite simply because he wasn't intending to DO what the Church does.  Church intends for there to be a Rite celebrated in a solemn manner.  Nobody would confuse this activity with something the Church intends to DO.  It's like if you were to see an actor in a play performing the ritual that normally accompanies the Sacrament of Baptism.  Due to the context, they're clearly not intending to do what the Church does, but are intending to ... put on a play.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47500
    • Reputation: +28113/-5250
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #13 on: Today at 03:11:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Giovanni Berto on Today at 02:47:33 PM
    The mass is essentially a sacrifice. It gets more interesting if we ask: even if (big if) the Novus Ordo has a valid Eucharist, is it a sacrifice? I would guess not.

    As I understand it, a valid Eucharist doesn't necessarily mean that the mass, the sacrifice, is valid.

    Generally speaking, if the Mass is invalid, then so is the consecration.

    Really, the only exception would be where a Mass had been interrupted, such as if the priest became ill, got hurt, or died.  Canon Law demands that such an interrupted Mass be completed by some other priest as soon as possible.  This actually speaks to the +Thuc thread about the Archbishop not participating in a NOM because he didn't receive Holy Communion.  That is not simulation like his slanderers claim .. .as if the notion of "concelebration" had ever been considered by actual Catholic theologians ... but it was, as +Thuc said, because he did not receive Holy Communion, and the Holy Communion of the priest was considered integral to the Mass.  If a priest dropped dead just before receiving Holy Communion, another priest would have to receive the consecrated Blessed Sacrament.  As per usual, to heck with the faithful, since we don't count.  LOL

    But if the Rite as a whole is invalid, that vitiates the consecration as well, so that there would be no Blessed Sacrament.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47500
    • Reputation: +28113/-5250
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Consecration = valid Mass?
    « Reply #14 on: Today at 03:16:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: HeidtXtreme on Yesterday at 04:04:03 PM
    I’ve seen various opinions on this topic, from theologians, priests, and people I know. I’m not sure which one is true. If a priest has the correct intention and matter, and pronounces the words of Consecration over the bread and wine, does that suffice for a valid Mass, even if it would be an illicit Mass? Or is that simply a valid Consecration? Is it possible to separate the Consecration from the Mass (I.E. have just a valid Consecration of the Eucharist without having a valid Mass)?

    Pope Leo XIII explained the principles in Apostolicae Curae where he indicated that if the Rite in use is invalid, due to an invalid intention (lots of detail as to what would invalidate intention), a valid essential form would not suffice to validly confect the Sacrament.  So the words of consecration themselves would not have any effect within the context of an invalid Mass.  That's different than the question of ... what if a priest simply consecrated (did that one small part of the Mass)?  If done out of necessity, say in a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ, while Canon Law would consider that a grave offense, I suspect it would probably be valid.  If done just because a priest was lazy and wanted a 5-minute "Mass" (or at least consecration) ... I would hold that it's likely invalid, since that's not what the intends to do.
    Logged
    Pages: [1] 2
    « previous next »