what invalidates a Mass

[MarysLittleFlower]

There seem to be two views... 

1) the formula alone invalidates the Mass. The priest can have a wrong intent but the Consecration still happens if he uses the right formula 

2) the formula needs to be correct but also the priest needs to intend to do what the Church does

I know sins of the priest don't invalidate it. Or even perhaps doubts. But I was always told its the second option and that the Anglicans lost their Sacraments in this way - they no longer intended what the Church intends.

Is there are source that definitively answers the question? Thanks

Phuture Priest, we can maybe move that discussion here to keep the other thread on topic I see there are two views so maybe there's a document or catechism that clarifies which view it is. 

Edited December 25, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Nihil Obstat]

36 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

There seem to be two views... 

1) the formula alone invalidates the Mass. The priest can have a wrong intent but the Consecration still happens if he uses the right formula 

2) the formula needs to be correct but also the priest needs to intend to do what the Church does

I know sins of the priest don't invalidate it. Or even perhaps doubts. But I was always told its the second option and that the Anglicans lost their Sacraments in this way - they no longer intended what the Church intends.

Is there are source that definitively answers the question? Thanks

Phuture Priest, we can maybe move that discussion here to keep the other thread on topic I see there are two views so maybe there's a document or catechism that clarifies which view it is. 

The validity of all sacraments require proper form, proper matter, and proper intent. A defect in one invalidates the entire thing. For the Eucharist, form is the words of consecration, matter is the bread and wine, and intent is the intent "to do as the Church does."

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. This intention need not necessarily be of the sort called actual. That would often be practically impossible. It is enough that it be virtual. Neither habitual nor interpretative intention in the minister will suffice for the validity of the sacrament. The truth is that here and now, when the sacrament is being conferred, neither of these intentions exists, and they can therefore exercise no determining influence upon what is done. To administer the sacraments with a conditional intention, which makes their effect contingent upon a future event, is to confer them invalidly. This holds good for all the sacraments except matrimony, which, being a contract, is susceptible of such a limitation.

As to the recipients of the sacraments, it is certain that no intention is required in children who have not yet reached the age of reason, or in imbeciles, for the validity of those sacraments which they are capable of receiving. In the case of adults, on the other hand, some intention is indispensable if the sacrament is not to be invalid. The reason is that our justification is not brought about without our co-operation, and that includes the rational will to profit by the means of sanctification. How much of an intention is enough is not always quite clear. In general, more in the way of intention will be demanded in proportion as the acts of the receiver seem to enter into the making of the sacrament. So for penance and matrimony under ordinary conditions a virtual intention would appear to be required; for the other sacraments an habitual intention is sufficient. For an unconscious person in danger of death the habitual intention may be implicit and still suffice for the validity of the sacraments that are then necessary or highly useful; that is, it may be contained in the more general purpose which a man has at some time during his life, and which he has never retracted, of availing himself of these means of salvation at so supreme a moment. For the gaining of indulgences the most that can probably be exacted is an habitual intention.

[PhuturePriest]

21 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

The validity of all sacraments require proper form, proper matter, and proper intent. A defect in one invalidates the entire thing. For the Eucharist, form is the words of consecration, matter is the bread and wine, and intent is the intent "to do as the Church does."

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. This intention need not necessarily be of the sort called actual. That would often be practically impossible. It is enough that it be virtual. Neither habitual nor interpretative intention in the minister will suffice for the validity of the sacrament. The truth is that here and now, when the sacrament is being conferred, neither of these intentions exists, and they can therefore exercise no determining influence upon what is done. To administer the sacraments with a conditional intention, which makes their effect contingent upon a future event, is to confer them invalidly. This holds good for all the sacraments except matrimony, which, being a contract, is susceptible of such a limitation.

As to the recipients of the sacraments, it is certain that no intention is required in children who have not yet reached the age of reason, or in imbeciles, for the validity of those sacraments which they are capable of receiving. In the case of adults, on the other hand, some intention is indispensable if the sacrament is not to be invalid. The reason is that our justification is not brought about without our co-operation, and that includes the rational will to profit by the means of sanctification. How much of an intention is enough is not always quite clear. In general, more in the way of intention will be demanded in proportion as the acts of the receiver seem to enter into the making of the sacrament. So for penance and matrimony under ordinary conditions a virtual intention would appear to be required; for the other sacraments an habitual intention is sufficient. For an unconscious person in danger of death the habitual intention may be implicit and still suffice for the validity of the sacraments that are then necessary or highly useful; that is, it may be contained in the more general purpose which a man has at some time during his life, and which he has never retracted, of availing himself of these means of salvation at so supreme a moment. For the gaining of indulgences the most that can probably be exacted is an habitual intention.

So, say a priest is celebrating Mass, but has decided consubstantiation is where it's at. He says the formula exactly as the Church demands and doesn't change any words or actions, but in his heart he doesn't believe in the Eucharist. What would this result in?

Or say also that a priest has decided something a penitent has confessed is not mortal, even though it is. Is his absolution valid, even if he doesn't intend to absolve the penitent of that mortal sin?

[Nihil Obstat]

The absolution is valid as long as the priest intended to absolve, full stop. Immaterial whether he considers the sins mortal or not. The other situation is tricky, and probably depends on how the heretical priest understands "what the Church does". If he believes and intends himself to do what the Church does, even if his idea of what the Church does is silly and heretical, it is probably still valid. But I would lean towards validity being doubtful precisely the way you described it.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Thank you! That's the kind of source I was looking for... So I guess the idea that was rejected is that the priest being in sin would still consecrate the Eucharist validly (though he should not be in sin and that would be serious). But the intent to do as the Church does, that is necessary. I think most priests today do intend that? Unless they believe some Protestant idea but that can't be common I think ?

[Gladius]

2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

The absolution is valid as long as the priest intended to absolve, full stop. Immaterial whether he considers the sins mortal or not. The other situation is tricky, and probably depends on how the heretical priest understands "what the Church does". If he believes and intends himself to do what the Church does, even if his idea of what the Church does is silly and heretical, it is probably still valid. But I would lean towards validity being doubtful precisely the way you described it.

What happens when a priest explains away your sins as not being sins?

1 hour ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Thank you! That's the kind of source I was looking for... So I guess the idea that was rejected is that the priest being in sin would still consecrate the Eucharist validly (though he should not be in sin and that would be serious). But the intent to do as the Church does, that is necessary. I think most priests today do intend that? Unless they believe some Protestant idea but that can't be common I think ?

If your window is dirty, the sunlight shining through it is not affected.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Gladius

[Nihil Obstat]

8 minutes ago, Gladius said:

What happens when a priest explains away your sins as not being sins?

If your window is dirty, the sunlight shining through it is not affected.

I am not sure that should affect the intent, speaking very strictly. As long as he intends to absolve at all.

[Gladius]

5 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I am not sure that should affect the intent, speaking very strictly. As long as he intends to absolve at all.

Sounds too iffy for me.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Gladius

[MarysLittleFlower]

Well the priest acts as a judge so we should give him an accurate understanding of the sins. But if after we have done this, the priest decides they are venial or not sins, then either he's right (as in the case of scruples, its important to trust the confessor) or even if there's a mistake, I guess he still intends to absolve? Its a good question... I don't know for sure... But the absolution seems to work in an all or nothing way. If you are contrite and honest, the things you forget are forgiven to, though the priest can't know if they are mortal or venial. So maybe if you are properly disposed, and the priest says the formula intending to absolve, absolutely everything gets absolved - including sins you forgot, those you described badly just from anxiety, etc. I don't know how much understanding the priest needs to have. Its up to the penitent to give him sufficient matter to absolve. But I think absolute perfection isn't the goal, just being sorry and saying everything you remember, and the formula/intent from the priest. Maybe in some manual it answers the question of what happens if there's a mistake regarding the nature of the sin.. Or even existence of the sin. But I think its best not to complicate it too much because we often make mistakes or forget things in Confession (at least I do) and we shouldn't be overcome by doubts and fears 

[Nihil Obstat]

24 minutes ago, Gladius said:

Sounds too iffy for me.

I am having a tough time thinking of a situation where a priest could say the words "I absolve you" and not intend to absolve the penitent's sins. At least, not by accident. He would, I think, have to actually be intending deception.

[Gladius]

2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I am having a tough time thinking of a situation where a priest could say the words "I absolve you" and not intend to absolve the penitent's sins. At least, not by accident. He would, I think, have to actually be intending deception.

I agree with the point you make.  I was thinking more of a priest who might explain away a certain sin or sins and persuade the penitent not to confess them at all.  That would make the absolution he gave, more like a general absolution.  I would consider that highly questionable.

(Cut and paste below.)

Following the mandate of Vatican Council II, Pope Paul VI promulgated the Decree on the Rite of Penance (1973) which affirmed, "Individual, integral confession and absolution remain the only ordinary way for the faithful to reconcile themselves with God and the Church, unless physical or moral impossibility excuses from this kind of confession." (This norm was reiterated m the Code of Canon Law, No. 960 and the Catechism, No. 1420ff). Therefore. the Church upholds the traditional practice of the penitent examining his conscience, repenting of sin and feeling sincere contrition for those sins, having the firm amendment not to commit those sins again, confessing those sins to a priest privately and receiving absolution, and then performing the appropriate penance. This spiritual regimen is essential for the pursuit of holiness.

[Ash Wednesday]

Let me make this clear: criticism of the Novus Ordo mass is NOT allowed on this phorum. 

Please see the phorum guidelines on catholic vs. catholic bickering.

[chrysostom]

I think this calls for Fr Hunwicke:  

"Catholic teaching, since the anti-Donatist controversy, has been firmly on the side of believing that it is very difficult for a minister to invalidate a sacrament by his own sin or stupidity or schism or even heresy or total unbelief ... as long as he Does the Red and Says the Black with at least a habitual intention of Doing Stuff (and not, for example, of performing a didactic demonstration or a blasphemous parody). And all this is ultimately based upon a very simple truth: the Sacraments are not ours, but the Sacraments of the Lord Christ."

And Fr Adrian Fortescue:

"People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament (the point applies equally to minister and subject). The 'implicit intention  of doing what Christ instituted' means so small and vague a thing that one can hardly help having it ... numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is (this was the error of St Cyprian and Firmalian against which Pope Stephen I, a.d. 254-7, protested). A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament, and yet confer it or receive it validly."

And St. Robert Bellarmine:

"There is no need to intend what the Roman Church does; but what the true Church does, whatever that True Church is. Or what Christ instituted. Or what Christians do. Because these all amount to the same thing. You ask: What if someone intends to do what some particular and false church does, which he himself believes to be the true one - for example, the church of Geneva; and intends not to do what the Roman Church does? I answer, even that suffices. Because the man who intends to do what the church of Geneva does, intends to do what the universal Church does. For he intends to do what such-and-such a church does, because he believes it to be a member of the true Universal Church, granted that he is mistaken in recognising the True Church. For the error of the minister about the Church does not take away the efficacy of the Sacrament. Only defect of intention does that."

Edited December 26, 2015 by chrysostom

[MarysLittleFlower]

16 hours ago, chrysostom said:

I think this calls for Fr Hunwicke:  

"Catholic teaching, since the anti-Donatist controversy, has been firmly on the side of believing that it is very difficult for a minister to invalidate a sacrament by his own sin or stupidity or schism or even heresy or total unbelief ... as long as he Does the Red and Says the Black with at least a habitual intention of Doing Stuff (and not, for example, of performing a didactic demonstration or a blasphemous parody). And all this is ultimately based upon a very simple truth: the Sacraments are not ours, but the Sacraments of the Lord Christ."

And Fr Adrian Fortescue:

"People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament (the point applies equally to minister and subject). The 'implicit intention  of doing what Christ instituted' means so small and vague a thing that one can hardly help having it ... numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is (this was the error of St Cyprian and Firmalian against which Pope Stephen I, a.d. 254-7, protested). A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament, and yet confer it or receive it validly."

And St. Robert Bellarmine:

"There is no need to intend what the Roman Church does; but what the true Church does, whatever that True Church is. Or what Christ instituted. Or what Christians do. Because these all amount to the same thing. You ask: What if someone intends to do what some particular and false church does, which he himself believes to be the true one - for example, the church of Geneva; and intends not to do what the Roman Church does? I answer, even that suffices. Because the man who intends to do what the church of Geneva does, intends to do what the universal Church does. For he intends to do what such-and-such a church does, because he believes it to be a member of the true Universal Church, granted that he is mistaken in recognising the True Church. For the error of the minister about the Church does not take away the efficacy of the Sacrament. Only defect of intention does that."

Do you think that the Anglicans lost the Sacrament because they no longer intended to do what the Church does, since they separated from it? That seems to be the reason I was told before .. They lost the priesthood too

[chrysostom]

1 hour ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Do you think that the Anglicans lost the Sacrament because they no longer intended to do what the Church does, since they separated from it? That seems to be the reason I was told before .. They lost the priesthood too

I am by no means an authority on the matter of Anglican Orders (or the lack thereof), which can get a little complicated - just consult the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the subject.  Intention is discussed there a little bit, but the main issue spoken of was a defect of form, I believe.  A proper intention - easy as it is for anyone to have one - will do no good without the proper matter and form.  

Edited December 27, 2015 by chrysostom