what invalidates a Mass

[PhuturePriest]

I really think we need to define "to intend what the Catholic Church intends" even means. The Church intends to do many things -- save everyone, absolve people of their sins, give people peace, celebrate the Mass anywhere and everywhere, etc. Can you define for me what that phrase means? I think that will make this a lot more helpful.

In the case of the Anglicans, I think what snagged them was their formal rejection of transubstantiation in favor of consubstantiation, and if I'm not mistaken they changed their Eucharistic prayer that made this clear. I'm not an expert, but I think a validly ordained Catholic priest could believe in consubstantiation and still validly consecrate the Host so long as he uses proper form.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I found this...

"The intrinsic reason for which Anglican Ordersare pronounced invalid by the Bull, is the "defect of form and intention". It sets forth that "the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify". Therite used in administering a sacrament must be directed to the meaning of that sacrament; else there would be no reason why the riteused in one sacrament may not effect another. What effects a sacrament is theintention of administering that sacrament, and the rite used according to that intention. TheBull takes note of the fact that in 1662 theform introduced in the Edwardine Ordinal of 1552 had added to it the words: "for the office and work of a priest", etc. But it observes that this rather shows that the Anglicansthemselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since theadoption of the Edwardine Ordinal; and, moreover, as the hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01644a.htm

[CatherineM]

I think about a lot of things during mass, but watching for issues that might invalidate the mass, is absolutely not one of them. 

I find discussions about nit picking apart the sacraments on Phatmass on the same level as state park portable toilets during chilli contests. They are smelly and messy and we should avoid them at all costs. 

Why not focus your attention on what's right with the mass?

[chrysostom]

7 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

I found this...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01644a.htm

So the point with that statement simply seemed to be that the form of Anglican ordination at one point seemed to be defective. I don't see much value in continuing with that discussion.  The form of Catholic ordination, of course, has never been in question, so don't worry about it.

FP, I think the saint quotes on intention completely suffice. "Proper intention" need never be on any Catholic's list of worries. You can firmly trust that it will always there.  The sacraments are Christ's, not ours.  In the Church's motherly embrace we can put our full confidence.

CM, right on.  I guess I should just sign off on this thread now.

[Lilllabettt]

10 hours ago, CatherineM said:

I think about a lot of things during mass, but watching for issues that might invalidate the mass, is absolutely not one of them. 

I find discussions about nit picking apart the sacraments on Phatmass on the same level as state park portable toilets during chilli contests. They are smelly and messy and we should avoid them at all costs. 

Why not focus your attention on what's right with the mass?

Well, good for you if you don't have to be watching for issues. That's one of the benefits of having a regular parish.

I was traveling and attended Mass a couple months ago in a different place, and the priest there changed the words of consecration. I was in such shock I don't even know what he said. But it was definitely not "this is my Body" and "this is my Blood." He used synonyms for those words.

Now, that is a crime. A crime perpetrated on the laity by an elitist cleric who has kept his flock blind and/or ignorant enough that he may continue violating them in this fashion unhindered by anyone "watching for issues." 

Not speaking about phatmass, but in general I think the last 15 years have taught us that the Church needs more lay people "watching for issues" not fewer.

[PhuturePriest]

3 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Well, good for you if you don't have to be watching for issues. That's one of the benefits of having a regular parish.

I was traveling and attended Mass a couple months ago in a different place, and the priest there changed the words of consecration. I was in such shock I don't even know what he said. But it was definitely not "this is my Body" and "this is my Blood." He used synonyms for those words.

Now, that is a crime. A crime perpetrated on the laity by an elitist cleric who has kept his flock blind and/or ignorant enough that he may continue violating them in this fashion unhindered by anyone "watching for issues." 

Not speaking about phatmass, but in general I think the last 15 years have taught us that the Church needs more lay people "watching for issues" not fewer.

That's certainly a major issue and probably invalidated the consecration. But I must ask, did you speak with the priest afterwards and share your concern? Did you contact the local bishop and tell him of this grave offense? I don't ask that to belittle or make you feel bad, but I've never met a person who actively watches for liturgical abuses who actually brings up these issues to the offending party or his superior, and this is my main issue with people who think themselves abuse watchers. 

Human nature is funny in that we automatically find issues, but for whatever reason actually bringing them up to the guilty party is not our automatic response. I say that having the same tendency myself.

There is certainly merit in sharing these things and letting people know they happen so that they can be aware it is a problem at this or that parish. But I do have a problem when people take one parish or diocese and extend it to every Novus Ordo parish or diocese in existence, which is what I've seen many trads do. "I saw a priest change the words of the consecration/perform a liturgical dance/say this heresy in his homily/etc.! It's the fault of the Novus Ordo as a whole!" 

Ignoring the fact that the Tridentine Mass has been notoriously abused throughout its existence (to the point that Saint Robert Bellarmine actually made it a practice to pose as a laymen at masses to watch for liturgical abuses and then go into the sacristy afterwards to point each one out to the offending priest, and there were liturgical abuses going on in it through Vatican II,) one liturgically abusive priest or diocese as a whole does not mean it's the fault of the Novus Ordo. This blanket statement syndrome among many trads boggles my mind.

For the record, I'm aware you're not one of these people. This is just a rant I've needed to get off my chest for a while and you provided the opportunity.

[Lilllabettt]

Just now, PhuturePriest said:

That's certainly a major issue and probably invalidated the consecration. But I must ask, did you speak with the priest afterwards and share your concern? Did you contact the local bishop and tell him of this grave offense? I don't ask that to belittle or make you feel bad, but I've never met a person who actively watches for liturgical abuses who actually brings up these issues to the offending party or his superior, and this is my main issue with people who think themselves abuse watchers. 

Human nature is funny in that we automatically find issues, but for whatever reason actually bringing them up to the guilty party is not our automatic response. I say that having the same tendency myself.

My friend did bring it up with the priest after Mass. Not in an accusatory tone, but as a question, "Hey Father, I noticed you changed the words. Why did you do that?" The answer was something like "it was in my heart" - something like that.  My friend thought it made more sense to tell him it was distracting and hindering to participation, rather than inform him of the Church's teaching on what invalidates a Mass, which he almost certainly knows and does not believe.

Human nature does not like being critical of other people to their face; it is even slower to criticize power/authority figures. Who am I to say anything to them? Or, my response: who am I, a traveler passing through and a stranger in this place, to say anything to them? Clerical elitists exploit this - and there is no shortage of them on the left or right.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Just to clarify, I made this thread not because I'm questioning the validity of the Mass or because I analyze the validity of Masses I attend. I made this thread to check that my understanding of Church teaching is correct or not, and to find out what the Church teaching is, since it was mentioned in another thread. 

[PhuturePriest]

48 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

My friend did bring it up with the priest after Mass. Not in an accusatory tone, but as a question, "Hey Father, I noticed you changed the words. Why did you do that?" The answer was something like "it was in my heart" - something like that.  My friend thought it made more sense to tell him it was distracting and hindering to participation, rather than inform him of the Church's teaching on what invalidates a Mass, which he almost certainly knows and does not believe.

Human nature does not like being critical of other people to their face; it is even slower to criticize power/authority figures. Who am I to say anything to them? Or, my response: who am I, a traveler passing through and a stranger in this place, to say anything to them? Clerical elitists exploit this - and there is no shortage of them on the left or right.

I've certainly experienced that. I absolutely hate confrontation. I'm bad at debates in real life, which is why I always make it clear it has to take on the tone of a discussion if I'm going to take part. It's greatly exacerbated if it's a religious figure like a priest.

[Ash Wednesday]

1 hour ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Just to clarify, I made this thread not because I'm questioning the validity of the Mass or because I analyze the validity of Masses I attend. I made this thread to check that my understanding of Church teaching is correct or not, and to find out what the Church teaching is, since it was mentioned in another thread. 

Don't worry, I don't think anyone gets that impression. I posted my warnings because sometimes the Catholic vs. Catholic bickering comes up when people discuss the mass and there were some recent phorum rules violations going on with it, so I had to put my Meanie Mediator hat on.