Hypothetical Validity Quiz

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='jezic' date='Dec 6 2005, 09:45 PM']in times of persecution and near death, the intent becomes the most important i believe. A validly ordained minister with the proper intent can celebrate Mass outside ( i am not sure if you need a dispensation for this in normal circumstances though either. The preference would be to have an altar, but i don't think it is required.)

In situations of persecution i believe that as long as the Sacrament is preserved as fully as possible and the intent is properly ordered the Sacrament is performed.
[right][snapback]814365[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Anyone able to confirm this? And still, what about in normal circumstances? Sometimes I wonder if I should be worshipping what appears to be bread and wine when there are so many liturgical abuses. What is the bare minimum?

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Dec 8 2005, 05:29 AM']Anyone able to confirm this? And still, what about in normal circumstances? Sometimes I wonder if I should be worshipping what appears to be bread and wine when there are so many liturgical abuses. What is the bare minimum?
[right][snapback]816581[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The bare minimum for a valid sacrament is proper matter (e.g. wheat bread and grape wine), proper form (e.g. the words of consecration said by an ordained priest), and proper intent (consecration).



While the first case would be gravely sinful and highly illicit, it would in fact be valid. (Actually, it would depend on how he messed up the words, some mistakes would invalidate while others wouldn't necessarily). Even if the consecration were not valid, the people wouldn't be sinning by worshiping it. Since they would truly think it was the Eucharist, they would be lacking the proper knowledge to make it a sin.

I'm not sure on the second. The proper matter of Reconciliation involves confession of the sins. Since he didn't actually confess, it doesn't seem proper matter is fulfilled. If he actually got out a sin (specifics not needed), then it would be valid. If he didn't, then it wouldn't. With the sins he did not confess, it depends on whether they are venial or mortal. If they are venial, he is fine (they can be forgiven outside of Confession). If they are mortal, I'm not entirely sure whether they would be forgiven, but either way he will have to include them in his next confession:

“The faithful are bound to confess in kind and in number, all grave sins committed after baptism, of which after careful examination of conscience they are aware, which have not yet been directly pardoned by the keys of the Church, and which have not been confessed in an individual confession” (canon 988 §1).

Since he had the intent of confessing them and actually tried to confess them, I wouldn't be worried about him going to hell if he got hit by a truck crossing the street after Confession, but since there is at least doubt about the validity, I would not recommend that he receives Communion. Again, with the coughing, it depends on how the priest messed up the words.

The third case would be irregular and illicit, but perfectly valid. (Baptism requires the Trinitarian formula, flowing water, and the intent to baptize).

I'd have to look for exact references to the form, matter and minister for each sacrament, but if you want I will see if I can find it.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Dec 6 2005, 07:15 PM']does anyone have the wording for it? it can be used in the roman rite? i've never heard of it either......
[right][snapback]814097[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The wording can be found [url="http://www.cired.org/liturgy/apostles.html"]here[/url]

No, it cannot be used in the Roman rite any more than Byzantine prayers of consecration can be. It is specific to the Assyrian rite.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Dec 6 2005, 07:26 PM']I found this link that appears to be it [url="http://www.geocities.com/rik_turner/Anaphora_of_SS_Addai_and_Mari.html"]http://www.geocities.com/rik_turner/Anapho...i_and_Mari.html[/url] but I am not sure. I am just buying time until Jeff gets back.

BTW how do I ad a link so that it looks like a word and such? I oftne do not post links due to my ignorance.
[right][snapback]814115[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
you can do what phatcatholic said or you can just remember this (sometimes its faster)

[url=* add link here(without stars or spaces) *] whatever you want it to say here and then [/url ] (without any spaces where i have them now. that was just to show ya.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Dec 14 2005, 01:23 PM']you can do what phatcatholic said or you can just remember this (sometimes its faster)

[url=* add link here(without stars or spaces) *] whatever you want it to say here and then [/url ]  (without any spaces where i have them now. that was just to show ya.
[right][snapback]825395[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Thanks so much. I am awfuly slow when it comes to...well most things.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Dec 14 2005, 05:04 PM']Thanks so much. I am awfuly slow when it comes to...well most things. 
[right][snapback]825582[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
haha, we love you anyway nutty

[Avier]

Anotyher kind of off topic but not really question:

There are some sacraments that can be done by lay people in certain events.

I know of Baptisism,

What about Confirmation?

I dont think/I know the follwing can be done:

Reconcilation
Eucahrist
Holy Orders
Marriage
Pray over the Dieing(Cant remember the acutal name think its like Extreme Unction but not sure...)

Then again I can be totaly wrong, any light on the subject?

[p0lar_bear]

The only sacraments that can be celebrated without a priest are baptism and marriage.

The couple are actually the ministers of the marriage and the priest is just the ecclesial witness. A lay person can be deputized to witness a marriage.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Dec 6 2005, 07:15 PM']does anyone have the wording for it? it can be used in the roman rite? i've never heard of it either......
[right][snapback]814097[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Sorry it took me so long to get back to you guys. Phat, no, the Anaphora cannot be used in the Roman Rite. It is the traditional Eucharistic Liturgy of the Assyrian Church of the East. The CDF, however, recognizes that it is a valid consecration, despite the lack of the normal form (i.e. the words of the institution).

If I am correct in my thinking, I believe that I read somewhere that the words of the Anaphora as a whole imply the proper intent and that the consecration is understood to occur at the moment of epiclesis.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

This is taken from the "Guidelines on Eucharist Between Chaldean and Assyrian Churches"

[quote]3. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision. This conclusion rests on three major arguments.

In the first place, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is one of the most ancient Anaphoras, dating back to the time of the very early Church; it was composed and used with the clear intention of celebrating the Eucharist in full continuity with the Last Supper and according to the intention of the Church; its validity was never officially contested, neither in the Christian East nor in the Christian West.

Secondly, the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. The Assyrian Church of the East has also preserved full Eucharistic faith in the presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine and in the sacrificial character of the Eucharist. In the Assyrian Church of the East, though not in full communion with the Catholic Church, are thus to be found "true sacraments, and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist" (U.R., n. 15).

Finally, the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession. [/quote]

[phatcatholic]

dude, that's awesome, thank you

[Guest JeffCR07]

anytime