EWTN says GET ONE WORD WRONG MASS INVALID

[Budge]

IF Priest Gets One Word WRONG: Mass is INVALID
[quote]
Quote:


PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:35 pm Post subject: EWTN Experts Forum - For the Many vs. For All Reply with quote
Link to Original

Valid Mass again
Question from on 10-03-2005:

At mass this very old priest says "for many" instead of "for all" since really the most accurate translation of the Latin is "for many" than its vaild but so is "for all" because it is apporved translation. If any priest where to follow the accurate translation of the Latin completly I don't see how it could be invalid. The difference isnt that great, the words are mostly synomous. This is my humble thought. What do you think?


Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 10-06-2005:

[size=5] Changing the words of institution (the "form" invalidates the consecration.
It doesn't matter whether the priest is doing it with malice, with "devotion," or accidently.[/size][font="Arial Black"]

You may not like what I am about to say, but the priest here is most likely being arrogant. There is a controversy about how to translate the Latin words here. The Latin is literally "for many," although the English translates it as "for all." Other languages have translated the Latin words here "for all" and others "for many."

Those advocating the literal translation of "for many" argue that, while Jesus died so that all may be saved, not all will in fact be saved. Therefore, "for many" is more accurate than "for all."

However, those who favor the translation "for all" say that, even though not all will in fact be saved, that Christ died so that all could be saved, and that God does not wish those who are not saved to be damned.

This very old priest is most likely aware of this controversy and is taking a position in favor of the literal translation. However, this results in using words that have not been approved. Remember that the words (the "form" must be approved by the supreme authority of the Church. The pope personally approves the essential words for each sacrament, including any officially translated text. Using words without this approval affects validity.

It would be better for this very old priest to recite the words in Latin. At least then it wouldn't invalid the Eucharist he is celebrating and he would be saying "for many."

If you are interested in a balanced explanation of the pros and cons of each side of this controversy, read the book God is Near Us by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict), pp. 34-38.[/quote]

Ok so that expert says GET ONE WORD, wrong consecration is INVALID.

Now look at this...

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=449900&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2005&Author=&Keyword=Valid+Mass+again&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at="]LINK OF ABOVE[/url]

Considering I show above that, ONE WRONG WORD makes the MASS invalid, does this mean that the last 15 years of them have all been INVALID according to Rome's own rules?


[quote]Vatican liturgical official seeks recovery of the sacred

Vatican, Jun. 23 (CWNews.com) - The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship has conceded some "negative results" of liturgical changes since Vatican II, and voiced his support for reform of the post-conciliar liturgy, in an interview with the I Media news agency.

Archbishop Albert Malcom Ranjith Patabendige Don told I Media that the Council fathers had hoped to reinvigorate the sense of an active encounter with God through the liturgy. "But unfortunately," he said, [font=Arial Black]"after the Council, certain changes were made rapidly, without reflection, in a burst of enthusiasm, in a rejection of some exaggerations of the past." The result, the archbishop said, was quite different from the Council's intent.
[/font][size=5]
Asked to provide some examples of the negative results, the Sri Lankan prelate listed "the abandonment of the sacred and the mystical," the confusion between the common priesthood of all the faithful and the ordained ministry, and the concept of the Eucharist as a common banquet rather than a representation of Christ's Sacrifice.

These changes, Archbishop Patabendige Don said, have produced negative consequences for the Church even beyond the liturgy. In the face of a growing secular trend in society, he said, the Church urgently needs to cultivate a deeper sense of the sacred and a more active interior life. Fortunately, the archbishop said, there is a growing sense among Catholics of the need to recover the sense of the sacred. He said that the work of the Congregation for Divine Worship entails helping bishops and [size=5]episcopal conferences to refine the liturgy [/size]by incorporating the strengths of the past.[/quote]

[img]http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/871/217/1600/GloriaEnglish.0.jpg[/img]

[cmotherofpirl]

Getting one word wrong does not invalidate a consecration.
Ask your local pastor.

[Era Might]

I'm not sure what you're asking.

The Words of Institution are essential to the Roman form (and the Byzantine form, for that matter). The Priest from EWTN isn't saying that "for all" or "for many" are invalid, in themselves. That's why he points out that the Latin is "for many", and that the Priest could use the Latin if he wants. What he's saying is that to deliberately alter the essential words of the Roman form, the words of institution, and ignore the lawfully promulgated text, will invalidate the Mass, because three things are necessary for a valid Sacrament: form, matter, and intention. The form of a Sacrament can differ according to rite, but those who celebrate the Sacraments in a particular rite are bound to its essential form. Otherwise, the Mass is at best gravely dubious.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1013803' date='Jun 28 2006, 10:10 AM']
I'm not sure what you're asking.

The Words of Institution are essential to the Roman form (and the Byzantine form, for that matter). The Priest from EWTN isn't saying that "for all" or "for many" are invalid, in themselves. That's why he points out that the Latin is "for many", and that the Priest could use the Latin if he wants. What he's saying is that to deliberately alter the essential words of the Roman form, the words of institution, and ignore the lawfully promulgated text, will invalidate the Mass, because three things are necessary for a valid Sacrament: form, matter, and intention. The form of a Sacrament can differ according to rite, but those who celebrate the Sacraments in a particular rite are bound to its essential form. Otherwise, the Mass is at best gravely dubious.
[/quote]

He seems to imply that even if done accidently, the mass is invalid. That is not true, since you assume that the priest intends to do it right.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1013815' date='Jun 28 2006, 10:19 AM']
He seems to imply that even if done accidently, the mass is invalid. That is not true, since you assume that the priest intends to do it right.
[/quote]
I do believe that proper intention AND proper form are necessary.

Nevertheless, I think this is most likely more conspiracy-theory spam.

[Era Might]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1013815' date='Jun 28 2006, 10:19 AM']He seems to imply that even if done accidently, the mass is invalid. That is not true, since you assume that the priest intends to do it right.
[/quote]
Even in that case, I think the presumption would have to be that the Mass was invalid. If a Priest accidently baptizes your child in the name of the "Father, the Son, and the Son", for example, I think it would be prudent to rebaptize.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The words above are not the words that actually confect the Eucharist. "This is my body" and "This is the chalice of my blood" are the phrases that matter the most.

[Era Might]

Right. The Priest was not saying that the Church can't promulgate new texts or translations. In fact, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari was approved WITHOUT the explicit words of institution. The essential point here is form. Each Priest is bound to the essential form of his particular rite, and when he deviates from it, there must be real doubts about the validity of the Sacrament.

Edited June 28, 2006 by Era Might

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1013850' date='Jun 28 2006, 11:24 AM']
Even in that case, I think the presumption would have to be that the Mass was invalid. If a Priest accidently baptizes your child in the name of the "Father, the Son, and the Son", for example, I think it would be prudent to rebaptize.
[/quote]
Do you reallly think God wuold refuse someone eternity on the basis of anothers error in speaking? We are bound by rules of form, but God judges hearts.

[Era Might]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1013966' date='Jun 28 2006, 02:33 PM']Do you reallly think God wuold refuse someone eternity on the basis of anothers error in speaking? We are bound by rules of form, but God judges hearts.
[/quote]
Of course not. Catechumens who die before being baptized go to Heaven because they have the desire to be baptized. Someone who was baptized invalidly would be in the same boat.

Similarly, Catholics who worship a host that was invalidly consecrated aren't idolaters. They did so in good faith.

But the rules for Sacramental validity are still necessary. If someone was baptized invalidly, and it can be corrected, then it should be. This happened not too long ago actually, in Canada I think. The Bishop told a parish that they had to call everyone they had baptized and tell them their Baptisms were invalid, because they didn't baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". (It may have been because they didn't pour the water over their heads; I don't remember exactly.)

Edited June 28, 2006 by Era Might

[pax]

I think the old de defectibus said that as long as the meaning wasn't changed the mass was valid but the celebrant commits a grave sin.

[Oik]

Form and Intent. As far as the words of institution, then Cardinal Ratzinger in response to the question said that what was necessary was "take, eat, this is my Body" and "take, eat, this is My Blood". In regards to the intent, it was mentioned and quite correctly, I agree, that the faithful should assume that the Priest has the proper intention.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1013998' date='Jun 28 2006, 03:06 PM']
Of course not. Catechumens who die before being baptized go to Heaven because they have the desire to be baptized. Someone who was baptized invalidly would be in the same boat.

Similarly, Catholics who worship a host that was invalidly consecrated aren't idolaters. They did so in good faith.

But the rules for Sacramental validity are still necessary. If someone was baptized invalidly, and it can be corrected, then it should be. This happened not too long ago actually, in Canada I think. The Bishop told a parish that they had to call everyone they had baptized and tell them their Baptisms were invalid, because they didn't baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". (It may have been because they didn't pour the water over their heads; I don't remember exactly.)
[/quote]

I thik it was New York, and they were saying the Sanctifier instead of Father.

[brendan1104]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1013831' date='Jun 28 2006, 10:59 AM']
I do believe that proper intention AND proper form are necessary.

Nevertheless, I think this is most likely more conspiracy-theory spam.
[/quote]

What about proper matter?

[scardella]

Why do I feel like you're grasping at straws here? What are you trying to prove?

BTW, good form for using Catholic sources. Oh, and it's much easier to read if you don't change the text sizes.

Edited June 29, 2006 by scardella