EWTN says GET ONE WORD WRONG MASS INVALID

[michaelorapronobis]

Four things are necessary for a valid consecration:

1. A validly ordained priest
2. Correct matter
3. Correct form
4. Correct intention.

The Novus Ordo Mass generally has all four (except when the priest uses invalid matter such as cookies and soda for Communion), however, the intention is sometimes dubious. Is the priest offering the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on behalf of the people, or is he simply celebrating a 'community meal'? All references to sacrifice have been removed in the Novus Ordo.

Changing the words 'for many' to 'for all' does not invalidate the Sacrament, because they express the purpose of the Blood, and a change in something's purpose doesn't necessarily change [i]what[/i] the thing is. However they are illicit and each time a priest says the Novus Ordo Mass, he is telling a lie, because Jesus said that His blood would be shed [b]for many.[/b]

Edited June 29, 2006 by Michael

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Michael' post='1014346' date='Jun 29 2006, 03:23 AM']
Four things are necessary for a valid consecration:

1. A validly ordained priest
2. Correct matter
3. Correct form
4. Correct intention.

The Novus Ordo Mass generally has all four (except when the priest uses invalid matter such as cookies and soda for Communion), however, the intention is sometimes dubious. Is the priest offering the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on behalf of the people, or is he simply celebrating a 'community meal'? All references to sacrifice have been removed in the Novus Ordo.

Changing the words 'for many' to 'for all' does not invalidate the Sacrament, because they express the purpose of the Blood, and a change in something's purpose doesn't necessarily change [i]what[/i] the thing is. However they are illicit and each time a priest says the Novus Ordo Mass, he is telling a lie, because Jesus said that His blood would be shed [b]for many.[/b]
[/quote]
and of course you are qualified to judge this how?

[jezic]

[quote name='Michael' post='1014346' date='Jun 29 2006, 02:23 AM']
Four things are necessary for a valid consecration:

1. A validly ordained priest
2. Correct matter
3. Correct form
4. Correct intention.

The Novus Ordo Mass generally has all four (except when the priest uses invalid matter such as cookies and soda for Communion), however, the intention is sometimes dubious. Is the priest offering the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on behalf of the people, or is he simply celebrating a 'community meal'? All references to sacrifice have been removed in the Novus Ordo.

Changing the words 'for many' to 'for all' does not invalidate the Sacrament, because they express the purpose of the Blood, and a change in something's purpose doesn't necessarily change [i]what[/i] the thing is. However they are illicit and each time a priest says the Novus Ordo Mass, he is telling a lie, because Jesus said that His blood would be shed [b]for many.[/b]
[/quote]

All references to sacrifice have NOT been removed. These are from the first Eucharistic prayer.

[quote]We come to your, Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son. Through him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you in [b]sacrifice[/b]. We offer them for your holy catholic Church, watch over it, Lord, and guide it; grant it peace and unity throughout the world. We offer them for John Paul our Pope, for {name of Bishop in your diocese} our bishop, and for all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles. [/quote]

and

[quote]Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing. [Through Christ our Lord. Amen.] [/quote]

While the specific mention of Sacrifice may be lessened, it is still present in the Latin. It did not disappear entirely. I believe the new English text of the Mass will clear up the confusion about the nature of the Mass.

The other thing is you are making quite the stretch to determine what is licit and illicit. An illicit Mass would be one that was celebrated without the permission of the Ordinary of the diocese/etc. You are talking about validity. While there are arguments on both sides that have major points it is not up to LAYPEOPLE to declare that which is valid in this instance. I am not saying don't reprove people, but rather recognize that the Vatican has dealt with this issue and has declared that all Novus Ordo masses are not invalid. (i don't remember the name of the document at the moment)

[XIX]

[quote name='Michael' post='1014346' date='Jun 29 2006, 01:23 AM']
Four things are necessary for a valid consecration:

1. A validly ordained priest
2. Correct matter
3. Correct form
4. Correct intention.

The Novus Ordo Mass generally has all four (except when the priest uses invalid matter such as cookies and soda for Communion), however, the intention is sometimes dubious. Is the priest offering the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on behalf of the people, or is he simply celebrating a 'community meal'? All references to sacrifice have been removed in the Novus Ordo.

Changing the words 'for many' to 'for all' does not invalidate the Sacrament, because they express the purpose of the Blood, and a change in something's purpose doesn't necessarily change [i]what[/i] the thing is. However they are illicit and each time a priest says the Novus Ordo Mass, he is telling a lie, because Jesus said that His blood would be shed [b]for many.[/b]
[/quote]
*coughnotthepopecough*

[Fides_et_Ratio]

As thedude said earlier... Budge's post is a moot point since the EWTN response was regarding the WORDS OF CONSECRATION/WORDS OF INSTITUTION and not the entirety of the Liturgy.

Yes, all these propers everyone is discussing are important, but they don't respond to Budge's post.

[Budge]

You when it comes to magic spells, having the exact words is very important to occultists.

Jesus never intended anything like the Mass for the Lord's Supper.

I think it is frightening that one word WRONG, will mess up the Catholic Mass. What about a priest with a bad accent or doesnt even know English well? Among yourselves it seems the intention and form are up to debate.

Does this mean the EWTN expert got it wrong?

Catholicism confuses even Catholics, even the clergy seem confused about this one.

[quote]Budge's post is a moot point since the EWTN response was regarding the WORDS OF CONSECRATION/WORDS OF INSTITUTION and not the entirety of the Liturgy.[/quote]

I believe they may have changed some of those.

but Ill check it out.

Edited June 29, 2006 by Budge

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Budge, they did not change the words of consecration 'THIS IS MY BODY', etc. and that's what the EWTN response was referring to.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Budge' post='1014547' date='Jun 29 2006, 12:10 PM']
You when it comes to magic spells, having the exact words is very important to occultists.

Jesus never intended anything like the Mass for the Lord's Supper.

I think it is frightening that one word WRONG, will mess up the Catholic Mass. What about a priest with a bad accent or doesnt even know English well? Among yourselves it seems the intention and form are up to debate.

Does this mean the EWTN expert got it wrong?

Catholicism confuses even Catholics, even the clergy seem confused about this one.
I believe they may have changed some of those.

but Ill check it out.
[/quote]

I was waiting to see what approach and tactic you would pick :

Transubstantiation is not magic.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

It's not magic, it's the instruction of Jesus Christ Himself.

God created through the Word and Spirit. At Mass, the word of Christ which the priest, acting as Christ, prays, invokes the Holy Spirit, in order to effect a change in substance. Christ spoke and what He said was true, because He is truth, "this is My Body." The priest, in the Holy Spirit, acting in persona Christi, does the same, and because of this, the same result is achieved. The Mass isn't magic; the Mass is a cooperation in the new creation of the whole earth and a foretaste of the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Just read this quote out of coincidence and thought it was worth adding:

"Since Christ Himself has said, 'This is My Body,' who shall dare to doubt that It is His Body?" -St. Cyril of Jerusalem

Edited June 29, 2006 by Raphael

[Budge]

[quote]
"Since Christ Himself has said, 'This is My Body,' who shall dare to doubt that It is His Body?" -St. Cyril of Jerusalem[/quote]

Jesus hadnt gone to the cross yet at the time of the Last Supper, why would he be ingesting "his own body"? instead of teaching the true spiritual lesson that John 6 is really about?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1016238' date='Jul 2 2006, 02:46 PM']
Jesus hadnt gone to the cross yet at the time of the Last Supper, why would he be ingesting "his own body"? instead of teaching the true spiritual lesson that John 6 is really about?
[/quote]
First, I don't believe Christ ever ingested His own Body. The Gospel accounts claim that Christ blessed the Body and Blood and passed it on. He in fact said that He was deliberately not eating the Pasch.

Second, the fact that He hadn't yet gone to the Cross is irrelevant, since we aren't talking about His local presence.

Third, He had already been very clear about His meaning in John 6.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

If we deny Christ could pass out His own body at the Last Supper, we deny His divinity which allows Him to transcend time. If the First Eucharist was impossible, we must conclude Christ is not Divine.

[journeyman]

[quote name='thedude' post='1016326' date='Jul 2 2006, 06:19 PM']
If we deny Christ could pass out His own body at the Last Supper, we deny His divinity which allows Him to transcend time. If the First Eucharist was impossible, we must conclude Christ is not Divine.
[/quote]


If we accept His divinity . . . and we accept that an aspect of that divinity allowed Jesus to transcend time . . . then it was not the "pre-crucifixion" Jesus that presided over the Last Supper

. . . Time paradoxes always make my head hurt . . .

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1016386' date='Jul 2 2006, 10:24 PM']
If we accept His divinity . . . and we accept that an aspect of that divinity allowed Jesus to transcend time . . . then it was not the "pre-crucifixion" Jesus that presided over the Last Supper

. . . Time paradoxes always make my head hurt . . .
[/quote]
It was pre-crucifixion Jesus in the human nature, but since His divinity is present to all time at once...

I understand the head pains.

[Resurrexi]

Many is more correct than all, so I don't see why EWTN is saying all this carp. I hope it reverts to many in the new translation.