If Priest Gets One Word Wrong: Mass Is Invalid

[Budge]

[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:

[u][b] Changing the words of institution (the "form" invalidates the consecration.[/b][/u]
[u] It doesn't matter whether the priest is doing it with malice, with "devotion," or accidently.
[/u]
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. [u]The pope personally approves the essential words for each sacrament, including any officially translated text. Using words without this approval affects validity.
[/u]
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]

[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="]EWTN LINK[/url]

This is more like a MAGIC SPELL: Get one word wrong, slip up, and the MASS doesnt count. The wafer is still bread.

When I posted to Rev, I talked about how rituals and rites had been put above everything else in the Catholic Church.

[Groo the Wanderer]

Wow. Amazing. Incredulous.

Budgie has still learned nothing about our faith in the whole time she has been trolling here. Finds one OPINION of one priest out there and thinks that is the ultimate voice of the Church


Once again, Budgie...look up the word 'Magisterium'. You should know by now that 1 person in the Church, out of 1.1+ BILLION, does not create dogma or doctrine.

You wanna debate or argue with something we believe, then use a magisterial doument as your source. Anyone can find a hack or a cafeteria Catholic out there to say anything to 'prove' thier point..yes, even in the priesthood.

As for your assertion...can't find anything to back it up in the CCC or the Bible...so your point falls flat once again. You are tying to condemn us of believing something you 'think' we believe instead of something we 'actually' believe.

try again...this time with a magisterial source please

[Thy Geekdom Come]

You know, Budge, the reason Satan came up with the idea for magic spells was because it was a farce of the true power of words. The fact that there are magic spells and that the Catholic Church has certain words that must be said for something to happen can only mean one of two things: 1) the Catholic Church uses spells, or 2) the Catholic Church uses the true form with the right understanding, which Satan tries to rip off in order to deceive others. Now, since the Catholic Church condemns magic, I think it's probably #2. However, in case that's not enough, let's look at Jesus. He uses words to heal...He says things. When He says things, stuff happens. This is because words have meaning and because God's words have the power to create or transform, because when He gives a command, it is done, or when He says something is, it is. Now, when Jesus says, "This is my Body," it is. When Jesus gives His apostles the authority to speak in His Name, and when He ordains them to Himself, He makes their speech effective too, wherever He had intended them to have power. Thus priests, who are in persona Christi, have the power to speak the words of Christ and it happens as they say. When they deviate from what Christ Himself says, they are not in His person, but fall outside of it, and have no power. Therefore, they must use His words. Because the proper translation of His words is left in the hands of His Church, the Church may say, with authority, which words are the best translation in any given language. No spells, no magic...simply truth.

[Jaime]

Nice response Micah!!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1216407' date='Mar 20 2007, 09:28 AM']Nice response Micah!! [/quote]
With the rolling eyes, I can't tell if you're being honest or sarcastic...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1216413' date='Mar 20 2007, 09:32 AM']With the rolling eyes, I can't tell if you're being honest or sarcastic... [/quote]
I would guess he's being honest, because that's a flippin' awesome response. The eyeroll is probably for Budge who deserves a huge one.



(that's for Budge)

[theculturewarrior]

When a priest uses "for many" instead of "for all," he is deliberately changing it. It is not a "slip up."

[Aloysius]

I don't agree with this EWTN expert. It may be illicit to use the words "for many", but it is not invalid. He recites the true words of institution with the intent to do what the Universal Church does and to say what the Universal Church says. His [b]correct[/b] translation does not change the validity of the mass. If he said "for monkeys", it would affect the validity of the mass. But as it stands, what he does is ILLICIT but not INVALID. It would be perfectly licit and valid for him to go through everything in English, but when he came to that part, say "pro multis"; otherwise he is merely acting illicitly.

This EWTN expert is NO BETTER than the SSPX folks who say Novus Ordo Masses are invalid because of the words "for many". It's an absolutely shameful opinion and I am ashamed of the response in the face of those who would see it and think we have a ritual of magic. Intentional alterations of the Words of Institution invalidate a mass (and I'm sure Budge would think that still makes it magic ), but this priest says the words of institution the same way Jesus said them. If a dying priest with his last ounce of breath grabbed a loaf of bread and said nothing except "this is my body" and then consumed it, I do believe he would have consumed the Eucharist, the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Correct me if I'm wrong on that account, but it is certainly this expert who is greivously wrong on the account of the words "for many"

I would bet all of my possessions that if you sent a dubium to the Vatican asking for a response, they would tell you the mass is valid if the priest uses this correct translation (as Rome herself has recently clarified, this is the correct translation and we are just waiting for the liturgical books to be finalized).

Also notable is the fact that if a priest invalidates the Eucharist and the faithful receive it unknowingly, they receive fully a spiritual communion and the Church supplies (ecclesia supplet) the effects and graces of the sacrament, even though it is not in fact physically present in the host that they receive.

[Mr.Cat]

As long as the Priest says “[b][color="#FF0000"]This is my Body[/color][/b]” and “[b][color="#FF0000"]This is my Blood[/color][/b]” there is a valid Mass. The legality of the manner it is said or otherwise could be questioned, but this minor change is not enough to invalidate the consecration of the Holy Mass as far as I am aware.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Budge]

[quote]
You wanna debate or argue with something we believe, then use a magisterial doument as your source. Anyone can find a hack or a cafeteria Catholic out there to say anything to 'prove' thier point..yes, even in the priesthood.[/quote]So your assertion is that THEY CAN get the words wrong and the Mass will be valid?

Ive seen this question answered elsewhere by the way.

So these Catholic.com missed the boat on this one too?
[quote]
What's Needed for a Valid Consecration?

Q: I know of a priest who, during the consecration at Mass, used to say "This is our bread of life" instead of "This is my body." Was this valid? If not, did the people receive the body and blood of Christ? What if the priest makes only minor variations in the words? How much must be there for the consecration to be valid?

A:[b] What this priest said was definitely illicit and far removed from the proper words used to confect the Eucharist.[/b] He engaged in a grievous liturgical abuse of the kind which should be immediately reported to his bishop. [b]Because the priest used not just improper words, but words that didn't even mean "This is my body," the consecration did not take place at all.[/b]
[u]
The result was that the people at that Mass were led into material idolatry[/u]. They adored something that was not really Christ, but just bread. They were worshiping as God something that really wasn't, even though they were unaware of the import of the priest's actions. This means they did not incur the guilt of the sin of idolatry.

While it is always gravely illicit for a priest intentionally to change the words of consecration from what is in the Church's liturgical texts, it is possible for there to be some variation in wording without rendering the Mass invalid. Slight slips of the tongue, for example, don't make for invalidity.[/quote]



Some here seem to be going along with that, all the Mass needs is those two sentences. Do you all have anything "official" to back that up?
Even if those 2 sentences is all that is needed that is STILL a problem.

[quote]
[u]If a dying priest with his last ounce of breath grabbed a loaf of bread and said nothing except "this is my body" and then consumed it, I do believe he would have consumed the Eucharist, the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.[/u] Correct me if I'm wrong on that account, but it is certainly this expert who is greivously wrong on the account of the words "for many"[/quote]

What if a priest went into a bakery touched a few rolls and said "This is my body!, This is my blood", Uh Oh, better get a big tabernacle?



Come on dont you all see how silly this is, they either have to get a bunch of words right, or those two sentences perfect....to supposely CHANGE the BREAD.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

So, Budge...you're basically going to ignore our defense and continue to attack us in increasingly insulting ways, using strawman fallacies to do so?

[jeffpugh]

Budge, I think in that last example, that is what we would call 'overdoing it'...

[quote name='Raphael' post='1216405' date='Mar 20 2007, 11:22 AM']You know, Budge, the reason Satan came up with the idea for magic spells was because it was a farce of the true power of words.[/quote]

In Latin, "hocus pocus" is nonsensical, and people use them as [joke] magic words... just a thought

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1216535' date='Mar 20 2007, 04:08 PM']As long as the Priest says “[b][color="#FF0000"]This is my Body[/color][/b]” and “[b][color="#FF0000"]This is my Blood[/color][/b]” there is a valid Mass. The legality of the manner it is said or otherwise could be questioned, but this minor change is not enough to invalidate the consecration of the Holy Mass as far as I am aware.[/quote]

I must also add that during the consecration, the bread and wine must be done seperatly or it is invalid... that is, the priest can't lift up the bread and wine at the same time and say 'this is my body, this is my blood'... that is a big nono... bread must be consecrated with 'this is my body' and wine with 'this is my blood'. No questions about it. The latter is valid.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1216689' date='Mar 20 2007, 08:09 PM']Budge, I think in that last example, that is what we would call 'overdoing it'...
In Latin, "hocus pocus" is nonsensical, and people use them as [joke] magic words... just a thought.[/quote]

Actually, "hocus pocus" is a mockery of the Eucharist used by anti-Catholics who wish to portray it as a "magical ritual."

"Hocus Pocus" comes from "Hoc est enim corpus meum," meaning "this is my Body."

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Budge' post='1216668' date='Mar 20 2007, 07:01 PM']So your assertion is that THEY CAN get the words wrong and the Mass will be valid?

Ive seen this question answered elsewhere by the way.

So these Catholic.com missed the boat on this one too?
Some here seem to be going along with that, all the Mass needs is those two sentences. Do you all have anything "official" to back that up?
Even if those 2 sentences is all that is needed that is STILL a problem.
[b]What if a priest went into a bakery touched a few rolls and said "This is my body!, This is my blood", Uh Oh, better get a big tabernacle?[/b]



Come on dont you all see how silly this is, they either have to get a bunch of words right, or those two sentences perfect....to supposely CHANGE the BREAD.[/quote]


What hate filled unintelligent mockery...

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Budge' post='1216668' date='Mar 20 2007, 08:01 PM']So your assertion is that THEY CAN get the words wrong and the Mass will be valid?

Ive seen this question answered elsewhere by the way.

So these Catholic.com missed the boat on this one too?
Some here seem to be going along with that, all the Mass needs is those two sentences. Do you all have anything "official" to back that up?
Even if those 2 sentences is all that is needed that is STILL a problem.
[b]What if a priest went into a bakery touched a few rolls and said "This is my body!, This is my blood", Uh Oh, better get a big tabernacle?[/b]



[b]Come on dont you all see how silly this is, they either have to get a bunch of words right, or those two sentences perfect....to supposely CHANGE the BREAD.[/b][/quote]The Priest would have to have the intention to consecrate such bread in addition it would have to be a certain kind of bread, which most bakeries do not make. In the Holy Mass there is a cloth laid down on the Altar that the Priest has the intention to consecrate. Although, to propose that a Priest would be childish enough and nonsensical enough to do something like this ([i]if all the conditions were correct[/i]) could be offensive enough.

There are certain requirements for a valid consecration and a valid mass to be present. But it is nothing “magical” that happens in the words spoken by the Priest in the Holy Mass. Simply it is the manner our Blessed Lord whished it to be completed, when He spoke the words “do this in commemoration of Me.” In the Sacred Scriptures our Blessed Lord commanded that the form of Baptism be “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” while pouring water. What happens if I decide to just say “I baptize thee” and I pour no water. Scripturally it would be invalid, but there is no magic involved, unless one proposes the basic Sacrament that every true Christian accepts qualifies it as pagan or magical.