If Priest Gets One Word Wrong: Mass Is Invalid

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217746' date='Mar 23 2007, 01:26 PM']LOL. What's funny is that you guys challenged Budgie to provide Magesterial Documents to prove that she or the priest's answer is wrong, but none of your posts actually quote 'Magesterial Documents' to bring a clear and definitive answer to her question.[/quote]
Budge accused us of having magical attitudes, insisting that we needed to have a very precise form and implying that we were superstitious because of it. Then we ask her to prove it and she can't find anything...and you insist that we prove it for her? Lack of proof for her argument goes to show at the very least that it's not as scrupulous as she thinks it is.

I believe the necessary words are "This is my Body" and "This is my Blood," since the power of Christ's words is mediated through the ministry of the priest, and so whatever the priest says in accordance with truth has power according to Christ's ordaining.

[Budge]

[quote]Budge accused us of having magical attitudes, insisting that we needed to have a very precise form and implying that we were superstitious because of it. Then we ask her to prove it and she can't find anything...and you insist that we prove it for her? Lack of proof for her argument goes to show at the very least that it's not as scrupulous as she thinks it is.[/quote]

Hey so if there is no precise form required, then the answer from the priest at EWTN would have been a lot different.

This seems to be one of those Catholic walls, one will hit every now and then when trying to get a straight answer, you will realize there isnt one. I believe it is left vague for a reason. They simply dont want you to know.

Its like nailing Jello to the wall. Catholicism the religion of confusion.....

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1217870' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:21 PM']Budge accused us of having magical attitudes, insisting that we needed to have a very precise form and implying that we were superstitious because of it. Then we ask her to prove it and she can't find anything...and you insist that we prove it for her? Lack of proof for her argument goes to show at the very least that it's not as scrupulous as she thinks it is.

I believe the necessary words are "This is my Body" and "This is my Blood," since the power of Christ's words is mediated through the ministry of the priest, and so whatever the priest says in accordance with truth has power according to Christ's ordaining.[/quote]Read the entire thread, Raph. Read the priests answer. Catholics have said there are specific rubrics and words that must be followed/said for the Consecration to be Valid. There was disagreement by Catholics about what causes the Consecration to be Invalid vs Illicit. She's not Catholic and is making an assumption on the evidence provided. She has been told it is a wrong assumption, though no definitive statements have been made to clear up the confusion and questions. An answer was provided that one person does not speak for the entire Magisterium of the Church and that the official Church speaks quite clearly. That may be true, but it seems all we've gotten is various Catholic 'opinions' that don't agree with each other. Your post said "I believe...". Why do you believe that? How do you know you really are providing the accurate Roman Catholic answer?

Budge, you can nail jello to the wall (DAMHIKT). I think you meant pounding a nail in the wall with jello. I like to use 'cracking a walnut with a marshmallow'.

Edited March 23, 2007 by Anomaly

[Budge]

[quote]hat may be true, but it seems all we've gotten is various Catholic 'opinions' that don't agree with each other.[/quote]


Have to agree with you there.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217894' date='Mar 23 2007, 05:42 PM']Read the entire thread, Raph. Read the priests answer. Catholics have said there are specific rubrics and words that must be followed/said for the Consecration to be Valid. There was disagreement by Catholics about what causes the Consecration to be Invalid vs Illicit. She's not Catholic and is making an assumption on the evidence provided. She has been told it is a wrong assumption, though no definitive statements have been made to clear up the confusion and questions. An answer was provided that one person does not speak for the entire Magisterium of the Church and that the official Church speaks quite clearly. That may be true, but it seems all we've gotten is various Catholic 'opinions' that don't agree with each other. Your post said "I believe...". Why do you believe that? How do you know you really are providing the accurate Roman Catholic answer?

Budge, you can nail jello to the wall (DAMHIKT). I think you meant pounding a nail in the wall with jello. I like to use 'cracking a walnut with a marshmallow'.[/quote]

First, I'd call your attention to the fact that she claims to know the Catholic faith better than we do. Second, I'd like to say that, quite frankly, I'm not a theological curia or tribunal. I'm not a canon lawyer. The person who answered the question has a JCL and is therefore more qualified than I am. However, I am not sure of the official answer (though I believe there to be one). I do not know that anyone here has provided the official answer. Regardless, it is inconsistent to say that the Church is superstitious about particular words being used (all present and accounted for) and then to accuse the Church of not having a consistent answer on what those words are. That was my point.

The rest of my point, which was in a post above, is simply that the priest shares in the ministry of Christ. As Christ's words are efficacious, so are the priest's, when he says them in virtue of his sharing Christ's priesthood. That is not magical, but sacramental. There is a difference: magic relies on the inherent power of words, sacraments rely on the power of God working through His Word.

[Budge]

[quote]However, I am not sure of the official answer (though I believe there to be one). I do not know that anyone here has provided the official answer.[/quote]

Is there one?

Isnt there a priest who hangs out on this board to answer this question.

If a priest gets up and does a rave Mass or something and speaks of the bread being body and blood but says some weird stuff like "its the body of the earth, man and of Jesus too..."

is the Mass valid?

Why does the EWTN guy seem to think there is some official rules, but now here its causing so much confusion?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1217912' date='Mar 23 2007, 06:02 PM']Is there one?

Isnt there a priest who hangs out on this board to answer this question.

If a priest gets up and does a rave Mass or something and speaks of the bread being body and blood but says some weird stuff like "its the body of the earth, man and of Jesus too..."

is the Mass valid?

Why does the EWTN guy seem to think there is some official rules, but now here its causing so much confusion?[/quote]
Not all priests are brilliant theologians. Not all of them know all the answers. I think it's unfair to expect them to.

Most of the priests who come to this phorum do so with the little time they have. Priests are usually very, very busy people. Our PM priests come here, answer questions, and then go on to do other ministries. They don't have the time to get dragged into each and every little debate. If you want to know the answer, ask it politely in the Q&A and you might get something.

The words you listed would be invalid for several reasons: 1) it's a lie, the Eucharist is not the body of the earth, 2) the words used indicate that the priest was not acting in persona Christi, and 3) the words used to not include what everyone agrees are essential words.

Everyone here agrees that there must at least be "this is my Body" and "this is my Blood." The argument is over whether there is more to the correct words or not.

[CatholicCid]

From the Baltimore Catechism

[quote]346. How did Christ institute the Holy Eucharist?
Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist in this way: He took bread, blessed and broke it, and giving it to His apostles, said: "Take and eat; this is My body"; then He took a cup of wine, blessed it, and giving it to them, said: "All of you drink of this; for this is My blood of the new covenant which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins"; finally, He gave His apostles the commission: "Do this in remembrance of Me."
And having taken bread, he gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of me." In like manner he took also the cup after the supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you." (Luke 22:19-20)

347. What happened when Our Lord said: "This is My body . . . this is My blood"?
When Our Lord said, "This is My body," the entire substance of the bread was changed into His body; and when He said, "This is My blood," the entire substance of the wine was changed into His blood.

...

354. When did Christ give His priests the power to change bread and wine into His body and blood?
Christ gave His priests the power to change bread and wine into His body and blood when He made the apostles priests at the Last Supper by saying to them: "Do this in remembrance of Me."
[/quote][quote]355. How do priests exercise their power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ?
[b]Priests exercise their power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ by repeating at the Consecration of the Mass the words of Christ: "This is My Body ... this is My blood." [/b][/quote]

[url="http://www.truecatholic.org/bltp3.htm#Lesson26"]http://www.truecatholic.org/baltp3.htm#Lesson26[/url]

From the Catechism of Trent

[quote]Institution of the Eucharist
In this matter it will be necessary that pastors, following the example of the Apostle Paul, who professes to have delivered to the Corinthians what he had received from the Lord, first of all explain to the faithful the institution of this Sacrament.

That its institution was as follows, is clearly inferred from the Evangelist. Our Lord, having loved his own, loved them to the end. As a divine and admirable pledge of this love, knowing that the hour had now come that He should pass from the world to the Father, that He?might not ever at any period be absent from His own, He accomplished with inexplicable wisdom that which surpasses all the order and condition of nature. For having kept the supper of the Paschal lamb with His disciples, that the figure might yield to the reality, the shadow to the substance, He took bread, and giving thanks unto God, He blessed, and brake, and gave to the disciples, and said: "Take ye and eat, this is my body which shall be delivered for you; this do for a commemoration of me." In like manner also, He took the chalice after he had supped, saying: "This chalice is the new testament in my blood; this do, as often as you shall drink it, in commemoration of me".
[/quote][quote]Form Of The Eucharist
The form to be used in the consecration of the bread is next to be treated of, not, however, in order that the faithful should be taught these mysteries, unless necessity require it; for this knowledge is not needful for those who have not received Holy Orders. The purpose (of this section) is to guard against most shameful mistakes on the part of priests, at the time of the consecration, due to ignorance of the form.


Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Bread
[b]We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my body.[/b]

[b]This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has been always used by the Catholic Church.[/b] The testimonies of the Fathers, the enumeration of which would be endless, and also the decree of the Council of Florence, which is well known and accessible to all, must here be omitted, especially as the knowledge which they convey may be obtained from these words of the Saviour: Do this for a commemoration of me. For what the Lord enjoined was not only what He had done, but also what he had said; and especially is this true, since the words were uttered not only to signify, but also to accomplish.

[u]That these words constitute the form is easily proved from reason also. The form is that which signifies what is accomplished in this Sacrament; but as the preceding words signify and declare what takes place in the Eucharist, that is, the conversion of the bread into the true body of our Lord, it therefore follows that these very words constitute the form. In this sense may be understood the words of the Evangelist: He blessed; for they seem equivalent to this: Taking bread, he blessed it, saying: "This is my body".[/u]


[b]Not All The Words Used Are Essential[/b]
Although in the Evangelist the words, Take and eat, precede the words (This is my body), they evidently express the use only, not the consecration, of the matter. Wherefore, while they are not necessary to the consecration of the Sacrament, they are by all means to be pronounced by the priest, as is also the conjunction for in the consecration of the body and blood. But they are not necessary to the validity of the Sacrament, otherwise it would follow that, if this Sacrament were not to be administered to anyone, it should not, or indeed could not, be consecrated; whereas, no one can lawfully doubt that the priest, by pronouncing the words of our Lord according to the institution and practice of the Church, truly consecrates the proper matter of the bread, even though it should afterwards never be administered.[/quote]

[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-e.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/mast...ent/tsacr-e.htm[/url]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

In the future, do not cite www.truecatholic.org, as it is an anti-Catholic sedevacantist website.

[Mr.Cat]

One side provides the opinion of a single Priest and we provide nearly hundreds of documents, yet the side that we asked evidence from refuses to accept this but yet has not provided a single strand of evidence in the light that they have asked us for or vice versa. I am very confused at the point of jumping through this hoop. I abstain.

[got2luvjc]

I noticed that KnightofChrist posted THE LONGEST post I've ever seen in response to a bunch of stuff Budge was saying, but as soon as Anomaly started talking about some other stuff, Budge ignored the previous convo and jumped into the new convo saying all kinds of crazy things

if Budge is so correct, why didn't she adress all the scriptures that KnightofChrist posted?

[jeffpugh]

Yes, I totally agree... I'm not goona bother reading this till things are addressed with proper respect and analysis. When I say 'analysis' I do not mean skim over and say they're all used out of context or sort of scoff at the verses and maybe comment about translation. It's hardly worth anyone's time.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Budge' post='1216357' date='Mar 20 2007, 08:22 AM']This is more like a MAGIC SPELL: Get one word wrong, slip up, and the MASS doesnt count. The wafer is still bread.[/quote]
So if the priest stutters, serves communion, do all the parishioners get hiccups?

Edited March 25, 2007 by carrdero

[jeffpugh]

No, those who don't rep the church begin to find fluff coming out of their ears.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1218338' date='Mar 24 2007, 01:56 PM']One side provides the opinion of a single Priest and we provide nearly hundreds of documents, yet the side that we asked evidence from refuses to accept this but yet has not provided a single strand of evidence in the light that they have asked us for or vice versa. I am very confused at the point of jumping through this hoop. I abstain.[/quote]
Reading the entire conversation will illuminate the fact that Budge and I are simply asking where are the RC Documents that clearly spell out what words and conditions are required for the Consecration to be VALID. I do believe that this must exist, but I don't know where it is. All that's been posted is Eucharistic Prayers and various Catholic opinions. Despite Budge's other attacks, you should start at the foundation of her challenge. What are the exact words? Why those words? What intent is required? Where is the documentation and evidence the Church marries the contraints of correct rubrics and intent to serve Jesus' will and intent for the Eucharist?

Of course, it's easier to attack our character and motives. We're mere humans.