If Priest Gets One Word Wrong: Mass Is Invalid

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1219218' date='Mar 25 2007, 08:58 AM']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.[/quote]
Actually, the base of her attack is that the use of particular words (regardless of what they are) is magical. I've answered to that attack and have not heard back yet.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1219218' date='Mar 25 2007, 09:58 AM']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.[/quote]I am one to follow the mandates of Edict when regarding to discussion. There was a question against Catholics asked from a source that was discounted by Catholics here which when another source was requested none was provided, the burden of proof is not with the Catholic parities but with the Non-Catholic. Since the burden of proof falls to the aggressor not the defender. Now, if a Catholic started this topic and was making this an accusation against Non-Catholics who did not believe this the burden of proof would then be with the Catholic parities, this although is not the case.

Moreover, it is the Catholic parties that first asked for other evidence or sources to be presented which just intensifies the non-Catholic’s burden of proof and to respond to this in just “reflecting” the answer back is a rather out of line debate tactic. Although, Catholics here such as “CatholicCid” gave responses from writings that do suffice for an answer along with other Catholics here.

It was not an attack but sometimes people simply do not accept anything as evidence. When this occurs you could have our Blessed Lord knock on their door Himself and they would still not believe. So I simply abstain from partaking in this but other users make similar comments on this matter, why do you selectively confine yourself to my brief response?

[Budge]

[quote]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?[/quote]

I am thinking they dont have a specific answer for this.

Which Im not surprised.

The convolutions of Catholic teachings, theology and "doctrine" never surprise me anymore.

nothing is ever simple.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Budge' post='1219403' date='Mar 25 2007, 03:54 PM']I am thinking they dont have a specific answer for this.

Which Im not surprised.

The convolutions of Catholic teachings, theology and "doctrine" never surprise me anymore.

nothing is ever simple.[/quote]Feel free to read CatholicCid's answers...

Post #41 [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65793&view=findpost&p=1217839"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1217839[/url] by CatholicCid on March 23, 2007 at 5:36 PM in the topic "If Priest Gets One Word Wrong: Mass Is Invalid"

Post #44 [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65793&view=findpost&p=1217854"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1217854[/url] by CatholicCid on March 23, 2007 at 5:58 PM in the topic "If Priest Gets One Word Wrong: Mass Is Invalid"

Post #53 [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65793&view=findpost&p=1218041"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1218041[/url] by CatholicCid on March 24, 2007 at 12:42 AM in the topic "If Priest Gets One Word Wrong: Mass Is Invalid"

Edited March 25, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1219403' date='Mar 25 2007, 02:54 PM']I am thinking they dont have a specific answer for this.

Which Im not surprised.

The convolutions of Catholic teachings, theology and "doctrine" never surprise me anymore.

nothing is ever simple.[/quote]
The Catholic faith is quite simple, it's just not always that there is someone to explain it to those who try to make it overly complicated.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1219424' date='Mar 25 2007, 05:11 PM']Feel free to read CatholicCid's answers...

Post #41 [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65793&view=findpost&p=1217839"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1217839[/url] by CatholicCid on March 23, 2007 at 5:36 PM in the topic "If Priest Gets One Word Wrong: Mass Is Invalid"

Post #44 [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65793&view=findpost&p=1217854"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1217854[/url] by CatholicCid on March 23, 2007 at 5:58 PM in the topic "If Priest Gets One Word Wrong: Mass Is Invalid"

Post #53 [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=65793&view=findpost&p=1218041"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t&p=1218041[/url] by CatholicCid on March 24, 2007 at 12:42 AM in the topic "If Priest Gets One Word Wrong: Mass Is Invalid"[/quote]Fuzzy,
Even CatholicCid admitted his answers didn't answer the questions.

Still no answer.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1219532' date='Mar 25 2007, 06:59 PM']Fuzzy,
Even CatholicCid admitted his answers didn't answer the questions.

Still no answer.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but did you look at all the posts and documents?

I admitted that one answer was a message by the Pope and I posted it because I found it interesting as it referenced the answer to the question. I also said that my own thoughts probably would not be enough to answer your questions, so I found documents for you.

I think you missed the Compendium quote since it was editted in, but I mentioned the edit in the post following it.

What is wrong with the items from the Compendium of the Catholic Church, the Balitmore Catechism, and the Catechism of Trent? How do they not answer your question?

Edited March 26, 2007 by CatholicCid

[Mr.Cat]

[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. [5][/quote]It seems quoting several writings of the Church with the intention to teach the faithful and quoting the now venerable Pope John Paul the Second is not enough for some. I ponder what could be “necessary” and as I said before, this seems to me like we are being made to jump through hoops. The burden of proof is not upon the Catholics, we have done much in charity and all we receive is a slap in the face.

CatholicCid did a good job but regardless they are not “dogmatic” writings but they certainly are binding to the Catholic Faithful under Canon Law, namely the statement from the Venerable Pope John Paul the Second since the faithful must give intellectual consent to those doctrines proposed as quoted. Maybe I should attack the opposing parties motives, it appears that at this point there is enough evidence to support it. Although, I hope that this is not the case.

[Anomaly]

I just don't get it. We can get agreement on how wrong it is to hold hands, but no clear answer about the requirements of the Eucharist from the Catholic 'scholars' here.

[CatholicCid]

I may not be a scholar, but I think you overlooked my post

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1219551' date='Mar 25 2007, 07:36 PM']I'm sorry, but did you look at all the posts and documents?

I admitted that one answer was a message by the Pope and I posted it because I found it interesting as it referenced the answer to the question. I also said that my own thoughts probably would not be enough to answer your questions, so I found documents for you.

I think you missed the Compendium quote since it was editted in, but I mentioned the edit in the post following it.

[b]What is wrong with the items from the Compendium of the Catholic Church, the Balitmore Catechism, and the Catechism of Trent? How do they not answer your question?[/b][/quote]

[Anomaly]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1219691' date='Mar 26 2007, 12:22 AM']I may not be a scholar, but I think you overlooked my post [/quote]
Didn't overlook your posts. This is what the question evolved to during the course of this thread:

... where are the RC Documents that clearly spell out what words and conditions are required for the Consecration to be VALID.
... What are the exact words?
... Why those words?
... What intent is required?
... Where is the documentation and evidence the Church marries the constraints of correct rubrics and intent to serve Jesus' will and intent for the Eucharist?

I'm not well educated, so please help me out. What posts answered those specific questions?

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1219703' date='Mar 25 2007, 10:35 PM']Didn't overlook your posts. This is what the question evolved to during the course of this thread:

... where are the RC Documents that clearly spell out what words and conditions are required for the Consecration to be VALID.
... What are the exact words?
... Why those words?
... What intent is required?
... Where is the documentation and evidence the Church marries the constraints of correct rubrics and intent to serve Jesus' will and intent for the Eucharist?

I'm not well educated, so please help me out. What posts answered those specific questions?[/quote]

Trust me, you're probably more educated then me

Anyway,I believe the Compendium Quotes, the Baltimore Catechism Quotes, and the Catechism of Trent Quotes answered to the question of what were the exact words of consecration needed for a valid Mass, which i was responding too.

I'll take a stab at your questions now though.

I'll be quoting from the [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html"]Compendium of the Catholic Church[/url].

"The Compendium, which I now present to the Universal Church, is a faithful and sure synthesis of... all the essential and fundamental elements of the Church's faith"
(I = BENEDICTUS PP. XVI)

[i]Where are the RC Documents that clearly spell out what words and conditions are required for the Consecration to be VALID. [/i]

I've seen this question answered in multiple documents, a few already posted, but I will be quoting just from the Compendium, so you can find the words in there.

[i]What are the exact words? [/i]

[quote]280...
The sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist is manifested in the very [b]words of institution, "This is my Body which is given for you" and "This cup is the New Covenant in my Blood that will be shed for you" ([u]Luke 22:19-20[/u]).[/b] The sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one and the same sacrifice. The priest and the victim are the same; only the manner of offering is different: in a bloody manner on the cross, in an unbloody manner in the Eucharist.[/quote]

I'd also like to quote from the [url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bsacr-e.htm#Lesson23"]Baltimore Catechism[/url] on this one since I really like the direct wording. (I believe it was simplified for child's mind, so that's probably why I like it so much )

[quote][b]250. Q. How do the priests exercise this power of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ?[/b]
A. The priests exercise this power of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ through the words of consecration in the Mass, which are the words of Christ: "This is My body; this is My blood."[/quote]


[i]Why those words? [/i]

These are the Words Christ spoke when he instituted the Eucharist

[quote]272. When did Jesus Christ institute the Eucharist?

1323
1337-1340

Jesus instituted the Eucharist on Holy Thursday “the night on which he was betrayed” (1 Corinthians 11:23), as he celebrated the Last Supper with his apostles.

273. How did he institute the Eucharist?

1337-1340
1365, 1406

After he had gathered with his apostles in the Cenacle, Jesus took bread in his hands. He broke it and gave it to them saying, “Take this and eat it, all of you; this is my Body which will be given up for you”. Then, he took the cup of wine in his hands and said, “Take this and drink of this, all of you. This is the cup of my Blood, the Blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgive. Do this in memory of me”.
[/quote][i]What intent is required? [/i]

To discover intent, first we must ask whose intent?
[quote]278. [b]Who is the minister for the celebration of the Eucharist?[/b]

1348
1411

The celebrant of the Eucharist is a validly ordained priest (bishop or priest) who acts in the Person of Christ the Head and in the name of the Church.[/quote]

Now that we know the Priest is acting in the Person of Christ and therefore with the same intent as Christ, that is, turning the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[quote]271. What is the Eucharist?

1322-1323
1409

The Eucharist is the very sacrifice of the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus which he instituted to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until his return in glory. Thus he entrusted to his Church this memorial of his death and Resurrection. It is a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet, in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.[/quote]

The final part confuzzles me at this late hour, so I apologize, but I won't be stabbing at that tonight. Sorry if this post seems a little broken up, had a laundry run to do during typing it. Phatmass was also being stubborn so I might have tinkered with some parts while I had it saved in Notepad. All emphasis mine. If anyone notices any mistakes, feel free to correct away.

Edited March 26, 2007 by CatholicCid

[Budge]

[quote]idn't overlook your posts. This is what the question evolved to during the course of this thread:

... where are the RC Documents that clearly spell out what words and conditions are required for the Consecration to be VALID.
... What are the exact words?
... Why those words?
... What intent is required?
... Where is the documentation and evidence the Church marries the constraints of correct rubrics and intent to serve Jesus' will and intent for the Eucharist?

I'm not well educated, so please help me out. What posts answered those specific questions?[/quote]

Anamoly dont get flustered, Im used to this. There are many things like this they NEVER spell out even if they have documents on the 20 ways to earn an indulgence, there are certain things that are left up in the air; I believe for a reason. They dont want to paint themselves into a corner especially if in the year 2100, if the world is still going on, {I doubt it} they want to institute a Pope John Paul IV Rave Interfaith Mass to update the latest version.

I dont expect a concrete answer for when the wafer ceases to be "jesus" either in the digestive tract.

[Anomaly]

Budge,
I think you've gotten an answer to most of your questions, except where the Church may document intent.

Don't get off-topic in the same thread. If you want an honest answer, keep asking the same question and be open to the answer. I feel CatholicCid did a 'fair' job with these quotes from the RC Catechism and Compendium. The source documents for the Catechism would be better. Although, I would expect something more explicit that is used to teach seminarians. The difficulty the RC Catholics have in answering these questions is the root of the problem they have regarding poor catechisis within their Church. They're resentful it's being questioned and then they repeatedly fail explaining the details.

[The Joey-O]

Could we stick to the issue of reception? I thought Vat put up some interesting points on the previous page that hasn't been commented on yet. If we simply ignore budge maybe we could get some real conversation going?