If Priest Gets One Word Wrong: Mass Is Invalid

[Anomaly]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1219872' date='Mar 26 2007, 10:48 AM']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?[/quote]
Reception? Aren't you in the wrong thread?

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1219887' date='Mar 26 2007, 10:50 AM']Reception? Aren't you in the wrong thread?[/quote]

Woah. Sorry. I must've somehow clicked next topic instead of next page. Please, disregard what I said.

Mods delete my last post, please. Again, sorry about my confusion.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Budge' post='1219846' date='Mar 26 2007, 08:51 AM']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.[/quote]Our Blessed Lord does not cease to be present but simply becomes present in a different way, by transfiguring us and transforming us into a more likeness of Him. Your intentional attack on doctrine it is clear you do not fully understand could be offending to some Catholics here. But there have been some good answers given here...

Tell me where your sources or proofs are, which we have given from our side?[quote name='Anomaly' post='1219853' date='Mar 26 2007, 09:07 AM']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.[/quote]I am glad you admit CatholicCid did a good job, but I still await a response from the Non-Catholic parities here who oppose such doctrine (namely quotes or other proof). Otherwise, I think this discussion has concluded its course.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1219936' date='Mar 26 2007, 03:38 PM']Our Blessed Lord does not cease to be present but simply becomes present in a different way, by transfiguring us and transforming us into a more likeness of Him. Your intentional attack on doctrine it is clear you do not fully understand could be offending to some Catholics here. But there have been some good answers given here...

Tell me where your sources or proofs are, which we have given from our side?I am glad you admit CatholicCid did a good job, but I still await a response from the Non-Catholic parities here who oppose such doctrine (namely quotes or other proof). Otherwise, I think this discussion has concluded its course.[/quote]
LOL. What a joker. You don't provide a solid response, but you call the discussion concluded. You ask me for 'proof' when all I'm doing is asking questions.

[Mr.Cat]

[jeffpugh]

Whoa talk about two faced here... first Anomaly pats CatholicCid on the back then he slaps CatholicCat in the face... Where is the charity, people? As far as I've been following this, I think we have pretty much most of the cards on the table... if you want the teaching given to seminarians, then ask a seminarian!

[Mr.Cat]

I suppose I just don’t understand how much further this discussion can go on without both sides putting something into this discussion. Maybe I have some biased thoughts on this subject that affected me in my posts. For anyone who was offended by what I wrote I apologize since my intention is not to offend anyone...

[Anomaly]

No need to get all your panties in a wad. All I've done is ask questions and pointed out when the answers provided seemed to answer my questions or seemed not to answer my questions. Some of what Cid posted answered my questions, and some didn't. It wasn't patting him on the back then slapping him in the face. How silly and hurtful to even say that. Cid's done a better job and put more effort into directly answering direct questions than the rest of you, and didn't get personally offended or accusatory.

Take a chill pill and instead of creating some tangled web of intrigue to assign motive to the persons asking the questions, just answer the questions like Cid did. If you say you can answer the question and discuss your answer, then do so. Else, then just say NO to Posting invective.

As it remains, now, Cid had provided very good evidence to support that generally, this is my Body and this is my Blood, as the normative words that effects Consecration of the Eucharist. To answer Budge's challenge about it being 'magic words' spoken by a priest that gets 'magic power', you have to establish clear Church teachings about intent of the Priest and how the Holy Spirt works through him. Be careful you don't fall into Luther's 'Consubstantiation' trap.

Continue on.

[Winchester]

So after people leave because they took Jesus literally when He said this is my body, etcetera, why didn't He explain to them it was merely symbolic?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1222002' date='Mar 29 2007, 11:08 AM']So after people leave because they took Jesus literally when He said this is my body, etcetera, why didn't He explain to them it was merely symbolic?[/quote]That's really illustrative of what the RC Church 'teaches'. Thanks. That will be an "F".

Edited March 29, 2007 by Anomaly

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I believe answer regarding intent is given here:
[quote][b]The Council of Trent - The Seventh Session: ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL[/b]
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.
[i]Source: [url="http://history.hanover.edu/project.html"]Hanover Historical Texts Project[/url] - [url="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html"]http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html[/url], translated by Rev. J. Waterworth[/i][/quote]
God bless!

Edited March 29, 2007 by thedude

[Aloysius]

When does the Eucharist cease to be Christ in digestion? When does bread cease to be bread in digestion? The answer to both questions would be the same; it's clearly an organic and fuzzy question on both accounts... but if you can give me some solid concrete answer to the latter question I shall apply it readily to the first question, because the Church teaches that Christ's physical substantial presence remains so long as the accidents of bread remain. As soon as the accidents of bread have been absorbed into the body, so has Christ.

[quote] [b]Fourth Lateran Council: Constitution De fide catholic, On the Catholic Faith[/b]
His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God's power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church's keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors.[/quote]

[quote][b]Council of Florence: Bull of Union with the Armenians[/b]
There are seven sacraments of the new Law, namely baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders and matrimony...All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, word as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament [i]with the intention of doing what the church does. [/i]If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.
The third is the sacrament of the eucharist. Its matter is wheat bread and wine from the vine, to which a very little water is added before the consecration. Water is added thus because it is believed, in accordance with the testimony of the holy fathers and doctors of the church manifested long ago in disputation, that the Lord himself instituted this sacrament in wine mixed with water, and because it befits the representation of the Lord's passion. For the blessed pope Alexander, fifth after blessed Peter, says "In the oblations of the sacraments which are offered to the Lord within the solemnities of masses, only bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered in sacrifice. There should not be offered in the chalice of the Lord either wine only or water only but both mixed together, because both blood and water are said to have flowed from Christ's side"; also because it is fitting to signify the effect of this sacrament, which is the union of the christian people with Christ. For, water signifies the people according tot he words of the Apocalypse: many waters, many peoples. And Pope Julius, second after blessed Silvester, said: The chalice of the Lord, by precept of the canons, should be offered mixed of wine and water, because we see that the people is understood in the water and the blood of Christ is manifested in the wine; hence when wine and water are mingled in the chalice, the people are made one with Chrsit and the mass of the faithful are linked and joined together with him in whom they believe. Since, therefore, botht he holy Roman church taught by the most blessed apostles Peter and Paul and the other churches of Latins and Greeks, in which the lights of all sanctity and doctrine have shone brightly, have behaved in this way from the very beginning of the growing church and still do so, it seems very unfitting that any other region should differ from this universal and reasonable observance... [i]The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament.[/i] A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood. In such wise, however, that the whole Christ is contained both under the form of bread and under the form of wine; under any part of the consecrated host as well as after division of the sonsecrated wine, there is the whole Christ. The effect of this sacrament, which is produced in the soul of one who receives it worthily, is the union of him with Christ. Since by grace a man is incorporated in Christ and is united with his members, the consequence is that grace is increased by this sacrament in those who receive it worthily; and that [i]every effect that material food and drink produce for corporal life--sustaining, increasing, repairing and delighting--this sacrament works for spiritual life.[/i]

[b]Council of Florence: Bull of Union with the Copts[/b]
[the Church] uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's body: For this is my body. And of his blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.[/quote]
(emphasis added)

I could go on to Trent, but I believe the point has been illustrated;

Matter, form, and intent; and it goes into the body as food goes into the body; is substantially absorbed into the soul the way food is absorbed into the
Christ gave us the matter and the form of the Eucharist directly and commanded us to follow it. Doing it with the correct intention, that is to do as Christ's Church does, makes it no form of magic incantation but rather a way in which Christ gives graces through His Church.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1220057' date='Mar 26 2007, 08:59 PM']Whoa talk about two faced here... first Anomaly pats CatholicCid on the back then he slaps CatholicCat in the face... [b]Where is the charity, people[/b]? As far as I've been following this, I think we have pretty much most of the cards on the table... if you want the teaching given to seminarians, then ask a seminarian! [/quote][quote name='Anomaly' post='1222205' date='Mar 29 2007, 01:27 PM']That's really illustrative of what the RC Church 'teaches'. Thanks. That will be an "F".[/quote]


[quote name='Aloysius' post='1222256' date='Mar 29 2007, 03:02 PM']When does the Eucharist cease to be Christ in digestion? When does bread cease to be bread in digestion? The answer to both questions would be the same; it's clearly an organic and fuzzy question on both accounts... but if you can give me some solid concrete answer to the latter question I shall apply it readily to the first question, because the Church teaches that Christ's physical substantial presence remains so long as the accidents of bread remain. [b]As soon as the accidents of bread have been absorbed into the body, so has Christ[/b].[/quote]Exactly...

[Anomaly]

[quote name='thedude' post='1222246' date='Mar 29 2007, 03:50 PM']I believe answer regarding intent is given here:
[quote]QUOTE
The Council of Trent - The Seventh Session: ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.
Source: Hanover Historical Texts Project - [url="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html"]http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html[/url], translated by Rev. J. Waterworth[/quote]God bless!
[/quote]
Thanks. I know what the Church teaches, but to answer my question and respond to Budge fully, provide some 'Why' and 'How'. Since I do know what the Church really teaches, I'll give you a hint since I'm tired of being bashed. Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line which will discuss the words, why, and how, and explain the why intent is important. You've got to read it all and then read the questions. Admittedly, I'm being a bit stubborn about it, but I knew a real answer was out there regardless of my or Budge's motives or attitude.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1222205' date='Mar 29 2007, 12:27 PM']That's really illustrative of what the RC Church 'teaches'. Thanks. That will be an "F".[/quote]
I'm assuming when you edited your post, you removed the actual rebuttal by mistake.