If Priest Gets One Word Wrong: Mass Is Invalid

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1222387' date='Mar 29 2007, 07:03 PM']I'm assuming when you edited your post, you removed the actual rebuttal by mistake.[/quote]Not so much. There wasn't anything to rebutt.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1219218' date='Mar 25 2007, 09:58 AM']Reading the entire conversation will illuminate [u]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[/u]. 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?

[b][u]Of course, it's easier to attack our character and motives. We're mere humans[/u].[/b][/quote][quote name='Anomaly' post='1220384' date='Mar 27 2007, 08:40 AM'][u]No need to get all your panties in a wad[/u]. 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. [u]How silly and hurtful to even say that[/u] (?). 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.

[u]Take a chill pill and instead of creating some tangled web of intrigue to assign motive to the persons asking the questions[/u], [b]just answer the questions like Cid did[/b] (?). 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.[/quote][quote name='Anomaly' post='1222297' date='Mar 29 2007, 03:54 PM']God bless!

Thanks. [b] I know what the Church teaches[/b], 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. [b][u]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[/u][/b].[/quote][quote name='Anomaly' post='1222394' date='Mar 29 2007, 06:21 PM']Not so much. There wasn't anything to rebutt. [/quote]Odd how this conversation is forming... Nothing ever fits what is being looked for, just rude comments being made back to the Catholic parities that have no requirement in this discussion to submit anything since they are not the aggressors. It is odd that before you accused me of presuming "motives or attitude" but now you admit to it. You even point out you are being stubborn. Before when pointing this issue out before, with less evidence, you demanded I hold my word unless I had something to post. A few pages later and still no result... I am starting to have doubts you are looking for anything but just are asking questions that you will accept no answer...

Edited March 29, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1222424' date='Mar 29 2007, 08:17 PM']Odd how this conversation is forming... Nothing ever fits what is being looked for, just rude comments being made back to the Catholic parities that have no requirement in this discussion to submit anything since they are not the aggressors. It is odd that before you accused me of presuming "motives or attitude" but now you admit to it. You even point out you are being stubborn. Before when pointing this issue out before, with less evidence, you demanded I hold my word unless I had something to post. A few pages later and still no result... I am starting to have doubts you are looking for anything but just are asking questions that you will accept no answer...[/quote]
what? Half the time I don't even know what you are trying to say.

Your mom.

[Aloysius]

lol

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1222394' date='Mar 29 2007, 05:21 PM']Not so much. There wasn't anything to rebutt. [/quote]
Very well, I accept your surrender.

Many people can't explain why Christ didn't make it clear that to make it into heaven, one would have to consume His flesh and blood was symbolic, so you're not alone.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1222426' date='Mar 29 2007, 07:30 PM']what? Half the time I don't even know what you are trying to say.

Your mom.[/quote]Half the time I think you have no idea what you are writing about and most of the time I am trying to figure out what you are really asking for, since no one can seem to EVER offer a sufficient answer. I am glad you can resort to offensive remarks although; it makes my case ever stronger and clearer.

([i][b]If I were to respond as you do to me[/b][/i]) On second thought, if you cannot understand me then you should consider taking some English courses at the local Junior College; maybe at the remedial level so you are not “left behind”.

Edited March 30, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1222487' date='Mar 29 2007, 10:10 PM']Half the time I think you have no idea what you are writing about and most of the time I am trying to figure out what you are really asking for, since no one can seem to EVER offer a sufficient answer. I am glad you can resort to offensive remarks although; it makes my case ever stronger and clearer.

([i][b]If I were to respond as you do to me[/b][/i]) On second thought, if you cannot understand me then you should consider taking some English courses at the local Junior College; maybe at the remedial level so you are not “left behind”.[/quote]Left behind? I never would have guessed you were a millenialist.
And you are right about needing more education. I graduated from high school almost 30 years ago and didn't get much education after that. I think I've mentioned my lack of education previously. Any-who. Considering my lack of language comprehension skills, I was hoping you'd apply your superior education and talents and help me out. Currently, Cid had provided pretty clear evidence of the words of institution. He didn't explain so much about why those words and how and why the words, combined with the graces provided in Ordination, makes the actions of the priest effectively sacramental. I do hope my clumsy language skills aren't making my questions too unclear.
Thanks.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1222426' date='Mar 29 2007, 06:30 PM']Your mom.[/quote]


[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1222487' date='Mar 29 2007, 08:10 PM']([i][b]If I were to respond as you do to me[/b][/i]) On second thought, if you cannot understand me then you should consider taking some English courses at the local Junior College; maybe at the remedial level so you are not “left behind”.[/quote]


[quote name='Anomaly' post='1222899' date='Mar 30 2007, 06:09 AM']Left behind? I never would have guessed you were a millenialist.
And you are right about needing more education. I graduated from high school almost 30 years ago and didn't get much education after that. I think I've mentioned my lack of education previously. Any-who. Considering my lack of language comprehension skills, I was hoping you'd apply your superior education and talents and help me out. Currently, Cid had provided pretty clear evidence of the words of institution. He didn't explain so much about why those words and how and why the words, combined with the graces provided in Ordination, makes the actions of the priest effectively sacramental. I do hope my clumsy language skills aren't making my questions too unclear.
Thanks.[/quote]

No more uncharity and bickering. I don't know who started it, but if you don't finish it now, I will.

[son_of_angels]

The question as to "why?" these words are required could be understood from the Council documents above, but also from Sacred Scripture. Principally, because the Catholic Church, despite all claims to the contrary, does not and did not create any sacrament herself, but can only exercise such sacraments as were given her in the testimony of Sacred Scripture from Christ himself. Hence, as far as the words of Consecration, they are derived from Sacred Scripture itself as being the words which Christ spoke.

Now, there are communions in fellowship with Rome, as the Assyrians, who do not use the words of consecration explicitly, but implicitly, although many have revised their prayers to conform more to the Roman Catholic viewpoint. Nonetheless, we hold their consecration valid because there is still explicit reference to the change which goes on. I am not sure how to find this material, but I assure you it is true.

That is off-topic, however. But this is not....

Having been raised, and even begun the process of becoming a Southern Baptist minister prior to leaving that fellowship, the fact that the Words of Consecration are to be used as found in sacred Scripture, permeates the conscience of the Western mind, and I wonder at your decision to question it. I never did, principally because this was the form used at EVERY celebration of the Lord's Supper in which I participated as a Baptist. No one, and one must agree with this principle, dared to create a different set of words to solemnify the occasion, other than those which our Lord himself used on the night before his suffering and death. Indeed, some might argue that to do so is, in a way, to lose even the commemorative aspect of the Eucharistic celebration, hence contrary to even those who doctrinally hold that the Eucharist is a mere commemoration.

If, then, the commemorative aspect of the Eucharist (which both Catholics and Protestants share) seems to DEMAND that the Words of Consecration be used, how much more should Catholics, who believe that Christ gives himself completely at this celebration in his Real Presence, assert that the words of Consecration MUST be used. It is only reasonable, however reasonable one holds the doctrine itself.

And this is all one has to ask of you, Budge, not that you agree with this interpretation, for unless you also follow belief with sincere conversion and repentence, mere argumentative assent would not be helpful to you, that you acknowledge that the beliefs of Catholicism are in fact consistent with their convictions. But if you deny this fact, then you cannot only deny that our doctrine is consistent with properly Christian conviction, but also that many western Christian convictions are themselves flawed, which are all the bases (however divorced from their full meaning) of Evangelical Protestantism. "No man is an island...." I should not like to see the seedlings of St Augustine of Hippo deny their common roots, for he, as it was "who fathered you in Christ Jesus, by the gospel" in the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians (4:15)!

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1222926' date='Mar 30 2007, 08:45 AM']No more uncharity and bickering. I don't know who started it, but if you don't finish it now, I will.[/quote]I affirm the decision that this is not in Christian virtue on my part... [u]no matter for what reason I put the comment up that it was wrong[/u], [b]it is something I shouldn’t of done and I apologize[/b]. Although no offence was intended to anyone but rather it was to show a point of how this user always responds to me since I would be willing to do research in the topic if the questions were more clearly defined and I could see some kind of heartfelt intention from the questions. [b]Even in light of this what I did I apologize for this and I will avoid doing this in the future[/b].

Edited March 30, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Anomaly]

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?

[son_of_angels]

First, as I posted just above, the question "why those words" is answered mostly by Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox univocally, i.e. because it is most fitting. What are the exact words? Read the synoptic Gospels, and the letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians; they are all there in slightly different forms, all of them valid forms of the same consecration, as you may find in the Sacramental.

Secondly, "where is the documentation." To what end? If you are wondering at the documentation that the Church is the minister of the Sacraments, and has duty over their protection, that is to be found in Sacred Scripture and the Fathers, St. Augustine, and others. As for "Jesus' will," Jesus wills for charity and for piety, it is on the basis of this that the Church regulates the proper rubrics of the Mass, in completely different forms between East, West, and Oriental communions. What is essential is that it is the Church, and that the rubrics are made carefully "in good order," as St Paul says, and that people "receive it worthily" "discerning the body of the Lord." But, if you want "Jesus' will" in an explicit sense on every matter of discipline, there are a lot of things in every community you will not be able to discover. That's ok, because one of the central principles of the Apostolic church is obedience in everything to the Apostles, to whom was entrusted "to bring obedience to the faith."

[Aloysius]

What are the exact words?
Council of Florence: Bull of Union with the Copts
[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.

Why those words?
Council of Florence: Bull of Union with the Armenians
The form of this sacrament are [b]the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament.[/b] 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

What intent is required and 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?
Council of Florence: Bull of Union with the Armenians
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 with [i]the intention of doing what the church does.[/i] If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.

The reason it's these words is really quite simple: number one: Christ used these words. number two: Christ commanded us to do the same in remembrance of Him. number three: whatever Christ, who is God, says becomes ontollogically true, in the same way that God says at the beginning "let there be light" and there is light. therefore, the priest who acts in Christ's place must say directly the words of Christ.

why is it not magic? because it is Christ who does everything, not the priest. when the priest says "This is my body" he is becoming merely the mouthpeice of Christ.

now, because they are the words of direct ontollogical change, the word "this is my body" changes the bread, and the word "this is my blood" changes the wine (as has been established in other quotes from catechisms) the additional phrase after "this is my blood" is also part of the consecration, as Christ also used these words.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1223317' date='Mar 30 2007, 06:24 PM']now, because they are the words of direct ontollogical change, the word "this is my body" changes the bread, and the word "this is my blood" changes the wine (as has been established in other quotes from catechisms) the additional phrase after "this is my blood" is also part of the consecration, as Christ also used these words.[/quote]
That's pretty much what I thought. If, as I said, it is because the words of Christ have efficacious power that the Eucharist is consecrated, then it makes sense that one speaking in persona Christi capitis has that same power of words when his speech is in line with Christ's own.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1223317' date='Mar 30 2007, 08:24 PM']why is it not magic? because it is Christ who does everything, not the priest. when the priest says "This is my body" he is becoming merely the mouthpeice of Christ.[/quote]What I thought at one time. But how does the Church resolve the issue of claiming clergy are 'persona Christi capitis' and was granted the power to bind in heaven and earth? That elevates a priest above being a mouthpiece, but being the mouth of Christ.