While he may or may not have been validly ordained, Digitonomy, that is only one of the conditions for validity of the Mass. He needed to have the intent to do this as the Church prescribes, the form and the matter. If any of other three conditions were not present, then it would render it invalid.
Obviously the priest needs the proper form, matter, and intent, as usual. Based on their website, where they discuss among other things their Latin masses, I would guess other than their “inclusive” approach, they probably hew pretty close to the line liturgically, in order to hide their other shortcomings.
emseguin:
No it was not the Archbishop/former Jesuit priest that did the Ceremony.
In that case the validity of the Eucharist is in much greater doubt, since we don’t know the validity of his ordination. There are some churches that have maintained apostolic succession and valid orders, and it’s likely bishops from one or more of those churches were somehow involved. However, they are such a mishmash of practices that it’s difficult to judge validity without careful study of each church and its history.
emseguin:
And is that really true? I would doubt the Eucharist was valid, when the whole thing is invalid beyond comprehension.
I do not believe Christ is even present at such events
As mentioned above, the only 3 things an actual priest requires for the validity of the Eucharist are proper form, matter, and intent. It’s important to understand the difference between validity and licity. It is usually accepted that the Eucharist can be validly, but illicitly, confected outside a mass. With that in mind, it should be clear that adding components of the mass to that bare-bones consecration, whether those components are licit or not, won’t invalidate it. It may not be a real mass, but that’s different from saying the Eucharist is invalid.
emseguin said:
There have been innumerable homosexual priests in history, thankfuly most have not been practicing, and far fewer have been open about it. But to suggest that sins of the priest invalidate the sacraments he celebrates is to embrace the heresy of Donatism.
emseguin:
telling everyone this is a Catholic mass
“Catholic” is a slippery term. By itself it means “worldly,” and many other denominations recite the Nicene Creed, stating their belief in one, holy, catholic, apostolic church. Orthodox consider themselves Catholic, although they won’t ask for the Catholic Church when they visit a town, just as a Catholic who considers himself orthodox won’t look for the Orthodox Church. They are using a Catholic liturgy. And to some extent all sacraments are part of the Church. So as deceptive as it seems, there are grounds for the celebrant to make that claim. The key question is whether they are in union with Rome. Answer: no!
emseguin:
This is an unfortunate claim, as it misleads the faithful, on an issue we’re all familiar with. Canon law and current discipline on this matter are merely supplemental to dogmatic teaching, so we can’t excuse it as simply a different discipline. Depending on how it was presented, it’s quite possibly heretical. But again, a heretical statement or practice separate from the consecration doesn’t invalidate the Eucharist.
emseguin:
A restaurant is not the most appropriate place to celebrate a mass, but for good reason a mass can be licitly be celebrated almost anywhere (often this requires the permission of the bishop). Without a good reason, or without permission, it becomes illicit. But not invalid.
emseguin:
to a couple where the groom is not annulled
Who attends the mass, or who it is celebrated for, does not affect its validity. As for the Sacrament of Matrimony you witnessed, that is almost certainly invalid.
emseguin:
where the priest has told the parents it is recongnized in the Church as a valid mass.
As they say on Mythbusters, plausible (but somewhat doubtful).
