Aren't Many Masses Invalid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dlnoga
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dlnoga

Guest
A friend posed this to me today, I’m interested in responses.

At our parish - as I’ve seen at most others - during Mass the wine is in one chalice (or some other kind of container) prior to consecration. Then, after the consecration, the Precious Blood is poured from the one chalice (or container) into many chalices/containers.

According to #106 in Redemptionis Sacramentum, this should not be done. I think that is well known to participants in this forum. However, our priests persist in doing this, even though they know that this is prohibited.

Read #173 of Redemptionis Sacramentum. It says this: “Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, …” This makes clear that the practice prohibited in #106 is “objectively to be considered grave matter”, and that it “puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist…”

My friend pointed out the part about the validity. #173 appears to be saying that the practice outlined in #106 (pouring the Blood from one chalice to many) puts the validity of the sacrament and Mass at risk.

(A valid Mass/sacrament, as I remember it, requires three things: proper form, proper matter, and proper intention. I am assuming that what #173 is getting at is that if a priest treats the Precious Blood this way - viz., pours It from one chalice to several - such an action can reasonably be interpreted to reflect a defective intention on the part of the priest, and thus the invalidity. But, I may be on shaky ground here.)

Nevertheless, #173 definitely does connect invalidity with the pouring of Christ’s Blood from one chalice into many. Presumably - but I am not sure of this - if a priest does this out of ignorance or confusion, his intention is still acceptable. But, if the priest continues this practice knowing what #106 says, then it seems his intention - and therefore the validity - is questionable.

If pouring the Blood from one chalice to many does reflect deficient intention - and therefore an invalidity - I fear there are many, many invalid Masses and communions. There is a lot of objective idolatry going on - kneeling in adoration of mere bread and wine is idolatrous. Also, this raises questions about what is being placed in the monstrances for adoration.

The only way I can see not having these concerns is if I do not take #106 and #173 seriously, or to assume that most priests aren’t knowingly contradicting #106. (I find it hard to make that assumption.)

This puts a new twist on the impact of liturgical abuse. Well, at least for me. I had always thought of such nonsense as illicit, but not affecting validity. Now I’m thinking I was mistaken, at least for the types of abuse outlined in #172 and #173 of Redemptionis Sacramentum.

If my logic is sound, I should not attend a “Mass” where the priest refuses to stop such abuses.

I’m interested in comments and reactions. Has someone else beaten this horse once before? I’d like to see the “final say” on this line of thinking, can you cite the relevant sources?

Thanks!
 
I’ve heard of one unusual case where, after the consecration, unconsecrated wine from a vessel on the credence table was poured into the chalices for communion. (!!!)

Thankfully, I haven’t seen that kind of abuse happening. Mostly I see the pouring of the Precious Blood (that is, consecrated matter) from one vessel to another. I don’t see how that specific action affects validity.

Moreover, this “big vessel” which holds the elements to be consecrated is right next to the celebrant’s chalice. Therefore, I think we can have confidence that the celebrant intends to consecrate the matter in that vessel as well.
 
Vincent, thanks for the reply. I want to be clear on what I am asking.

I am not asking whether the quantity of wine affects the validity of the consecration, nor whether the distance of the chalices from the priest during the consecration affects the validity of the consecration, nor whether the number of chalices present during the conseccration affects the validity of the consecration.

I am asking, What exactly does it mean in #173 of Redemptionis Sacramentum when it says that pouring the already consecrated Precious Blood from one chalice into others (#106) is “grave matter” that “puts at risk the validity” (emhpasis added) of the Most Holy Eucharist? Don’t these words mean that this practice of pouring the Precious Blood makes “something” invalid?
 
dlnoga:

Don’t be silly. What affects validity in a sacrament is the matter and form. This has nothing to do with how the Blood is poured and distributed once it’s been consecrated. Such an idea has no precedence in *2000 years * of Catholic theology.

The “and” you refer to needs to be taken in the sense of “and/or.”

To use an easy example: If I say: “The following people are men and women of honor,” and proceed to give a list of names, I by no means am saying that each individual is a hermaphrodite, simultaneously a man and a woman!
 
40.png
dlnoga:
Read #173 of Redemptionis Sacramentum. It says this: “Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, …” This makes clear that the practice prohibited in #106 is “objectively to be considered grave matter”, and that it “puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist…”
Click to expand...
In the case of #106, because there is a higher risk of spilling the Blood (as well as simply appearing less reverant), it falls under the grave matter with regards to the *dignity *part of the equation. So long as there is valid matter, form and intention to confect the Sacred Species according to the Church’s intention the Eucharist is valid – I do not see how even willful intention to disobey #106 and continue pouring the Blood from one to the other would constitute a change in the priest’s intention to confect the sacrament itself.

Is this a serious problem? Yes. Our Cathedral here in St. Paul persists in doing this, and though our new rector would love to change this (and other things), it’s not happening very quickly due to the Archdiocesean strings attached to the parish…

Keep praying, keep working for change (join your parish’s liturgy committee!!) but do not worry about validity with this particular issue unless there is further reasons to think the Mass is invalid.

+veritas+
 
I’ve rarely, if ever, seen the Precious Blood poured from one chalice to another. Often, however, there is a flagon of wine which is specifically designed for pouring. I think that the idea behind this is simple: unclutter the altar with umpteen chalices for the entire Eucharistic Prayer. I wouldn’t worry about it in any way invalidating the Mass, however.
 
A large number of Novus Ordo masses celebrated are done so illicitly. There is always some illicit element to them. In fact, in some parts of the country there are whole groups of churches who all share some illicit part in there masses.

With that being said we know that attending SSPX mass is illicit. So, as far as I am concerned I would rather go to an illicit SSPX mass then a NO illicit mass anyday.
 
To repeat what DominvsVobiscvm said, pouring the precious blood from one container to another after consecration has NO effect on validity whatsoever. If It is not according to the current GIRM, that just means the rubrics weren’t followed, not that the Eucharist is invalid.

Further, I’m not aware of "a large number of ‘Novus Ordo’ Masses being celebrated illicitly. Certainly not in my diocese. And even things which are done “illicitly” do not necessarily affect validity.

Finally, there is no such thing as a “Novus Ordo” Mass. There is only the Mass.
 
Michael Welter:
What is SSPX?
Click to expand...
Society of Saint Pius X.

It is a group currently in schism from Rome. Depending on who you talk to in the group, they believe that none of the Pope’s since Pius the tenth have been valid Popes and that the Mass in its current form is invalid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top