Z
zab
Guest
So I gather the proper wording is that “consecration cannot occur ***outside the context of ***the Mass”.
- Status
P
petronus
Guest
Sorry if my words misled you .
I am not referring to your authority . I am referring to some authoritative document or pronouncement within the Church from those who have the authority to make such .
You say : " I’m writing about the fact that a priest is able to consecrate outside of the context of a full Mass " .
Now I have no problem with that . For example , if a priest were to consecrate the bread and wine during a Mass where the Liturgy of the Word had been omitted , I doubt if few would find that difficult to accept .
My inabilty to understand some of what is being said on this thread surrounds the Liturgy of the Eucharist from the Offertory to the priest’s Communion .
What authoritative teaching of the Church designates what “a full Mass” is ?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Missale Romanum, though it doesn’t specify time constraints, minimum or maximum, AFAIK.
P
petronus
Guest
dup…
P
petronus
Guest
Z
zab
Guest
It hard to read every post and make dinner at the same time. I
P
petronus
Guest
The time ran out before I could edit my previous response .
I will try again .
Sorry if my words misled you .
I am not referring to your authority . I am referring to some authoritative document or pronouncement within the Church from those who have the authority to make such .
You say : " I’m writing about the fact that a priest is able to consecrate outside of the context of a full Mass " .
Now I have no problem with that . For example , if a priest were to consecrate the bread and wine during a Mass where the Liturgy of the Word had been omitted , I doubt if few would find that difficult to accept .
My inabilty to understand some of what is being said on this thread surrounds the Liturgy of the Eucharist from the Offertory to the priest’s Communion .
What authoritative teaching of the Church designates when a priest has the power to consecrate the bread and wine outside of the context of the Liturgy of the Eucharist as we know it ?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Would you repeat the question please? Just the question itself. I want to be sure I understand what you’re asking.The time ran out before I could edit my previous response .
I will try again .
Sorry if my words misled you .
I am not referring to your authority . I am referring to some authoritative document or pronouncement within the Church from those who have the authority to make such .
You say : " I’m writing about the fact that a priest is able to consecrate outside of the context of a full Mass " .
Now I have no problem with that . For example , if a priest were to consecrate the bread and wine during a Mass where the Liturgy of the Word had been omitted , I doubt if few would find that difficult to accept .
My inabilty to understand some of what is being said on this thread surrounds the Liturgy of the Eucharist from the Offertory to the priest’s Communion .
What authoritative teaching of the Church designates when a priest has the power to consecrate the bread and wine outside of the context of the Liturgy of the Eucharist as we know it ?
P
petronus
Guest
What authoritative teaching of the Church designates when a priest has the power to consecrate the bread and wine outside of the context of the Liturgy of the Eucharist as we know it ?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I still do not understand the question. You are asking about “when.” The Church doesn’t address the issue of “when.” The Church says that although it can be done, it must never be done.
He has the power from the moment of his sacerdotal ordination until the moment he dies. That’s the “when.”
If you’re asking “when may he do this?” The answer is still “he is always forbidden to do it.”
C
CutlerB
Guest
I find this rather interesting. Does FrDavid have anything to say about it?Coming from a more holistic Eastern perspective, I find this topic rather amusing…
For us, the holy Eucharist is a single act: Last Supper via participation in the divine liturgy.
For a priest to stand in a grocery store and start demanding that God become present in the French-bread loaf is absolutely ridiculous. Jesus Christ “obeys” the word and institution of the priest in some sense at the Liturgy, but to think He is bound to enter some sliced bread in a grocery aisle because a priest said the Anaphora is just magic.
This is why I am not a Latin at heart… and thank God for diversity of theology.
M
malphono
Guest
OK, I said earlier that I bowed-out, but I have to interject something.
As I mentioned in a previous post, we know the Church makes allowances in extremis, and in that type of situation, the intent of the Church is very clear: even absent the full formal ritual, and assuming the priest’s intent, a valid action does take place, but it is still within the context of Mass (as abbreviated as it may be). My point, though, doesn’t bear on in extremis situations.
Yes, the priest has the power from ordination, but what I was trying to say all along is that the intent of the priest and the intent of the Church must be the same in order for there to be a valid consecration. Nothing specifically to do with the ritual being followed or a Mass being “complete” or “full” in itself, but strictly and explicitly the question of intent.
It brings to mind an episode from 19th century France, where a curé apparently went a little bonkers. He was passing a bakery, went inside, and spoke the words of Institution with hands raised over the bread. The poor baker freaked and once the priest left, he shooed-out his customers and locked the doors. He then went, accompanied by a couple of witnesses, to the bishop and explained what had happened. The bishop promptly compensated the baker for all his wares, and sent some of his staff to remove and consume the bread. The question is, why?
To me it’s very clear that nothing actually happened in that bakery, beyond the poor baker and his customers being panicked. At the same time, it also seems to me that the bishop understood that the priest, albeit a little off-the-deep-end, may have had the proper intention but that the intention was most decidedly not that of the Church. Likewise, it seems to me the bishop understood that, even if the priest’s intent was lacking, the incident could be harmful (i.e, a cause of scandal) to the faithful. In either case, the intent of the Church most definitely was not the same as the intent of the priest.
This (not that part about it being a serious offense – that’s a given) is exactly where we disagree. What this in effect says is that the Church intends for a consecration to occur in a grocery store aisle, as another poster said earlier:
It’s clear to me, at least, that the Church intends no such thing, else the question is reduced to the “magic words syndrome” to which I referred earlier.
As I mentioned in a previous post, we know the Church makes allowances in extremis, and in that type of situation, the intent of the Church is very clear: even absent the full formal ritual, and assuming the priest’s intent, a valid action does take place, but it is still within the context of Mass (as abbreviated as it may be). My point, though, doesn’t bear on in extremis situations.
Yes, the priest has the power from ordination, but what I was trying to say all along is that the intent of the priest and the intent of the Church must be the same in order for there to be a valid consecration. Nothing specifically to do with the ritual being followed or a Mass being “complete” or “full” in itself, but strictly and explicitly the question of intent.
It brings to mind an episode from 19th century France, where a curé apparently went a little bonkers. He was passing a bakery, went inside, and spoke the words of Institution with hands raised over the bread. The poor baker freaked and once the priest left, he shooed-out his customers and locked the doors. He then went, accompanied by a couple of witnesses, to the bishop and explained what had happened. The bishop promptly compensated the baker for all his wares, and sent some of his staff to remove and consume the bread. The question is, why?
To me it’s very clear that nothing actually happened in that bakery, beyond the poor baker and his customers being panicked. At the same time, it also seems to me that the bishop understood that the priest, albeit a little off-the-deep-end, may have had the proper intention but that the intention was most decidedly not that of the Church. Likewise, it seems to me the bishop understood that, even if the priest’s intent was lacking, the incident could be harmful (i.e, a cause of scandal) to the faithful. In either case, the intent of the Church most definitely was not the same as the intent of the priest.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
You are confusing two entirely different uses of the phrase “intent to do as the Church does.”
I’ve been trying to explain it for days.
Apparently, no matter how many times I repeat that simple fact, it just isn’t getting through.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Z
zab
Guest
I guess I’m just having difficulty understanding how it could be a serious offense for someone like an imprisioned bishop in China, for example, who consecrates a piece of bread and small portion of wine. Maybe it can occur as you say, and maybe it “is illicit” but how can this be a serious offense?
M
malphono
Guest
Well, I tried and I can say the same. While I know what you’re saying, (perhaps better than you might think), it seems that you will never see my point. In any case, and with all due respect, perhaps, as I said earlier, it’s due to my being an Oriental, and the concept of “magic words syndrome” just doesn’t make sense to me.You are confusing two entirely different uses of the phrase “intent to do as the Church does.”
I’ve been trying to explain it for days.
Apparently, no matter how many times I repeat that simple fact, it just isn’t getting through.
And with that, I will exit this thread … yes, I know … again
F
FrDavid96
Guest
What you aren’t seeing here is that in your scenario, it’s not necessary that “if A then B.”
A priest in that situation would not be permitted to merely take the bread and wine and immediately consecrate them—even though he would have the ability to do it. He would still be obliged to say as much of the Mass as he possibly could, even if that means going from memory, composing his own prayers, omitting anything non-essential (like the general intercessions), etc. etc. He would do the best he could. However, merely saying the essential words then consuming the Body and Blood would still be forbidden.
So then, what if he does it? (since I know that will be a followup). He will have to answer for what he did to either the Church or to God, or both. I rather think both would forgive him with no hesitation.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I am seeing your point.Well, I tried and I can say the same. While I know what you’re saying, (perhaps better than you might think), it seems that you will never see my point. In any case, and with all due respect, perhaps, as I said earlier, it’s due to my being an Oriental, and the concept of “magic words syndrome” just doesn’t make sense to me.
And with that, I will exit this thread … yes, I know … again
It’s wrong because you’re confusing two different things. No matter how much you deny it, it will not change the fact that you are using words differently than how the Church (East, West, both) uses them.
Z
zab
Guest
I appreciate the explanation. And it was my thought that he would use as much of his memory of the Mass as possible to consecrate the bread and wine. It little injections like, “What you’re not seeing…” and other little expressions (“no matter how much you are denying it…”) that come across as slights as well as bits of explanations over numerous posts that have to be put together to make sense, that make it difficult to comprehend what you are trying to say. But we’re getting there. I think.
And I disagree with malphono. The confusion is not because of his/her being Oriental.
- Status