Does "For All" Invalidate The Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dauphin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AlexV said:
“Can. 927 It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration.”

This clearly implies that it is VALID, but not licit. It speaks of a consecration…a gravely illicit one, but a consecration nonetheless.
Click to expand...
I would say that the “absolutely” implies it would be invalid. There is no more absolute wrong than an invalid and illicit eucharist. And we can speak of an invalid consecration, so the fact it mentions a consecration does not mean it was valid.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
 
Dear Dauphin,

It appears to me that you have come under the influence of some SSPXers. This is one of the reasons that they point out to try and explain why the NO Mass is invaild.

IMO this argument is not worth a hill of beans.

I noticed that you live in Canada. So if the words “for many” vs “for all” is that important to you. May I suggest that you find a nice Anglican Church of Canada, where they use the worlds “for many” in the prayer of consecration. :eek:

Br Mark, OSB
 
Valid or not, Christ couldn’t have possibly said “for you and for all.” First of all if He did say “for all,” then the “for you” part would be redundant. You can’t attribute such poor rethoric to Christ. Second of all remember this is the same Christ who said “I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine.” (John 17:9) Q.E.D.

Also for those that think “This is my blood” is sufficient, do realize it is invalid if followed by a qualifier such as “…only for people of so-and-so descent” for example. So that red herring doesn’t work either.

The ICEL had absolutely no business to change the words of Christ and thus place the validity of the Eucharist in doubt. The Holy See has rightfully instructed the words be changed to “for you and for many.” And the sooner they do it, the better.
 
I noticed that you live in Canada. So if the words “for many” vs “for all” is that important to you. May I suggest that you find a nice Anglican Church of Canada, where they use the worlds “for many” in the prayer of consecration.
Click to expand...
This comment is really uncalled for. The poster stated an opinion in good faith and is obviously very concerned about the state of his soul. He doesn’t need the added torture of those who think they know better than Christ. I suggest you seek confession immediately.
 
Dear Bob,

My point must have missed it’s mark with you. the words in question “for many” vs “for all” does not invalidate the Eucharist.
The present translation of “for all” found in the present NO Mass is vaild and yes it was approved by Rome. The new translation for the NO Mass while it has been approved by the USBBC, has not been approved by Rome. As to how the new translation handles this, I do not know; I’ve seen drafts that contain both versions.

As to the remark about going to a Anglican Church due to them using the translation “for many” in the consecration prayer; that was in part said in jest, that is why I used this face at the end my comment :eek:

And I thank you for your concern for my soul as well, just for your information, I attend daily offices as well as Eucharist daily, I have a personal spiritual advisor and I take advantage of the sacrament of confession on a regular basis.

Br. Mark, OSB
 
Well “Thursday”, you can say all you want, but the canon is not open to that interpretation, as the very nice commentary from the Canon Law society makes clear (besides the fact that your view is utterly unable to be substantiated by any definitive source). “Absolutely” is a legal term (Latin absolute), which means there are no exceptions for a positive application of an action that would mitigate the priest’s objective incurring of a grave sin.

For the sake of those who need educations in Catholics theology, the Eucharist CAN be confected individually, though it is ALWAYS an objectively grave matter.
 
And don’t ever toss around words like “invalid” or “illicit” loosely, or make pronouncements of your own authority on them. There’s a HUGE difference between the two adjectives, which your last post inexcusably obscures. Illicit, yes. Invalid, no.
 
Br_Mark said:
Dear Bob,

My point must have missed it’s mark with you. the words in question “for many” vs “for all” does not invalidate the Eucharist.
The present translation of “for all” found in the present NO Mass is vaild and yes it was approved by Rome. The new translation for the NO Mass while it has been approved by the USBBC, has not been approved by Rome. As to how the new translation handles this, I do not know; I’ve seen drafts that contain both versions.

As to the remark about going to a Anglican Church due to them using the translation “for many” in the consecration prayer; that was in part said in jest, that is why I used this face at the end my comment :eek:
Click to expand...
My hope is that the new translation does not get approved by Rome since it still doesn’t correct the form of consecration, as the Holy See had demanded. The Pope has been very strong on this.

I’d agree with you as far as validity goes, but validity and your narrow point is not the only issue here. Heck, even Satanic black Masses are valid.

And, in your position, you should have advised the poster to attend a Latin or Polish Novus Ordo or the TLM if the words “for you and for all” bothered him/her. There is absolutely no reason, in jest or otherwise, to suggest a Rite which has been absolutely invalidated by a previous or current Pope.
 
Thursday1 said:
I would say that the “absolutely” implies it would be invalid. There is no more absolute wrong than an invalid and illicit eucharist. And we can speak of an invalid consecration, so the fact it mentions a consecration does not mean it was valid.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
Click to expand...
You are right in that the Mass IS invalid, there is no sacrifice since there is no double consecration. But the consecration of the bread into the Body (and Blood by concomittance) of Christ remains valid. This is why it is sacrilegous to consecrate one without the other for “it overthrows the distinction of the Eucharist as it is a a sacrifice, and as it is a sacrament”.

To say that the consecration of the bread is thus dependant on that of the wine is to revert to the so called “single consecration” theory, which I think is condemned.
 
AJV said:
You are right in that the Mass IS invalid, there is no sacrifice since there is no double consecration.
Click to expand...
Just wanted to clarify that by the above sentence I’m not passing a judgement on the “for all” but speaking on a hypothetical case of a priest invalidating the Mass by use of the wrong words in the Consecration of the Blood e.g. as given earlier “This is not my blood”
 
AJV said:
You are right in that the Mass IS invalid, there is no sacrifice since there is no double consecration. But the consecration of the bread into the Body (and Blood by concomittance) of Christ remains valid. This is why it is sacrilegous to consecrate one without the other for “it overthrows the distinction of the Eucharist as it is a a sacrifice, and as it is a sacrament”.

To say that the consecration of the bread is thus dependant on that of the wine is to revert to the so called “single consecration” theory, which I think is condemned.
Click to expand...
Thank you for explaining that. I was basing my posts off of what I had been told by a very holy Monsignor, however I’m sure I must have misunderstood something.
I was going to add later that even if the eucharist is confected the Mass would be invalid as the body an blood were never separated, and thus the sacrifice of Calvary could not be re-presented.
Again, AJV, thank you for correcting my mistake and for your wonderful example of Christian Charity.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
 
Not intending to be nasty, but holiness does not always equal intellectually powerful. God bless him for his holiness.
 
So was I still wrong?

I don’t believe it invalidates it at all, it can just contribute it to being improper, but valid.

Now would it be equivilant to the Priest saying “for you and for Oscar the Grouch so that sins may be forgiven”

That wouldn’t invalidate it either would it? It just would make it improper? ( I deliberately made it extreme to see if the principle holds)

Thank you for any (name removed by moderator)ut.
Scylla
 
Thanks for your comments, everyone! It’s really helped to clarify things.

I noticed that nobody has discussed “The mystery of faith” yet. How did this phrase end up in the TLM consecration if it wasn’t used by Christ at the last supper? Shouldn’t the consecration be as faithful to that as possible? Is it all right to add phrases as long as they’re doctrinal?
 
Dauphin said:
Thanks for your comments, everyone! It’s really helped to clarify things.

I noticed that nobody has discussed “The mystery of faith” yet. How did this phrase end up in the TLM consecration if it wasn’t used by Christ at the last supper?
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone knows. Some scholars think it might have been introduced by Pope Anicetus and some say it was a confession by the deacon that was amalgamated when the deacon’s role became less pronounced.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top