If the mass is to be celebrated for a particular intention

[MarcoPG]

And the priest forgets to name the deceased person, does it this mass intention void? I ask because someone told me that the mass intention is “fulfilled” only if the priest says the name during Mass.

Thank you

 

[Don_Ruggero]

And the priest forgets to name the deceased person, does it this mass intention void? I ask because someone told me that the mass intention is “fulfilled” only if the priest says the name during Mass.

Thank you

No. It is not necessary for the priest to verbalise the intention. He simply needs to intend to offer the Mass for that intention.

He strictly does not even need to know the intention. If the list is not available, neither at the altar nor in the sacristy, he may offer the Mass “for the intention recorded in the Mass intention register” for the date and time of that Mass that he is offering.

 

[MarcoPG]

No. It is not necessary for the priest to verbalise the intention. He simply needs to intend to offer the Mass for that intention.

He strictly does not even need to know the intention. If the list is not available, neither at the altar nor in the sacristy, he may offer the Mass “for the intention recorded in the Mass intention register” for the date and time of that Mass that he is offering.

Thank. Would you be able to cite canon law on this?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Thank. Would you be able to cite canon law on this?

Like with the formulation of the intention by which the Presider confects the Eucharist from the elements of bread and wine placed on – or even near – the altar, this is treated in sacramental theology, not in canon law.

Canon law acknowledges that it is an internal operation when it states:
Can. 945 §1. In accord with the approved practice of the Church, any priest celebrating or concelebrating is permitted to receive an offering to apply the Mass for a specific intention.
The application of the Mass to a specific intention is an internal process occurring in the will of the priest celebrating or concelebrating.

Sacramental theology will address when intentions related to the celebration of Mass or the other sacraments are to be in place, how they are to be formulated, and so forth.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank. Would you be able to cite canon law on this?

I must say, the question is backwards.

It is the responsibility of the person who claims that “the priest must mention the name” to cite any law (canon law, liturgical law, etc.) which supports that claim. Simply put, there is none.

Along with what Don Rugerro has already posted, I’ll add this:

Mentioning the name of the person for whom the Mass is offered is done in the Roman Canon, which has places for the living and the deceased.

In EP II and III, mentioning the deceased by name is strictly an optional addition. There is no place to mention the name of the living.

In EP IV, there is no place to mention either the living or the deceased.

Now, according to what your friend claims, if someone requests a Mass intention for a deceased relative, and the priest schedules that intention for a Monday in Ordinary Time, then chooses to use EP IV for that Mass, the intention would be “void” and it would not be fulfilled. That makes no sense.

Again, it’s your friend’s responsibility to support such a claim. I can assure you that it isn’t possible.

 

[MarcoPG]

I must say, the question is backwards.

It is the responsibility of the person who claims that “the priest must mention the name” to cite any law (canon law, liturgical law, etc.) which supports that claim. Simply put, there is none.

Along with what Don Rugerro has already posted, I’ll add this:

Mentioning the name of the person for whom the Mass is offered is done in the Roman Canon, which has places for the living and the deceased.

In EP II and III, mentioning the deceased by name is strictly an optional addition. There is no place to mention the name of the living.

In EP IV, there is no place to mention either the living or the deceased.

Now, according to what your friend claims, if someone requests a Mass intention for a deceased relative, and the priest schedules that intention for a Monday in Ordinary Time, then chooses to use EP IV for that Mass, the intention would be “void” and it would not be fulfilled. That makes no sense.

Again, it’s your friend’s responsibility to support such a claim. I can assure you that it isn’t possible.

This Person told me: " Look, I’ve studied Canon Law". I wasn’t sure, and it looks like I was right to doubt what he said.

 

[FrDavid96]

This Person told me: " Look, I’ve studied Canon Law". I wasn’t sure, and it looks like I was right to doubt what he said.

Keep this in mind.

Whenever someone says “I’ve studied canon law”:

If that’s true, then such a person either will or will be prepared to cite the actual law that supports such a position. Someone who is unable to prove what he claims is probably just “blowing smoke”.

 

[MarcoPG]

I remember asking him to cite. Then he went on the emotional side and said that it was important for him psychologically…this tells something.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This Person told me: " Look, I’ve studied Canon Law". I wasn’t sure, and it looks like I was right to doubt what he said.

These are the sorts of things that are part of a priest’s seminary formation. Lecturing about Mass intentions, Mass stipends, formulating intentions when confecting sacraments and so forth.

Now, in pastoral practice regarding Mass intentions, many priests – myself included – will name the intention. But not all do.

In older days for me, I did it at the beginning of Mass and in latter days, it has been in the bidding prayers. But it was not necessary to do so. In ancient of days, I remember the intention for each Mass appeared on a list but it wasn’t articulated to those who were present for the Mass. If the intention was on the list, the donor had to be content that the Mass was offered for the intention.

I have celebrated Mass in parishes where the parish priest directed priests visiting NOT to mention any name – neither in the Eucharistic Prayer, using the option Father David cited, nor in the bidding prayers. The reason being that Father A mentioned it and Father B did not, the person who had offered the stipend in connection with the intention for which Father B celebrated a Mass, they felt under-served in comparison with the Mass that Father A celebrated in which the person was named and there was the addition of the embolism in Eucharistic Prayer II or III!

Personally, I think it is sad that it comes to such a point…but I understand the solution of those parish priests who do not wish to contend with the complaints of people who simply do not know of what they speak.

We often enough have quite enough problems which originate with people who think they know something about a subject, which we ourselves spent years studying, when these people actually don’t even know a fraction of what they think they know.

 

[Lormar]

**This Person told me: " Look, I’ve studied Canon Law". **I wasn’t sure, and it looks like I was right to doubt what he said.

That’s funny. The person can go join ranks with the many armchair theologians wandering about seeking the confusion of souls.

 

[Lormar]

That’s funny. The person can go join ranks with the many armchair theologians wandering about seeking the confusion of souls.

Just to clarify ( I didn’t mean to kill the thread ) what I meant, some lay people read canon law or theology books and think they are “experts” because they’ve read a book or two, but any priest who has studied either one or both will tell you it takes more than reading a book or books to make someone proficient.