Invalidating the Consecration

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inquiringperson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Inquiringperson

Guest
I remember there was a link I found in a thread a while ago about liturgical abuses. It also mentioned that a consecration could be invalidated. Is that true? If so, can someone try to find that website?
 
Inquiringperson said:
I remember there was a link I found in a thread a while ago about liturgical abuses. It also mentioned that a consecration could be invalidated. Is that true? If so, can someone try to find that website?
Click to expand...
I don’t have the site for you, but it is true indeed if the Sacrament does not follow the form, intent, or matter, then it is invalid. Like there are stories (don’t know if they are true) of priests using something other than grape wine. Thats invalid.
 
What happens if a validly ordained priest uses a cookie for consecration but grape wine for consecration? Would the grape wine be consecrated?
 
Inquiringperson said:
What happens if a validly ordained priest uses a cookie for consecration but grape wine for consecration? Would the grape wine be consecrated?
Click to expand...
I believe so. The consecration of one species does not determine the consecration of the other. But this would be illicit beyond all telling.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I believe so. The consecration of one species does not determine the consecration of the other. But this would be illicit beyond all telling.
Click to expand...
Plus, because the priest needs to receive under both kinds to complete the Mass, then there would be no Mass.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Plus, because the priest needs to receive under both kinds to complete the Mass, then there would be no Mass.
Click to expand...
Right. So no graces would be received from the mass itself. But even if, say, only hosts were consecrated, and they were distributed, graces would be received from them even though no wine was consecrated.

There are two sources of graces from all masses, I understand. Grace from the mass’s validity and grace from the reception of communion.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Right. So no graces would be received from the mass itself. But even if, say, only hosts were consecrated, and they were distributed, graces would be received from them even though no wine was consecrated unless the person receiving Holy Communion isn’t in a state of grace.

There are two sources of graces from all masses, I understand. Grace from the mass’s validity and grace from the reception of communion.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I feel fussy today.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Right. So no graces would be received from the mass itself. But even if, say, only hosts were consecrated, and they were distributed, graces would be received from them even though no wine was consecrated.

There are two sources of graces from all masses, I understand. Grace from the mass’s validity and grace from the reception of communion.
Click to expand...
We cannot say that there are no graces. All the prayers are valid and therefore God gives graces to those who pray. You don’t receive the full graces of the Mass, but I don’t think anyone can say you do not receive anything at all. Maybe some, God is loving and merciful. People who are unwilling partakers of an illicit and invalid practice will still receive God’s mercy.
 
ConstantineTG said:
We cannot say that there are no graces. All the prayers are valid and therefore God gives graces to those who pray. You don’t receive the full graces of the Mass, but I don’t think anyone can say you do not receive anything at all. Maybe some, God is loving and merciful. People who are unwilling partakers of an illicit and invalid practice will still receive God’s mercy.
Click to expand...
Possible paradox overload.

EDIT: on my part, that is. 🙂
 
YoungTradCath said:
Possible paradox overload.

EDIT: on my part, that is. 🙂
Click to expand...
Just approaching it from an Eastern point of view. We cannot say when God is giving his graces or not outside what is established as sure avenues of graces (such as Liturgy, Sacraments, and other religious works). I guess yes you can say there are no graces of Mass if there is no Mass, but since people were still together in prayer, God would surely have provided some other graces to those who are present, especially those who have no idea of what the priest has done.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Just approaching it from an Eastern point of view. We cannot say when God is giving his graces or not outside what is established as sure avenues of graces (such as Liturgy, Sacraments, and other religious works). I guess yes you can say there are no graces of Mass if there is no Mass, but since people were still together in prayer, God would surely have provided some other graces to those who are present, especially those who have no idea of what the priest has done.
Click to expand...
I understand the concept but I can’t allow myself to accept the “surely” things. :confused:
 
Not everything has to be an East-West difference. Certainly even in an invalid mass God may give graces to some of the people present, particularly if they believe the mass to be valid. Same thing with an invalid Eucharist.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
Not everything has to be an East-West difference. Certainly even in an invalid mass God may give graces to some of the people present, particularly if they believe the mass to be valid. Same thing with an invalid Eucharist.
Click to expand...
If there was an invalid Eucharist but people received it thinking it was Jesus, they would most likely receive a spiritual communion.
 
Inquiringperson said:
If there was an invalid Eucharist but people received it thinking it was Jesus, they would most likely receive a spiritual communion.
Click to expand...
The idea of a “spiritual communion” is pious but the definition is kind of squishy. They would receive the grace of the sacrament assuming they honestly and inculpably believed that all the Church’s requirements for validity were met, though not the body of Christ.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
Not everything has to be an East-West difference. Certainly even in an invalid mass God may give graces to some of the people present, particularly if they believe the mass to be valid. Same thing with an invalid Eucharist.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying there is a difference. I’m saying the approach to the understanding I am taking is Eastern in nature. That does not mean the West is wrong. We should accept the fact that there are differences and above that, accept the fact that differences doesn’t mean one is right and one is wrong. The differences are not in the truth itself but in the expression of it.
Aelred_Minor said:
The idea of a “spiritual communion” is pious but the definition is kind of squishy. They would receive the grace of the sacrament assuming they honestly and inculpably believed that all the Church’s requirements for validity were met, though not the body of Christ.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe Spiritual Communion replaces the actual Eucharist. Again, same as with an invalid Mass. God will provide the graces for those who express their desire to be in communion with Him yet are unable to for some circumstances, but it won’t be the same graces as that given in the Eucharist itself (or the same intensity of graces, however you want to approach the view on how graces are given).
 
ConstantineTG said:
I’m not saying there is a difference. I’m saying the approach to the understanding I am taking is Eastern in nature. That does not mean the West is wrong. We should accept the fact that there are differences and above that, accept the fact that differences doesn’t mean one is right and one is wrong. The differences are not in the truth itself but in the expression of it.
Click to expand...
In some cases this can be true. I thought in this case it was a matter of end conclusions about God giving grace. Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
In some cases this can be true. I thought in this case it was a matter of end conclusions about God giving grace. Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant.
Click to expand...
No worres 😉

Sometimes I just mention what approach I am taking so that people will understand why I speak that way or view it that way. As Blessed Pope John Paul II said, having familiarity of both sides means we have a better understanding of the truth. The difference is meant to complement each other, not contradict.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I’m not saying there is a difference. I’m saying the approach to the understanding I am taking is Eastern in nature. That does not mean the West is wrong. We should accept the fact that there are differences and above that, accept the fact that differences doesn’t mean one is right and one is wrong. The differences are not in the truth itself but in the expression of it.

I don’t believe Spiritual Communion replaces the actual Eucharist. Again, same as with an invalid Mass. God will provide the graces for those who express their desire to be in communion with Him yet are unable to for some circumstances, but it won’t be the same graces as that given in the Eucharist itself (or the same intensity of graces, however you want to approach the view on how graces are given).
Click to expand...
Oh, I see you’ve added this. Again, the term “spiritual communion” isn’t one I’m a fan of, simply because it doesn’t have a clear definition and it seems it can be applied to some very different things. What I’m talking about here is the specific case in which a person receives an invalid Eucharist when they had no way of knowing it was invalid. In this case the sacrament itself would presumably remain invalid, since the Church does not have the authority change the requirements for sacramental validity. However, the Church can and does provide the graces that the person would have received through the sacrament. At least this is what I’ve been told. I’m open to correction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top