Why doesn’t this get a “sticky” from the moderator. Why must we go through this two times a week. There should be a “sticky” on what invalidates the Mass.
All that is needed for a valid Eucharist is a validly ordained priest, wheat bread, pure grape wine and the words “This is my Body” and “This is … my Blood.”
HEY MODERATOR: PLEASE PUT UP A STICKY ON WHAT INVALIDATES THE MASS.
Actually,
this is not correct, and it’s a mistake
I’ve had to correct more than a few times. The Eucharist, by itself, does not amount to a Mass. If a priest has bread and wine and says the words of Consecration with the proper intention, then you have the Eucharist. But was it a Mass? No, clearly not: for instance, the Code of Canon Law makes it a grave sin to confect the Eucharist outside the context of the Mass. To be a Mass, you need the Eucharist (obviously), but also things like an Offertory and the priest’s communion. For instance, if a priest does everything you normally see at Sunday Mass but neglects to actually consume the Eucharist itself, then it was
not a Mass (so, for instance, he cannot accept a stipend for it), but the Eucharist
was valid.
It’s definitely true that the final dismissal and blessing have no bearing whatsoever on whether the Eucharist was validly consecrated fifteen minutes earlier. It is a more difficult question whether you had a
Mass if there was never a dismissal. I suspect that the answer is yes, but it’s not an analytically obvious matter.
In sum, “Was it a valid Eucharist (did it really become Jesus)?” and “Was it a valid Mass?” are two quite different questions. Since a Mass requires more than the Eucharist, even a full explanation of “[a]ll that is needed for a valid Eucharist” will still not fully set forth all that is needed for a valid Mass.
