Although you’re a little late to the party on this topic, please note that the OP asked whether changing a conjunction in the words of Institution affected the validity of the Mass, according to the description he gave. Discussing practice in other rites of our Catholic Church is a perfectly legitimate way to get at the core issue of what the universal Church requires for validity.We need to also remember that this thread specifically treats the Latin Rite. When we start bringing up the Eastern Rites and their liturgical forms, it tends to confuse things further. I think that, for the purposes of this thread, we should limit ourselves to the Latin Rite, since this is the issue at hand.
But, what applies to the Eastern Rites does not necessarily hold true for the Latin Rite. What occured in the OP transpired during the Latin Rite.Although you’re a little late to the party on this topic, please note that the OP asked whether changing a conjunction in the words of Institution affected the validity of the Mass, according to the description he gave. Discussing practice in other rites of our Catholic Church is a perfectly legitimate way to get at the core issue of what the universal Church requires for validity.
There’s no need for the sarcasm. The problem, BG, comes when someone asks a question about validity, and you give a long, quote-packed answer full of dire statements about how grave an error the mistake was, without acknowledging in the first place that the consecration was valid, which was of course the most important thing he was asking about. It breeds confusion. You breed confusion when someone asks a question about what is valid, and, without saying what you’re doing, you hit him with a lot of quotes about what is licit. Do you understand that?But, what applies to the Eastern Rites does not necessarily hold true for the Latin Rite. What occured in the OP transpired during the Latin Rite.
What the Church requires for validity is:
-Form
-Matter
-Intent
-Validly Ordained Minister
Furthermore, it’s not like you can mix and match between the Rites. You can’t even do that between the EF and the OF. You cannot invent your own hybrid.
With respect, I don’t see anything that even remotely suggests “inventing a hybrid” or anything of the sort. The question in the OP was regarding a matter of validity, and it seems to me that [post=6911503]ProVobis[/post] was well within bounds to mention (correctly) the fact that there is ONE Anaphora in use that does not contain an Institution Narrative yet the Sacrament is valid.But, what applies to the Eastern Rites does not necessarily hold true for the Latin Rite. What occured in the OP transpired during the Latin Rite. …
Furthermore, it’s not like you can mix and match between the Rites. You can’t even do that between the EF and the OF. You cannot invent your own hybrid.
Yes, quite so. And, FYI, let me add that while the terminology might differ, the exact same thing applies to the East and Orient as well.What the Church requires for validity is:
-Form
-Matter
-Intent
-Validly Ordained Minister
Benedictgal does make a valid point about mixing Rites. Although the correct form and matter count are always needed, the East and West differ in what is the correct form and matter to them specifically. For example, we can’t make valid unleavened bread, athough it is valid in the East.Yes, quite so. And, FYI, let me add that while the terminology might differ, the exact same thing applies to the East and Orient as well.
I think you meant “we can’t make valid leavened bread.”For example, we can’t make valid unleavened bread, athough it is valid in the East.
The use or omission of leaven in baking bread does not affect the reality of the end product as true bread. And so both leavened and unleavened bread are valid matter for the Eucharist.
The traditional use of unleavened bread in the Latin Church is a requirement for the Eucharist’s licit celebration. A priest who consecrates a roll, bun or some other form of true wheat bread containing leaven performs a valid but illicit act. (source)
I’m not sure we’re on the same page. I always thought that the mass is valid if the bread and(/or) wine turn into the body and blood of Christ.I’m afraid it does.
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/quaeritur-priest-consecrates-more-hosts-during-communion/
Fr Z:
consume both kinds, therefore he must have both kinds. It is not necessary for Mass to be valid that anyone else consume the Eucharist. Even if people don’t receive, they have been to Mass.The point is that the priest **must **
Actually, he did not misspeak. A priest friend of mine who is highly orthodox and is by-the-book mentioned this during one of our diocesan classes. He said that this practice actually dates back to Ancient Israel when the high priest had to consume his portion of the sacrifice. The priest’s consumption completes the Sacrifice.I’m not sure we’re on the same page. I always thought that the mass is valid if the bread and(/or) wine turn into the body and blood of Christ.
Whether the priest consumes the species does not change whether they are actually the body and blood of Christ, and therefore, does not change whether the mass is valid. They are trans-substantiated at the consecration, not at the priests’ communion.
I love Fr. Z, but maybe he mis-spoke this time?
However, the quote is Fr. McNamara’s interpretation of the meaning of Redemptionis Sacramentum. RS states something different, though:+JMJ+
I think you meant “we can’t make valid leavened bread.”
But that’s not true. Use of leavened bread in the Roman Rite, while illicit (and a grave sin, I believe), is nevertheless valid.
Again, just because something may be licit in one of the Eastern Rites, that does not necessarily make it so for the Latin Rite, a point, I believe, you had already raised.48] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.
With respect again, I do not see where Japhy even made such a suggestion. He merely, and quite correctly, pointed out that, in the Roman Church, the use of leavened bread (assuming that it is pure and without additives) is absolutely illicit but the Sacrament is nonetheless valid. In other words, bread made without additives is valid matter. Liceity is another question.Again, just because something may be licit in one of the Eastern Rites, that does not necessarily make it so for the Latin Rite, a point, I believe, you had already raised.
Unless circumstances are grave (ie: persecution, natural disaster, war), valid matter should be used.
You misread my post. I was agreeing with the point that japhy raised. I was not necessarily agreeing with what Fr. McNamara wrote. The quote that japhy posted was Fr. McNamara’s interpretation of what RS states. It was not RS itself.With respect again, I do not see where Japhy even made such a suggestion. He merely, and quite correctly, pointed out that, in the Roman Church, the use of leavened bread (assuming that it is pure and without additives) is absolutely illicit but the Sacrament is nonetheless valid. In other words, bread made without additives is valid matter. Liceity is another question.
Now, using, e.g., WonderBread from the supermarket would be invalid matter, since it has more additives than it has wheat flour. Such a substance is neither valid matter nor licit to use.
That is not correct! Circumstances might allow for illicit matter, but they will not allow for invalid matter. That goes against the whole concept of sacrament.…Unless circumstances are grave (ie: persecution, natural disaster, war), valid matter should be used.
Cristiano, in another thread it was pointed out that leavened bread could be used (the type that the Eastern Rites use), but, it would be considered ilicit and a grave abuse (as indicated in Redemptionis Sacramentum).That is not correct! Circumstances might allow for illicit matter, but they will not allow for invalid matter. That goes against the whole concept of sacrament.
Perhaps I did misread to a point, and I apologize for that. OTOH, though, Fr McNamara is correct. What RS speaks to is liceity.You misread my post. I was agreeing with the point that japhy raised. I was not necessarily agreeing with what Fr. McNamara wrote. The quote that japhy posted was Fr. McNamara’s interpretation of what RS states. It was not RS itself.
That is totally correct. But, at the risk of repeating myself, it is a matter of liceity rather than one of validity.Now, regarding the original question, it is suffice to say that, given the circumstances listed by the OP, there are some serious concerns with the form that the priest used during the Consecration. It is not up to him to edit the Church’s official texts. These must be read as the Church mandates them to be read.
which is illicit since it does not precisely follow the text prescribed by HMC, but (assuming the other 3 criteria were met) would, nonetheless, still be valid. What the priest did was substitute “and” for “which” and, while being very bad English and completely ungrammatical, it doesn’t change the sense.Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body and will be given up for you
I stand corrected.I think you meant “we can’t make valid leavened bread.”
Now you got me. What counts as leavened bread? There are many grocery items that can easily fall into the bread category.Use of leavened bread in the Roman Rite, while illicit (and a grave sin, I believe), is nevertheless valid.
The consecration has to be valid before the priest consumes to make the Mass valid.I always thought that the mass is valid if the bread and(/or) wine turn into the body and blood of Christ.
I’m afraid you were mistaken. Even in a concentration camp or deserted island, invalid matter (a rice cake, a brick, rye bread, a pork chop) cannot become the Body of Christ. Valid matter which would otherwise be illicit in the Roman Rite (a dinner roll, bread with fruit or honey added, etc.), can be used if there is no other alternative.You misread my post. I was agreeing with the point that japhy raised. I was not necessarily agreeing with what Fr. McNamara wrote. The quote that japhy posted was Fr. McNamara’s interpretation of what RS states. It was not RS itself.
According to Redemptionis Sacramentum:Now you got me. What counts as leavened bread? There are many grocery items that can easily fall into the bread category.
Isn’t there a difference between (1) the Eucharist being valid, and (2) the Mass being valid? Most discussion (on this board, at least) seems to deal with the former, but they’re not the same thing. If a priest grabs some bread and wine, says the words (and consumes them, for argument’s sake here) you had a valid Eucharist, but not a valid Mass. If the priest had accepted a stipend for the Mass, it would not count and he would have to say a full Mass or return the stipend. If you were present on Sunday, it would not meet your Mass obligation. It’s not a valid Mass, but it was a valid Eucharist. I don’t think there’s any contradiction there at all.The consecration has to be valid before the priest consumes to make the Mass valid.
Think of it this way. A guy hits the ball over the fence. Home run? Not yet; he has to step on all bases to qualify the homerun.