Mass Valid without Epiclesis?

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Dan-Man916:

I guess i don’t understand why this is a matter of discipline rather than doctrine.

It is a matter of rubrics for a specific Rite. Whatever the Church defnes as necessary actions and words for a valid Consecration is what the Church defines. The Doctrine in this matter is that at the Consecration the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[albert_cipriani]

Br. Rich SFO:

It is a matter of rubrics for a specific Rite. .

Do you mean to say that all rubrics are relative? that no rubrics can be any better or worse than any other rubrics? If so, what would you do if the Bishops decided to enforce rubrics that called for the priests to skip rope during the consecration?

Whatever the Church defnes as necessary actions and words for a valid Consecration is what the Church defines.

Isn’t this a tautology, that is, aren’t you defining something in terms of its self, that is, not defining anything at all?

The Doctrine in this matter is that at the Consecration the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Isn’t what’s being questioned the rubrics associated with the doctrine and not the doctrine itself? Isn’t it possible to implement rubrics so antithetical to the doctrines of the Mass that those doctrines are obliterated? If so, wouldn’t attendance at such a rubric monstrosity be a sacrilege rather than a celebration? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[albert_cipriani]

Dear Br. Rich SFO,
You wrote:
Br. Rich SFO:

The validity of the Mass, might be in question, but not the Consecration and Holy Communion.

If the validity of the Mass might be in question, how can the Consecration and Holy Communion not be in question? Isn’t the validity of the Mass tantamount to the sacrament of the Eucharist? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[kk1727]

Al:

Does the consecration of the host take place immediately? It would seem so since the Church has mandated adoration of the host before the consecration of the Chalice. Therefore, one can have the Real Prescence without the Sacrifice of the Mass. This means that the Mass could be invalid (i.e. the Sacrifice of the Mass is not complete unless both species are validly consecrated) and yet the consecration of one or the other may still be valid along with the valid reception of Holy Communion by the faithful under the validly consecrated species.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Actually, the necessity of the Words of Institution is not de fide. Even Luwig Ott admits this in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

That having been said, the Words are still necessary for validity, in the rites which have them.

The Church, while she cannot detract from the matter and form instituted by Christ, can add certain requirements for validity.

A prime example of this would be marriage. The essential matter for this is two spouses (a man and a woman) and their free consent to marry. But this alone is not enough for validity (except in emergencies). Even to be valid, not merely licit, certain requirements have to be met (they must be married by a Catholic priest).

Likewise, the Church has added certain requirements for other sacraments, like the Eucharist, establishing not only liceity but validity.

So the Words are necessary for validity (in all but the East Syrian rite); but not because Christ made it so. The Church has made it so, with the authority given her by Christ.

 

[kk1727]

I’d argue that in fact the Institution Narrative is essential for validity (I’d even go further that the short form as taught by St. Bonaventure, St. Alphosus Liguori, et al. against the opinion of of St. Thomas Aquinas and other Thomists is essential). This in fact seems to lie at the root of why the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith concluded that the Assryian Church of the East when using the Anaphora of Mari and Addai confects a valid eucharist. While this anaphora does not include an explicit institution narrative, the CDF concludes that the sense of the words are sufficient. It seems on this basis that the CDF says that the Anaphora of Mari and Addai do indeed include an institution narrative which is dispersed throughout the eucharistic prayer although it is not ad litteram. His Holiness John Paul II approved these findings. So the validity of the rite is especially because the prayer includes an implicit institution narrative.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

So the validity of the rite is especially because the prayer includes an implicit institution narrative.

Which you and I both know is nothing more than a load of theological, poppy-cock.

Let’s get real, here.

The Liturgy of Addai and Mari is clearly valid, as the historical findings of the Congregation clearly show. But even though the conclusion of the Congregation is authoritative, the rationales behind it are not.

How can an Institution narrative be “implicit”? It’s there or it isn’t. By this logic (or lack of) any essential matter or form can be missing from a sacrament, and it can be justified with “but it’s implicit”.

Maybe the CDF is filled with a bunch of brainless airheads indoctrinated by 1960s and 70s Modernist philosophies like “deconstructionism” or what-have-you, philosophies which make it possible to justify any abberration by creating a new word for it (like “euchological”; what the heck does that mean anyway?).

I’m sorry; I’m not buying it. God gave me a brain for a reason. I know nonsense when I see it.

 

[kk1727]

The rational of the CDF is the only way I can see to bring the Anaphora of Mari and Addai into conformity with previous teachings. The essentials simply cannot be one way for a certain rite and one way for another. Either something is essential or it isn’t. On the other hand, essential isn’t the same thing as explicit. Seems to me that the CDF has it correct.

Still, we’re dealing with authoritative decisions with regards to the validity of the Anaphora and not the reasons for why that Anaphora is valid. Call me partial to Latin theology but I reject the epiclesis as being essential. No liturgy can be proven to contain one in the sense we understand it today before the third century. It seems more probable to me that the epiclesis is the result of the same development that took place at the Council of Constantinople with regards to the Nicene Creed and for the same reasons.

We don’t have to agree on the reasons here, but I’m still holding out for traditonal theology as expounded by St. Bonaventure and St. Alphonsus Liguori. Unless you got another suggestion, I don’t see any other way to make the two views complementary or to accord the decision on the validity of the Anaphora with previous conciliar documents given that it lacks an explicit institution narrative.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

The essentials simply cannot be one way for a certain rite and one way for another.

Sure they can. Marriage, for example, The laws governing marriage, even for validity, differ between the Eastern and Western Churches. Historically, it was not always necessary for two Christians to ve married before a priest in order for the marriage to be valid. The Church added this later.

Might we not say say the same thing about the Words of Institution?

 

[kk1727]

You make a good point that I can’t argue because I’m not familiar with the differences between Eastern and Western Marriage validity requirements. It would seem a priori to me that if the words of institution are essential in the Latin Rite, then they are ipso facto essential in every Rite that validly confects the sacrament. All other items are deemed non-essentials or accidents. What is of the essence of a sacrament cannot be regulated by the Church, only the accidents are regulated by the Church. She has long professed to have no power over the substance of the sacraments. I’d have to look closer at the sacramental teaching on Eastern marriage to see if the essential matter or form differs from that of the Latin Rite. I suspect it does not, and you are speaking of accidents.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

My point is that the Church has the authority to take something accidental and make it binding for validity.

Surely you know that the pressence of a priest is not of the essence of Matrimony, and yet it’s still binding for validity.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

I’d have to look closer at the sacramental teaching on Eastern marriage to see if the essential matter or form differs from that of the Latin Rite. I suspect it does not, and you are speaking of accidents.

In the Latin Rite, the marriage is considered confected after both parties give their public consent (“I Do”).

In the Eastern rites, the sacrament is confected once the priest has given his solemn blessing. There is no solemn exchange of vows. (Of course, if the marriage is not freely entered, it is considered invalid.)

 

[kk1727]

That the Church requires it does not make it binding for validity, since she also teaches that it is not of the essence of the sacrament. What the Church may do is say that they cannot be sure the sacrament of marriage is valid unless she witnesses it. Because of this she requires the ‘renewal’ of vows prior to receiving the Church’s blessing, but she does not say that the marriage was invalid prior to this blessing - excepting cases where extenuating circumstances make it clear that the marriage was invalid.

And that’s not at all the same thing as I’m putting forth with regards to the form of the Eucharist. You’re right that it’s not de fide that the words of the institution are the essence of the form. It is the consistent teaching of the Church over several centuries and is considered as theologically certain even by Dr. Ludwig Ott. It is perhaps true that the Church might have been less than exact (in other words required certain accidents as well for licity). In this case, it seems to me that overwhelming evidence is for the words of institution as belong to the essence of the form of the sacrament.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

That the Church requires it does not make it binding for validity,

In the case of matrimony it does.

Read the Code of Canon Law on the subject.

 

[kk1727]

Ah, I posted #53 in reply to #51 before I read #52 . . . In any case, I’m enjoying this and I fully intend to take a look at this issue closer.

It still seems that if something is of the essence of a sacrament then the sacrament does not happen if that which is essential is omitted. I’m having a tough time buying that something can be essential for validity in one rite and non-essential for validity in another rite. I can understand that with regards to licity but not as I understand validity or the scholastic understanding of sacramental theology.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

The Church cannot remove anything established by Christ as essential. But she can make certain accidentals necessary for validity (not just liceity). That’s all I’m saying.

So, for example, she can make the Words of Institution necessary for validity, supposing Christ did not establish them as such. But she cannot altar the requirement that bread and wine be used, as this was established by Christ.

So she can’t remove what Christ added, but can add to it.

At least that’s what she did with Matrimony.

 

[albert_cipriani]

DominvsVobiscvm:

The Church cannot remove anything established by Christ as essential. But she can make certain accidentals necessary for validity (not just liceity)… So she can’t remove what Christ added, but can add to it…At least that’s what she did with Matrimony.

Huh? What did the Church add to Matrimony to make it a valid sacrament?

I understand Matrimony to be the only sacrament not performed by the Church but rather, performed by the spouses. The form of that sacrament is their vow. The matter of that sacrament is their sexual union. The priest plays no role in either. – Albert the Traditional Catholic

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

From the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

So you see, the Church teaches that spuses are the ministers of Matrimony. Still, for it to be valid, it must be witnessed by both an ordained minister and two other witnesses, unless expressly dispensed by this obligation by the bishop.

If two Catholics marry before a justice of the peace, the marriage is invalid, not just illicit.

Here’s what the Council of Trent said on the issue:

If any one saith, that the Church could not establish impediments dissolving marriage; or that she has erred in establishing them; let him be anathema.

. . .

Those who shall attempt to contract marriage otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest, or of some other priest by permission of the said parish priest, or of the Ordinary, and in the presence of two or three witnesses; the holy Synod renders such wholly incapable of thus contracting and declares such contracts invalid and null, as by the present decree It invalidates and annuls them.

 

[kk1727]

DV:

It seems that there are exceptions to the rule of ‘before two witnesses’ or ‘blessed by a priest’. Since the Church admits exceptions, these things do not belong to the essence or are not therefore absolutely necessary for validity. In the case where one purposely contravenes the ecclesiastical laws concerning the sacraments, it may therefore be invalid because their intent was not to do as the Church does.

Regardless, the question of the Eastern sacramental view verses the Western sacramental view seems a faulty one to me. The Eastern Church may not recognize that it is the consent of the individuals which constitute the essence of the sacrament of marriage and they may well emphasize the role of the priest in the sacrament but that does not establish that the essence or those things absolutely necessary for validity differ in any way between Western and Eastern Rites. In the same way the Orthodox sacrament of the eucharist is considered valid even though there are some among them who accord to the epiclesis either an essential role in the consecration or even the sole essence of the consecration. That they do not recognize the essential role of the institution narrative according to the Council of Florence does not make the epiclesis of their rite essential but merely shows that they have a misunderstanding of the rite itself.

Since the same sacrament is effected and for the same purpose, it is absolutely clear that the essence of the sacrament must be the same. Otherwise we simply call two differing sacraments by the same name. There are seven sacraments only and each is made of thing and word (elementum et verbum or matter and form). The essential matter and form for all seven sacraments are the same. This is the case with baptism as St. Thomas shows as also with Penance. This of course does not mean that they are exactly identical which is where we enter into mere opinion since the Church has not defined the exactly essential component in each and every case.

This holds true for what I said concerning the sacrament of the eucharist. The PCPCU, Congregation for the Oriental Churches, and the CDF all agreed that the Anaphora of Mari and Addai effect the sacrament of the Eucharist. H.H. John Paul II approved and thereby ratified this agreement. Therefore the sacrament of the eucharist in the Assyrian Church of the East and that of the other liturgical rites are one and the same: therefore the essence of the sacrament is one.

Now I go on to deduce from this that the CDF’s given explanation for how this can be, despite the obvious differences in recognized form, is the only explanation possible that preserves the essential components of traditional sacramental theology. The Church in her powers of regulation may add to or take from the appropriate form, but she does not and in fact cannot touch what belongs to the substance of a sacrament (i.e. those things which are essential to the validity. And I mean here validity in the sense which St. Thomas and scholastics use it: metaphysically and philosophically). She may however deem the suspect derogation of the appropriate form as an impediment to the validity in truth, not because anything was missing as regards the essential form but that in the whole rite there was another deficiency. From what I understand of sacramental theology I would suspect a deficiency of intention.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Since the Church admits exceptions, these things do not belong to the essence or are not therefore absolutely necessary for validity.

I would argue ditto for the Mass and the Words of Institution. Necessary for validity, but not essential to the Rite.

In the case where one purposely contravenes the ecclesiastical laws concerning the sacraments, it may therefore be invalid because their intent was not to do as the Church does.

I’m sorry, you’re mistaken. This is not the case at all. If a Catholic couple wish to marry eachother, and wish to contract an indissoluble bond, but get married in a non-Catholic setting without their bishops’ approval, the marriage is invalid, not just illicit.

As the Council of Trent teaches, the Church has added certain non-essential elements to the celebration of Matrimony, and made them necessary for valid reception of the Sacrament. She can dispense with these non-essential elements, but they are otherwise necessary, not just for liceity.

If you don’t believe, submit your question to the Ask an Apologist forum or to EWTN.

Or read this from the [ui]Catholic Encyclopedia:

Of course, according to ecclesiastical law, the form prescribed for validity is, as a rule, the personal, mutual declaration of consent before witnesses; but that is a requirement added to the nature of marriage and to Divine law, which the Church can therefore set aside and from which she can dispense in individual cases. Even the contracting of marriage through authorized representatives is not absolutely excluded.