Mass Valid without Epiclesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyjoe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
From the Code of Canon Law:

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:
Click to expand...
Well said Dominvs!.
Thanks for the excellent source material supporting your position. I overstated mine, and now happily withdraw it.

This is the way I wish all my dialogues here would progress, where people would support what they say. I remain in your debt. Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
Albert:

You ar very welcome.

Your candor and humility really inspired me, and my opinion of you (for whatever it’s worth) is much magnified.

I’ll be sure to take you much more seriously in the future.

Just a little . . . 😉

Forgive my misSpellings, BTW.
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Albert:You ar very welcome.
Click to expand...
Dear Dominvs,
This is totally cool. Double dittos from me… and now that we got that out of the way, can we please fight some more!!!

Seriously, agreeing isn’t half as fun or as informative as disagreeing. So maybe we can still eek a little bit more of an argument out of this topic if we conceive of marriage as a sacrament that existed prior to the Church.

Jesus spoke of marriage as a sacrament existing even prior to Moses:
He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. [Mat 19:18-19]
Click to expand...
After the founding of the Catholic Church, you are correct to say that the Church confects the sacrament of marriage. But prior to the Church’s founding, I am correct to assert that men and women independent of any religion confected their own sacramental marriage. That seems true to me. Can we go another round on it or should we hang up our gloves? – Cheers, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
It is the explicit, and traditional, teaching of the Church that, while marriage was founded by God in the Garden of Eden, it was Christ who elevated it to the status of a sacrament.

A sacrament, by definition, is instituted by Christ. Marriage as a natural institution was founded by God, as a sacrament elevated and instituted by Christ.

A heathen marriage, no matter how good and wonderful, cannot perfectly symbolize the indissoluble union between Christ and His Church the way a Christian marriage does.

That’s why, even today, the Church recognizes non-Chrristian marriages (whereone or both spouses is not Christian) as being valid and naturally indissoluble, but not sacramental and absolutely indisssoluble. (The Church, and the Church alone, can dissolve an indissoluble marriage).

To quote the Council of Trent:
If any one saith, that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelic law, instituted by Christ the Lord; but that it has been invented by men in the Church; and that it does not confer grace; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
It is the explicit, and traditional, teaching of the Church that, while marriage was founded by God in the Garden of Eden, it was Christ who elevated it to the status of a sacrament.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I’m hanging my gloves up.
Is this thread dead?
Click to expand...
I suppose. Anyway, I’m otta here. – Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
I would argue ditto for the Mass and the Words of Institution. Necessary for validity, but not essential to the Rite.
Click to expand...
Could you please demonstrate this? Your point on marriage is well taken, in my last post I was not arguing the facts of what you say about the sacrament of marriage being true. I was formerly unaware never having studied the question. What I point forth concerning intent was an attempt at explanation as to how something not found in another rite which validly confects a sacrament could be necessary for validity. Whether this is correct or not, it is merely speculation.

On the question of the words of institution, which is where this whole thing began, it is the definitive teaching of the Church that the sacrament is confected by the ‘words of the Savior’. St. Augustine, St. Justin Martyr, St. John Chrysostom, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, and many reputable theologians (Suarez, De Lugo, the Discalced Carmelites of Salmanca in Cursus Theologicus) all teach that the words of institution are absolutely necessary and that they belong to the essence of the sacrament by the design of Christ. None of them or any other orthodox theologian that I’m aware of suggest that the words of institution were added to the form of the sacrament by the authority of the Church. They do disagree as to whether the short form (This is My Body, This is [the Chalice of] My Blood) or the long form (including all the words which follow the form of consecration for the Chalice) belong to the essence.

The Union Council of Florence is quite clear in agreeing that the words of instituion are of the essence, as is Benedict XV, Pius V, and other authorities. And they do not base this on the authority of the Church rather they teach that Christ so commanded the essential form for the sacrament in specifics. How does your suggestion take this into consideration?
 
It makes much more sense to me that all those men were simply wrong, then to behold the Church’s use and advocay of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari and swallow the excuse that the “words of Institution are euchologically, but not explicitly, present in the Canon.”

It’s a load of you-know-what. If exact words belong to the essence of a sacrament, then there’s no possible way they can be “implicit.” They’re there or they aren’t.
 
Then what do suggest is the form of the sacrament? The epiclesis of the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) only contains an implicit epiclesis. If it’s not the words of institution and it’s not the epiclesis which is essential to consecration . . . what remains of the ‘words of our Savior’ by which this sacrament is confected?

I concede that the CDF’s explanation seems tenuous. Their explanation is however the only way to be consistent to 2000 years of tradition. BTW if the Roman Canon can have an implicit epiclesis, what’s your difficulty with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari having an implicit institution narrative?
 
First off, not every sacrament has *specific * words which make up the form and effect the sacrament.

As far as bare essentials, I think the form for the Eucharist is just some kiund of prayer makint it clear what it is that is being enacted at the altar. The Church can decide how this should be worded, even as to validity, but it remains not, strictly speaking, essential.

An example is Confirmation, and the very dramatic change in the formula of the Latin Church from the Tridentine to the Pauline rites.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top