Pope Francis: SSPX priests will licitly and validly absolve sins during Jubilee of Mercy [CWN]

[ProVobis]

Changing the words of the consecration is wrong, but seldom invalidates the Sacrament. I looked up this real quick as an explanation, but you can probably search the CA website for the same info.

It used to be that Trent’s DeDefectibus was the main source for the validation explanation, but I can’t seem to be able to find a website now that lists it without “critique.” I wonder what’s behind that.

 

[ProVobis]

Changing the words of the consecration is wrong, but seldom invalidates the Sacrament. I looked up this real quick as an explanation, but you can probably search the CA website for the same info.

FWIW, Trent’s De Defectibus was perhaps the best source for Mass validity explanations.

From it:

V - Defects of the form

 20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating.  Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.  If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament.  If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

 21. If the celebrant does not remember having said the usual words in the Consecration, he should not for that reason be worried.  If, however, he is sure that he omitted something necessary to the Sacrament, that is, the form of the Consecration or a part of it, he is to repeat the formula and continue from there.  If he thinks it is very likely that he omitted something essential, he is to repeat the formula conditionally, though the condition need not be expressed.  But if what he omitted is not necessary to the Sacrament, he is not to repeat anything; he should simply continue the Mass.

I’m not sure if this is in the 1970 Missal.

 

[otjm]

This thread now seems to be completely off topic…

 

[ProVobis]

This thread now seems to be completely off topic…

You’re right and I for one apologize.

 

[Brendan_64]

So this sort of fiddling is exactly what we have when the SSPX says a Mass. We have a valid Eucharist, but a Mass that is said illicitly.

Not quite the same. While both Masses may be illicit, they are illicit for different reasons. SSPX Masses do not, as a rule contain liturgical abuses. They follow the 1962 Missal to the letter and therefore they are not commiting liturgical abuses, unlike an OF Mass with ‘adaptations’. The two scenarios are not directly comparable other than them both being illicit, but for very different reasons.

 

[pnewton]

Not quite the same. While both Masses may be illicit, they are illicit for different reasons. SSPX Masses do not, as a rule contain liturgical abuses.

Yes, but I disagree which is worse, a Mass that contains a word or phrase that is an abuse, or one that is an abuse from start to finish based on the irregular status of the priests. The SSPX Mass is illicit. The situation above is about an illicit element in the Mass. Not quite the same, but close enough that I consider criticism of one and support of the other to be an inconsistent hypocrisy, since validity is not an issue in either.

I also wonder which will be easier to correct. I have already said that I notice abuse complaints to be fewer and of less weight. It also seems, especially with this move by the Holy Father, that the chances for the SSPX, at least some of the priest, are more hopeful. Maybe it will be a win-win type of tie. Pray for the priest that one thinks needs to tighten things up. Pray for the SSPX to become fully a part of the Church’s ministry.