Questionably valid Masses, Eucharist, Sin

[Servus_Pio_XII]

The question is quite simple, and I feel almost embarassed to start a thread with this short of a header:

If you attend a Mass, and determine that the validity may be questionable, should you go to communion. While some say, “well, it can’t hurt”, I think it might be able to. This is because, if you say AMEN upon reception, but it is not validly, licitly consecrated, then you have just called an ordinary piece of bread God–a grave sin of idolatry.

It it, though? I am curious, and appreciate response.

 

[thistle]

Servus Pio XII:

The question is quite simple, and I feel almost embarassed to start a thread with this short of a header:

If you attend a Mass, and determine that the validity may be questionable, should you go to communion. While some say, “well, it can’t hurt”, I think it might be able to. This is because, if you say AMEN upon reception, but it is not validly, licitly consecrated, then you have just called an ordinary piece of bread God–a grave sin of idolatry.

It it, though? I am curious, and appreciate response.

How do you determine that the validity is questionable?

 

[Flopfoot]

Well, for eg, lets say that you are not sure that the minister is really a priest. I know this sounds really ‘conspiracy theory’-ish, but maybe someone just put on some robes and came in. Then the Eucharist would not be valid.

However, if you have no real reason to think that the mass isn’t valid, if you think that the bread really is the Eucharist and you say Amen, well you didn’t do this deliberately - you weren’t deliberately trying to raise a piece of bread up to the status of God, because you thought it was the Eucharist. If there is no intent, there is no sin.

 

[mosher]

Flopfoot:

Well, for eg, lets say that you are not sure that the minister is really a priest. I know this sounds really ‘conspiracy theory’-ish, but maybe someone just put on some robes and came in. Then the Eucharist would not be valid.

However, if you have no real reason to think that the mass isn’t valid, if you think that the bread really is the Eucharist and you say Amen, well you didn’t do this deliberately - you weren’t deliberately trying to raise a piece of bread up to the status of God, because you thought it was the Eucharist. If there is no intent, there is no sin.

Your example is not that far off. Here is the States there have been a few people who have possed as priests before - quite disturbing if you ask me.

In anycase there have been a few times where I have not gone to communion because I was not sure the Sacrament was confected. The first time had to do with a priest changing the words of institution for the Chalice (this was a no brainer) the second was a little more tricky because it dealt with the intent of the priest. In that particular circumstance I was not convinced so I made the prayers but did not receive because I was unsure.

In todays situation with the problems that occure this is at times the only hope we have - that Christ will account for the graces because of our intent. My advice is that if something is not obvious to you then dont’ worry about it because Ecclesia Suplicis (The Church provides what is missing).

 

[Genesis315]

Another plausible example of this would be a parish that makes its own hosts and uses honey or sugar or something like that.

 

[JimG]

If one goes to Mass at a Catholic church, one should make the assumption that the Mass is valid. It is not the participant’s job to scrutinize every aspect of the way a Mass is celebrated for determination of validity or invalidity.

If there are abuses, sure, bring them to the attention of the priest or the bishop, but let’s not get carried away with our private judgments.

We criticize Protestants for private interpretation of Scripture. Are we to have a Church in whch every person decides validity on his own? That way lies chaos.

 

[Matt_Collins]

This is my understanding of what is required for validity:

1. Wheat bread (leavened or unleavened, no pumpkin bread or anything like that)
2. The priest has the intention of doing what Christ did at the Last Supper.
3. The priest audibly (at least to those in his immediate vacinity) says “This is my body” over the bread, and “This is the cup of my blood.” over the wine.

If that is done, then the Mass is valid. There is a whole lot else required for it to be licit.

In Malachi Martin’s book “Windswept House”, there is a scene where an evil priest does exactly that, and no more, to consecrate bread and wine for his nefarious purposes. My point is that this is is all that is necessary for validity.

As a Catholic, we have every right to presume the validity, and even the licitness of any Mass we attend in a parish under the bishop’s jurisdiction. That is, in the absence of clear information to the contrary.

The question, then, becomes what to do when the priest is clearly doing something valid but illicit, like using leavened bread instead of unleavened bread. I don’t know the answer to this…

 

[mosher]

Matt Collins:

This is my understanding of what is required for validity:

1. Wheat bread (leavened or unleavened, no pumpkin bread or anything like that)
2. The priest has the intention of doing what Christ did at the Last Supper.
3. The priest audibly (at least to those in his immediate vacinity) says “This is my body” over the bread, and “This is the cup of my blood.” over the wine.

If that is done, then the Mass is valid. There is a whole lot else required for it to be licit.

In Malachi Martin’s book “Windswept House”, there is a scene where an evil priest does exactly that, and no more, to consecrate bread and wine for his nefarious purposes. My point is that this is is all that is necessary for validity.

As a Catholic, we have every right to presume the validity, and even the licitness of any Mass we attend in a parish under the bishop’s jurisdiction. That is, in the absence of clear information to the contrary.

The question, then, becomes what to do when the priest is clearly doing something valid but illicit, like using leavened bread instead of unleavened bread. I don’t know the answer to this…

A few slight modifications would be proper to this generally good position.

1. Matter should be the proper matter as per the particular tradition of that de juri Church (leven and unleven is not sufficient because there are a few exceptions to this)
2. Intention should not be to do what Christ did at the last supper as it is a little broader than this as the Church usually says that the intention must be “to do what the Church does in the Sacrament” in otherwords the intention must be to confect the Sacrament regardless of the personal beliefs of the minister.
3. Audability of the words of institution are unnecessary as they can be inaudable but they must actually be spoken and not purly internalized.
4. Don’t forget proper minister as validly ordained priest with the faculties to celebrate the sacraments or a Bishop.

 

[mosher]

JimG:

If one goes to Mass at a Catholic church, one should make the assumption that the Mass is valid. It is not the participant’s job to scrutinize every aspect of the way a Mass is celebrated for determination of validity or invalidity.

If there are abuses, sure, bring them to the attention of the priest or the bishop, but let’s not get carried away with our private judgments.

We criticize Protestants for private interpretation of Scripture. Are we to have a Church in whch every person decides validity on his own? That way lies chaos.

Because all Sacraments have a legal character they are always presumed to be valid unless one has direct knowledge of them being otherswise. If one has direct knowledge of knowing that the Sacrament is invalid then they must refrain because to continue is participation would be idolatry. However, if one is unsure then it is left the conscious of the individual because the Church never requires a person to choose unsurity over surity.