Valid Mass?

[SHAKA_MAKA1]

I have heard many times on Catholic Answers Live that basicaly the only thing needed to validate the Mass is for the priest to say “This is my body” “This is my blood” even though it may be illicit it will still be valid. Question…Does the priest have to call down the holy spirit to make it valid? What if he skips this part but still says this is my body.

 

[DixitDominus]

As long as the priest says the Words of Consecration (i.e. “ACCÍPITE ET MANDUCÁTE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADÉTUR.” and “ACCÍPITE ET BÍBITE EX EO OMNES: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTUR IN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM. HOC FÁCITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIÓNEM.”) with the intention of consecrating over the correct kind of bread and wine, then that bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. No other words or prayers have any effect whatsoever upon the validity of the transubstantiation.

 

[bpbasilphx]

But it cannot be denied that what best expresses intention is saying the Dominical Words in the CONTEXT of the Eucharistic Prayer.

A priest who goes wonky might well pass a bakery or bistro by saying these words with “intention” to consecrate everything there consecratable–but would any consecration in fact take place in this circumstance?

I would say no.

I suppose it could be argued that such diminished capacity vitiates the ability to form the requisite intention.

From the Eastern viewpoint, the Verba and Epiclesis are parts of the same prayer and both parts are needed.

 

[Aramis]

It aso requires a validly ordained priest. No matter his intent, Pastor Joe of the Reformed Evangelical Liturgists can’t hold a valid communion unless he’s been ordained by a valid bishop.

Sadly, that means also most of the so-called “Independant Orthodox” and “Independant Catholic” churches, as well as Lutherans, Episcopals, and Methodists, have no valid eucharist, even tho’ they try real hard, do it (otherwise) validly, and may even hold orthodox beliefs…

 

[Archangelum]

In some NO-masses I wonder if the consecration is valid, because I highly doubt that this modern priest even believes in the transformation of the bread and the wine? And even if he does, I noticed that there is very little “soul” in his words: he justs utters them like one would read a shopping list. Valid? The wort thing from the point of the attendent in mass is that you doubt if consecratio took place when you go to communion, and then you even start to doubt the actual presence of IHS during communion itself! So that would be like sinning.

 

[bpbasilphx]

In some NO-masses I wonder if the consecration is valid, because I highly doubt that this modern priest even believes in the transformation of the bread and the wine?

**Intention is always presumed if the priest goes to the trouble of vesting and performing all the prayers and ceremonies of the Mass or other Sacrament.

Only IF you know FOR SURE that the Priest has NO intention to consecrate can you say there is no consecration. What you’re doing in this case is just guessing about the priest. “I highly doubt…” means nothing more than “I have no clue.”

NOW if you believe the Sacraments celebrated by a given priest are not grace-filled and effacacious, you should abstain–because you would be bringing down condemnation upon YOURSELF for your own lack of faith.**

 

[Joe_Kelley]

In some NO-masses I wonder if the consecration is valid, because I highly doubt that this modern priest even believes in the transformation of the bread and the wine? . .

His belief does not affect the validity; only his intent. So long as he intends to do what the Church asks, the mass is valid.