Valid Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter ClemtheCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ClemtheCatholic

Guest
I think only the bread, wine, and words at the Consecration are necessary to make a Mass valid. Is this correct? Is the Gospel necessary?

In Christ,
ClemtheCatholic
 
ClemtheCatholic said:
I think only the bread, wine, and words at the Consecration are necessary to make a Mass valid. Is this correct? Is the Gospel necessary?

In Christ,
ClemtheCatholic
Click to expand...
yes, the omission of the gospel has no effect on the validity of the Mass.
 
Thanks!! Sorry to be a pain but do you know of any quotes or links to back this up…? I understand it but I’m discussing this with somebody else which makes it complicated…
 
ClemtheCatholic said:
I think only the bread, wine, and words at the Consecration are necessary to make a Mass valid. Is this correct? Is the Gospel necessary?
Click to expand...
The Gospel is not necessary for validity. Also, you need a validly ordained priest or bishop who intends what the Church intends (IOW, he’s not mentally ill and intends to use the consecrated species for profane reasons, e.g.). The only words necessary are simply “this is my body” or “this is my blood” – one or the other (it can be just the Precious Blood).

Consecrating that way is reserved only for very grave reasons (e.g., running out of communion and consecrating more on the spot). It is illicit to skip the other parts of the Mass, though, for good reasons, they can be for pastoral reasons. E.g., if it’s over 90 degrees out and the air conditioner breaks just as Mass is about to start and the temperature starts shooting up in the church and you expect the elderly there will start fainting in within 20 minutes, then one should start jettisoning parts of the Mass leaving the more essential. For the Liturgy of the Word, the Gospel and (abbreviated) Homily are the most important things (sadly, the Homily is usually the first thing to be skipped when time forces pastoral shortcuts). For the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the Eucharistic Prayer should be the last to be cut if time is forcing cuts.

But to be clear, Vatican II defined the Liturgy of the Word as a constitutive part of the Mass. Because it is not necessary for validity never means it can be cut by the priest or skipped by the faithful purposely showing up late to skip it simply because they want to. Only proportionately grave reasons would allow for the Liturgy of the Word to be skipped.
 
ClemtheCatholic said:
I think only the bread, wine, and words at the Consecration are necessary to make a Mass valid. Is this correct? Is the Gospel necessary?

In Christ,
ClemtheCatholic
Click to expand...
Actually, there is no such thing as a valid or invalid mass. Either there is a mass, or there is not.

What you are referring to, I think, is whether or not the Sacrament is done validly or invalidly. Towards that end you need proper minister, proper form, proper matter, and proper intent.

The proper minister is the bishop/priest.

The proper form is “this is My Body” and, at a minimum, “this is My Blood” (although it would be illicit to not use the full and prescribed words of consecration).

The proper matter is the bread and wine (with a few caveats to that… such as no leaven)

The proper intent is that the minister intends to “do as the church does”.

If these are all present, then the sacrament is valid… and when celebrated in context of the liturgy, that’s a mass. If any of these are not present, there is no valid sacrament, and therefore no mass takes place (to be invalid).

HOWEVER, there is also licitness of the mass, which refers to if the priest in question was allowed to practice at all (such as a priest outside his diocese whom the bishop has refused permission to say mass in the diocese where he is currently located). Finally, each practice in the mass can be licit or illicit (such as having a layperson give the homily is illicit, but does not make the mass “invalid”)
 
Aren’t priests supposed to adhere to a Rite? I don’t know just how little is the minimum necessary to make the Mass valid, but I’d highly doubt that a priest is authorized to celebrate a Mass that falls in any way short of the liturgy of the Rite he is celebrating 🤷 Ex. if the Roman Rite states that even in a Mass where there are no people the Gospel is to be read, then I don’t think the celebrant is authorized to do anything other than following the liturgy and reading the Gospel.
 
R_C said:
Aren’t priests supposed to adhere to a Rite? I don’t know just how little is the minimum necessary to make the Mass valid, but I’d highly doubt that a priest is authorized to celebrate a Mass that falls in any way short of the liturgy of the Rite he is celebrating 🤷 Ex. if the Roman Rite states that even in a Mass where there are no people the Gospel is to be read, then I don’t think the celebrant is authorized to do anything other than following the liturgy and reading the Gospel.
Click to expand...
Sure, priests are supposed to follow the proper rubrics for the mass. However, again, that deals with whether or not a practice is licit (allowed) or not… not with validity of the Eucharist.

Once again, there is no such thing as an invalid mass. There is either a mass (because of a valid sacrament) or there is no mass (because of invalid attempt at confecting the sacrament).
 
Burdensome1 said:
Semantics and the internet.

Like peanut butter and jelly.
Click to expand...
Asking if having no tail makes something a horse or a purple unicorn is not merely semantics, it is an important distinction (in that case, because purple unicorns do not exist and people should presumably know that they don’t).

Likewise, an invalid mass does not exist. The distinction is important because the idea of an invalid mass would presume that the valid Eucharist was offered in a way wholly unsatisfying and invalid (and that is, simply put, not true). The Eucharist, if validly consecrated, is the Christ and always and everywhere is worthy of respect, adoration, and praise… and is likewise always a pleasing offering to God (which is separate from discussing whether or not the WAY Christ is offered is pleasing).

Thus we can only explain with regards to the mass as a whole what is either licit (allowed) or illicit (not allowed/abusive)… not what is valid or not. Calling a mass “invalid” when there is a validly consecrated Eucharist is an insult to the worth of Christ, who is present in that Mass.
 
What does “validity” of a Mass mean? The Mass really didn’t happen? The intention of the Mass doesn’t count? Or, it just was not executed according to the rubric?

The reason I ask, is I wonder if the OP or others feel if a Christian Catholic attends (and more importantly participates) in the Mass in good faith, and the celebrant preaches the codifed protocol or violates the Order of the Mass, that God would with hold the grace he usually bestows on the participant because of a technicality not the fault of that faithful one.

This is why simple recitation of Code of Canon Law by the laity here sometimes drives me crazy. Anyone can read Canon Law, but that does not make them a lawyer of Canon Law because its not as black and white as it always seems.
 
Okay, few points I could do with having clarified! Firstly, when I use the word “valid” I mean “it happened”. So for me the question is “did the Consecration happen”? (I’m not sure what the best way to phrase this would be) Is the Consecration regarded as just being the words directly before the bread/wine transubstantiated (<-- spelt wrong!)?

(1) By definition, what is the Mass? Is this validity thing more about the Sacrament of the Eucharist rather than the entire Mass? :confused: What is the Sacrament of the Eucharist by definition?

(2) On a Sunday, to fulfil your Sunday obligation - what is necessary? Take how it works on Good Friday with no Consecration, would this not be permitable on a Sunday?

Thanks!! :)🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top