Validity of Mass concelebrated with wymynprysts?

[Coemgenus_O]

So, when the text of the Mass is said by a woman who has had an invalid ordination performed on her, the Mass is obviously invalid. However, I’ve videos of Masses being concelebrated by these groups where at least one of the concelebrants is male, and quite possibly validly ordained.

So here’s my question: if the main celebrant of the Mass is not ordained but at least one of the concelebrants has been, does transubstantiation occur?

I’m inclined to think no, but I can’t really provide any theological backup to this.

 

[Theophorus]

So, when the text of the Mass is said by a woman who has had an invalid ordination performed on her, the Mass is obviously invalid. However, I’ve videos of Masses being concelebrated by these groups where at least one of the concelebrants is male, and quite possibly validly ordained.

So here’s my question: if the main celebrant of the Mass is not ordained but at least one of the concelebrants has been, does transubstantiation occur?

I’m inclined to think no, but I can’t really provide any theological backup to this.

I would agree with you, as If the main priest celebrant has been validly ordained and cconcelebrates Mass with the intention to consecrate then the Mass is valid but illict and transubstantiation will have occured. It is a grave and illict dereliction however was he is a priest who has excommunicated himself for participation in a simulated Mass.

If however, a women believing herself ordained said the words of consecration(as chief ‘celebrant’) even if the actual priest said part of the canon it would not be a Mass, nor would transubstantiation have occured as the priest did not say the words of consecration(said by the chief ‘celebrant’ alone) required for transubstantiation to occur. Matter, form and intention (in the priest) are required as far as I know for transubstantiation to occur, a women ‘priest’ would have at best intention only.

 

[GwenL]

I think that we need to hear from a priest here. I’m pretty sure that concelebrants actually say every single word of the words of institution.

We had a guy walk into the sacristy one morning, said he was a priest. Our PV didn’t know him, but gave him the benefit of the doubt. The guest was the celebrant. Our PV concelebrated. I asked the PV later: what if he wasn’t really a priest? Our PV answered: my words of consecration would have confected the Eucharist, and this is why I allowed him to celebrate. For the imposter (if he was such) it would be a horrible sacrilege. For us laity–no big deal, nothing to worry about.

If a priest allowed a woman, or any other person that he knew not to be a priest, to celebrate, then the priest would be complicit in the sacrilege, of course.

 

[Lancer]

Some Canon Law aspects for consideration…

Can. 897 The most August sacrament is the Most Holy Eucharist in which Christ the Lord himself is contained, offered, and received and by which the Church continually lives and grows. The Eucharistic sacrifice, the memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated through the ages is the summit and source of all worship and Christian life, which signifies and effects the unity of the People of God and brings about the building up of the body of Christ. Indeed, the other sacraments and all the ecclesiastical works of the apostolate are closely connected with the Most Holy Eucharist and ordered to it.

Can. 899 §2. In the** Eucharistic gathering** the people of God are called together with the bishop or, **under his authority, a presbyter **presiding and acting in the person of Christ. All the faithful who are present, whether clerics or laity, unite together by participating in their own way according to the diversity of orders and liturgical functions.

.

Can. 900 §2. A priest not impeded by canon law celebrates the Eucharist licitly; the provisions of the following canons are to be observed.

Can. 908 Catholic priests are** forbidden to concelebrate the Eucharist **with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[TheDoctor]

I would agree with you, as If the main priest celebrant has been validly ordained and cconcelebrates Mass with the intention to consecrate then the Mass is valid but illict and transubstantiation will have occured. It is a grave and illict dereliction however was he is a priest who has excommunicated himself for participation in a simulated Mass.

If however, a women believing herself ordained said the words of consecration(as chief ‘celebrant’) even if the actual priest said part of the canon it would not be a Mass, nor would transubstantiation have occured as the priest did not say the words of consecration(said by the chief ‘celebrant’ alone) required for transubstantiation to occur. Matter, form and intention (in the priest) are required as far as I know for transubstantiation to occur, a women ‘priest’ would have at best intention only.

This is correct. A validly ordained Priest is a Priest forever and can validly ordain the Eucharist if they have the correct matter (wheat bread and grape wine) and intention so transub does occur. We can only pray for such confused persons who will have to answer to God for their deeds.

 

[R_C]

A validly ordained priest can - apparently - always consecrate the Holy Eucharist. It would be valid but illicit.

I do not know about ordained women. “The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women”, which - to my understanding - makes any such ordinations not just illicit, but also invalid.

 

[curlycool89]

If however, a women believing herself ordained said the words of consecration(as chief ‘celebrant’) even if the actual priest said part of the canon it would not be a Mass, nor would transubstantiation have occured as the priest did not say the words of consecration(said by the chief ‘celebrant’ alone) required for transubstantiation to occur. Matter, form and intention (in the priest) are required as far as I know for transubstantiation to occur, a women ‘priest’ would have at best intention only.

I don’t know how to answer the question, but I wanted to address the bold part.

When concelebrating, all priests say the words of consecration (words of institution). It’s quite awesome when you get to experience a hundred priests concelebrating, as I have been able to a couple time this year, because even though they are all saying it fairly quietly (compared to the primary celebrant) it makes quite the amount of sound.

 

[Lancer]

Valid probably…yes if a valid priest confects the bread and wine…but without the** profound communion requirements ** outlined below…in this Encyclical excerpt…receiving the effects of Holy Communion…is impossible…simply, you cannot be in communion with Christ (The Head) while you are not in communion with his Body (The Church)…it is an impossibility…there is only one Christ…and he can’t be at odds with himself. Also…this applies to each and everyone of us even if the Sacrament is confected validly and licitly…if we are not in full communion with the our bishop, the Pope and the Magisterium…the full Truths of the Catholic Faith…our reception of the Holy Eucharist…that is… its effects in us (not the Living Sacrament)…is “still-born” in us…(if I can say it this way to make a clear point without being sacrilegious to Our Lord Jesus Christ who is clearly alive and fully present in the Eucharist).

Recommend reading Chapter 4 of this Encyclical…it is an incredible read…and cause for us all to think deeply about what Communion really means and what it takes to actually effect communion with Christ when receiving the Holy Eucharist.

Pax Christi

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA
OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
PRIESTS AND DEACONS
MEN AND WOMEN
IN THE CONSECRATED LIFE
AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON THE EUCHARIST
IN ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHURCH

CHAPTER FOUR [paras–38-44]

THE EUCHARIST
AND ECCLESIAL COMMUNION

1. The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting-point for communion; it** presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection**. The sacrament is an **expression of this bond of communion both in its invisible dimension, **which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its visible dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the Apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church’s hierarchical order

. The** profound relationship between the invisible and the visible elements of ecclesial communion is constitutive of the Church as the sacrament of salvation.71 Only in this context can there be a legitimate celebration of the Eucharist and true participation in it.** Consequently it is an** intrinsic requirement of the Eucharist that it should be celebrated in communion, and specifically maintaining the various bonds of that communion intact. **

1. Ecclesial communion, as I have said, is likewise visible, and finds expression in the series of “bonds” listed by the Council when it teaches: “They are fully incorporated into the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept her whole structure and all the means of salvation established within her, and within her visible framework are united to Christ, who governs her through the Supreme Pontiff and the Bishops, by the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and communion”.77

The Eucharist, as the supreme sacramental manifestation of communion in the Church, demands to be celebrated in a context where the outward bonds of communion are also intact. In a special way, since the Eucharist is “as it were the summit of the spiritual life and the goal of all the sacraments”,78 it requires that the bonds of communion in the sacraments, particularly in Baptism and in priestly Orders, be real.** It is not possible to give communion to a person who is not baptized or to one who rejects the full truth of the faith regarding the Eucharistic mystery**. Christ is the truth and he bears witness to the truth (cf. Jn 14:6; 18:37); the sacrament of his body and blood does not permit duplicity.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_eccl-de-euch_en.html

 

[TheDoctor]

I don’t know how to answer the question, but I wanted to address the bold part.

When concelebrating, all priests say the words of consecration (words of institution). It’s quite awesome when you get to experience a hundred priests concelebrating, as I have been able to a couple time this year, because even though they are all saying it fairly quietly (compared to the primary celebrant) it makes quite the amount of sound.

Thanks. Forgot about that.