Validity of mass in a specific instance

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I meant no offense, Father. I treasure the clear and unambiguous directions given by St. Pius V. I was only remarking upon the very specific wording of the bull regarding death, when it could have been generalised to simply refer to any instance where the mass was interrupted by a priest being struck down by some unfortunate incident that renders him unable to continue with the mass, which is how we interpret it today.

However, this does raise another question. If there is only one priest present in the parish and (though I pray for the intercession of Our Blessed Mother that this may never happen) he is incapacitated upon half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Blood, how can it be completed?

I pray for your continued good health, Father.

It needs to be completed by another ptiest. I do not think there is a time limit. You just get a priest to come out and finish it.

 

[ora_pro_nobis]

I was just thinking… wouldn’t you be worried first about the priest’s health when that incident occurs?

that thought occurred to me too. I would hope that someone would be helping him in whatever way while someone else worries about the continuation of the Mass!

 

[jmtowle]

This question deviates slightly but here goes; What is the consequence of priests praying the Eucharistic prayers that I’m of the understanding, are reserved for children’s masses and use the term cup instead of chalice? I’ve been at masses where the priest does not read the revised Eucharistic prayers and I have some concern that transubstantiation is not taking place.

This is quite important to me and I’d be willing to drive to a different parish if that is necessary to receive our Lord.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

They seem awfully afraid about their priests dying during the mass. Was there a clerical hit squad in the past?

Archbishop Romero…

 

[YoungTradCath]

I meant no offense, Father. I treasure the clear and unambiguous directions given by St. Pius V. I was only remarking upon the very specific wording of the bull regarding death, when it could have been generalised to simply refer to any instance where the mass was interrupted by a priest being struck down by some unfortunate incident that renders him unable to continue with the mass, which is how we interpret it today.

However, this does raise another question. If there is only one priest present in the parish and (though I pray for the intercession of Our Blessed Mother that this may never happen) he is incapacitated upon half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Blood, how can it be completed?

I pray for your continued good health, Father.

The popular style of writing was different in the past. They often used more… florid language than we do nowadays. It was common to use a specific instance to get across a general point in the writing of the time. This is also true somewhat of Vatican documents written today. Although a slightly different topic, if you read a very literal translation of Vatican documents written even today, or if you read them in Latin, they come off as very much more… shall I say, commanding? than they do if you read the official English translations. The original Latin is very authoritative sounding.

This question deviates slightly but here goes; What is the consequence of priests praying the Eucharistic prayers that I’m of the understanding, are reserved for children’s masses and use the term cup instead of chalice? I’ve been at masses where the priest does not read the revised Eucharistic prayers and I have some concern that transubstantiation is not taking place.

This is quite important to me and I’d be willing to drive to a different parish if that is necessary to receive our Lord.

The mass would not be invalidated, as the words of consecration confect the sacrament, not the Eucharistic Prayer. But it would be illicit to use those EPs unless it is, indedd, a children’s mass.

 

[YoungTradCath]

OK. It’s not (currently) “law” as such–not in the strictest sense.

It’s a “guiding document,” an interpretation of certain principles involved in the Mass and how to deal with certain problems.

Here’s what I mean. Someone asks a question “what happens if the priest gets sick and has to leave in the middle of Mass?” (gee, sound familiar?)

The Church doesn’t just ask that question as if it were being asked for the very first time. We’ve already known the answer for 400 years now, so there’s no ned to come up with a new answer. We’ve known the right way to handle it for 400 years, so unless something comes along that would change the answer (like something more specific to the Missal used at the time, and which is different in today’s Missal), the answer itself will be the same as it’s always been.

I cannot say to what extend De Defictibus is still taught in seminaries; and that’s going to vary from one place to another and from one professor to another. What I can say though is that in principle it’s still being taught. The questions we see here on CAF are often those asked in the course of seminary training. After all, every priest needs to know what he is supposed to do if he gets sick during Mass, or if he accidentally uses water&water instead of wine&water at the offertory, or any of several other issues addressed in the document. The issues themselves are timeless and the responses don’t change. Seminarians today might never have heard of the document itself, but unless something is very lacking in their formation, they do learn the principles of it. Seminarians love to ask questions like “what do I do if a fly falls into the chalice?” If you think that happens a lot on CAF, just try being a fly on the wall in seminary liturgy courses.

I don’t know why it’s no longer printed in the Roman Missal. Personally I think it should be, or at least an updated version of it should be printed there. I think it would be useful. The GIRM does tell us what to do, but information on what to do if something goes wrong is useful information.

Thank you for the enlightenment. Perhaps in the future they will again include De defectibus.

 

[EvelynEVF]

YoungTradCath, this topic cracks me up, because btdt, sort of. About a year after my own Confirmation, I was training as a sacristan and saw on the calendar that my Confirmation Mass happened with clergy wearing the Wrong Color Vestments. It really threw me for a loop for a minute. Then they offered to do it over in the right color

 

[jmtowle]

The popular style of writing was different in the past. They often used more… florid language than we do nowadays. It was common to use a specific instance to get across a general point in the writing of the time. This is also true somewhat of Vatican documents written today. Although a slightly different topic, if you read a very literal translation of Vatican documents written even today, or if you read them in Latin, they come off as very much more… shall I say, commanding? than they do if you read the official English translations. The original Latin is very authoritative sounding.

The mass would not be invalidated, as the words of consecration confect the sacrament, not the Eucharistic Prayer. But it would be illicit to use those EPs unless it is, indedd, a children’s mass.

That’s what I wanted to know, thank you.