What are some things that could make a Mass or Eucharist invalid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TBolt1000T
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
passus said:
Invalid Masses by Jimmy Akin
Click to expand...
Looks like you and Jimmy are alone on this one.

It is my opinion that Mr. Akin is writing in response to the no-doubt countless inquiries and complaints he receives about valid Masses when it’s actually a fairly rare occurance to have an invalid Mass. I bet that Mr. Akin has just chosen to not split hairs on the subject. But I shouldn’t presume his intent.

I’d hate to think that his answer wasn’t… valid.
 
Regarding the composition of the bread used for the Mass, Redemtionis Sacramentum notes:
  1. The Matter of the Most Holy Eucharist
    [48.] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition.123 It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament.124 It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.125
Click to expand...
Regarding issues of validity, RS notes further that:
  1. Graviora delicta
    [172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’,280 namely:
Click to expand...
a) taking away or retaining the consecrated species for sacrilegious ends, or the throwing them away;281
b) the attempted celebration of the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice or the simulation of the same;282
c) the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination;283
d) the consecration for sacrilegious ends of one matter without the other in the celebration of the Eucharist or even of both outside the celebration of the Eucharist.284
Click to expand...
  1. Grave Matters
    [173.] Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168. Moreover, attention should be given to the other prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law, and especially what is laid down by canons 1364, 1369, 1373, 1376, 1380, 1384, 1385, 1386, and 1398.
Click to expand...
Thus, sadly, there are things that can invalidate the Mass.
 
Benedictgal, I’d like to re-state that you’re my favorite poster on CAF. Watertight resources and reasoning. Good work. 👍
 
WhollyRoamin said:
Benedictgal, I’d like to re-state that you’re my favorite poster on CAF. Watertight resources and reasoning. Good work. 👍
Click to expand...
You are waaaay too kind. 😊 But, it’s always great to have folks like Brendan, AJV and japhy around to set me straight. 😃
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

Using cake is one - .​

Click to expand...
in the last 40 years I have witnessed every crazy variant on “Mass” that has been decried here (yes even a clown Mass woo woo) but never have I seen cake introduced as matter for Eucharist. guess I have not lived long enough.

benedictgal does her homework that is why we love her
 
puzzleannie said:
in the last 40 years I have witnessed every crazy variant on “Mass” that has been decried here (yes even a clown Mass woo woo) but never have I seen cake introduced as matter for Eucharist. guess I have not lived long enough.
Click to expand...
Use your google to find Cardinal Schoenborn’s “youth Mass” from Nov 16, 2008. I wouldn’t call it cake exactly. It looks more like a dense foccacia bread. The videos are offputting.

Strangely, His Eminence is actually quite orthodox-- I can charitably hope that the Mass was arranged by some misguided liturgist and Card. Schoenborn was in too deep to stop the debacle when he became aware of the problems.

Fr. Z covers the issue nicely: wdtprs.com/blog/2008/11/mass-in-vienna-what-the/

So, no-- not cake. But this looks like it’d make a good thick pizza crust.
 
Brendan said:
The faculties in this case only apply to licitity. A laicized priest can confect the Eucharist if the other conditions are met ( matter, intent and form). But confecting the Eucharist in such a way, out side of grave need, is illicit and highly displeasing to God.

To the OP, in addition to what BG said, the Mass would be invalid of the celebrant was not a validly ordained priest. Examples would be if a layman, deacon or female attempted to say Mass. The only supernatural effect would be grave sin.
Click to expand...
****Once a chaplin who never celebrated in a Big Church, said a funeral Mass, he became verry confused(early stages of Alzehiemers)after Mass , we told the Pastor what happened,All he said was"Did he say the Fraction"answ Yes then the Mass is Valid.
 
we told the Pastor what happened,All he said was"Did he say the Fraction"answ Yes then the Mass is Valid.
Since the “Fraction” is the actual breaking of the consecrated Host, how is “saying” an “action” a guarantee of a Mass’s validity?
 
Cluny said:
we told the Pastor what happened,All he said was"Did he say the Fraction"answ Yes then the Mass is Valid.
Since the “Fraction” is the actual breaking of the consecrated Host, how is “saying” an “action” a guarantee of a Mass’s validity?
Click to expand...
I am hoping that he meant “consecration”, specifically the “institution narrative” as it was supposed to be said.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

Using cake is one - which means that millions of Masses have in fact been no such thing. So the stipends for them have in effect been stolen. This is a reason to come down on the bishops concerned like a thousand tons of bricks. 😦 :mad: It won’t happen.​

Click to expand...
Having attended over 1000 Masses in my life, in at least 4 different dioceses, I’ve never had cake as “communion”. My credentials aren’t nearly as good as Annie’s 😉 😛 😃 👍 but still… according to my calculations, a parish would have to operate for more than 2700 years in order to celebrate 1M Masses.
 
One of the reasons that I know of which makes the Eucharist invalid is the separation of Bread and Wine. The Bread is held up in one Chalice and the Wine in another. This is to comply with the forming of the Eucharist by Jesus at the Last Supper, when he broke bread first and Said Take his and eat it, this is my Body which will be given up for you. He took the Cup and said Take this all of you and drink fromf it. this is the cup of my Blood ect. In so doing he was giving up Body and Blood separtely.
In Mass therefore there must be separation before the priest calls on the Holy Spirit to turn the Bread and Wine into the Body of Christ. The Bread and Wine are then minled together and the Priest drinks from the Chalice
To do otherwise is invalid
 
I am more interested in the church’s position on the Anglican “priesthood” and “communion” in terms of their being validly ordained since it requires that the ordaining bishop be validly consecrated and that is impossible when the bishop and all he ordains are not in union with Rome. Hense, all of their “Masses” and “communions” are no more valid than if I got up and did it.

Acuddymar
 
acuddymar said:
I am more interested in the church’s position on the Anglican “priesthood” and “communion” in terms of their being validly ordained since it requires that the ordaining bishop be validly consecrated and that is impossible when the bishop and all he ordains are not in union with Rome. Hense, all of their “Masses” and “communions” are no more valid than if I got up and did it.

Acuddymar
Click to expand...
The Anglican priesthood is not recognized by the Church because the ordinations are invalid. Thus, whatever communion the Anglicans offer is, itself, invalid due to a defect of form.

Even when Anglican priests convert to Catholicism, they must be ordained by a validly consecrated Catholic bishop in order to be Catholic priests. Although the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus was a Lutheran minster, a year after his reception into full communion with the Church, he was ordained a priest by John Cardinal O’Connor.
 
passus said:
For some reason, that doesn’t worry me in the least. 😉

Thus? Which “things?” All you have pasted from Redemptionis Sacramentum is regarding the validity of the Eucharist and not “the Mass” as a whole.
Click to expand...
However, an invalid Eucharist meams that the Mass was invalid. In effect, you would have to attend another Mass.
 
benedictgal said:
However, an invalid Eucharist meams that the Mass was invalid. In effect, you would have to attend another Mass.
Click to expand...
It’s important to note that in the case that the priest does not have proper intent and if the congregation is ignorant to Father’s (lack of) intent, then the congregants have fulfilled their obligation.
 
Even though we might use the term “invalid Mass” there realy is no such thing because if it isn’t “valid” then it isn’t “a Mass.”

Something may be valid but illicit,
but can never be invalid but licit
because validity is required in order to meet the conditions of the law.

A priest must have the intention to “do what the Church does” so that even if his own personal intention is not to confect the Eucharist, so long as he intends to “do as the Church” the Consecration is still valid. The only time a lack of intention would apply would be if the priest specifically has the intention “not to consecrate” or “not to do as the Church does”.

This is very subtle. The lack of intention is different from the intention-not-to-do.

For a parallel example, see Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on the invalidity of Anglican orders.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top