Wondering if Priest is commiting abuses during mass!

[Cristiano]

I don’t understand why the fellow’s post upset you so much. Certainly, if the priest is committing Liturgical abuses, a member of the faithful has the right to know. The poster was merely asking the community on the forum to help him to determine whether or not particular things are abuses.

Any of the questions that people ask on these forums could be answered by looking in certain books or on certain webpages. People post questions when they do not know where to look, or when they desire any of the number of very learned people on the forums to help them find information for any reason. What’s wrong with that?

Peace and God bless

It does not upset me too much. I just think that it is hypocritical to accuse two priests of wrongdoing even if he is not sure that they are wrong. He also puts them in the same bucket without separating the behaviors of each priest. Later he started to add things like ad libbing etc. At this point I think that he is going through the phase “I do not like it and so they must be wrong”.

He confronted a priest and he was told the truth and he did not believe him but and he decided to come to this forum to trust someone’s comments.

A person interested in knowing if something is an abuse would have simply asked if the representation of the hypostatic union is sufficient by pouring water in a chalice or if it needs to be done for each chalice.

 

[allhers]

I was always taught that the water was indeed a symbol, when mixed with the (pre-consecrated) wine, of the two natures of Christ, divine and human. How is that an abuse?

Sorry, you’re right of course, clearly I didn’t read the OP question right, pre-consecrated it is at that point symbolic. You and porthos11 both caught that:thumbsup: However, I am not sure about your explanation for it. (I will check up on that myself.)

 

[allhers]

1. Lavabo cannot be skipped. Skipping it, however, does not make the Mass invalid. Only messing with the Consecration does that.
2. Father is right. He is expected to pour water only into the principal chalice.

Actually, Father is also right. At this point the wine has not been consecrated, and the mixing of the water and wine is a symbol of the sharing of the divinity of Christ as he shared our humanity.

Correct also, sorry for my mistake, I didn’t read it the way I ought to have, I also agree with what you are saying as to the sharing of the divinity of Christ as He shared our humanity. (my thinking is off the past couple of days for some strange reason.) Time for a good confession probably.

 

[porthos11]

Sorry, you’re right of course, clearly I didn’t read the OP question right, pre-consecrated it is at that point symbolic. You and porthos11 both caught that:thumbsup: However, I am not sure about your explanation for it. (I will check up on that myself.)

The explanation can be found in the priest’s inaudible prayer as he mixes the water with the wine:

“By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.”

 

[bpbasilphx]

First, in one morning mass, the priest completely skips the washing of the hands, is this acceptable? If not does it make the mass invalid or illicit.

**There are only a very few things that the Priest can do which would make a Mass invalid:

1. Withhold intention–that is NOT intend to confect the Eucharist.
2. Use of invalid matter–that is NOT wheat bread or pure grape wine.
3. Altering the words of Consecration so they do NOT clearly say “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” or not reciting the Invocation of the Holy Spirit (which in the Western Rite comes before the Words of Institution).
4. Not being validly ordained himself.

Accidentally forgetting the Lavabo is clearly NOT among these. He may be guilty of a grave infraction if he deliberately omitted it, but it does not make the Mass invalid.

Relax.**