Words of consecration valid?

[camkutz]

At daily Mass on Monday the Church that I was visiting the priest used the old translation and said “for you and for all” instead of “for you and for many” - he wasn’t looking at the Missal when he said them - I had a brief thought thinking “oooh, is this valid?” I went to Communion anyway thinking nothing of it. He was a holy priest and said Mass so reverently but this bit just threw me a little bit

 

[Gorgias]

Presuming that he meant to do what the Church does in consecrating the Eucharist, and presuming that he simply made a mental error, then yes: the Eucharist was validly consecrated.

 

[Memaw]

At daily Mass on Monday the Church that I was visiting the priest used the old translation and said “for you and for all” instead of “for you and for many” - he wasn’t looking at the Missal when he said them - I had a brief thought thinking “oooh, is this valid?” I went to Communion anyway thinking nothing of it. He was a holy priest and said Mass so reverently but this bit just threw me a little bit

That would NOT make the Hosts invalid as long as the words of consecration are said properly and with the right intent. Be thankful you have a holy priest. God bless, Memaw

 

[Gorgias]

That would NOT make the Hosts invalid as long as the words of consecration are said properly

You realize that he is talking about the words of consecration, right?

 

[Memaw]

You realize that he is talking about the words of consecration, right?

Yes, I do and the words are "This is MY BODY, This is MY BLOOD. He should talk to his priest about this and find out for himself. God Bless, Memaw

 

[porthos11]

At daily Mass on Monday the Church that I was visiting the priest used the old translation and said “for you and for all” instead of “for you and for many” - he wasn’t looking at the Missal when he said them - I had a brief thought thinking “oooh, is this valid?” I went to Communion anyway thinking nothing of it. He was a holy priest and said Mass so reverently but this bit just threw me a little bit

It WAS valid before, it IS therefore valid now. The only difference is because the new translation mandates “for many”, saying “for all” is illicit, but if it was valid then, it could not be invalid now.

 

[ProVobis]

It WAS valid before, it IS therefore valid now. The only difference is because the new translation mandates “for many”, saying “for all” is illicit, but if it was valid then, it could not be invalid now.

Actually that whole clause was changed, not just the “all.” This would in effect be a new formula altogether if he simply replaced the “many,” but I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the priest. Perhaps I’ve read “DeDefectibus” too many times.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, I do and the words are "This is MY BODY, This is MY BLOOD.

Okay, but what if he said, “This is …my Blood…if you’re of Irish descent”? See the dilemma here?

 

[Memaw]

Okay, but what if he said, “This is …my Blood…if you’re of Irish descent”? See the dilemma here?

So what is your point??? The Catholic faith is universal. God Bless, Memaw

 

[ProVobis]

The Catholic faith is universal.

By definition, sure. But my point was making the clause conditional. The question is whether by doing so does it significantly change the meaning. The OP really does not give the complete clause, only a single word.

 

[Memaw]

By definition, sure. But my point was making the clause conditional. The question is whether by doing so does it significantly change the meaning. The OP really does not give the complete clause, only a single word.

All he said different was a single word, probably out of habit. No big deal.
I still don’t know what being of Irish decent has to do with it. I am of Irish decent !! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, I do and the words are "This is MY BODY, This is MY BLOOD. He should talk to his priest about this and find out for himself. God Bless, Memaw

Actually, no. The entire sentences are the words of consecration:

“Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my body, which will be given up for you.”

and

“Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. [Do this in memory of me.]”

 

[Elizium23]

Actually, no. The entire sentences are the words of consecration:

“Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my body, which will be given up for you.”

and

“Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. [Do this in memory of me.]”

Actually, Aquinas holds that the essential formula of consecration is “This is my body” and “This is [the chalice of] my blood”.

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, Aquinas holds that the essential formula of consecration is “This is my body” and “This is [the chalice of] my blood”.

Actually, in his discussion of the ‘form’ of the sacrament of the Eucharist, he states that:

There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words “This is the chalice of My blood” alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ’s blood. Consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.

And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, “As often as ye shall do this,” which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form.

(Summa Theologiae, III.78.3.a)

In other words, Thomas doesn’t say what you assert he says; in fact, he includes the entirety of the words of consecration (with respect to the Precious Blood, in this case) in the form of the sacrament.

 

[Memaw]

Actually, no. The entire sentences are the words of consecration:

“Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my body, which will be given up for you.”

and

“Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. [Do this in memory of me.]”

OK, you should talk to a priest and let us know what he says. God Bless, Memaw

 

[otjm]

As was noted, for those who want to count angels on the head of a pin; it was valid before; so it is valid now.

Liceity and validity are not the same thing.

 

[ProVobis]

FWIW, a priest wasn’t inclined to change the words of consecration when they were in Latin, either intentionally or not. Now every 40 years or so, he has to relearn the formula. And it isn’t only in the English.

 

[ProVobis]

“Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

For the record, the expired words of consecration were

“Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven.”

It’s not invalid but the theology is different.

And it’s different still if one were to just simply change the “many” to “all” in the new consecration, hypothetically speaking.

“Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins.”

The Vatican NEVER approved this formula.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Gorgias View Post
Actually, no. The entire sentences are the words of consecration:

“Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my body, which will be given up for you.”

and

“Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. [Do this in memory of me.]”

OK, you should talk to a priest and let us know what he says. God Bless, Memaw

It’s been pointed out to me that, among the parts of the Eucharistic Prayer, the part we’re talking about is the “Institution Narrative”. Although we can’t really point to a part within the Eucharistic Prayer at which, if Mass were interrupted, we’d say, “ok, consecration is definitively complete”, we know that, by the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, the Eucharist has been consecrated. So, if the part we’re talking about is the “Institution Narrative”, it’s the whole thing I’ve quoted above (plus the narrative parts).

Hope this helps!

 

[chesterlab]

camkutz:

By old translation do you mean the Vatican I tridentine mass language? Certainly if that is what it was, it is valid. The traditional latin rite mass was never done away with after Vatican II. Pope JPII and Pope Benedict (and I think Pope Francis also concurred) said that those who are comfortable in that tradition may continue. It was the lay people and Vatican II priests and bishops who tried to eliminate the tridentine mass off the face of the earth. I belong to a Latin Rite church (Institute of Christ, Sovereign Priest-in full communion with Rome) and our parish is the only one in the entire diocese that is allowed to celebrate the mass in the traditional tridentine manner. Very sad that so much of that tradition is no longer used. it is a very beautiful mass and our priest is wonderful. Our faithful are wonderful as well.