If Priest Gets One Word Wrong: Mass Is Invalid

[jeffpugh]

Whoa talk about two faced here... first Anomaly pats CatholicCid on the back then he slaps CatholicCat in the face... Where is the charity, people? As far as I've been following this, I think we have pretty much most of the cards on the table... if you want the teaching given to seminarians, then ask a seminarian!

[Mr.Cat]

I suppose I just don’t understand how much further this discussion can go on without both sides putting something into this discussion. Maybe I have some biased thoughts on this subject that affected me in my posts. For anyone who was offended by what I wrote I apologize since my intention is not to offend anyone...

[Anomaly]

No need to get all your panties in a wad. All I've done is ask questions and pointed out when the answers provided seemed to answer my questions or seemed not to answer my questions. Some of what Cid posted answered my questions, and some didn't. It wasn't patting him on the back then slapping him in the face. How silly and hurtful to even say that. Cid's done a better job and put more effort into directly answering direct questions than the rest of you, and didn't get personally offended or accusatory.

Take a chill pill and instead of creating some tangled web of intrigue to assign motive to the persons asking the questions, just answer the questions like Cid did. If you say you can answer the question and discuss your answer, then do so. Else, then just say NO to Posting invective.

As it remains, now, Cid had provided very good evidence to support that generally, this is my Body and this is my Blood, as the normative words that effects Consecration of the Eucharist. To answer Budge's challenge about it being 'magic words' spoken by a priest that gets 'magic power', you have to establish clear Church teachings about intent of the Priest and how the Holy Spirt works through him. Be careful you don't fall into Luther's 'Consubstantiation' trap.

Continue on.

[Winchester]

So after people leave because they took Jesus literally when He said this is my body, etcetera, why didn't He explain to them it was merely symbolic?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1222002' date='Mar 29 2007, 11:08 AM']So after people leave because they took Jesus literally when He said this is my body, etcetera, why didn't He explain to them it was merely symbolic?[/quote]That's really illustrative of what the RC Church 'teaches'. Thanks. That will be an "F".

Edited March 29, 2007 by Anomaly

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I believe answer regarding intent is given here:
[quote][b]The Council of Trent - The Seventh Session: ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL[/b]
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.
[i]Source: [url="http://history.hanover.edu/project.html"]Hanover Historical Texts Project[/url] - [url="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html"]http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html[/url], translated by Rev. J. Waterworth[/i][/quote]
God bless!

Edited March 29, 2007 by thedude

[Aloysius]

When does the Eucharist cease to be Christ in digestion? When does bread cease to be bread in digestion? The answer to both questions would be the same; it's clearly an organic and fuzzy question on both accounts... but if you can give me some solid concrete answer to the latter question I shall apply it readily to the first question, because the Church teaches that Christ's physical substantial presence remains so long as the accidents of bread remain. As soon as the accidents of bread have been absorbed into the body, so has Christ.

[quote] [b]Fourth Lateran Council: Constitution De fide catholic, On the Catholic Faith[/b]
His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God's power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church's keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors.[/quote]

[quote][b]Council of Florence: Bull of Union with the Armenians[/b]
There are seven sacraments of the new Law, namely baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders and matrimony...All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, word as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament [i]with the intention of doing what the church does. [/i]If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.
The third is the sacrament of the eucharist. Its matter is wheat bread and wine from the vine, to which a very little water is added before the consecration. Water is added thus because it is believed, in accordance with the testimony of the holy fathers and doctors of the church manifested long ago in disputation, that the Lord himself instituted this sacrament in wine mixed with water, and because it befits the representation of the Lord's passion. For the blessed pope Alexander, fifth after blessed Peter, says "In the oblations of the sacraments which are offered to the Lord within the solemnities of masses, only bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered in sacrifice. There should not be offered in the chalice of the Lord either wine only or water only but both mixed together, because both blood and water are said to have flowed from Christ's side"; also because it is fitting to signify the effect of this sacrament, which is the union of the christian people with Christ. For, water signifies the people according tot he words of the Apocalypse: many waters, many peoples. And Pope Julius, second after blessed Silvester, said: The chalice of the Lord, by precept of the canons, should be offered mixed of wine and water, because we see that the people is understood in the water and the blood of Christ is manifested in the wine; hence when wine and water are mingled in the chalice, the people are made one with Chrsit and the mass of the faithful are linked and joined together with him in whom they believe. Since, therefore, botht he holy Roman church taught by the most blessed apostles Peter and Paul and the other churches of Latins and Greeks, in which the lights of all sanctity and doctrine have shone brightly, have behaved in this way from the very beginning of the growing church and still do so, it seems very unfitting that any other region should differ from this universal and reasonable observance... [i]The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament.[/i] A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood. In such wise, however, that the whole Christ is contained both under the form of bread and under the form of wine; under any part of the consecrated host as well as after division of the sonsecrated wine, there is the whole Christ. The effect of this sacrament, which is produced in the soul of one who receives it worthily, is the union of him with Christ. Since by grace a man is incorporated in Christ and is united with his members, the consequence is that grace is increased by this sacrament in those who receive it worthily; and that [i]every effect that material food and drink produce for corporal life--sustaining, increasing, repairing and delighting--this sacrament works for spiritual life.[/i]

[b]Council of Florence: Bull of Union with the Copts[/b]
[the Church] uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's body: For this is my body. And of his blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.[/quote]
(emphasis added)

I could go on to Trent, but I believe the point has been illustrated;

Matter, form, and intent; and it goes into the body as food goes into the body; is substantially absorbed into the soul the way food is absorbed into the
Christ gave us the matter and the form of the Eucharist directly and commanded us to follow it. Doing it with the correct intention, that is to do as Christ's Church does, makes it no form of magic incantation but rather a way in which Christ gives graces through His Church.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1220057' date='Mar 26 2007, 08:59 PM']Whoa talk about two faced here... first Anomaly pats CatholicCid on the back then he slaps CatholicCat in the face... [b]Where is the charity, people[/b]? As far as I've been following this, I think we have pretty much most of the cards on the table... if you want the teaching given to seminarians, then ask a seminarian! [/quote][quote name='Anomaly' post='1222205' date='Mar 29 2007, 01:27 PM']That's really illustrative of what the RC Church 'teaches'. Thanks. That will be an "F".[/quote]


[quote name='Aloysius' post='1222256' date='Mar 29 2007, 03:02 PM']When does the Eucharist cease to be Christ in digestion? When does bread cease to be bread in digestion? The answer to both questions would be the same; it's clearly an organic and fuzzy question on both accounts... but if you can give me some solid concrete answer to the latter question I shall apply it readily to the first question, because the Church teaches that Christ's physical substantial presence remains so long as the accidents of bread remain. [b]As soon as the accidents of bread have been absorbed into the body, so has Christ[/b].[/quote]Exactly...

[Anomaly]

[quote name='thedude' post='1222246' date='Mar 29 2007, 03:50 PM']I believe answer regarding intent is given here:
[quote]QUOTE
The Council of Trent - The Seventh Session: ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.
Source: Hanover Historical Texts Project - [url="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html"]http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html[/url], translated by Rev. J. Waterworth[/quote]God bless!
[/quote]
Thanks. I know what the Church teaches, but to answer my question and respond to Budge fully, provide some 'Why' and 'How'. Since I do know what the Church really teaches, I'll give you a hint since I'm tired of being bashed. Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line which will discuss the words, why, and how, and explain the why intent is important. You've got to read it all and then read the questions. Admittedly, I'm being a bit stubborn about it, but I knew a real answer was out there regardless of my or Budge's motives or attitude.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1222205' date='Mar 29 2007, 12:27 PM']That's really illustrative of what the RC Church 'teaches'. Thanks. That will be an "F".[/quote]
I'm assuming when you edited your post, you removed the actual rebuttal by mistake.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1222387' date='Mar 29 2007, 07:03 PM']I'm assuming when you edited your post, you removed the actual rebuttal by mistake.[/quote]Not so much. There wasn't anything to rebutt.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1219218' date='Mar 25 2007, 09:58 AM']Reading the entire conversation will illuminate [u]the fact that Budge and I are simply asking where are the RC Documents that clearly spell out what words and conditions are required for the Consecration to be VALID[/u]. I do believe that this must exist, but I don't know where it is. All that's been posted is Eucharistic Prayers and various Catholic opinions. Despite Budge's other attacks, you should start at the foundation of her challenge. What are the exact words? Why those words? What intent is required? Where is the documentation and evidence the Church marries the contraints of correct rubrics and intent to serve Jesus' will and intent for the Eucharist?

[b][u]Of course, it's easier to attack our character and motives. We're mere humans[/u].[/b][/quote][quote name='Anomaly' post='1220384' date='Mar 27 2007, 08:40 AM'][u]No need to get all your panties in a wad[/u]. All I've done is ask questions and pointed out when the answers provided seemed to answer my questions or seemed not to answer my questions. Some of what Cid posted answered my questions, and some didn't. It wasn't patting him on the back then slapping him in the face. [u]How silly and hurtful to even say that[/u] (?). Cid's done a better job and put more effort into directly answering direct questions than the rest of you, and didn't get personally offended or accusatory.

[u]Take a chill pill and instead of creating some tangled web of intrigue to assign motive to the persons asking the questions[/u], [b]just answer the questions like Cid did[/b] (?). If you say you can answer the question and discuss your answer, then do so. Else, then just say NO to Posting invective.

As it remains, now, Cid had provided very good evidence to support that generally, this is my Body and this is my Blood, as the normative words that effects Consecration of the Eucharist. To answer Budge's challenge about it being 'magic words' spoken by a priest that gets 'magic power', you have to establish clear Church teachings about intent of the Priest and how the Holy Spirt works through him. Be careful you don't fall into Luther's 'Consubstantiation' trap.

Continue on.[/quote][quote name='Anomaly' post='1222297' date='Mar 29 2007, 03:54 PM']God bless!

Thanks. [b] I know what the Church teaches[/b], but to answer my question and respond to Budge fully, provide some 'Why' and 'How'. Since I do know what the Church really teaches, I'll give you a hint since I'm tired of being bashed. Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line which will discuss the words, why, and how, and explain the why intent is important. You've got to read it all and then read the questions. [b][u]Admittedly, I'm being a bit stubborn about it, but I knew a real answer was out there regardless of my or Budge's motives or attitude[/u][/b].[/quote][quote name='Anomaly' post='1222394' date='Mar 29 2007, 06:21 PM']Not so much. There wasn't anything to rebutt. [/quote]Odd how this conversation is forming... Nothing ever fits what is being looked for, just rude comments being made back to the Catholic parities that have no requirement in this discussion to submit anything since they are not the aggressors. It is odd that before you accused me of presuming "motives or attitude" but now you admit to it. You even point out you are being stubborn. Before when pointing this issue out before, with less evidence, you demanded I hold my word unless I had something to post. A few pages later and still no result... I am starting to have doubts you are looking for anything but just are asking questions that you will accept no answer...

Edited March 29, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1222424' date='Mar 29 2007, 08:17 PM']Odd how this conversation is forming... Nothing ever fits what is being looked for, just rude comments being made back to the Catholic parities that have no requirement in this discussion to submit anything since they are not the aggressors. It is odd that before you accused me of presuming "motives or attitude" but now you admit to it. You even point out you are being stubborn. Before when pointing this issue out before, with less evidence, you demanded I hold my word unless I had something to post. A few pages later and still no result... I am starting to have doubts you are looking for anything but just are asking questions that you will accept no answer...[/quote]
what? Half the time I don't even know what you are trying to say.

Your mom.

[Aloysius]

lol

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1222394' date='Mar 29 2007, 05:21 PM']Not so much. There wasn't anything to rebutt. [/quote]
Very well, I accept your surrender.

Many people can't explain why Christ didn't make it clear that to make it into heaven, one would have to consume His flesh and blood was symbolic, so you're not alone.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1222426' date='Mar 29 2007, 07:30 PM']what? Half the time I don't even know what you are trying to say.

Your mom.[/quote]Half the time I think you have no idea what you are writing about and most of the time I am trying to figure out what you are really asking for, since no one can seem to EVER offer a sufficient answer. I am glad you can resort to offensive remarks although; it makes my case ever stronger and clearer.

([i][b]If I were to respond as you do to me[/b][/i]) On second thought, if you cannot understand me then you should consider taking some English courses at the local Junior College; maybe at the remedial level so you are not “left behind”.

Edited March 30, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1222487' date='Mar 29 2007, 10:10 PM']Half the time I think you have no idea what you are writing about and most of the time I am trying to figure out what you are really asking for, since no one can seem to EVER offer a sufficient answer. I am glad you can resort to offensive remarks although; it makes my case ever stronger and clearer.

([i][b]If I were to respond as you do to me[/b][/i]) On second thought, if you cannot understand me then you should consider taking some English courses at the local Junior College; maybe at the remedial level so you are not “left behind”.[/quote]Left behind? I never would have guessed you were a millenialist.
And you are right about needing more education. I graduated from high school almost 30 years ago and didn't get much education after that. I think I've mentioned my lack of education previously. Any-who. Considering my lack of language comprehension skills, I was hoping you'd apply your superior education and talents and help me out. Currently, Cid had provided pretty clear evidence of the words of institution. He didn't explain so much about why those words and how and why the words, combined with the graces provided in Ordination, makes the actions of the priest effectively sacramental. I do hope my clumsy language skills aren't making my questions too unclear.
Thanks.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1222426' date='Mar 29 2007, 06:30 PM']Your mom.[/quote]


[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1222487' date='Mar 29 2007, 08:10 PM']([i][b]If I were to respond as you do to me[/b][/i]) On second thought, if you cannot understand me then you should consider taking some English courses at the local Junior College; maybe at the remedial level so you are not “left behind”.[/quote]


[quote name='Anomaly' post='1222899' date='Mar 30 2007, 06:09 AM']Left behind? I never would have guessed you were a millenialist.
And you are right about needing more education. I graduated from high school almost 30 years ago and didn't get much education after that. I think I've mentioned my lack of education previously. Any-who. Considering my lack of language comprehension skills, I was hoping you'd apply your superior education and talents and help me out. Currently, Cid had provided pretty clear evidence of the words of institution. He didn't explain so much about why those words and how and why the words, combined with the graces provided in Ordination, makes the actions of the priest effectively sacramental. I do hope my clumsy language skills aren't making my questions too unclear.
Thanks.[/quote]

No more uncharity and bickering. I don't know who started it, but if you don't finish it now, I will.

[son_of_angels]

The question as to "why?" these words are required could be understood from the Council documents above, but also from Sacred Scripture. Principally, because the Catholic Church, despite all claims to the contrary, does not and did not create any sacrament herself, but can only exercise such sacraments as were given her in the testimony of Sacred Scripture from Christ himself. Hence, as far as the words of Consecration, they are derived from Sacred Scripture itself as being the words which Christ spoke.

Now, there are communions in fellowship with Rome, as the Assyrians, who do not use the words of consecration explicitly, but implicitly, although many have revised their prayers to conform more to the Roman Catholic viewpoint. Nonetheless, we hold their consecration valid because there is still explicit reference to the change which goes on. I am not sure how to find this material, but I assure you it is true.

That is off-topic, however. But this is not....

Having been raised, and even begun the process of becoming a Southern Baptist minister prior to leaving that fellowship, the fact that the Words of Consecration are to be used as found in sacred Scripture, permeates the conscience of the Western mind, and I wonder at your decision to question it. I never did, principally because this was the form used at EVERY celebration of the Lord's Supper in which I participated as a Baptist. No one, and one must agree with this principle, dared to create a different set of words to solemnify the occasion, other than those which our Lord himself used on the night before his suffering and death. Indeed, some might argue that to do so is, in a way, to lose even the commemorative aspect of the Eucharistic celebration, hence contrary to even those who doctrinally hold that the Eucharist is a mere commemoration.

If, then, the commemorative aspect of the Eucharist (which both Catholics and Protestants share) seems to DEMAND that the Words of Consecration be used, how much more should Catholics, who believe that Christ gives himself completely at this celebration in his Real Presence, assert that the words of Consecration MUST be used. It is only reasonable, however reasonable one holds the doctrine itself.

And this is all one has to ask of you, Budge, not that you agree with this interpretation, for unless you also follow belief with sincere conversion and repentence, mere argumentative assent would not be helpful to you, that you acknowledge that the beliefs of Catholicism are in fact consistent with their convictions. But if you deny this fact, then you cannot only deny that our doctrine is consistent with properly Christian conviction, but also that many western Christian convictions are themselves flawed, which are all the bases (however divorced from their full meaning) of Evangelical Protestantism. "No man is an island...." I should not like to see the seedlings of St Augustine of Hippo deny their common roots, for he, as it was "who fathered you in Christ Jesus, by the gospel" in the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians (4:15)!

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1222926' date='Mar 30 2007, 08:45 AM']No more uncharity and bickering. I don't know who started it, but if you don't finish it now, I will.[/quote]I affirm the decision that this is not in Christian virtue on my part... [u]no matter for what reason I put the comment up that it was wrong[/u], [b]it is something I shouldn’t of done and I apologize[/b]. Although no offence was intended to anyone but rather it was to show a point of how this user always responds to me since I would be willing to do research in the topic if the questions were more clearly defined and I could see some kind of heartfelt intention from the questions. [b]Even in light of this what I did I apologize for this and I will avoid doing this in the future[/b].

Edited March 30, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat