IS YOUR MASS VALID? - Levels of Liturgical Abuse

This article is TOO LONG to post in its entirety. The abuses listed are fragments from the original. It is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED that you read the article in its entirety before criticizing what has been posted!

Note too .... the links in this post will not take you to the referenced documents. To access those documents, click on the above link which will take you to the original article with working links. Is Your Mass Valid? Liturgical Abuse

From time to time it is important to review these rules.

If you feel that there are abuses in your parish, follow the suggestion made by Bruce at the end of the above article. Be certain to print out the appropriate sections from the GIRM, Canon Law and any other documents that apply to your abuse. These are supporting documents!

And, yes, take it from one who has confronted the parish priest and written to the Diocesan Director for Divine Liturgy and Worship, it does work!

That is a great article, and I am sold on Our Lady's Warriors website!

My Parish is pretty good actually. We don't kneel during the consecration (I do), but we are changing that to bring ourselves into line with the GIRM. The Priest rarely washes his hands, but when we have an altar server we do. We do have an army of EMs, but we have one priest for about 400+ people, so I guess that is ok. Did better that I was expecting. God Bless

4. Serious Abuses - Those which Invalidate the Mass

The serious abuses which invalidate the Mass are all those which inhibit transubstantiation, that is fail to begin about Jesus' True Presence in the Eucharist. The Church has very specifically defined what must - and must not - occur so that transubstantiation will result. There are four conditions required for a valid Consecration resulting in the miracle of transubstantiation. All of these conditions must be present for a valid Consecration. This is dogma. Therefore, anyone who denies these requirements is liable to heresy.

4.3 Condition Three - Matter

Note that this article deals with only the Western Latin Rite Church. There are different rules for Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, such as Byzantine Catholic. For the Western Latin Rite Catholic Church, valid matter consists of wheat unleavened bread and grape wine.

-------

This is confusing. How can there be different rules for transubstantiation to occur? If a Western Rite priest goes by Eastern Rite regulations is Christ not present?

I probably should understand this before becoming Pope.

I probably should understand this before becoming Pope

Yup.

Briefly, one is not allowed to "mix Rites."

This holds true for the "indult" Old Rite Masses, for example. Although the NCCB has transferred Ascension Thursday to the following Sunday (don't even ASK me about that one,) this does not hold for the Old Rite--therefore, the Mass of the Ascension was celebrated in the Old Rite on Thursday past.

Similarly, the 1962 Old Rite Missal's rubrics are slightly different from those of the 1959 Old Rite Missal. In the '59, a Confiteor and Absolution was said/given immediately before Communion. This was deleted in the '62, and CANNOT be used in the "indult" Old Rite Masses said today.

It may be roughly analogous to using Lutheran formulas of prayer during a Baptist service...

***Briefly, one is not allowed to "mix Rites."***

I gathered that, but my question is IF you do does in inhibit the transsubstantiation? Why does one type of element work of Rome but not Eastern Rite and vice versa.

My question isn't facetious, it just makes no sense to this future-vicar in Chief.

How can there be different rules for transubstantiation to occur? If a Western Rite priest goes by Eastern Rite regulations is Christ not present? I probably should understand this before becoming Pope.

LOL!! Did you save the mitre and staff that I gave you the other day? Okay ... an abbreviated history lesson to complement ninenot's analogy.

1. There are six main rites in the Catholic Church, each with several local variant usages: the Alexandrian, the Antiochene, the Armenian, the Chaldean, the Byzantine, and the Roman.

2. The Byzantine Rite, is used by Albanians, Bulgarians, Byelorussians, Carpatho-Russians, Georgians, Slovaks, and Ukranians as well as many people living in the Middle East or with an ethnic heritage of that area.

3. How many Catholics belong to Eastern Churches? There are about 8,000,000 throughout the world. In the U.S.A., there are roughly 800,000.

4. In proper Byzantine Churches statues are not found for this reason: statues and even natural-looking pictures are meant to look as life-like as possible. The Byzantine Churches always felt that such realistic art can distract us from the reality that liturgical art wants us to see, the holiness in the person represented or the meaning of the event depicted. these things are best expressed in the icon.

Jesus

5. What is the proper name for the Eucharistic Celebration in the Byzantine Rite? The Divine Liturgy. Liturgy means a service done by one person on behalf of all. The Christian Liturgy is Divine because Christ is the one who acts in it. The word Mass familiar to Americans seems to come from the Latin words: missa est it is ended, said by the priest when he dismissed the congregation.

6. There are three Liturgies, each connected with the name of a saint. The Liturgy of St. Basil the Great is offered on The Sundays of Lent, Holy Thursday, Holy Saturday, the eves of Christmas and Theophany. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is used during the rest of the year. During Lent the Liturgy of St. Gregory of Rome is often seen. This is not a true Liturgy, but a service of prayer during which the Eucharist, already consecrated, is distributed. It is also called the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified Gifts.

7. The altar bread used in the Liturgy is a round loaf, similar to the bread used at table, the altar bread is stamped with the Greek phrase IC XC NIKA "Jesus Christ has triumphed". The priest cuts this loaf into small particles before the Liturgy and places them on the Paten.

8. What are the principle parts of the Byzantine Liturgy?

The preparation of the gifts, done privately at the left side table before the Liturgy begins.
The office of Antiphons, a series of prayers and hymns glorifying God and asking for His mercy.
The service of the Word, the first appearance of Christ in the Liturgy as Holy Scripture is read.
The Eucharistic Service, the gifts are brought to the altar consecrated and distributed.

One of my catholic high school classmates was raised in the Byzantine Rite. The school principal arranged to have a Byzantine Rite mass said in our Gymnasium/Auditorium, so that we could gain a greater appreciation of an Eastern Rite mass. It was the first time I had ever received communion under the species of actual bread. The priest distributed the bread using intinction, where It is dipped in the chalice containing the Divine Blood of Christ.

Maybe I have not made my question clear. So let's use your final comment:

*** It was the first time I had ever received communion under the species of actual bread. The priest distributed the bread using intinction, where It is dipped in the chalice containing the Divine Blood of Christ. ***

In this Eastern Rite mass the bread was transsubstantiated. I get that. But if a Roman Rite priest celebrated mass in the same manner (Not as proscribed in Roman Rite) would there be a transsubstantiation?

The lead article leads me to believe the answer is no. I don't see why it wouldn't. If it worked in the gym with an Eastern Rite priest, why not in your favorite RCC chapel with a RC priest?

In this Eastern Rite mass the bread was transsubstantiated. I get that. But if a Roman Rite priest celebrated mass in the same manner (Not as proscribed in Roman Rite) would there be a transsubstantiation?

There are priests who have the valid training and the permission to celebrate both the Western Rite Mass and the Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy, so that answer is technically yes, there is a transsubstantiation (which is a Western Rite term not used in the East). For an example of this, go to this link: Ancient Byzantine Liturgy: Incense, chant, mystery

I can check with a very knowledgeable friend on this issue; suffice it to say for the time being that 'them's the rules.'

In this Eastern Rite mass the bread was transsubstantiated.

That is correct!

But if a Roman Rite priest celebrated mass in the same manner (Not as proscribed in Roman Rite) would there be a transsubstantiation?

I am not a Canon lawyer but my answer would be No! Each rite follows specific rules. A priest, educated in the Latin rite seminary MUST follow the rules of the GIRM. These state:

"The Church has very specifically defined what must - and must not - occur so that transubstantiation will result. There are four conditions required for a valid Consecration resulting in the miracle of transubstantiation. All of these conditions must be present for a valid Consecration. This is dogma. Therefore, anyone who denies these requirements is liable to heresy."

Those conditions are listed above in this post, and include:

1. Validly Ordained Male Priest
2. Intent of the Priest
3. Matter
4. Form

Without this structure, we would end up with this.

Our bishop here in Albany, said mass a few years ago in one of the more remote dioceses. The eucharist was concocted from a bunch of ingredients that were not consistent with the norms established by the GIRM. Those who received Communion, received nothing!

Canon Law states:

"The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy, which means the Liturgy desired and laid down by the Church, which has in fact indicated where adaptations may be made as called for by pastoral requirements in different places or by different groups of people. Undue experimentation, changes and creativity bewilder the faithful. The use of unauthorized texts means a loss of the necessary connection between the lex orandi and the lex credendi. The Second Vatican Council's admonition in this regard must be remembered: "No person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority." [Sacrosanctum Concilium] And Paul VI of venerable memory stated that: "Anyone who takes advantage of the reform to indulge in arbitrary experiments is wasting energy and offending the ecclesial sense."[Paul VI, address of August 22, 1973: "L'Osservatore Romano," August 23, 1973.]
Canon 528 §2: "The parish priest is to take care that the blessed Eucharist is the center of the parish assembly of the faithful. He is to strive to ensure that the faithful are nourished by the devout celebration of the sacraments, and in particular that they frequently approach the sacraments of the blessed Eucharist and penance. He is to strive to lead them to prayer, including prayer in their families, and to take a live and active part in the sacred liturgy. Under the authority of the diocesan Bishop, the parish priest must direct this liturgy in his own parish, and he is bound to be on guard against abuses."

We don't kneel during the consecration (I do), but we are changing that to bring ourselves into line with the GIRM. The Priest rarely washes his hands,

Get to work!! It's not that difficult to do. Simply print out the articles + those links that underscore the abuse. Present it to your parish priest ... or ... write him. If you do NOT receive a satisfactory response, write to your diocesan Office for Divine Liturgy and Worship.

Most of the catholic freepers in this forum are familiar with my personal experience, exposing the pastor for his intentions to introduce liturgical dance (the DRE actually came into my Confirmation class looking for volunteers). It took two letters ... the diocese attempted to support the pastor. My second letter included the Canon law statement that all catholics are entitled to a valid liturgy. Their response, a feeble attempt to maintain their support for the pastor, in essence, acknowledged defeat. The pastor has not pursued this any further.

By Confirmation, you became a member of the Church Militant. Only YOU can stop these abuses. There is NO middle ground.

Soldier of Christ

***I am not a Canon lawyer but my answer would be No! Each rite follows specific rules. A priest, educated in the Latin rite seminary MUST follow the rules of the GIRM.***

That does seem to be the implication of the document you posted. It is, to be honest, mondo strange to this outside observer (at least until the white smoke rises).

Jesus would refuse to honor this observance with His real presence and the participants would receive only wine soaked bread. Whereas, in the gymnasium all received the body and blood.

Makes my hair hurt! I see an organizational reason for this stipulation but it makes very little sense theologically and has no biblical basis arising out of John 6.

I understand your question but I don't have the foggiest idea what the answer is. I am pinging a couple of people who probably do know.

We are slowly bringing in the washing of hands. Currently we have not had Altar Servers, we are slowly beginning to use Altar Servers, though the numbers aren't there yet to have them at every Mass. One of our liturgists is spearheading the introduction of Altar Servers and when we have Altar Servers, the hands our definitly washed.

My parish is unique. It is a College Catholic Center that is not funded by the university or the diocese. Rather it is funded by the associates, and they tend to be towards the left of the theological spectrum. Slowly moving towards brining ourselves in line with the GIRM.

God Bless

P.S. I pick my battles, I am delighted we got kneeling finally. My current battle is a Small-Group ministry thoughout the dorms.

I see an organizational reason for this stipulation but it makes very little sense theologically and has no biblical basis arising out of John 6.

Matthew 16:19 :
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18:18 :
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

That what I meant by organizational reason. "It's this way because we declare it to be and I got the keys!" I see no theological reason. I see nothing in the institution that says,

"This might be my body, but you can't mix Eastern and Western Rite protocol. If you do then, This is bread and not My body."

Thanks for the Bump we will read..

I see an organizational reason for this stipulation but it makes very little sense theologically and has no biblical basis arising out of John 6. Makes my hair hurt!

If your hair is hurting, my brain is aching! You certainly ask excellent questions. That being the case, I must confess that I am still a bit perlexed by your statement above. Transubstantion is linked to the Real Presence, which we read in John.

The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times.

The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics--the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible--is the literal meaning of the text.

Spiritus Paraclitus Benedict XV, September 15, 1920: As Jerome insisted, all biblical interpretation rests upon the literal sense ...
Divino Afflante Spiritus, Pius XII, September 30, 1943: ... discern and define that sense of the biblical words which is called literal ... so that the mind of the author may be made clear. ... the exegete must be principally concerned with the literal sense of the Scriptures.

The definition of the literal sense: The sense which the human author directly intended and which his words convey.

The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.

1 Cor 11:23-29: For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.

Mk 14:22-24: While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many."

The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.

Mt 26:26-28: While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.

Lk 22:15-20: He (Jesus) said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).

Jn 6:53-56: Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.

The uniformity of expression across the four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.

Jn 6:51: I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.
Jn 6:53: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Jn 6:54: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.
Jn 6:55: For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Jn 6:56: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.

Jn 6:60,66: Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" ... As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.

Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.

Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.

Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.

1 Cor 10:16: The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.

Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.

In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.

In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.

Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically.

The Council of Rome (a local council), 1079, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.

By the 16th century, some Reformers (excluding Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only figurative or metaphorical. Since there were other opinions being taught as truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority (see Chapter 5) had to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to follow the model of Acts 15.

The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) defined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both the continuing sacrifice of Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as sacrament was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me."

In the mind of the Church, Transubstantiation has been so intimately bound up with the Real Presence, that both dogmas have been handed down together from generation to generation, though we cannot entirely ignore a dogmatico-historical development. The total conversion of the substance of bread is expressed clearly in the words of Institution: "This is my body". These words form, not a theoretical, but a practical proposition, whose essence consists in this, that the objective identity between subject and predicate is effected and verified only after the words have all been uttered, not unlike the pronouncement of a king to a subaltern: "You are a major", or, "You are a captain", which would immediately cause the promotion of the officer to a higher command. When, therefore, He Who is All Truth and All Power said of the bread: "This is my body", the bread became, through the utterance of these words, the Body of Christ; consequently, on the completion of the sentence the substance of bread was no longer present, but the Body of Christ under the outward appearance of bread. Hence the bread must have become the Body of Christ, i.e. the former must have been converted into the latter. The words of Institution were at the same time the words of Transubstantiation. Indeed the actual manner in which the absence of the bread and the presence of the Body of Christ is effected, is not read into the words of Institution but strictly and exegetically deduced from them. The Calvinists, therefore, are perfectly right when they reject the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation as a fiction, with no foundation in Scripture. For had Christ intended to assert the coexistence of His Body with the Substance of the bread, He would have expressed a simple identity between hoc and corpus by means of the copula est, but would have resorted to some such expression as: "This bread contains my body", or, "In this bread is my Body." Had He desired to constitute bread the sacramental receptacle of His Body, He would have had to state this expressly, for neither from the nature of the case nor according to common parlance can a piece of bread be made to signify the receptacle of a human body. On the other hand, the synecdoche is plain in the case of the Chalice: "This is my blood", i.e. the contents of the Chalice are my blood, and hence no longer wine.

Regarding tradition, the earliest witnesses, as Tertullian and Cyprian, could hardly have given any particular consideration to the genetic relation of the natural elements of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to the manner in which the former were converted into the latter; for even Augustine was deprived of a clear conception of Transubstantiation, so long as he was held in the bonds of Platonism. On the other hand, complete clearness on the subject had been attained by writers as early as Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria in the East, and by Ambrose and the later Latin writers in the West. Eventually the West became the classic home of scientific perfection in the difficult doctrine of Transubstantiation. The claims of the learned work of the Anglican Dr. Pusey (The Doctrine of the Real Presence as contained in the Fathers, Oxford, 1855), who denied the cogency of the patristic argument for Transubstantiation, have been met and thoroughly answered by Cardinal Franzelin (De Euchar., Rome, 1887, xiv). The argument from tradition is strikingly confirmed by the ancient liturgies, whose beautiful prayers express the idea of conversion in the clearest manner. Many examples may be found in Renaudot, "Liturgiæ orient." (2nd ed., 1847); Assemani, "Codex liturg." (13 vols., Rome 1749-66); Denzinger, "Ritus Orientalium" (2 vols., Würzburg, 1864), Concerning the Adduction Theory of the Scotists and the Production Theory of the Thomists, see Pohle, "Dogmatik" (3rd ed., Paderborn, 1908), III, 237 sqq. <