The Mass is invalid when the words of consecration are not said properly. When the priest does not carefully follow the Mass rubric to confect the Holy Sacrifice. When the matter used is not unleavened bread and sacramental wine. I have been to such Masses in the past. In one the priest used the wrong word at the Consecration. My oldest son who was in his late teens turned to me at that moment and said " he can't do that can he?" I told him no and we were not going to receive Communion. And we didn't. To do so would have been gravely wrong. We were well able to discern. Because we were educated in our faith. Others went to that so-called Communion. They didn't see or know what had happened. The other 2 times the matter was wrong. Regular bread broken up in chunks and another time when I was in Japan and I did receive it was rice flour not wheat flour. I didn't discover that until I had actually received. We are not obliged to obey a bishop who promotes invalid Masses. Obedience in everything but sin. But we must know our faith. Fr Rippeger is saying to have the catechism of the council of Trent. I've heard other priests say to get a catechism of the Catholic Church published before PF so that it has not been changed. I hope this helps. Traditionally when the Mass is not available Catholics pray the Rosary reverently and/or pray over the Mass readings and make spiritual Communions.
This is an excellent post. It sums it up. Fr Ripperger is my go-to priest. Thank you for including your own experiences. They are very helpful.
If words of consecration were changed, it wouldn’t be a valid Mass and I would not attend. Obedience is not followed blindly if it goes against faith and morals etc. That’s my understanding .
I do not believe any forum member challenged the virtue of obedience in this thread. I think those of the forum who were initially attracted to the MDM messages were expressing an exasperation at yet another dismissal of something they found poignant. In my concern for them, I decided not to admonish them but instead look at their passionate zeal for truth and the purity of their intension regards the turn of events that perplexed them. The many forum members that have been perceived to be condemning Church leaders or entertaining ideas of disobedience, are I believe, like you in your zeal, trying to save that one person who could be led astray. Yes, the Lord is grieved terribly due to the sins of priests, bishops and cardinals, as you rightly state; He loves them with a very special and preferential love. We are called to pray, fast and sacrifice for them more so than for others. This is true.
Blanket obedience to hierarchy has its problems. If one just skims the surface of the paedophile priest scandal for instance, we see where blanket obedience leads us. The decades of abuse by Cardinal McCarrick, with bishops and priests giving their obedience, manifested in countless victims, including families, altar boys, seminarians and even the entire nation of Chinese Catholics! Obedience is the daughter of Humility yet both pale in comparison to the 3 cardinal virtues of faith, hope and Love. Love is the greatest. God is Love and love produces all other virtues Our Lady has come many times to not only encourage us but also to warn us. Like all good mothers she teaches us what to do and warns us of the traps. Oh Mary conceived without sin and who suffered for us, Pray for us. Amen
She didn't come to tell us to be on guard. She didn't tell us to endlessly criticize the Church hierarchy on internet blogs. She came to beg us to change our lives, pray, sacrifice, and make reparation. That is what I'm trying to say. And not blanket obedience to Church hierarchy. Obedience in matters where they have God-given authority, in all but sin.
Yes, but this source is from 1882, centuries after he died. Imprimatur does not mean it is authentic, just that it is compatible with Church teaching.
See link https://motheofgod.com/threads/papal-heresy.18831/page-4#post-396716 According to information in an article by Solanus Benfatti entitled “On the paternity of a medieval report of Francis of Assisi foretelling a non-canonically elected pope”, the earliest source of the St. Francis prophecy is attributed to the sayings of Blessed Br. Conrad of Offida, who joined the Franciscans in 1251 at fourteen years old and died in 1306. Apparently, he in turn learned these prophecies from St. Francis' companions, in particular, Br. Leo who died in 1271. So, apparently, these prophecies first circulated by word of mouth from Br. Leo and the other friars close to St. Francis and heard by Bl. Conrad who in turn repeated them. These prophecies circulated orally until eventually the 'Words of Brother Conrad' (Verba fratris Conradi) were written down circa 1318 to 1328, about one hundred years after the death of St. Francis. the quotation is found in 'Words of Brother Conrad' (Verba fratris Conradi) Blessed Conrad of Offida is a friend of Brother Leo who is companion and confessor of St. Francis of Assisi. "When Brother Leo, the companion and confessor of St. Francis, was dying, he sent for Conrad and made him the depositary of his writings." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04260a.htm
Do you happen to remember the incorrect word that the priest used? I worry sometimes that the change will be so subtle, I won't be able to realize it has happened.
It’s so long ago, the chain of passing on a message. I still don’t accept it as Gospel. Plus we don’t have to believe messages to get to Heaven.
Novus Ordo Prayers of Consecration (words of transubstantiation in BOLD): P: On the day before he was to suffer, [He takes the bread and, holding it slightly raised above the altar, continues:] he took bread in his holy and venerable hands,[raises his eyes.] and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks, he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take this, all of you and eat of it: FOR THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU. P: In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands, and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying: 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.
The Pope's spituak authority extends Universally. The authority of a Bishop to his diocese In thus case and in all such cases the authority is delegated to the local Diocesan Bishop, so he speaks with the authority of the Church
In the case of the Trial of St Joan it was a political show trial cooked up by the English and their Burgundian allies. They had no authority from Rome to conduct such a ,'Trial' and no French clerical support It was, basically a lynching carried out for the English Crown and the Duke of Burgungy. They had no authority over St Joan and she had no duty of obedience to it It was a political show Trial, a travesty
A couple of priests where I often attend Mass say "which will be poured out for you and for ALL" rather than "many". They are both Augustinians, not diocesan priests. Would this be enough to invalidate the consecration??
