Is the New Mass Valid?

There are two distinct consecrations that take place during the Mass: the consecration of the bread and the wine. The consecratory prayer over the bread in the Tridentine form consists of the words:

 

Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur

‘This is My Body, which is given for you’

 

Whereas the consecration of the wine consists of the words:

 

Hic est enim calyx sanguinis mel, novi et aeterni testament: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

‘For this is the chalice of My blood, of the new and eternal covenant: the Mystery of Faith: which shall be poured out for you and for many for the remission of sins.’

 

The Novus Ordo Missae promulgated by Paul VI in 1969 omits the phrase “mysterium fidei.” And while the Latin retains the traditional “pro multis,” some vernacular translations substitute “for all” in its place. The mistranslation was later corrected by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 2006[1] and Benedict XVI in his letter to German Archbishop Robert Zollitsch.[2] Sedevacantists argue that vernacular translations which substitute pro multis for “for all” are invalid because they change the essential meaning of the sacrament. In De Defectibus, Pius V writes,

 

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

 

Supposing that the phrase “for all” changes the essential meaning of the sacrament, the mistranslation wouldn’t undermine the indefectibility of the Church since disciplinary infallibility only applies to universal discipline. Since the mistranslation was not universally adopted by the Church, let alone even in the Latin sui iuris church, disciplinary infallibility cannot be invoked. In any event, the mistranslation doesn’t change the essential meaning of the sacrament, since the fact of transubstantiation and the sacrificial nature of the mass are both indicated in the Novus Ordo Missae. According to theologian Francis Wengier,

 

The transubstantiation, then, is not sufficient by itself for a Mass. It must be a sacrificial transubstantiation, expressing an oblation made to God for sins. This peculiar expression must be verbal (not only mental), because it is an integral part of the form of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and every sacrifice (in the strict sense) is an external act of worship, signifying the internal dedication.[3]

 

The majority of theologians contest whether the form needs to contain explicit sacrificial terminology. For example, dogmatic theologian Joseph Wilhelm argues that the offering up of the body and blood is a sacrificial action in itself, whereas the words that follow are merely explanatory in nature. He writes,

The words “for you, for many, for many unto remission of sins,” make it clear that the consecration of the chalice is a sacrificial action. But they are not the words of consecration. The words used to put the body and blood of Christ into the state of victim are these: “This is My body, this is My blood.” The sacrifice takes place when these words are uttered by the minister; what follows is but a declaration or explanation not essential to the sacrificial form.[4]

 

Even conceding Wengier’s point, every translation of the Novus Ordo Missae retains explicit sacrificial terminology in both consecrations. It is interesting to note that De Defectibus only cites the shorter form of the consecration of bread as sufficient for validity. Supposing explicit sacrificial terminology is required for validity and given that we say the longer form of the bread, an argument can be made for the omission of the longer formula of the wine, since the sacrificial nature of the Mass doesn’t need to be indicated in both consecrations. As theologian Wengier notes,

 

It is not necessary to express that teleology in both consecrations. Our Latin formula omits the ‘quod pro vobis tradetur’ in the consecration of the bread. It prefers to give to the teleology its formal place, namely, in the consecration of the wine, which being changed into Blood apparently separated (in the species only!) from the Body, formally signifies its death — death which subsequently our formula determines, adding the purpose of this death: ‘pro vobis… pro multis … in remissionem peccatorum.’[5]

 

There are also serious reasons for believing that the longer formula provided by the De Defectibus doesn’t pertain the essential form of the sacrament, but rather to the substance of the rite. The distinction between the essential form and the sacramental rite is explained by Heinrich Lennerz S.J.,

 

From the fact the Church cannot change the substance of the sacraments, it does not follow that Christ himself fixed immutably the matter and form of all sacramental rites.' He distinguishes the substance of the rite from the substance of the sacrament. The substance of the right is composed of what theologians generally call the matter and form; but the substance of the sacrament is composed of the rite as a material element and a signification of the formal.

 

Thus, for instance, in marriage the essential is the do manifestation of consent; but the manner of this man of the station may be very different: either through words, a nod of the head, living together myth matrimonial intent, or a contract made by proxy. The manner in which the marriage is made does not affect the substantial meaning; and the ceremony might consist in the giving and the acceptance of gifts. In all these cases the significance is the same, whatever be the material manner of its expression, just as the same meaning may be expressed in Latin, French, or English.[6]

 

One reason for believing that the shorter form is sufficient for validity is because the phrase mysterium fidei is a seventh century Latin innovation, not found in any of the eastern liturgies. If the phrase mysterium fidei were essential to the form of the sacrament then we would have to conclude that none of the eastern or Latin rites before the seventh century confected the Eucharist. This position is theologically untenable and proximate to heresy, because it would imply that the Church had failed in its mission, specifically its office of sanctifying (munus sanctificandi). Although some sedevacantists will concede that the interpolation is not essential to the form of the sacrament, they will argue that the rest of the formula is, or at a very minimum, that there is sufficient doubt to conditionally repeat the entire form. However, the repetition of a sacrament is only required when there is prudent doubt regarding the validity of the sacrament.[7] Canon 732.2 of the 1917 CIC notes: But if a prudent doubt exists about whether really and validly these [Sacraments] were conferred, they are to be conferred again under condition (cf. 1983 CIC 845). Given that the shorter form is held by the majority of theologians as sufficient for validity, we would have moral certainty regarding the validity of the sacrament supposing any of the non-essential words of the form were omitted. As canonist Felice Cappello notes,  

 

Certain authors agree that the other words: novi et aeterni testamenti,etc., also pertain to the essential form. St. Thomas himself seems to follow this opinion, although some theologians and other authors think that the Angelic Doctor felt quite otherwise. Whatever is thought of the opinion of the Sacred Doctor and of other theologians, the opposite view is the common opinion and is thus morally certain.[8]

 

Both canonists and moralists alike agree that moral certainty excludes prudent doubt. As canonist Avitus Lyons notes,

 

Moral certitude excludes the probability but not the possibility of error. Moral certitude in the strict sense excludes not only the fear of error but every kind of doubt whether the doubt be great or small, prudent or imprudent. In a wider sense it excludes all fear of error and every serious or prudent doubt but not one or the other slight or imprudent doubt. Moral certitude in the wider sense is all that is required of a judge in forming a sentence, because generally it is the only kind of certitude that one can have, for if a judge would strive to free himself from every slight and baseless suspicion, he would soon be involved in a maze of scruples and perplexities.[9]

 

Similar quotes can by adduced by numerous theologians, canonists and moralists alike.[10] For example, in his dissertation on the “Moral Obligation of Fraternal Correction,” Joesph Costello writes,

 

That moral certitude which excludes all fear of error and all doubt, is called moral certitude in the strict sense. Moral certitude, in the wide sense of the term, or that certitude which Merkelbach calls “prudential or practical certitude,” excludes all fear of error and also excludes prudent or serious doubt, but it does not exclude the possibility of the opposite being true.” If the motives for the assent of the intellect reach such a high degree of probability that a prudent man would be justified in giving his assent without reasonable fear of the opposite, then one is said to have moral certitude." Moralists are agreed that this latter type of moral certitude suffices for prudent action, for the mind here has sufficient motives upon which to base a reasonable judgment.[11]

 

This is analogous to the question of whether a virtual or express intention of amendment is required for valid absolution. The question itself has never been resolved by the magisterium, and so the degree of certainty is derived from the popularity of the opinion among approved theologians. Since the majority of theologians consider a virtual intention sufficient for validity, the proposition is considered morally certain, and thus the sacrament doesn’t need to be repeated.

 

The debate over the form of the Eucharist can be traced to at least the 13^th century. Following the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas, many Thomists have held that the longer formula constitutes the essential form of the sacrament. However, St. Alphonsus Liguori denies that Aquinas taught the view ascribed to him. He writes,

 

When the holy Doctor [St. Thomas] is talking about the first words, he says that they regard the essence; but when he is talking about the following words, he says that they regard the substance of the form. Now, whether this explanation is truly according to the mind of St. Thomas is not very clear, and so, as Petrocoren well puts it, on this question the opinion of the Angelic Doctor is highly dubious. In any case, in the abstract both opinions have some reason behind them.[12]

 

The contrary view is held by the majority of theologians, including eminent scholars such as St. Bonaventure, St. Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suarez, John de Lugo, and St. Alphonsus Liguori. Despite the majority view, the Church sill prescribes a conditional repetition of the longer form anytime the words are omitted. This is done either to remove imprudent doubt or because when Pius V issued De Defectibus there was still reasonable doubt concerning the validity of the shorter formula.

 

However, sedevacantists are begging the question, since their arguments presuppose the invalidity of Paul VI’s election. Since Paul VI thought it was in his authority to exclude the phrase mysterium fidei, and permitted the use “for all” in vernacular translation, neither of the phrases pertain to the essential form of the sacrament.

---

[1] https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/letter-from-cardinal-arinze-on-the-translation-of-pro-multis

[2] http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20120414_zollitsch.html

[3] Francis Wengier, The Eucharist-Sacrifice (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing, 1955), 157.

[4] Joseph Wilhelm and Thomas Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology: Based on Scheeben's Dogmatik, Volume II (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company, 1908), 436-437. https://archive.org/details/manualofcatholic02scheiala/page/436/mode/2up

[5] ibid.,

[6] Quoted in Bernard Lemming, Principles of Sacramental Theology (Westminister, MD: The Newman Press, 1956), 416. https://archive.org/details/principlesofsacr0000leem/page/416/mode/2up?q=Substance

[7] T. Dunne, “The Re-Baptism of Infants,” The Irish Ecclesiastical Record (Volume 18) (Dublin: Browne and Nolan, 1905), 161-166. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=tphAAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&pg=GBS.RA1-PA161

[8] https://cmri.org/articles-on-the-traditional-catholic-faith/comments-on-mike-duddys-article-on-the-eucharistic-form-of-the-consecration-of-the-wine/

[9] Avitus Edward Lyons, “The Collegiate Tribunal of First Instance, with Special Reference to Matrimonal Causes,” Canon Law Studies no.78, (Washington: CUA, 1932), 63.

[10] https://www.google.com/search?q=moral+certitude+excludes+prudent+doubt&safe=active&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk03ALvK4mnN97NfyMN3-35jb4-rCyw:1616772253966&ei=nfxdYOevOpautQaO-5zoBw&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwin8oT_oc7vAhUWV80KHY49B304ChDy0wMIgQE&biw=1366&bih=654&dpr=1

[11] Joesph Costello, “Moral Obligation of Fraternal Correction,” Studies in Sacred Theology (second series) no. 27 (Washington: CUA, 1949), 61. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b53791&view=1up&seq=75

[12] Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia Moralis, bk. 6, tract. 3, ch. 1, no. 223. Quoted in http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt89.html