According to Canon Law, it could be possible that no valid Mass occurred in this situation. I mean, if celebrants break enough of the rules, isn't there something that says that Jesus isn't present, plain and simple? Granted, the ignorant would have likely received the same graces as if they had attended Mass, solely because they were ignorant, but this "celebrant" deserves big punishment.
Oh, my usage of Jesus should be properly referenced to as Our Lord. My bad; I was being a bit too blunt.
Anonymous said…
Hmmm! The question about the liturgy makes me wonder if there can be such a thing as a non-liturgical Mass. Certainly the priest's intention seems questionable -- or at least implausible. I wouldn't want to go into psychological profiling (e.g. "Look at the weird expression on his face", etc.), but the total indifference of the people next to him to what he's doing seems to suggest there's something not quite right about what's going on. (If a priest has an intention when he's saying Mass to do something that is positively different to what the Church teaches then that's an invalid Mass.)
Presumably this is a good and holy priest who has been imprisoned in a gulag somewhere. (It's early days yet so he hasn't lost much weight.) His fellow inmates and the commandants don't know that he's a priest and so they're letting him say Mass with realising what he's doing.
.jpeg)
Comments
Presumably this is a good and holy priest who has been imprisoned in a gulag somewhere. (It's early days yet so he hasn't lost much weight.) His fellow inmates and the commandants don't know that he's a priest and so they're letting him say Mass with realising what he's doing.
Elementary!