I think this is a reference to 'de defectibus'... this is in the Roman Missal. Also these rules did not apply to the Congregation! I am sure your priest has at least some idea of them!

From what appears to be the vatican website... I presume this is a translation...

http://www.the-pope.com/dedefect.html

You can find plenty more doing a google search 'defectibus' or 'de defectibus' warning some of the links lead to very strange places!

EDIT Thanks Adam it looked like what I remember last time but had a different address!

Having some more time from Fr. Z blog...

Once upon a time, the Missale Romanum itself contained directives, in the section called De defectibus, which indicated that some defects could be either venial or mortal sins. That is, there was a moral judgment about some defects. This section, still present in the 1962 Missale Romanum, was removed from the post-Conciliar editions of the Missale Romanum. That is to say, it is not in any edition of the Novus Ordo.

While the latin text of De defectibus is easily found, I have not found a reliable site with an English translation.

@dad29: I'm sure that the several errors you made in your posting were unintentional, but they are erroneous nevertheless, and what you wrote could very well lead some persons astray.

Just a few corrections.

You also know that "unintentional" means there cannot be guilt.

Moral theology admits the category of "culpable ignorance" to the intention necessary for certain acts. A priest celebrant was expected to be knowledgeable of the "de defectibus" section of the Missale Romanum, and ignorance was no excusing cause.

There can also be serious impairment of the will but still culpability. Try telling the parents of a child killed by a drunk driver that the driver is guilt free because the death was unintentional.

But the congregation receives the Body/Blood of Christ due to "ecclesia supplet."

Absolutely not. If a priest knowingly and consciously did not use bread for the consecration (and even if he unknowingly did not use bread), the consecration is not valid. The same goes for his not using the proper form; if so, there is no valid consecration. And the congregation does not receive the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist in such cases of invalidity. The Church does not "supply" for such acts of invalidity.

FrRon: missed two words: "...the faithful still obtain THE GRACES of the sacrament..."

So that's prolly a sinful omission.

In the case of the DUI/killer, of course, the driver is guilty of becoming a drunk. I'm sure you meant to mention that.

dad29, there can be no sacramental graces when there is no sacrament.

And a driver who kills someone while intoxicated is most likely guilty of much more than becoming drunk.

Fr. Krisman: how will we know if the sacrament is invalid? As lay people, we may not know if the wine was diluted sufficiently, etc., or if the bread used was not unleavened, etc. How can concerned laity protect themselves, and ensure that they are truly receiving Christ in the liturgy? This is mainly due to the idea that if there was invalid consecration, there was no Mass, which means the Sunday obligation was not fulfilled, correct? How would a layperson in such a case know whether or not they have to attend Mass again?

And this has been my argument all along. When in doubt, seek out the TLM. Hopefully, we will be seeking out those priests who DESIRE to do what the church does and has always done. Those who ascribe to a 'new rite', well, it may be valid, or it may be not. Who is to know? Only God and the priest celebrating. Especially in the confused desires of the priests who may not necessarily WANT to confect a sacrament, or have anything to do with a sacrifice. "Grey" can be deadly to our souls since we do not receive grace when we think we do.

And that brings us to the question of doubt. That is whole nother theological can of worms that I am not even knowledgeable enough to present at this time.

bonniebede

I wouldn't be so sure. As a DM I have attended numerous liturgies where the priest intended to change the words of consecration and did so. And then there is the era where the meaning of the words were changed from "many" to "all". Do we know for sure that God overlooked the erroneous intention and allowed himself to be present? Who has an answer? Does this departure from theology create ANY doubt that the sacrament is confected?

The bigger problem is the intention of those who 'proscribed' the NO as a rite which changed the Offertory into a Presentation of the Gifts. What was clearly a sacrifice is made to be just a meal. (Ottaviani intervention).

God gave us the charge, Adam. He entrusted Himself and His church to us. He has allowed (and charged us) to put him in the "box", and there He stays and waits for us... daily. He commanded us, what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. And whatsover you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. He gave His authority and power to us so that we would keep it as HE WISHED... not our whim... and it seems now, we are failing to do even the most simple thing... keeping him in the box.

To address one of the original poster's questions, some bishops did have a poor grasp of Latin in the old days. Cardinal Cushing of Boston graduated high school with honors in Latin in 1913 but couldn't speak and understand the language; he skipped portions of the Second Vatican Council, perhaps for that reason. Certainly his pronunciation was very shabby, as the recording from the JFK funeral (on ccwatershed.org) attests.

On the other point which TheUbiquitous mentions:

One of the things I've heard recently is that, in the pre-'62 days, the Mass rubrics were "absolutized" such that slight, unintentional errors regarding postures or reading words caused a Mass to be invalid.

Next time someone makes that claim to you, feel free to ask if they can back it up with any sort of written documentation from the era. In effect, they're accusing the Church of having held an erroneous position about something important, so why not challenge them to present some evidence for that accusation? Really, I think that people hear such claims and repeat them uncritically because they want to feel superior to the "bad old Church".

@francis The conditions for validity are usually very limited, whereas the conditions for licity are more wide ranging.
Not sure I understand what you mean about the NO being proscribed, it isn't to my knowledge.

bonniebede:

Sorry. Mistyped. Prescribed, not proscribed.