'Valid' and 'Licit' Mass

conrad979 · #1 May 16, '12, 1:40 pm

Hi, I was wondering if someone could help... I am trying to find out more about my faith (I was received into the Church at Easter 2009), and I read the forums alot. But I have become confused between what makes a Mass 'valid', as opposed to 'licit'. Can someone help?
Thanks.

paduard · #2 May 16, '12, 1:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by conrad979

Hi, I was wondering if someone could help... I am trying to find out more about my faith (I was received into the Church at Easter 2009), and I read the forums alot. But I have become confused between what makes a Mass 'valid', as opposed to 'licit'. Can someone help?
Thanks.

All Masses are valid if carried out by an ordained Catholic Priest. The term licit/illicit just applies if a priest e.g. says a Mass in a locality wherein he hasn't permission - but the Mass (consecration) will always be valid. Same principle applies to the Eucharist transubstantiation and so on. Sorry if I haven't put it as well as it could be.

Brendan · #3 May 16, '12, 1:58 pm

"Valid' means that it actually was a Mass, including the consecration of the Eucharist.

If the person who said Mass was not actually a Catholic priest, or if the Words of Consecration were not used, or if the matter of the sacrifice ( bread and wine) were not used, then the Mass was invalid.
What was placed on the altar (bread and wine or cookies and milk) remain just that. There is no Eucharist, there is no Mass. The Mass would be invalid.

An invalid Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation, as it really isn't a Mass.

A licit Mass is one in which the liturgical rubrics ( the laws of the Church) were followed. The correct readings were said, the correct ministers used, the prayers and responsed were the right ones etc..

And illicit Mass would be one where a valid priest presided, and the Eucharist was confected (the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ), but elements of the liturgical law were forgotten or ignored.

It might be minor, such as the lector was on the wrong page and read the wrong reading for the day. It might be major, such as if the Eucharist in the species of wine was poured from a pitcher into cups.

A

porthos11 · #4 May 17, '12, 8:42 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan

"Valid' means that it actually was a Mass, including the consecration of the Eucharist.

If the person who said Mass was not actually a Catholic priest, or if the Words of Consecration were not used, or if the matter of the sacrifice ( bread and wine) were not used, then the Mass was invalid.
What was placed on the altar (bread and wine or cookies and milk) remain just that. There is no Eucharist, there is no Mass. The Mass would be invalid.

An invalid Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation, as it really isn't a Mass.

A licit Mass is one in which the liturgical rubrics ( the laws of the Church) were followed. The correct readings were said, the correct ministers used, the prayers and responsed were the right ones etc..

And illicit Mass would be one where a valid priest presided, and the Eucharist was confected (the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ), but elements of the liturgical law were forgotten or ignored.

It might be minor, such as the lector was on the wrong page and read the wrong reading for the day. It might be major, such as if the Eucharist in the species of wine was poured from a pitcher into cups.

A

Or if the priest was suspended or excommunicated.

Brendan · #5 May 17, '12, 6:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by porthos11

Or if the priest was suspended or excommunicated.

That would be an example of an illict Mass, that is correct. The Eucharist would still be confected, so the Mass would be valid.

Stylites · #6 May 18, '12, 8:07 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan

It might be minor, such as the lector was on the wrong page and read the wrong reading for the day. It might be major, such as if the Eucharist in the species of wine was poured from a pitcher into cups.

Another major illicit factor would be a priest without the canonical authorization from the bishop to celebrate the Mass, such as with the SSPX.

johnnykins · #7 May 18, '12, 8:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by conrad979

Hi, I was wondering if someone could help... I am trying to find out more about my faith (I was received into the Church at Easter 2009), and I read the forums alot. But I have become confused between what makes a Mass 'valid', as opposed to 'licit'. Can someone help?
Thanks.

The answers above deal with the distinction between the two - another issue is why is there a distinction between the two? The laws surrounding the celebration of the sacraments do several things: (i) they insure validity - if the Mass/sacrament is confected licitly the sacrament is valid. A terrible example from Australia involved the changing of the words of Baptism to "Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier" in lieu of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." That change made the sacrament invalid. I doubt the priest thought it was invalidating, but in his hubris that was the result; (ii) they represent traditions that are worth preserving - say, some of the laws are specific to certain sui juris churches - use of unleavened v. leavened bread does not invalidate the sacrament, but use of leavened bread is not allowed by the law of the Latin Church where unleavened bread is traditional, yet is required in the Melkite Church (pick your Eastern Church) where leavened bread is traditional; (iii) the laws insure a certain uniformity for aid in worship as well as a level of solemnity and pedagogy that is designed to catechize and inspire. I'm sure there are other reasons...I note that for extraordinary reasons liceity might have to yield to necessity. E.g., war-time celebrations that dispense with say vestment requirements, or even in the concentration camps some Roman priests said Mass with leavened bread and old raisin squeezings (hoping the little juice they had was fermented enough to be wine though clearly not at the then required % of alcohol level). Hope that helps...

superamazingman · #8 May 18, '12, 8:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stylites

Another major illicit factor would be a priest without the canonical authorization from the bishop to celebrate the Mass, such as with the SSPX.

Correct.

**thistle** · #9 May 19, '12, 6:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan

That would be an example of an illict Mass, that is correct. The Eucharist would still be confected, so the Mass would be valid.

Isn't it also the case that even if the priest is a validly ordained priest who says the correct words of consecration and follows the rubrics exactly the Mass may not be valid if the intention of the priest is not to have a valid consecration.

superamazingman · #10 May 22, '12, 6:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thistle

Isn't it also the case that even if the priest is a validly ordained priest who says the correct words of consecration and follows the rubrics exactly the Mass may not be valid if the intention of the priest is not to have a valid consecration.

Of course, if a priest is conciously intending NOT to celebrate any sacrament while he says the words, the sacrament is not confected.