[quote="St_Stephen, post:3, topic:306883"]
I remember sometime ago I had a chat with our parish priest about validity and Mass. He explained to me that the Mass cannot be invalid. He said that the terms 'valid' and 'invalid' cannot be applied to a liturgy and the Mass is a liturgy. Valid means that something has taken effect so if Mass has been celebrated how could it be invalid, i.e. not have happened.
When Mass is celebrated the sacrament of the Eucharist takes place. When the priest celebrates Mass the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. That action can be valid (has effect) or invalid (nothing happens).
There are rubrics that tell us how to celebrate Mass. The rubrics are a form of church law. If the rubrics are not followed church law is not followed so Mass can be described as illicit (church laws broken).
[quote="buc_fan33, post:4, topic:306883"]
Technically, this is correct. There is no such thing as an invalid Mass. Mass, by definition, is a valid confection of the Eucharist. And, I'm assuming the priest is also having a proper understanding that the sacraments work ex opere operato. In other words, if the right minister has the right intention, with the right "stuff," and says the right words, then the sacrament happens. But, to suggest that we can do nothing to render the Eucharist invalid is wrong.
For instance, a layman can try to celebrate Mass. He can say the right words, with the right intention, and using the right stuff. But, because he is not a priest, it would be invalid. And, the priest is correct. This faux action would not be Mass.
However, we always assume validity. For example, with marriages, the Church assumes validity until a given marriage is shown to be invalid. We have to quite sure that something is invalid before declaring it. So, to the OP, I would follow the guidance of the Church. Assume that your friend attended a valid Mass. But, this priest is not being faithful. Pray, and maybe fast, for him.
If I understand correctly, this is false. Mass is technically a separate act from the confection of the Eucharist. Mass cannot be celebrated without the confection of the Eucharist, but the Eucharist can be confected outside of the celebration of Mass. Now, this is absolutely forbidden, but it can be done.
Furthermore, as I understand it, the Sacrifice itself is not complete until the priest receives Holy Communion under both Kinds. When we talk about the validity "of a Mass," this must happen:
1) The priest must consecrate both Species
2) The priest must receive both Species
To have the Eucharist the priest must only do the first, but to have a valid Mass, a complete Sacrifice, the priest must do both. This is because the priest's reception of Holy Communion is the Consummation of the Sacrifice (like the Consummation of the World to Christ). The Sacrificial Act is not complete until the priest Consummates it by eating It, but you can still have the Eucharist without having a valid Mass (ie, without the priest receiving both Species).
I personally understand it like an incomplete Passion. When Christ gave the Apostles bread and wine, It was truly His Body and His Blood, even though the Sacrifice was not chronologically complete (or even begun, really).
There are graces to be received:
1) From the confection of the Eucharist
2) From the completion of the Sacrifice by the priest's both-Species reception
3) From the individual's reception of Holy Communion under either Species
4) To a greater or lesser extent, from a worthy and beautiful reception (for example, the Sacrifice is technically complete as soon as a drop of the Precious Blood touches the priest's tongue, but if he just chops off the rest of the Mass, it is clearly not as efficacious as a complete Mass)