A few questions about illicit Masses

[Sgt_Sweaters]

+JMJ

It’s my understanding that a Mass is rendered illicit if the priest is improperly vested (whether intentional or not). Well, there’s a priest at the parish I go to for daily Mass who wears only an alb and stole, no cincture or chasuble. Ergo, his Masses are all illicit. Do I have all this right?

If that is the case (that his Masses are illicit), what are the implications…

-for him? Am I wrong in supposing this is a mortal sin, rendering all of one’s Masses illicit by refusing to vest properly?

-for the parishioners? Granted, many people don’t know the difference and thus receive the graces of the Sacrifice, but what of the people who realise his error? Is it proper for us to continue going to an illicit Mass?

Thanks and God bless.

 

[John_Higgins]

I’ll look and get back to you, but I’m confident that “improper” vesting is not one of the things which can render a Mass invalid.

John

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

John Higgins:

I’ll look and get back to you, but I’m confident that “improper” vesting is not one of the things which can render a Mass invalid.

John

Not invalid. Illicit.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I’m curious where you got the idea that improper vesting rendered the Mass “illicit.” There is no such claim in any official Church document that I can find.

Deacon Ed

 

[Chatter163]

Indeed, the use of the verb render is problematic here, as it implies there are only two options, licit and illicit.

A Mass is not “rendered illicit” in the same way that it is rendered invalid. With validity, there are only two possibilities; i.e., a Mass is either one or the other. In such a context, a particularly severe abuse, such as the use of fruit juice instead of wine, would render the Mass invalid, regardless of what else occurred. *Render *would mean cause, so the issue would be one of cause and effect. The fruit juice (cause) definitely rendered the Mass invalid (effect). There is no middle ground.

But in the case of licitness, there are various shades of distinction and it is not a matter of simply being one or the other. Therefore, there can be no “rendering” in the context of cause and effect. Anything in violation of the rubrics is illicit, but obviously there are varying degrees involved (not wearing a chasuble versus changing words in the consecration texts of the eucharistic prayer). Consequently, it is not customary to speak of the Mass being “rendered illicit.”

 

[Sean_O_L]

Deacon Ed wrote:

I’m curious where you got the idea that improper vesting rendered the Mass “illicit.” There is no such claim in any official Church document that I can find.

Moreover, it may be possible to obtain a local bishop’s consent to not wear the chasuble in the event of a specific personal problem - such as the person suffering from excessive sweating.(Pun not intended!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif)

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Chatter is right to point out varying levels of illiceity. Anything not in conformance with church norms for liturgy is illicit. It would be immoral for the celebrant to perform such illicit actions, but I think only the most grave circumstances would make it sinful to *assist *at an illicit Mass; the one situation that comes to mind being a Mass celebrated by a priest of irregular status (either not in communion with Rome or suspended a divinis). Can anyone else think of illicit circumstances that would make it immoral to assist at a Mass?

 

[Fr_Chuck]

I will even note that the Church as allowed irregular priests to do services in some areas where they just did not have a priest.
Sinice many have been ruled to have valid sacraments since they have proper lines of concecration and their members even accepted back by Rome without new ordinations or concecreations. As one who was there in the 70’s I was at services where this was done.

But with the Bishops Permission, a mass can be done with merely a stole and a alb ( don’t understand why he did not have a cinture with the alb)