Does attending an Mass with an illicit action fulfill my Sunday obligation?

[JSSebastianoP]

I am currently dealing with scruples of various sorts and so I wanted to clear something up.

What exactly is the Sunday obligation in regards to valid/illicit Masses?

My (home) parish recently seems to ommit the Kyrie after the Penetential act (the “I confess…”) version. And on a Holy Day Mass the Creed was ommitted. I generally (perhaps with the exception of the music) don’t view this as a “progressive” type parish, for lack of a better word, but when I looked into these “changes”, they seem to be rather serious.

First of all, such changes would be illict, right? But provided that the Eucharist is still consecrated, the Mass would be valid, right?

Now, valid Mass, even with illicit actions, I believe, fills the Sunday obligation to attend Mass, no?

But when I take into account forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=51397 and the letter referenced at the bottom of cfnews.org/sspx-obl.htm, I get rather confused/worried, maybe.

If the priest at my home parish skips (seemingly continually) the Kyrie, should I try to attend another Mass (first, a different Mass at the same Church, then maybe a different Church?)? Or would it still be okay for me to attend knowing that the Kyrie may be skipped (I’m pretty sure it used to be there, but the regular musician hasn’t been there for the beginning of Mass the past 2 weeks and we haven’t done it)?

I know that’s a lot of questions, but as of right now I am still scrupulous and don’t want to be putting myself in sin.

Thank you in advance,

J. S. Sebastiano P.

 

[DSJJ]

You have fulfilled your Sunday obligation.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

You have fulfilled your Sunday obligation.

Will I even if I continue to go? (I don’t mean to say that in a mean way, imagine me more being worried than angry)

And if you don’t mind my asking, “why?”. What is your reasoning? (again, I’m more worried than angry I guess)…

Thanks,

J. S. Sebastiano P.

 

[DSJJ]

Yes even then. In my area I would be hard pressed to find a Mass that didn’t do something illicit. As long as it’s valid (which by your description it was) then you have nothing to worry about.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Yes even then. In my area I would be hard pressed to find a Mass that didn’t do something illicit. As long as it’s valid (which by your description it was) then you have nothing to worry about.

Thanks. I mean, I feel like my parish isn’t like one that would have one of those “clown Masses” that we hear about - it’s generally a reverant Ordinary Form Mass (albeit with arguably not the best way to have music). But little things like that still bother me.

Thanks.

 

[JM3]

My (home) parish recently seems to ommit the Kyrie after the Penetential act (the “I confess…”) version.

And on a Holy Day Mass the Creed was ommitted.

More detail would be needed.

The GIRM says this:

1. After the Act of Penitence, the Kyrie is always begun, unless it has already been included as part of the Act of Penitence.

What ‘Holy Day Mass’ was it?

GIRM

1. The Creed is to be sung or said by the priest together with the people on Sundays and solemnities.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

More detail would be needed.

It was the “I confess to almighty GOD, and to you, my brothers and sisters” version, which I think is form A and still requires the Kyrie…

What ‘Holy Day Mass’ was it?

I believe it was Ascension Thursday. It was the early morning Mass which normally the Creed is not necessary for (right?), so perhaps the priest simply forgot that he had to do it out of a habit or something…

Pax,

Sebastiano

 

[JSSebastianoP]

I plan on going to go to another Mass this weekend, just to be safe, but I do appreciate your comments so I can feel more confident and less scrupuolous a week from now.

Pax,

Sebastiano

 

[JM3]

It was the “I confess to almighty GOD, and to you, my brothers and sisters” version, which I think is form A and still requires the Kyrie…

I believe it was Ascension Thursday. It was the early morning Mass which normally the Creed is not necessary for (right?), so perhaps the priest simply forgot that he had to do it out of a habit or something…

Pax,

Sebastiano

As to the first, it would depend on how it was concluded.

As to the second, it may have been correct.

usccb.org/norms/1246.htm

SUBSEQUENT ACTION: Canon 1246§2

In accord with the provisions of canon 1246§2 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: “… the conference of bishops can abolish certain holy days of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday with prior approval of the Apostolic See,” the National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States decrees that the Ecclesiastical Provinces of the United States may transfer the Solemnity of the Ascension of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ from Thursday of the Sixth Week of Easter to the Seventh Sunday of Easter according to the following procedure.

The decision of each Ecclesiastical Province to transfer the Solemnity of the Ascension is to be made by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the bishops of the respective Ecclesiastical Province. The decision of the Ecclesiastical Province should be communicated to the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and to the President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This decree was approved by His Holiness Pope John Paul II by a decree of the Congregation for Bishops signed by His Eminence Lucas Cardinal Moreira Neves, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, and dated July 5, 1999.

As President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, I hereby decree that the effective date of this decree for all the Latin Rite dioceses of the United States of America will be September 8, 1999, Feast of the Birth of the Virgin Mary.

Which would make it a weekday Mass where the creed is not said.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

As to the first, it would depend on how it was concluded.

What do you mean by that?

As to the second, it may have been correct.

usccb.org/norms/1246.htm

Which would make it a weekday Mass where the creed is not said.

That was the Archdiocese of New York, one of the few that did not move it to the Sunday…

Pax,

Sebastiano

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is a difference between valid/invalid and licit/illicit. If the Mass was invalid, then there was no Mass, then you never fulfilled your obligation. If the Mass was illicit, then there was still a valid Mass, then you have fulfilled your obligation.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

There is a difference between valid/invalid and licit/illicit. If the Mass was invalid, then there was no Mass, then you never fulfilled your obligation. If the Mass was illicit, then there was still a valid Mass, then you have fulfilled your obligation.

And skipping a part of the Mass (other than the Eucharist) would be illicit, but not make the Mass invalid, then, right?

Pax,

Sebastiano

 

[Joannm]

There is a difference between valid/invalid and licit/illicit. If the Mass was invalid, then there was no Mass, then you never fulfilled your obligation. If the Mass was illicit, then there was still a valid Mass, then you have fulfilled your obligation.

It was neither invalid or illicit. The priest simply left out something that was supposed to be there, for what reason we don’t know, he could have simply forgot. Also some priests really don’t know the GIRM or rubrics that well. We had a foreign priest argue with a lector this week that she’s not allowed to read the petitions from the Ambo. This is the same priest who ad-libs a lot of the mass, and he is in his late 80s. We have some foreign priests who also will leave out the Kyrie when the Confetior is said.

I would not go looking for another Mass to attend. That IS being scrupulous. The Mass is valid and you did not lose any graces by the Kyrie being omitted. Why not just pray it to yourself if he does it again.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And skipping a part of the Mass (other than the Eucharist) would be illicit, but not make the Mass invalid, then, right?

Pax,

Sebastiano

I would think that its just illicit. Best to check with you diocese’s liturgist but from what little I know, that does not invalidate the Mass.

 

[Bbigam]

There is a difference between valid/invalid and licit/illicit. If the Mass was invalid, then there was no Mass, then you never fulfilled your obligation. If the Mass was illicit, then there was still a valid Mass, then you have fulfilled your obligation.

Yeah, something not licit happening during the Mass certainly doesn’t mean you didn’t meet your obligation.
I would imagine that if you attended a Mass that ended up being invalid, and it was your only opportunity to go to Mass that day, you didn’t sin because it wasn’t your fault. Of course you can’t be going somewhere you know or strongly suspect will be invalid to meet your obligation!

 

[thistle]

Thanks. I mean, I feel like my parish isn’t like one that would have one of those “clown Masses” that we hear about - it’s generally a reverant Ordinary Form Mass (albeit with arguably not the best way to have music). But little things like that still bother me.

Thanks.

There has never been a clown Mass in a Catholic Church. That is an urban myth!!!
This has come up in many threads and when I ask the name of the Church it happened in nobody can tell me!!

 

[roadsend]

There has never been a clown Mass in a Catholic Church. That is an urban myth!!!
This has come up in many threads and when I ask the name of the Church it happened in nobody can tell me!!

My former pastor told me that he attended a clown funeral Mass in the late '80s or early '90s. His word is good enough for me and, no, I don’t know the name of the church.
I can, however, give you the time date and place of a Mass with a Hula dancer, since it happened right here in Western Oregon in my own parish.

 

[roadsend]

Yes even then. In my area I would be hard pressed to find a Mass that didn’t do something illicit. As long as it’s valid (which by your description it was) then you have nothing to worry about.

Pretty much the same here. Either attend a Mass with illicit content or take a day to drive to the big city.

 

[Rahn]

You’ve fulfilled your obligation by going to the Mass. The licit/illicitness of the Mass is on the celebrant.

God looks at your heart, your intent. As long as you are not attending that particular Mass *because *you think it’s illicit, you are ok.

 

[puzzleannie]

I am currently dealing with scruples of various sorts and so I wanted to clear something up.

What exactly is the Sunday obligation in regards to valid/illicit Masses?
P.

in the first place Mass can be licit or illicit, and Eucharist can be valid or invalid
nothing you describe causes either problem

even if it did, if you attend Mass in good faith at a Church you believe to be Catholic, nothing the priest or other ministers do or do not do changes that fact, and you have fulfilled your obligation.

may I suggest that once you find a parish that seems to do the Rites right, you simply participate at Mass and leave off all – all – impulses to second guess, criticize, cavil, or in any way react to the actions of people rather than that of Christ. I think this is one of the most subtle and dangerous ways Satan influences good devout Catholics is this endless need to police the liturgy and the most destructive to benefiting from graces of the Mass. If he can’t destroy you be keeping you away from Mass and sacraments he will do it by having you question them at every turn.