Does Mass become invalid if there are numerous illicit acts?

[gregma]

Seems as if our mass is getting worse and worse, and today was the last straw for me and my wife. Let me list the illicit acts. Does everything combined make it invalid?

1. Holding hands during “Our Father”.
2. Removing the word “Men” from the Nicene Creed I.E. “For us men and for…”.
3. Removing the word “Man” from the Nicene Creed I.E. “And became Man…”
4. Changing all words that are “Man” or “Men” or “His” or “He” to either the female version, or gender neutral version in the responsorial Psalm.
5. The priest has started leaving his microphone on when preparing the gifts and washing his hands, and changing things such as “Lord, wash away my iniquity” to “Lord, wash away our iniquities”. Etc.
6. The altar servers do not kneel at the appropriate time during the Eucharistic Prayer. Neither do the cantor or Musicians, but they play music during the Mystery of Faith and the great Amen, so I guess it would be difficult to play guitars while kneeling.
7. Changing the “great amen” from “Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen” to “Amen, Amen, Praise and Glory, Amen”, or "Amen, Amen, Hallelujah, Amen. Etc.
8. And today… The mass was in light attendance due to snow and people forgetting to set the time to DST. They cut back on the use of the Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers. When the altar servers, the musicians, and the Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers were given communion by the Priest, the Priest gave his bowl of hosts to one of the Eucharistic Ministers and stood at the back of the altar. This had ONLY Extraordinary Ministers administering Communion. The priest did not participate!

My wife and myself did not receive communion due to this of which I consider a grave ommision. Maybe I’m wrong? Can anyone help?

Yours in Christ,
Greg

 

[CatholicCid]

I don’t believe #1 is an abuse, as, last I heard, there was no set posture during the Our Father.

That being said, it does not appear to have been an invalid Mass. If the Eucharistic prayers were not tampered with, then Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.

No amount of changes that do not effect the Consecration would not somehow outweigh the validity of the Eucharist and invalidate it.

 

[SMHW]

The Mass can’t become invalid simply due to the *number *of illicit actions.

And it only takes one action that would prevent the confection of the sacrament to make the Eucharist invalid.

 

[passus]

a. There is no such thing as an “invalid Mass.” There can, however, be an invalid consecration, in which case there is considered to have been no Mass at all.

b. Just like no number of venial sins puts our souls into a state of mortal sin, no number of abuses against a sacrament “adds up” to invalidity. Only an invalidating abuse invalidates a sacrament.

c. You should have received Holy Communion.

1. Changing the “great amen” from “Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen” to “Amen, Amen, Praise and Glory, Amen”, or "Amen, Amen, Hallelujah, Amen. Etc.

We sing the parts from Mass of Glory at our church, too! The added words would seem to constitute an abuse…

 

[pnewton]

There is nothing you mentioned that would invalidate the consecration.

As to number six, I kneel holding a guitar, but not a piano.

 

[gregma]

Ok, so the Father just standing back and not participating in the distribution of communion is just another illicit act? Wow! I realize that transmutation has taken place and the full presence of Christ is in the Host and wine. However, for the priest to not participate in the distribution to me would amount to a grave error. And why should I receive communion when it’s obvious that the priest who is the leader of our parish, by his refusal sends a message that it’s not that important to him.?

Yours in Christ,
Greg

 

[passus]

However, for the priest to not participate in the distribution to me would amount to a grave error.

It is a grave abuse, but don’t take it to have been an intentional one without knowing any more about what happened than you observed from your pew.

And why should I receive communion when it’s obvious that the priest who is the leader of our parish, by his refusal sends a message that it’s not that important to him.?

Because Jesus is making himself present to you so that you can receive the abundant graces and take into your soul the glory of all that is contained in the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ!

Surely the priest was not trying to send a “message” and I doubt he was even refusing. From the way it sounds, he had too many extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion up there and didn’t want to hurt anyone by telling one of them to go sit back down.

And (hypothetically) even if he was refusing and sending a message because, Heaven forbid, he did not believe in the Real Presence and didn’t want to participate in something he sees as so silly…well…then at least you understand the meaning of Jesus’s presence in the Eucharist and believe Him to be there.

It almost sounds to me like you did not receive Holy Communion out of spite.

 

[pnewton]

Because Jesus is making himself present to you so that you can receive the abundant graces and take into your soul the glory of all that is contained in the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ!

It is still the Blessed Sacrament. One must not cut off one’s nose to spite their face.

 

[FrDavid96]

Seems as if our mass is getting worse and worse, and today was the last straw for me and my wife. Let me list the illicit acts. Does everything combined make it invalid?

1. Holding hands during “Our Father”.
2. Removing the word “Men” from the Nicene Creed I.E. “For us men and for…”.
3. Removing the word “Man” from the Nicene Creed I.E. “And became Man…”
4. Changing all words that are “Man” or “Men” or “His” or “He” to either the female version, or gender neutral version in the responsorial Psalm.
5. The priest has started leaving his microphone on when preparing the gifts and washing his hands, and changing things such as “Lord, wash away my iniquity” to “Lord, wash away our iniquities”. Etc.
6. The altar servers do not kneel at the appropriate time during the Eucharistic Prayer. Neither do the cantor or Musicians, but they play music during the Mystery of Faith and the great Amen, so I guess it would be difficult to play guitars while kneeling.
7. Changing the “great amen” from “Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen” to “Amen, Amen, Praise and Glory, Amen”, or "Amen, Amen, Hallelujah, Amen. Etc.
8. And today… The mass was in light attendance due to snow and people forgetting to set the time to DST. They cut back on the use of the Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers. When the altar servers, the musicians, and the Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers were given communion by the Priest, the Priest gave his bowl of hosts to one of the Eucharistic Ministers and stood at the back of the altar. This had ONLY Extraordinary Ministers administering Communion. The priest did not participate!

My wife and myself did not receive communion due to this of which I consider a grave ommision. Maybe I’m wrong? Can anyone help?

Yours in Christ,
Greg

Even though those are all abuses, and are illicit acts, no one of them, nor even the combination of all of those abuses would make the Mass invalid.

It’s unfortunate that they happened, no doubt, but the Mass itself was still valid, that is unless there’s something more you haven’t mentioned. And I do hope there wasn’t anything more.

 

[Ceil-1]

Is this priest the pastor? He is, indeed, unfit for his job. I can relate on your reluctance to take Communion, due to the upset feelings you must have had. I have had to deal with similar issues, and always ended up wandering parish to parish until I found one I could tolerate. It was getting pretty bad at one time.

If this man is the pastor, I would see the bishop and inform him of your feelings. If he has a boss, I would make an appointment and let him know you will not tolerate this level of abuse.

Then again, I am bolder than most. But, you have the right to expect it to be done the way the leadership of the Church has set it down.

 

[gregma]

Not receive out of spite? No. Out of shock, confusion, bewilderment? yes. I have never seen a priest just stand there while laity distribute communion.

 

[Stromboli]

“1. Holding hands during “Our Father”.” is not an “abuse.”

 

[Stromboli]

It is a grave abuse, but don’t take it to have been an intentional one without knowing any more about what happened than you observed from your pew.

Because Jesus is making himself present to you so that you can receive the abundant graces and take into your soul the glory of all that is contained in the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ!

Surely the priest was not trying to send a “message” and I doubt he was even refusing. From the way it sounds, he had too many extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion up there and didn’t want to hurt anyone by telling one of them to go sit back down.

And (hypothetically) even if he was refusing and sending a message because, Heaven forbid, he did not believe in the Real Presence and didn’t want to participate in something he sees as so silly…well…then at least you understand the meaning of Jesus’s presence in the Eucharist and believe Him to be there.

It almost sounds to me like you did not receive Holy Communion out of spite.

No, it’s not a “grave abuse.” It hardly meets RS’s

Grave Matters

[173.] Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168. Moreover, attention should be given to the other prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law, and especially what is laid down by canons 1364, 1369, 1373, 1376, 1380, 1384, 1385, 1386, and 1398.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

The primary reason we attend Mass is to be at Calvary when Jesus is sacrificed to His Father. It is not to receive Holy COmmunion.

 

[Joannm]

No, it’s not a “grave abuse.” It hardly meets RS’s

The primary reason we attend Mass is to be at Calvary when Jesus is sacrificed to His Father. It is not to receive Holy COmmunion.

Thank you for saying this. I think it is a misconception that so many have and is part of our consumer mentality. That is why communion services (except for real legitimate need on a Sunday) are creating such problems. Also, no one has a “right” to anything when it comes to worship. There may be a expectation that things are done correctly but I don’t believe the Church uses the term “right” with anything connected to participation in the liturgy (I could be wrong, but I haven’t come across anything).

I would just fine tune your primary reason for attending Mass. It is for the praise and worship of the Father by the community of believers through the participation in the sacrifice of Christ, His great act of thanksgiving to the Father.

 

[japhy]

Concerning an able-bodied priest neglecting to distribute Holy Communion:
If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons. (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 157)

 

[benedictgal]

Thank you for saying this. I think it is a misconception that so many have and is part of our consumer mentality. That is why communion services (except for real legitimate need on a Sunday) are creating such problems. Also, no one has a “right” to anything when it comes to worship. There may be a expectation that things are done correctly but I don’t believe the Church uses the term “right” with anything connected to participation in the liturgy (I could be wrong, but I haven’t come across anything).

I would just fine tune your primary reason for attending Mass. It is for the praise and worship of the Father by the community of believers through the participation in the sacrifice of Christ, His great act of thanksgiving to the Father.

That is the same point that my parochial vicar has been driving home in his homilies over the course of last week (inclusive of yesterday). The high point of the Mass is not the reception of Holy Communion. Were that the case then the folks who cannot receive Holy Communion (those in mortal sin, living in an invalid marriage, etc) could not say that they assisted at the Holy Sacrifice. The point of the Mass is the actual Sacrifice where we go back to the altar of Calvary and we once again witness the immolation of Jesus.

I am not downplaying the reception of Holy Communion; however, to say that this is the end all and be all is to completely miss the point.

Regarding the rights, here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum spells out:

[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.32

That being the case, then, I would suspect that the OP’s rights to a properly celebrated Mass were violated. Regarding his not receiving Holy Communion, I would not jump the gun. It is better to refrain from receiving when one is angry than to go up and receive with a lot anger and frustration, thus complicating things further.

 

[Cluny]

** Let me list the illicit acts. Does everything combined make it invalid?**

No. None of these, singly or in any combination, or even all together make the mass invalid.

There are only FOUR THINGS that make a mass invalid, and any ONE of them will do so.

1. Lack valid minster (properly ordained priest or bishop).
2. Lack of valid matter (pure wheat bread and grape wine).
3. Lack of intention (that is determining NOT to consecrate the Eucharist; this is hard to prove, btw).
4. Mangling the Words of Institution so they do NOT say “This is My Body; this is My Blood”.

 

[nicolep]

Ok, so the Father just standing back and not participating in the distribution of communion is just another illicit act? Wow! I realize that transmutation has taken place and the full presence of Christ is in the Host and wine. However, for the priest to not participate in the distribution to me would amount to a grave error. And why should I receive communion when it’s obvious that the priest who is the leader of our parish, by his refusal sends a message that it’s not that important to him.?

Yours in Christ,
Greg

I believe the correct term is transubstantiation.

I understand being upset. Really, I do. I would sit in the pew and get aggravated over the illicit actions. I had to realize one day that none of it is about me. It’s about Christ. I’m there to worship him, not have a good time. The fact that I have a good time is just a bonus.

Not receiving Holy Communion is only a disservice to you. If you’re in the proper state, receiving Our Lord can add so much grace to your life. Do you remember how it felt when you first received? It was like walking on air. If only we could feel that way every time.

As others have mentioned, receiving Holy Communion is not the point of Mass. Feel free to not receive for your own reasons. It is no one else’s call.

 

[Stromboli]

Thank you for saying this. I think it is a misconception that so many have and is part of our consumer mentality. That is why communion services (except for real legitimate need on a Sunday) are creating such problems. Also, no one has a “right” to anything when it comes to worship. There may be a expectation that things are done correctly but I don’t believe the Church uses the term “right” with anything connected to participation in the liturgy (I could be wrong, but I haven’t come across anything).

More and more I see people “stopping in” for the “host” without any real understanding why we attend the Mass.

As far as the hand-holding – it’s not an “abuse.” It’s certainly wrong if someone foists that upon you but it’s not an abuse. I think vocally identifying such things as “liturgical abuses because they add to the Mass without authorization” is the very sort of opinion that hurts the credibility of some people.

I would just fine tune your primary reason for attending Mass. It is for the praise and worship of the Father by the community of believers through the participation in the sacrifice of Christ, His great act of thanksgiving to the Father.

No. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is just that – a sacrifice. The primary reason we attend Mass is to be present at the representation of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to His Father for our sins. Receiving Holy Communion and the worship aspect are also very important but they are not primary.

 

[Stromboli]

Concerning an able-bodied priest neglecting to distribute Holy Communion:
If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons. (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 157)

Good reference.