Ok. There’s certainly a lot here to cover. Unfortunately, there’s no canonical penalty for bad taste or bad judgment
so as far as the cell phone thing goes, I’d rather forget that I ever read it.
The opening of the Mass should indeed have had the sign of the cross. Curiously enough, the Mass doesn’t always have this (the funeral Mass for example does not, because similar to the Easter Triduum, the funeral Mass is somewhat of a continuation of the Vigil which is presumed to have happened). There’s no excuse for not doing it, but it would not rise to the level of invalidating the Mass. Let’s hope it was a one-time thing.
Purple alb: not sure if that’s proper or not. An alb “should” be white (that’s why it’s called an alb after all from the Latin word for white). If he wore a purple one? Not something to make an issue about. He is required to wear the chasuble over the stole. This isn’t an option unless it’s a true necessity–in a parish setting, it’s hard to imagine a true necessity.
Advent wreath: unfortunately, the current Book of Blessings doesn’t contain words of actual blessing, so it’s entirely possible that he was saying exactly what’s found in the BB. The book says it should be blessed after the homily. Doing so at the beginning of Mass is technically not the way it’s described, but here again, all by itself that’s not a significant issue. In fact, it’s a very very minor infraction to do it at the beginning of Mass instead–so minor as to not make any difference.
He should not have omitted the penitential rite. Of everything you’ve described, that’s the only real problem, and it is indeed a problem. Take some comfort in knowing that while it was illicit, it wasn’t invalid.
Reading the psalm in that way is actually one of the options given by the Church–even though most Catholics don’t know this because they haven’t experienced it, and haven’t read the norms in the Lectionary. Legitimate option.
The Creed should have been said. Not saying it at a Sunday parish Mass with a congregation is technically against the norms, but once again, not something to make an issue about, unless it’s always done this way.
The hosts: from what you’ve said, it’s impossible to know if the hosts were valid matter or not. Let us hope they were. As long as they were made from pure wheat flour and water, with nothing else added, they were perfectly valid. Shape or texture (as long as they’re truly baked bread neither raw nor burnt) aren’t factors here. Hosts can come in a lot of different styles and still be valid matter. Often, Catholics who are accustomed to one kind travel and experience something different and get confused. Some people have never experienced whole wheat (only white flour) and can cause them to pause. If the host easily crumbles, it shouldn’t be used but it’s still valid matter. I know of one company that makes whole-wheat hosts which are very “stiff”, and are thick and very “spongy looking” (not a term found in liturgical norms, let me assure you!) I won’t use them myself, but they are valid matter so neither will I offer any criticism of a priest who does use them (this one is a matter of personal preference).
I understand why you’re upset at attending this Mass. Each item by itself is either a licit option or something that’s illicit but not a serious issue (as much as illicit acts can be not-serious). Taken as a whole, however, I can see why it would be disturbing.
