C
ClemtheCatholic
Guest
Could somebody please explain what these two terms mean and the differences between them! 
In Christ,
ClemtheCatholic
In Christ,
ClemtheCatholic
- Status
S
superamazingman
Guest
In short:
Licit = legal
Valid = it happened
For example:
Skipping the second reading is illict. The Mass would still be valid.
Using pizza and beer instead of bread and wine would be invalid. The Mass “didn’t happen,” because there was no transubstantiation.
Licit = legal
Valid = it happened
For example:
Skipping the second reading is illict. The Mass would still be valid.
Using pizza and beer instead of bread and wine would be invalid. The Mass “didn’t happen,” because there was no transubstantiation.
C
ClemtheCatholic
Guest
Ah, okay, thanks for this
A
Aramis
Guest
On the other hand, pizza shell and wine would be valid but illicit - because leavening isn’t bar to validity. (In fact, liturgical bread in several Eastern Rites is leavened.) Nor is adding sugar grounds for invalidity - but added sugar to the liturgical bread, leavened or not, is illicit throughout the church.
The importance of the distinction is for extreme circumstances. Especially disasters, imprisoned priests, and extreme isolation.
The requirements for validity is that the bread be of wheat, and the wine of grape.
C
ClemtheCatholic
Guest
So, in really extreme circumstances, you could have the Body of Christ covered in tomato sauce and melted cheese? And, this would be valid AND licit if it was the only option? Or, to get messy, should the priest who’s obviously in a difficult situation try to remove the non-bread parts of the pizza? lol, this is peculiar but strangely interesting 
(I think Aramis was referring to the pizza crust with no toppings.)So, in really extreme circumstances, you could have the Body of Christ covered in tomato sauce and melted cheese? And, this would be valid AND licit if it was the only option? Or, to get messy, should the priest who’s obviously in a difficult situation try to remove the non-bread parts of the pizza? lol, this is peculiar but strangely interesting
T
triumphguy
Guest
What about the hour fast?So, in really extreme circumstances, you could have the Body of Christ covered in tomato sauce and melted cheese? And, this would be valid AND licit if it was the only option? Or, to get messy, should the priest who’s obviously in a difficult situation try to remove the non-bread parts of the pizza? lol, this is peculiar but strangely interesting
P
Phemie
Guest
Another, perhaps easier example:
When we go to our daughter’s for Christmas, if I take it upon myself to baptize my grandson, as long as I use water and say "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit while pouring water on his head or immersing him in the tub it will be a valid Baptism because I used the right form and the right matter and I have the right intent.
At the same time it would be an** illicit** Baptism because the Church doesn’t give me permission to do that unless he’s in danger of dying.
When we go to our daughter’s for Christmas, if I take it upon myself to baptize my grandson, as long as I use water and say "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit while pouring water on his head or immersing him in the tub it will be a valid Baptism because I used the right form and the right matter and I have the right intent.
At the same time it would be an** illicit** Baptism because the Church doesn’t give me permission to do that unless he’s in danger of dying.
W
waanju
Guest
It is valid as long as there is bread of wheat and wine of grapes and a validly ordained priest says (or tries to say) “This is my body” and “This is my blood”
The rest of the mass could by THIS youtube.com/watch?v=fHi_VZLtcQ8 or worse.
Of course, that is totally illicit and disrespectful, but the Real Presence is still there, making it valid.
The rest of the mass could by THIS youtube.com/watch?v=fHi_VZLtcQ8 or worse.
Of course, that is totally illicit and disrespectful, but the Real Presence is still there, making it valid.
S
superamazingman
Guest
eat from the bottom.What about the hour fast?
W
waanju
Guest
THIS travesty of blasphemous “mass” on the other hand, is both illicit and invalid. No consecration took place, because the “Priests” were a woman and two married men, and because the entire congregation said the liturgical prayers.
It makes me want to cry.It’s like a terrible parody.
youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvUKAsHxZ8&feature=bf_next&list=PLITlW7t_3O1SKbSSBQ4_t8tY___-Xaja8
S
superamazingman
Guest
look at the average age of everyone in the camera shot. Luckilly it’s a dying movement.
G
GwenL
Guest
A woman cannot be a priest, so anything she attempts is but a sacrilegious simulation of the sacrament.
What makes you think that a male priest cannot be married, or that the actions of a married priest would be invalid? A few examples:
- Eastern Catholic priests are often married. If everything else (form, matter, intent) are right, Eucharist is valid and licit.
- Anglican and Lutheran ministers entering the Latin Church can gain permission to be ordained as Catholic priests. If they are already married, they stay married. If everything else (form, matter, intent) are right, Eucharist is valid and licit.
- Worst case–a Latin Catholic priest breaks his promise (vow if a religious) of chastity, leaves the celibate state, abandons his priesthood, and attempts marriage. Even if he got permission to enter the lay state and marry, he is a priest forever. He has no faculties from the Ordinary, and his consecration of the Eucharist would be illicit, but still valid (if form, matter, and intent are correct).
W
waanju
Guest
From the website of the group (Roman Catholic Womenpriests) that held this “mass”, the married “priests” weren’t validly ordained either. I didn’t mean it to sound as if all married priests were invalidly ordained, I apologize. Thank you for clarifying.
V
Vico
Guest
Modern Catholic Dictionary:Could somebody please explain what these two terms mean and the differences between them!
In Christ,
ClemtheCatholic
**VALIDITY. **Having not only legal force but actually producing the effect intended. Applied to the sacraments, it refers to the conditions of matter, form, and circumstances required for valid administration. In ecclesiastical law it means that certain prescriptions must be fulfilled for the law or contractual agreement to bind or take effect.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
LICEITY. The legitimacy of a human action and its consequences, e.g., administration of a sacrament or a contract. It is commonly distinguished from validity, since an action may be valid but not licit, as a layman conferring baptism without urgent necessity. (Etym. Latin licentia, license, freedom to act.)
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
T
triumphguy
Guest
eat from the bottom.
Good come back!
S
superamazingman
Guest
People always tell me I have an answer for everything, which is kinda funny, except when you’re at a really inopportune moment and you have to struggle not to laugh when a funny comeback pops into your head.
A
Aramis
Guest
Actually, there has to be an invocation of the Holy Spirit to change the gifts (an epiclesis) as well.
S
superamazingman
Guest
In the roman rite, it is not necessary for validity.
V
Vico
Guest
Congruent with the Gospel that does not mention an epiklesis at the Last Supper. The Anaphora is the form required for confecting the Holy Mystery, which may contain explicit or implied (as in the Roman form) epiklesis and explicit words or institution or a euchological and disseminated manner (as in the Chaldean form).
- Status