P
pcg2
Guest
What is the difference between the two? I hear a lot about masses being “illicit,” but still valid. Can anyone explain this to me?
Thanks
Thanks
So what is the significance of, say, a mass being illicit?Valid = real, true
Licit = lawful, legal
The word “licit” in Catholic circles means “in a lawful manner.” For instance, I cannot pose as a priest. I have not been ordained by canon law and Sacred Tradition. Thus, my act would be unlawful, or illicit.What is the difference between the two? I hear a lot about masses being “illicit,” but still valid. Can anyone explain this to me?
Thanks
Certain things done in the Mass might be illicit, but that doesn’t make the Mass invalid.So what is the significance of, say, a mass being illicit?
Certainly not a valid or licit communion, but certainly tasty and satisfying from a worldly view, not to mention a humorous image.Now, a priest trying to consecrate Doritos and beer… that stops the Eucharist from being confected validly.
Their faith doesn’t make something that’s not a sacrament into a sacrament. But I would hope and pray that God does not hold them accountable for their expectation that they are receiving a valid Eucharist, when, unbeknownst to them, the priest has prevented that from being the case.what if the matter of a sacrament is invalid but the people are unaware? like regular everyday wine not valid for the Eucharist is used by the priest. and how does its invalidity affect the people who are receiving it “in good faith”
I suppose humor, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. However, I was not amused to see little fish shaped cheese crackers being handed out of the ciborium to the kids at my sister’s parish.Certainly not a valid or licit communion, but certainly tasty and satisfying from a worldly view, not to mention a humorous image.![]()
yeah. i mean, we all do expect all priests to know the right thing to do. but then again, with a long list of liturgical abuses, i won’t be surprised is some priest somewhere is violating this. perhaps he himself doesn’t realize he’s doing something thats not valid. or perhaps the circumstance called for it, like if the priest were saying a special mass somewhere and on the way to that far away place realized he forgot to bring the wine and decided to improviseTheir faith doesn’t make something that’s not a sacrament into a sacrament. But I would hope and pray that God does not hold them accountable for their expectation that they are receiving a valid Eucharist, when, unbeknownst to them, the priest has prevented that from being the case.
reminded me when i was in elementary catholic school and we were practicing for First Communion. we used these biscuits that were round.I suppose humor, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. However, I was not amused to see little fish shaped cheese crackers being handed out of the ciborium to the kids at my sister’s parish.
I am still kicking myself in the posterior for not walking out then and there.
I think “regular everyday wine” is perfectly valid for the Eucharist, isn’t it? It just has to be “from the fruit of the grapevine (cf. Lk 22:18), natural, and unadulterated, that is, without admixture of extraneous substances” (GIRM 322), so I’d think any off-the-shelf wine from Two Buck Chuck to Cheval Blanc would do.since you guys brought it up
what if the matter of a sacrament is invalid but the people are unaware? like regular everyday wine not valid for the Eucharist is used by the priest. and how does its invalidity affect the people who are receiving it “in good faith”
If, e.g., a priest uses a nice pinot noir from the wine shop down the block, in other words, simply a “non-sacramental” grape wine, I believe it bears on liceity but not on validity. The matter itself would be valid.japhy;6506139:
Their faith doesn’t make something that’s not a sacrament into a sacrament. But I would hope and pray that God does not hold them accountable for their expectation that they are receiving a valid Eucharist, when, unbeknownst to them, the priest has prevented that from being the case.yeah. i mean, we all do expect all priests to know the right thing to do. but then again, with a long list of liturgical abuses, i won’t be surprised is some priest somewhere is violating this. perhaps he himself doesn’t realize he’s doing something thats not valid. or perhaps the circumstance called for it, like if the priest were saying a special mass somewhere and on the way to that far away place realized he forgot to bring the wine and decided to improvisechoy;6506061:
since you guys brought it up
what if the matter of a sacrament is invalid but the people are unaware? like regular everyday wine not valid for the Eucharist is used by the priest. and how does its invalidity affect the people who are receiving it “in good faith”
My favorite secular example of the difference between valid and illicit is what happens when you drive through an intersection when the light is red. Assuming you you don’t have an accident you will have “validly” driven through the intersection because you made it to the other side. But you will have done so “illicitly” because you broke the law in the process.What is the difference between the two? I hear a lot about masses being “illicit,” but still valid. Can anyone explain this to me?
Thanks
I’ve always assumed, similarly, that a “sacramental” wine was required (for liceity), but on looking I can’t find anything in the GIRM or canon law to support that. Any suggestions?If, e.g., a priest uses a nice pinot noir from the wine shop down the block, in other words, simply a “non-sacramental” grape wine, I believe it bears on liceity but not on validity. The matter itself would be valid.
There are two main questions that people want to ask about liceity and validity of the Mass. First, is the sacrament of the Eucharist valid?, that is, did it take place? If a priest says the correct words, over the correct food, with the correct intention, the sacrament truly happens. Nothing outside of those 4 considerations affects the validity of the sacrament.What is the difference between the two? I hear a lot about masses being “illicit,” but still valid. Can anyone explain this to me?
It wouldn’t even bear on liceity. With the wine, if it’s valid, it’s licit. For the bread, any wheat bread is valid, but unleavened in the West, leavened in the East.If, e.g., a priest uses a nice pinot noir from the wine shop down the block, in other words, simply a “non-sacramental” grape wine, I believe it bears on liceity but not on validity. The matter itself would be valid.
I would be careful in saying that the congregation did not invalidly fulfill the sacrament. In truth, the congregation has not received the Eucharist if there is no Eucharist.Not all illicit things are invalid. If I were to fool a group of people into taking communion from me posing as a priest, my actions would be illicit but the congregation’s fulfillment of the sacrament is not invalid because they were not at fault for what I did.
i would think that most “regular” wines aren’t all-natural and unadulterated. i could be wrong but some of they may have some amount of preservatives or other stuff that would make them invalid matterI think “regular everyday wine” is perfectly valid for the Eucharist, isn’t it? It just has to be “from the fruit of the grapevine (cf. Lk 22:18), natural, and unadulterated, that is, without admixture of extraneous substances” (GIRM 322), so I’d think any off-the-shelf wine from Two Buck Chuck to Cheval Blanc would do.
It has to meet the alcohol content requirement, be grapes only - no additives. That is it. You could make wine at home to be consecrated at Mass evenI’ve always assumed, similarly, that a “sacramental” wine was required (for liceity), but on looking I can’t find anything in the GIRM or canon law to support that. Any suggestions?
well, home made wine probably wouldn’t have the additives and preservatives that some of the commercial wine would haveIt has to meet the alcohol content requirement, be grapes only - no additives. That is it. You could make wine at home to be consecrated at Mass even![]()