Liturgical question

[Walter_Severs]

As a newcomer to Catholic Answers, I’m still trying to navigate.
I would welcome an answer to the following question.
At a recent Mass of Obligation the priest gave a long homily and omitted the Creed.
He said it was an “option”. Does this match with the Roman Missal?
Is there a reference for this issue?
Thanks in advance for helping.

 

[tbtcom1213]

The Creed is obligatory on all Sundays and Solemnities (i.e Christmas, Annunciation, Saint Joseph et cetera).

At Christmas and the Annunciation all kneel during the “et in carnatus est de Spiritu Sancto de Maria Virgine et homo factus est”. other than that you bow during the words “By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became Man”

GIRM

 

[Matthew_Holford]

As a newcomer to Catholic Answers, I’m still trying to navigate.
I would welcome an answer to the following question.
At a recent Mass of Obligation the priest gave a long homily and omitted the Creed.
He said it was an “option”. Does this match with the Roman Missal?
Is there a reference for this issue?
Thanks in advance for helping.

By “Mass of Obligation” do you mean one celebrated on a holy day of obligation (a Sunday or solemnity of precept)? If yes, then the Creed is mandatory; it is not an “option”. The Creed is required on Sundays and solemnities (even those which are not holy days of obligation). Cf. GIRM #68.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

What do you mean by Mass of Obligation? As others have stated, the creed is required on Sunday and Solemnities, but not other days, even if it is a local feast day.

Was the creed said as part of a baptism or other rite? Usually that means the priest reads questions that sound like the parts of the creed and the congregation responds.

If you aren’t sure if the day was a solemnity, ask your priest. You can ask the priest or even someone in your parish office to point out the solemnities and Holy Days of Obligation on the calendar. That will give you a better idea of what should happen at Mass, when.

 

[judefan]

The reciting of a creed at the Eucharist is a very longstanding tradition. As always when anything your priest/pastor does bothers you, talk to him about it. It can be easy to second guess and they do make mistakes sometimes. Other considerations: was this an isolated event (vs him excluding it multiple times)? Does he do other things that concern you? If it is an isolated incident I would just let it go. if you see some kind of pattern, please ask him about it.

 

[puzzleannie]

there are also times the creed may be omitted such as at a Mass during which baptisms or RCIA rites are celebrated for example. It is also permissisble to substitute the Apostles Creed during Lent and Easter season when there are catechumens or neophytes present, or during Masses with children

 

[Walter_Severs]

Thanks for the initial replies. By “Mass of Obligation”, I mean a day when Roman Catholics are obliged to hear Mass. The case in point was a regularly scheduled Sunday Mass. I did ask the priest after the Mass about the deletion of the Creed and he told me it was “optional”. Thus, in my mind, he was fully aware of the change. The concern I have is whether this made the Mass “invalid” (because of foreknowledge) or “illicit”. The latter would suggest the Faithful still met their Sunday obligation. Is my reasoning o.k.?
Thanks again

 

[ConstantineTG]

there are also times the creed may be omitted such as at a Mass during which baptisms or RCIA rites are celebrated for example. It is also permissisble to substitute the Apostles Creed during Lent and Easter season when there are catechumens or neophytes present, or during Masses with children

During Baptisms and Easter, the Creed is omitted but the “renewal of Baptismal vows” replaces it, which is essentially the Apostle’s Creed except that its presented as a question (“do you believe” instead of “I believe”) and people respond “I do”.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Thanks for the initial replies. By “Mass of Obligation”, I mean a day when Roman Catholics are obliged to hear Mass. The case in point was a regularly scheduled Sunday Mass. I did ask the priest after the Mass about the deletion of the Creed and he told me it was “optional”. Thus, in my mind, he was fully aware of the change. The concern I have is whether this made the Mass “invalid” (because of foreknowledge) or “illicit”. The latter would suggest the Faithful still met their Sunday obligation. Is my reasoning o.k.?
Thanks again

You met your obligation because you had no way of knowing that the creed would be omitted until it happened.

Since the priest seems to think the creed is optional on a Sunday, I would be concerned. If he omits it regularly and not just occasionally for what he may feel is a valid reason (which we don’t know so we can’t speculate), then ask him again. And then follow the correct procedure to let the bishop know he is omitting it regularly.

 

[JGMendes4049]

The concern I have is whether this made the Mass “invalid,” (because of foreknowledge) or “illicit.” The latter would suggest the Faithful still met their Sunday obligation. Is my reasoning okay?

The only thing that can make a Mass invalid is an invalid Consecration.

 

[John_Lilburne]

From the 2002 General Introduction to the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :

“68. The Creed is to be sung or said by the priest together with the people on Sundays and Solemnities. It may be said also at particular celebrations of a more solemn character.”

The 2002 Roman Missal’s Order of Mass, n. 19, allows either the Nicene or Apostles Creed at any Mass. (Missale Romanum, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002, ISBN: 8820972719, page 513).

The Creed is optional when there are the Scrutinies, (prayers for the elect who are to be baptised a few weeks later.) From the book Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults: “… then, if required, the profession of faith is said. But for pastoral reasons these general intercessions and the profession of faith may be omitted.” (RCIA, n. 143, 157, 164 edition for Australia and England, n. 156, 170, 177 in the editon for the USA.).

The usual time for the Scrutinies is the Third, Fourth and Fifth Sundays of Lent. But it can be done at other times during the year, except Solemnities. (USA RCIA, n. 146, Australia RCIA n. 133).

At the Easter Vigil there is a renewal of baptismal promises, instead of the Creed.

The Creed is not said if there is a baptism in the Mass. (Rite of Baptism for Children, n. 29, The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0, page 374).

And if there is a confirmation at Mass, from the Rite of Confirmation (Rite of Confirmation, n. 31. The Rites Volume One, Liturgical Press, 1990, ISBN: 0-8146-6015-0, page 492).

Nor if there is an ordination of a deacon, priest or bishop in the Mass, from the rite of “Ordination of Deacons, Priests and Bishops” (The Rites Volume Two, Liturgical Press, 1991, ISBN: 0-8146-6037-1, pages 28, 39, 66).

Nor if there is a consecration to a life of virginity in the Mass: (The Rites Volume Two, Liturgical Press, 1991, ISBN: 0-8146-6037-1, page 161, 177).

Nor if there is a rite of religious profession in the Mass,
for a temporary profession by a man: (The Rites Volume Two, Liturgical Press, 1991, ISBN: 0-8146-6037-1, page 213).
the same for a perpetual profession by a man, n. 52(b), page 221.
same if a man renews his vows, n. 83(b), page 233.
same for a women, temporary profession, 25(b), page 252.
same for a women, perpetual profession, 57(b), page 258.
same for a women, renewal of vows, 90(b), page 272.

Nor if there is a blessing of an abbot (The Rites Volume Two, Liturgical Press, 1991, ISBN: 0-8146-6037-1, page 304.
Same for the blessing of an abbess, n. 10, page 314.

 

[FrDavid96]

As a newcomer to Catholic Answers, I’m still trying to navigate.
I would welcome an answer to the following question.
At a recent Mass of Obligation the priest gave a long homily and omitted the Creed.
He said it was an “option”. Does this match with the Roman Missal?
Is there a reference for this issue?
Thanks in advance for helping.

No. It isn’t an option. The Creed is required at Sunday Masses.

Having said that, though, since the Creed can be (and usually is) omitted at weekday Masses, it is not an absolutely essential element of the Mass.

The priest has some limited latitude in omitting certain non-essential parts of the Mass.

He might have explained it as “an option” merely as a short way of saying that it isn’t absolutely necessary because he didn’t want to get into a lengthy explanation of liturgical norms.

If it happened once, just let it go. Maybe he had a good reason.

If it’s happening regularly, then it’s an issue.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks for the initial replies. By “Mass of Obligation”, I mean a day when Roman Catholics are obliged to hear Mass. The case in point was a regularly scheduled Sunday Mass. I did ask the priest after the Mass about the deletion of the Creed and he told me it was “optional”. Thus, in my mind, he was fully aware of the change. The concern I have is whether this made the Mass “invalid” (because of foreknowledge) or “illicit”. The latter would suggest the Faithful still met their Sunday obligation. Is my reasoning o.k.?
Thanks again

You need have no concerns on that point. If the Creed was omitted for a legitimate reason, or even a non-legitimate reason, it has no effect on the validity of the Mass, and no effect on you fulfilling your Sunday obligation. The Sunday obligation was satisfied by attending that Mass.

 

[Walter_Severs]

Thanks again for the updated responses. I am now reassured that the Sunday Mass in question was valid. The issue of “foreknowledge” bothered me, since it called into question the “intent” of the celebrant. His “option” answer, while short, was nonetheless highly misleading (the most charitable word that comes to mind). A simple answer of “I made an error” would have prevented doubts about a priest new to the parish.
This new (to me) source of Catholic Answers seems to be a valuable resource. An extra “Hail Mary” for you all!

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The Mass, like other liturgies, is neither valid or invalid. So, in fact, the question of the validity of the Mass does not arise. It is sacraments that can be valid or invalid. During Mass the sacrament of the Eucharist is always celebrated. The Creed has no bearing on the validity of the Eucharist. If it did then the Creed would be required at all Masses, and it is not. You may want to ask if the priest meant that it was optional at that Mass. If he keeps omitting it you may want to raise it with him again. Tell him you are confused because he is saying it is optional but the General Instruction of the Roman Missal at #68 states it is mandatory on Sundays and solemnities.

 

[FrDavid96]

The Mass, like other liturgies, is neither valid or invalid. So, in fact, the question of the validity of the Mass does not arise. It is sacraments that can be valid or invalid. During Mass the sacrament of the Eucharist is always celebrated. The Creed has no bearing on the validity of the Eucharist. If it did then the Creed would be required at all Masses, and it is not. You may want to ask if the priest meant that it was optional at that Mass. If he keeps omitting it you may want to raise it with him again. Tell him you are confused because he is saying it is optional but the General Instruction of the Roman Missal at #68 states it is mandatory on Sundays and solemnities.

Depends upon how one looks at the sentence. Look at these 2 ways to say it:

1. “not…a-valid-Mass”
   or
2. “not-a-valid…Mass”

We might use example #1 in reference to what appears to be a Mass but there’s no validly ordained priest, or the priest completely skips the consecration. We could go on and on of course.

Example #2 however makes no sense. If it is “not valid” then it cannot be “a Mass” so the sentence is meaningless.

Certainly, it’s better to say “an invalid attempt at Mass” rather than “an invalid Mass”
Just like it’s better to say “an invalid attempt at ordination” rather than “an invalid ordination”

However, in everyday language, I don’t see a problem with the words “invalid Mass.” When we’re speaking conversationally, we know what’s meant, and we know the words “attempt at” are implied.

It’s the same with marriages. In conversation, I might say the words “in invalid marriage” but in documents that will bear the parish seal and be mailed to the tribunal, I’m careful to say “an invalid attempt at marriage.”

“An invalid Mass” or “an invalid attempt at Mass”? In conversation, I think we can use either form.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Depends upon how one looks at the sentence. Look at these 2 ways to say it:

1. “not…a-valid-Mass”
   or
2. “not-a-valid…Mass”

We might use example #1 in reference to what appears to be a Mass but there’s no validly ordained priest, or the priest completely skips the consecration. We could go on and on of course.

Example #2 however makes no sense. If it is “not valid” then it cannot be “a Mass” so the sentence is meaningless.

Certainly, it’s better to say “an invalid attempt at Mass” rather than “an invalid Mass”
Just like it’s better to say “an invalid attempt at ordination” rather than “an invalid ordination”

However, in everyday language, I don’t see a problem with the words “invalid Mass.” When we’re speaking conversationally, we know what’s meant, and we know the words “attempt at” are implied.

It’s the same with marriages. In conversation, I might say the words “in invalid marriage” but in documents that will bear the parish seal and be mailed to the tribunal, I’m careful to say “an invalid attempt at marriage.”

“An invalid Mass” or “an invalid attempt at Mass”? In conversation, I think we can use either form.

Obviously, I don’t know what prompted your post but if it was in response to my previous one, please be assured that wasn’t specifically aimed at you. I was basing my answer on what has often been previously discussed on this thread.

Of course, if I was to ‘celebrate’ Mass it wouldn’t be a Mass because I’m a lay man. Likewise, the Eucharist wouldn’t be confected because for that there needs to be a (validly ordained) priest.

In the discussions that I’ve seen on this thread there seems to be knowledge of the minimum requirements for a valid Eucharist (I won’t recite them here; of course, you know them). No one has ever said, as far as I’ve seen, what the minima are for Mass itself. I don’t believe the Holy See has ever said the minimum required for Mass is this … If they did there would, undoubtedly, be many who would only do those minima.

That’s the reason why now I always say that it’s the Eucharist that’s invalid (or invalidly attempted, if you prefer) rather than it being the whole liturgy of the Mass itself which is valid, invalid, or invalidly attempted.