The difference between licit and valid?

[angell1]

what’s the difference between these terms in ecclesiastical context

for example, I may have to go to china soon with my mom because my grandpa is in the hospital and was wondering what to do about mass. the real catholic church is underground so seeking it out would probably be pretty difficult, not to mention probably not too safe for them.

of course, there is the government sponsored catholic patriotic association, which apparently, they have valid sacraments even though the ordinations are not approved by Rome, I was just wondering how that works, how are the sacraments still valid when the priests are not real priests?

I’m assuming I wouldn’t necessarily be under the obligation to attend one of those churches, right? do I still need a dispensation or is the situation enough to be a valid excuse?

 

[1ke]

wondering what to do about mass

When you are not able to go to mass, there is no obligation.

the real catholic church is underground so seeking it out would probably be pretty difficult, not to mention probably not too safe for them.

Correct, do not attempt to make contact.

how are the sacraments still valid when the priests are not real priests?

If the priest is ordained by a valid bishop, he is a real priest and the sacraments he performs are real sacraments.

Licit means according to the law. Illicit means against the law. The law being the laws of the Church.

A mass can be valid but illicit as can all the sacraments and various other actions of priest and bishops.

I’m assuming I wouldn’t necessarily be under the obligation to attend one of those churches, right?

No. You are not. There is no obligation.

But you can attend if you choose to, such as to prevent discord with your mother.

catholic.com/quickquestions/may-i-attend-a-state-approved-mass-in-china-to-fulfill-my-sunday-obligation

 

[Usagi]

Right. Just to give a more succinct answer to your original question:

Valid/invalid depends on whether the effects of the sacrament actually happened or not. For our assurance, God has made it so the sacraments “work” if the proper matter and form are observed by the proper minister. The worst priest in the world, or even one forbidden to act as a priest by Rome, can still validly confect the Eucharist. A bishop in schism or otherwise acting against directives from higher up can still validly ordain real priests and even other bishops (as happened when the SSPX was founded).

Licit/illicit refers to whether an act was performed according to the laws and rules of the Catholic Church. A priest who adds or subtracts elements from the Mass is acting illicitly but would still confect the Eucharist validly as long as the consecration is intact and the proper matter is used. The priest and bishop in the above example would also be acting illicitly. The Vatican may punish them with various penalties, but it cannot revoke their ordination or declare their valid sacraments to be invalid.

That’s why, in the eyes of the Cathoic Church, the Orthodox churches have valid orders and other valid sacraments even though we have been out of communion with each other for almost a thousand years. As long as it maintains apostolic succession, the Chinese patriotic church would be the same way, in schism from Rome but maintaining valid sacraments.

 

[GEddie]

Valid refers to something that **can **happen, because the form and matter are there.

Licit means that the letter of Church law has been followed.

The two are not the same.

For example, the Eucharist cannot be consecrated using Oreos and Coca-Cola; nor by someone who isn’t ordained. Neither condition would be valid.

However, consecration can take place validly in the hands of a priest who is under a suspension, even though (depending on the conditions of the suspension) this might not be licit.

ICXC NIKA

 

[angell1]

Right. Just to give a more succinct answer to your original question:

Valid/invalid depends on whether the effects of the sacrament actually happened or not. For our assurance, God has made it so the sacraments “work” if the proper matter and form are observed by the proper minister. The worst priest in the world, or even one forbidden to act as a priest by Rome, can still validly confect the Eucharist. A bishop in schism or otherwise acting against directives from higher up can still validly ordain real priests and even other bishops (as happened when the SSPX was founded).

Licit/illicit refers to whether an act was performed according to the laws and rules of the Catholic Church. A priest who adds or subtracts elements from the Mass is acting illicitly but would still confect the Eucharist validly as long as the consecration is intact and the proper matter is used. The priest and bishop in the above example would also be acting illicitly. The Vatican may punish them with various penalties, but it cannot revoke their ordination or declare their valid sacraments to be invalid.

That’s why, in the eyes of the Cathoic Church, the Orthodox churches have valid orders and other valid sacraments even though we have been out of communion with each other for almost a thousand years. As long as it maintains apostolic succession, the Chinese patriotic church would be the same way, in schism from Rome but maintaining valid sacraments.

yeah, I understand the orthodox church having apostolic succession

but I’m not exactly sure how a state sponsored church by the communist party intending to brainwash the population and emerging within the last 50 years has valid apostolic succession

 

[Usagi]

yeah, I understand the orthodox church having apostolic succession

but I’m not exactly sure how a state sponsored church by the communist party intending to brainwash the population and emerging within the last 50 years has valid apostolic succession

Were their bishops ordained by real bishops? That’s all it takes. The organization’s very existence may be a slap in the face to the Church, but as long as they haven’t altered the sacraments themselves beyond recognition, they still work.

S.

 

[Phemie]

Another example of valid vs licit:

A priest celebrates the marriage of a Catholic and an Anglican (a baptized Christian) without the Bishop’s permission. The marriage is valid but illicit.

In our diocese, and I suspect in many others, the Bishop has given his priests the faculty to grant permission for this type of mixed-marriage.

If the same priest celebrates the marriage of a Catholic and a Mormon (a non-baptized person) without the Bishop’s dispensation, the marriage is invalid.

 

[dans0622]

…
of course, there is the government sponsored catholic patriotic association, which apparently, they have valid sacraments even though the ordinations are not approved by Rome, I was just wondering how that works, how are the sacraments still valid when the priests are not real priests?

Hello,

When I was over there (in Guangzhou, to be specific), I was surprised to find myself within walking distance of “Our Lady of Lourdes” Catholic Church and even more surprised to see that an English Mass was on the regular schedule. So, I went. I didn’t receive Communion, however.

The priest was European. Most of the people in the pews appeared to be Filipino.

Dan

 

[commenter]

Right. Just to give a more succinct answer to your original question:

Valid/invalid depends on whether the effects of the sacrament actually happened or not. For our assurance, God has made it so the sacraments “work” if the proper matter and form are observed by the proper minister. The worst priest in the world, or even one forbidden to act as a priest by Rome, can still validly confect the Eucharist. A bishop in schism or otherwise acting against directives from higher up can still validly ordain real priests and even other bishops (as happened when the SSPX was founded).

Licit/illicit refers to whether an act was performed according to the laws and rules of the Catholic Church. A priest who adds or subtracts elements from the Mass is acting illicitly but would still confect the Eucharist validly as long as the consecration is intact and the proper matter is used. The priest and bishop in the above example would also be acting illicitly. The Vatican may punish them with various penalties, but it cannot revoke their ordination or declare their valid sacraments to be invalid.

That’s why, in the eyes of the Cathoic Church, the Orthodox churches have valid orders and other valid sacraments even though we have been out of communion with each other for almost a thousand years. As long as it maintains apostolic succession, the Chinese patriotic church would be the same way, in schism from Rome but maintaining valid sacraments.

True. But to me there is also the question of prudence. The EO have “churches” as recognized by Rome, as opposed to “ecclesial communities” which Protestants have. They are not “in communion” with Rome, but considered a friendly partner. They don’t claim to be the RCC. They have apostolic succession not just as individual bishops but the churches themselves. I think it would not just be allowed, but strongly encouraged, to attend their Divine Liturgy when no Catholic Mass is available.

The Chinese Patriotic Church, and SSPX, are not recognized as “churches”. They do not trace back as communities to apostolic times, but say they are part of the RCC. There is a ambiguity present in attending there, which is not present in attending EO. I think the ambiguity is greater for attending the Chinese Patriotic Church, because they claim to have their own laity. So, even though the thread is only about valid and licit, I think prudence of attending/not attending, and scandal, is another factor. Consider the impact our attendance has on other laity; and on the “underground church”.

 

[user1234]

Any marriage or confession to any of these priests would be invalid. This is because the validly (but illicitly) ordained priest doesn’t have the permission from Rome to hear confessions or marry anyone.

 

[Fuerza]

Although you’re question has apparently been answered, I’ll give a secular world scenario which serves to demonstrate how this principle is in effect even outside the Church. Fire Marshals employed by the City of New York are classified as police officers under the NYS Criminal Procedure Law. They have full authority to make arrests and issue summonses for any violation of law, as do all police in NYS. Their department policy, however, dictates that outside of life-threatening emergencies, they only effect arrests for fire/arson-related crimes.

Let’s say that a fire marshal is working one day and witnesses a hand to hand drug deal on a street corner. He chases down the dealer and arrests him for the crime of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance. In the strictest terms the marshal’s actions were in violation of department policy (illicit). He may possibly be suspended or docked vacation days for this violation. The arrest, however, was completely within his legal authority as a lawfully “ordained” police officer (valid) and the suspect will still have to appear in court regardless of what happens to the marshal.

The same principle applies to priests or bishops who, while validly ordained, are acting contrary to Church law.

 

[Brendan]

Hello,

When I was over there (in Guangzhou, to be specific), I was surprised to find myself within walking distance of “Our Lady of Lourdes” Catholic Church and even more surprised to see that an English Mass was on the regular schedule. So, I went. I didn’t receive Communion, however.

The priest was European. Most of the people in the pews appeared to be Filipino.

Dan

This is not uncommon. Most of the large cities have bishops that are approved by both Rome and the government.

My brother lives in Nanjing, and the bishop there is in communion with Rome. The Cathedral has a Sunday afternoon Mass in English, commonly said by a priest from Wales. It is both valid and licit.