Valid (but illicit) --VS.-- Invalid

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Dude

Guest
So can someone explain this. I see it all the time (relating to Sacraments) and I dont get the difference. In the end its either valid or its not, what does illicit have to do with this?

The person who is illegally doing something isnt really stopped, they do it validly so they dont care if its illicit or not.
 
It’s a matter of formula and law.

Let’s take the Eucharist for example.

The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are a group of priests who have been excommunicated latae sententiae, that is, by being a member of this group or receiving Orders from this group, they are excommunicated and are not allowed to celebrate the Eucharist.

HOWEVER, when these priests celebrate Mass and pronounce the words of consecration, the consecration occurs. Their orders are completely valid, but they are not in communion with Rome, so their celebrating the Eucharist is illicit. Compare this to the Anglican Church, whose Orders Leo XIII declared invalid because Henry VIII changed the FORMULA of ordination. Had the Anglican Church maintained the same ordination formula in their Book of Common Prayer, their Orders would be valid (except those “Orders” of women), because the FORMULA would be valid: A validly conscrated priest using a valid formula to ordain a validly qualified man.

For a sacrament to be invalid, there must have been a serious flaw to the formula of its occurance. For example, if a priest changes the words of the consecration, then the sacrament isn’t valid and no consecration occurs.

Adam
 
40.png
NetNuncio:
It’s a matter of formula and law.

Let’s take the Eucharist for example.

The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are a group of priests who have been excommunicated latae sententiae, that is, by being a member of this group or receiving Orders from this group, they are excommunicated and are not allowed to celebrate the Eucharist.

HOWEVER, when these priests celebrate Mass and pronounce the words of consecration, the consecration occurs. Their orders are completely valid, but they are not in communion with Rome, so their celebrating the Eucharist is illicit. Compare this to the Anglican Church, whose Orders Leo XIII declared invalid because Henry VIII changed the FORMULA of ordination. Had the Anglican Church maintained the same ordination formula in their Book of Common Prayer, their Orders would be valid (except those “Orders” of women), because the FORMULA would be valid: A validly conscrated priest using a valid formula to ordain a validly qualified man.

For a sacrament to be invalid, there must have been a serious flaw to the formula of its occurance. For example, if a priest changes the words of the consecration, then the sacrament isn’t valid and no consecration occurs.

Adam
Click to expand...
So a SSPX priest cant partake in the Eucharist even though they said they words of consecration? That sounds odd. What stops them from partaking? As for ordination what stops them from ordaining every male they come across on the street?

About the Anglican thing, I didnt know their Orders were invalid. Do you have more info on what was changed by Henry to make them invalid?
 
Catholic Dude:
So can someone explain this. I see it all the time (relating to Sacraments) and I dont get the difference. In the end its either valid or its not, what does illicit have to do with this?

The person who is illegally doing something isnt really stopped, they do it validly so they dont care if its illicit or not.
Click to expand...
Stolen money is illicit; counterfeit money is invalid.
 
Joe Kelley:
Stolen money is illicit; counterfeit money is invalid.
Click to expand...
Good job, Joe! So simple. And if you use it, it could get you into trouble.
 
Joe Kelley:
Stolen money is illicit; counterfeit money is invalid.
Click to expand...
Im still confused. The person using the stolen money doesnt care, its no different than other money. They can go on with their plans spending the money like normal. The Church knows its stolen as does the robber, but that doesnt stop the robber from spending valid tender.
 
sometimes definitions help

Illicit
ILLIC’IT, a. [L. illicitus; in and licitus, from liceo, to permit.]

Not permitted or allowed; prohibited; unlawful; as an illicit trade; illicit intercourse or connection.

and

Invalid
INVAL’ID, a. [L. invalidus; in and validus, strong, from valeo, to be strong, to avail.]
  1. Weak, of no force, weight or cogency.
  2. In law, having no force, effect or efficacy; void; null; as an invalid contract or agreement.
you see something that is invalid is void of effect, that is the bread and wine are still bread and wine, if it is illicit the conceration still occurs but it is done without union with the church
 
Unless the change is “Shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins” changed into “Shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven”. Then it is ok.😉
40.png
NetNuncio:
. For example, if a priest changes the words of the consecration, then the sacrament isn’t valid and no consecration occurs.

Adam
Click to expand...
 
I have been reading Canon Ripley “This is the Faith” and the chapters on Holy Orders deals with the validity of Anglican Orders.

My understanding is that Henry or his appointees changed the form thereby all subsequent ordinations were invalid. Quite some time later this form was ammended but by that time all validly consecrated bishops who had gone over to the Church of England had died so therefore, no-one was left to consecrate new clergy.

The SPPX has 4 bishops consecrated by the late Archbishop Lefevebre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, which has been endlessly argued and dissected by canon lawyers etc. The priest of the SPPX are all validly ordained but are deemed tobe disobedient …on which I will not say anything more .
 
Catholic Dude:
Im still confused. The person using the stolen money doesnt care, its no different than other money. They can go on with their plans spending the money like normal. The Church knows its stolen as does the robber, but that doesnt stop the robber from spending valid tender.
Click to expand...
Let’s look at another example: the so-called “ordination” of women. The recent ceremony of several women who were supposedly “ordained” and then acted as priests. These “ordinations” were invalid (never happened, even though the ceremony looked proper). They may, in the future, attempt to celebrate “mass”, but it won’t really be Mass (invalid), even if it looks the same.

On the other hand, the ordinations of the SSPX priests are valid (they actually do occur), yet they are also illicit (done without permission). Any Masses that are celebrated by them using the proper matter and form are valid, but illicit.
 
Valid means : the sacrament “works.”
Invalid means the sacrament does not work. It has no effect.

Licit: It is done the way it is supposed to be done.
Illicit: Something about the way in which it was done was not according to canon law.

Valid but illicit: It works, but you should not have done it that way.

Schismatic bishop Lefebvre ordains an SSPX priest as a bishop against the pope’s direct orders. Valid but illicit. It works, but it’s not lawful.

Schismatic bishop ordains a woman as a priest. Invalid and illict.
(It’s not lawful and it doesn’t work.)
 
Illicit means contrary to canon law. Invalid means not real (i.e., no sacrament occurred). Female ordination is invalid (a man is necessary). When an Anglican priest consecrates the Eucharist, it remains bread. Why? Because he/she is not a real priest. Why? Not ordained by a real bishop. Why? Get your history book out. I think I’m safe in saying that anything not valid would likely also be illicit, but not everything illicit is also invalid, as others have pointed out.
 
Catholic Dude:
Im still confused. The person using the stolen money doesnt care, its no different than other money. They can go on with their plans spending the money like normal. The Church knows its stolen as does the robber, but that doesnt stop the robber from spending valid tender.
Click to expand...
The illicit part of the stolen money was the act of stealing it. But it’s still real money (i.e., valid money).

The counterfeit money is not real money (i.e, invalid money). It would also be illicit (i.e., against the law) to make it or try to spend it…exchanging fake money for real goods.
 
A slight correction: Henry VIII didn’t change the ordinal, it was done by the reformers under his son, Edward VI (that’s why it was called the “Edwardian Ordinal”). Henry didn’t change the Church in England…except for making himself “Supreme Head of the Church in England” and totally stealing all the Church’s property (which, I’ll grant you, was a big change!).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top