Valid or not?

[Evan]

I was at an event where someone posed a question to a very faithful and true to the rubrics and knowledgeable about Church teaching priest, asking at what point a mass was invalid.
He said that as long as there is:
-a validly ordained priest
-bread of wheat and wine of grapes
-the priest says “this is my body” and “this is my blood” (he mentioned that stuttering or accidentally misspeaking (ie theese is my body) as long as the priest intended to use the right words and one could reasonably understand the meaning were okay)

then it is a valid mass. Even if, (to quote him) “the priest is dressed like barney and people are dancing on the altar”.

He did suggest that anyone encountering such a mass should send a letter to the bishop and find a new parish, though.

I don’t know if the words of institution are enough for a valid confection of the Eucharist. For they are not included in one form of the Divine Liturgy (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_Addai_and_Mari). So I would say the minimum words to KNOW you have a valid confection is the Canon of the Mass (the Eucharistic Prayer). Perhaps the priest could stop after the words of consecration if the Eucharistic Prayer that is being used has these words included.

If I were a priest, and I was to do the absolutely forbidden practice of only confecting the Eucharist, I would want to include calling down the Holy Spirit (epiclesis en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiclesis) to make these gifts holy through the words of Institution.

 

[St_Stephen_1]

I don’t know if the words of institution are enough for a valid confection of the Eucharist.

I don’t think they are enough. There are other requirements: priest has the right intent; the correct matter must be used. Linked to the priest having the right intent, it must be a priest who is validly ordained and has faculties from his bishop to celebrate Mass.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

A friend of mine reported that she went to a Catholic Parish out of town while on vacation for Mass. She said that the priest received AFTER everyone else had received. Is this Mass valid? I have never heard that before.

It may be that your friend saw the priest consuming the remaining blood/body after communion was complete. She may have just missed him receiving before distributing. I have seen a priest take only a potion of the large host and intinct it to receive. If you looking right when he receives it is easy to miss.

The good news is that we are taught to always assume validity. Usually lay people don’t have any control over the things that make the confection of the Eucharist/Mass valid or invalid. (Unless you are the person baking the honey bread or buying the sherry wine.)

Sadly I don’t attend the parish in my town because the priest brings all the kids up to gather around the altar while he prays the prayer of consecration. At no time does he have them kneel, bow, or anything. They just stand there. Then he adds things in, sort of winging the prayer. It drives me crazy. Then he tells everyone to hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer which I will not do. Where is the Bishop???

You can attend Mass at any parish you like. If your priest does bring the kids up to the altar (teens or little kids?) every week, you should ask him about it. The LifeTeen organization no longer does that (at the request of the Vatican several years ago) so maybe he just needs to get the memo.

 

[St_Stephen_1]

Let’s say it’s Mass on a Sunday of Advent. The Gloria is sung (should be omitted on Advent Sundays). There is only one reading before the Gospel (there should be two on Sundays). The priest doesn’t give a homily (required on Sundays) but let’s the local youth leader make an appeal for money (not permitted). The Creed is omitted (required on Sundays). The priest gives Communion under one species only, the sacred host (this is permitted) and he, too, only receives the sacred host (he should receive the precious blood as well), and he receives after everyone else (he should receive first).

The above described Mass would certainly be illicit. It might also be invalid. Now, if it’s invalid, and it’s the only Mass we go to in order to fulfil that Sunday’s obligation have we not fulfilled our obligation? Do we need to go to another Mass to fulfil our obligation? What if we don’t know it’s invalid? Is this a case where the church supplies?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Let’s say it’s Mass on a Sunday of Advent. The Gloria is sung (should be omitted on Advent Sundays). There is only one reading before the Gospel (there should be two on Sundays). The priest doesn’t give a homily (required on Sundays) but let’s the local youth leader make an appeal for money (not permitted). The Creed is omitted (required on Sundays). The priest gives Communion under one species only, the sacred host (this is permitted) and he, too, only receives the sacred host (he should receive the precious blood as well), and he receives after everyone else (he should receive first).

The above described Mass would certainly be illicit. It might also be invalid. Now, if it’s invalid, and it’s the only Mass we go to in order to fulfil that Sunday’s obligation have we not fulfilled our obligation? Do we need to go to another Mass to fulfil our obligation? What if we don’t know it’s invalid? Is this a case where the church supplies?

The lay person doesn’t have control over most of that (except the kid speaking, but he probably doesn’t know any better). The point is that the average layperson is NOT obligated by the Church to assess licity or even validity on any kind of scale and then further required to find and get to another Mass.

However, if a particular priest/parish continually has Masses like you described, we should follow the proper protocols to get it corrected. That may mean that in the interim we attend Mass somewhere else if possible.

The Church does not require anordinary lay person to have a seminary equivalent education, be versed in canon law or all the rubrics of the Mass. Even with all the experts and education on CAF we often can’t agree on what is OK and what isn’t!

 

[St_Stephen_1]

The lay person doesn’t have control over most of that (except the kid speaking, but he probably doesn’t know any better). The point is that the average layperson is NOT obligated by the Church to assess licity or even validity on any kind of scale and then further required to find and get to another Mass.

However, if a particular priest/parish continually has Masses like you described, we should follow the proper protocols to get it corrected. That may mean that in the interim we attend Mass somewhere else if possible.

The Church does not require anordinary lay person to have a seminary equivalent education, be versed in canon law or all the rubrics of the Mass. Even with all the experts and education on CAF we often can’t agree on what is OK and what isn’t!

I am not saying we should be the liturgy police. I would say we shouldn’t be the liturgy police. What I was asking is where does it leave us if a Mass is invalid? We have an obligation to go to Mass on Sundays and holy days. If we go to a Mass and it’s invalid where does that leave us? If the Mass is invalid have we not fulfilled our obligation? I know, but can’t explain it well, that if some mistakes are made with the sacraments, the “church provides” and we don’t miss out. In simple terms the sacraments are priest proof, God alone provides the sacraments.

 

[Phemie]

It may be that your friend saw the priest consuming the remaining blood/body after communion was complete. She may have just missed him receiving before distributing. I have seen a priest take only a potion of the large host and intinct it to receive. If you looking right when he receives it is easy to miss.

Or it may well be that her friend saw exactly what she thought she saw. I’ve seen it myself often enough, done by priests who used ‘politeness dictates that the host serve himself last’ as an excuse. Often in those situations, the faithful were given Communion first, then the EMHCs, followed at last by the priest.

It was common enough that a dubium was submitted to Rome which issued its response in the November-December 2008 of Notitiæ* (vol. 45, pg. 609) *See item here.

Question: Whether it is permitted for the Priest celebrant to communicate only after he has distributed the Holy Eucharist to the faithful, or whether he may distribute the Holy Eucharist and then afterwards communicate together with the people. Response: No, to both questions.

I’m surprised the question needed asking in 2008, considering # 97 of 2004’s Redemptionis Sacramentum.

[97.] A Priest must communicate at the altar at the moment laid down by the Missal each time he celebrates Holy Mass, and the concelebrants must communicate before they proceed with the distribution of Holy Communion. The Priest celebrant or a concelebrant is never to wait until the people’s Communion is concluded before receiving Communion himself.[183]

I shouldn’t be surprised though, since the priest who became our Pastor in the fall of 2004 reversed some of the things his predecessor had changed when RS was promulgated. He flatly refused to purify the vessels and ordered the EMHCs to resume doing so themselves.
%between%

 

[Ron_Conte]

I can’t find any magisterial documents using the terms valid or invalid to refer to the Mass.

In Redemptionis Sacramentum (CDW Instruction), valid and invalid are used to refer to Sacraments, and licit or illicit are used to refer to elements in the form of the Mass.

If the consecration of the Eucharist is invalid or does not occur, then there is no Mass at all. If there are problems with the form of the Mass, those elements in the form may be illicit, but there is nothing in any magisterial documents to say that an illicit element in the form makes the entire Mass “invalid”.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Or it may well be that her friend saw exactly what she thought she saw. I’ve seen it myself often enough, done by priests who used ‘politeness dictates that the host serve himself last’ as an excuse. Often in those situations, the faithful were given Communion first, then the EMHCs, followed at last by the priest.

It was common enough that a dubium was submitted to Rome which issued its response in the November-December 2008 of Notitiæ* (vol. 45, pg. 609) *See item here.

I’m surprised the question needed asking in 2008, considering # 97 of 2004’s Redemptionis Sacramentum.
I shouldn’t be surprised though, since the priest who became our Pastor in the fall of 2004 reversed some of the things his predecessor had changed when RS was promulgated. He flatly refused to purify the vessels and ordered the EMHCs to resume doing so themselves.
%between%

True. And I know you’ve had some serious problems with actual abuses and lax procedures in your area.

However, since the OP wasn’t there and is only going by what her friend reported (who may have been distracted without realizing it), I prefer to give the priest the benefit of the doubt.