T
TBolt1000T
Guest
I’m just curious. I’ve heard quite a bit about invalid Masses and invalid Eucharist here lately. What are some things that can make a Mass or Eucharist invalid?
What are some things that could make a Mass or Eucharist invalid?
- Status
B
benedictgal
Guest
The lack of valid matter, meaning the composition of the bread and the wine used for the Holy Sacrifice, would render it invalid. Furthermore, altering the words of the consecration would also invalidate the Mass. Having a former priest “celebrate” the Mass would also render it invalid because he does not have the facultires to do this. The only faculties that he would have, in the event of a grave emergency, would be to hear the confession of a person who is dying.
B
Brendan
Guest
The faculties in this case only apply to licitity. A laicized priest can confect the Eucharist if the other conditions are met ( matter, intent and form). But confecting the Eucharist in such a way, out side of grave need, is illicit and highly displeasing to God.
To the OP, in addition to what BG said, the Mass would be invalid of the celebrant was not a validly ordained priest. Examples would be if a layman, deacon or female attempted to say Mass. The only supernatural effect would be grave sin.
W
WhollyRoamin
Guest
There is also the matter of intent, which as laymen, we’ll never fully know. A priest must intend to consecrate a host. A priest who has lost the faith but goes through the motions might offer many many many invalid Masses to the blissfully ignorant congregation.
Likewise, a “practice Mass” where Father does not intend to consecrate the Eucharist, but holds a host and says the words of consecration is not a valid Mass.
Likewise, a “practice Mass” where Father does not intend to consecrate the Eucharist, but holds a host and says the words of consecration is not a valid Mass.
P
passus
Guest
A Mass is not “valid” or “invalid.” Rather, it can be licit (in conformity with the law) or illicit. The Eucharist, on the other hand, can be either valid (Jesus really is present) or invalid.
Illicit Vs. Valid by Jimmy Akin
Illicit Vs. Valid by Jimmy Akin
S
SenorSalsa
Guest
Form
Matter
Intent
Those are the three things that need to be there for the Eucharist to be validly confected.
The Form is the proper words of institution “This is my body… This is my blood…”
Matter is wheat bread and grape wine
Intent is the intent to transubstantiate
Somewhere in there, probably under matter, is that it must be a validly ordained Priest.
thats it. Everything else just determines licit or illicitness
Matter
Intent
Those are the three things that need to be there for the Eucharist to be validly confected.
The Form is the proper words of institution “This is my body… This is my blood…”
Matter is wheat bread and grape wine
Intent is the intent to transubstantiate
Somewhere in there, probably under matter, is that it must be a validly ordained Priest.
thats it. Everything else just determines licit or illicitness
W
WhollyRoamin
Guest
That’s not what Akin says at all, he says that a Mass can be valid/invalid and licit/illicit.
You can have a licit, invalid Mass (say, Father has lost the faith and did not intend to confect the host); likewise you can have a valid, illicit Mass (say, Father is not laicized but his faculties are suspended).
Akin suggests a third question, sinful/nonsinful, but that’s really just a result of either preceeding question.
But you are not far off track in one sense: a lot of people who crow about invalid Masses are really just observing illicit Masses-- things like crazy liturgies that stray from Church instruction on a proper Mass. You can have your altar boys in Mr. Peanut suits-- its illicit, but not a matter of validity.
P
passus
Guest
Where in that post does Jimmy Akin once refer to a Mass as being potentially “valid” or “invalid?”
Nevertheless, from This Rock:Masses are not valid or invalid, they are licit (in conformity with the law) or illicit (not in conformity with the law). It is the consecration of the Eucharist *within *the Mass that can be valid or invalid (Source).
I hope that clears things up.
God bless.
W
WhollyRoamin
Guest
Are we reading the same link?
Jimmy Akin:
Akin is saying that both issues: validity and licitity are a concern-- not just validity (which is as far as most people get on the subject).
If you read that section again, it is answer a specific question about the validity of a particular Mass-- which is answered that the Mass is valid but illicit. Do not take the quote out of context, you’re greatly changing the point of the text.
If you’d like an authoritative source about the sacrafice of the Mass, check out the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917): newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm
It spills a lot of font on matters of validity.
P
passus
Guest
Invalid Masses by Jimmy Akin
A
Aramis
Guest
No valid priest.
Anything other than wheat, water, and yeast used in the bread.*
Lacking the institution narrative and/or invocation of the Holy Spirit (Epiclesis).
*Many of the Eastern churches in union do use leavened bread.
The Roman Canon does not have an explicit epiclesis (although there is an invocation during the Offertory)
The Anaphora of Addai and Mari does not have an explicit institution narrative in the Assyrian Church, but is still considered valid by Rome.
L
Lujack
Guest
That’s not the case. His intention has to be to do what the Church requires him to do. Even if he doesn’t believe in the Real Presence, but still intends to follow the rubrics for a valid Mass, that’s sufficient intention.
M
m134e5
Guest
- The priest is not validly ordained. This happens in some sedevacantist groups as well as any Anglican or protestant church whose clerics are not validly ordained.
- The bread and wine used have anything in them other than the required ingredients. Sometimes local groups will use altar breads for their “Masses” that have honey, sugar, or other ingredients in them other than wheat flour and water, and wine made from grapes with no additives. In the Eastern rites, they used leavened bread. I’m not sure what exactly goes into their altar bread. I do know, however, that it is gravely illicit (I don’t THINK it is invalid though- I have heard differing opinions from different theologians on that matter- and both theologians are pretty orthodox) to use leavened bread in the Latin Rite (and conversely, I would assume, to use unleavened bread in any of the Eastern Rites that traditionally have used leavened bread).
- The priest does not say the proper words of institution. I think there are some Rites that don’t exactly say the words of institution, but the intent is still there. I know that for the Latin Rite, the Mass is invalid if the proper words of institution are not said.
- The priest does not intend to consecrate the bread and wine. This one is pretty self-explanatory
P
passus
Guest
Uh, can you elaborate? Where do you go to Mass that the priest tries to consecrate cake?Using cake is one - which means that millions of Masses have in fact been no such thing. So the stipends for them have in effect been stolen. This is a reason to come down on the bishops concerned like a thousand tons of bricks.
It won’t happen.
C
Cluny
Guest
You can have a licit, invalid Mass (say, Father has lost the faith and did not intend to confect the host); likewise you can have a valid, illicit Mass (say, Father is not laicized but his faculties are suspended).
If it’s invalid, it’s automatically illicit.
If it’s invalid, it’s automatically illicit.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Thank you for correcting me. I was unclear about the status of a laicized priest, other than the situatino concerning the faculty to hear confession in a grave (near death) circumstance.
B
benedictgal
Guest
The poster simply means that if the priest tried consecrating any form of bread that was not the correct formula, that would be invalid because the matter used didn’t meet the requriements for validity.
W
WhollyRoamin
Guest
Good distinction. But if he has no intention other than to collect a paycheck, it’d be invalid. But as a donut eating Catholic in the pews, I won’t know either way.
- Status