What constitutes an ILLICIT Mass?

[DeepeningFaith]

I am just wondering what constitutes an illicit Mass? Not invalidates it. Does simply not following the GIRM classify as making the Mass illicit. I know that by not following the GIRM the Mass is technically liturgically incorrect, but does that mean it is illicit? And what about following the directives of the diocese? Please use sources and cite them.

Thanks!

 

[LilyM]

The answers are pretty much all in Canon Law - in the general sections about the sacraments as well as the ones specifically relating to the Eucharist.

There are three things that make for a valid sacrament (in this case we’re discussing the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which for present purposes is synonymous with the Mass).

1. Valid form. Meaning the correct form of words must be used. The words ‘this is my body … this is my blood’ must be said by the priest. The authority for this proposition is the most difficult to pin down. Try this article: newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm - you need to scroll down to the section headed ‘the sacramental form or the words of consecration’.
2. Valid matter. Meaning in this case (as Canon Law prescribes), the bread and wine must be pure wheat flour, unleavened, not mixed with additives such as honey, oil or whatnot, or at least not in discernible quantities. Ie if the bread TASTES like it has honey, olive oil or the like in it, you know it’s invalid. From the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 924 §1. The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed.

§2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling.

§3. The wine must be natural from the fruit of the vine and not spoiled …

Can. 926 According to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread in the eucharistic celebration whenever he offers it.

Can. 927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.

1. Valid intent. The priest must intend to consecrate the Eucharist.

From the Canons of the Council of Trent (Seventh Session):

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.

This one is next door to impossible for a bystander to discern, so valid intent is presumed unless the contrary can be conclusively proven.

It goes without saying a valid minister is a fourth requirement - ie a layperson (someone not ordained) or a woman (a person incapable of being validly ordained) cannot confect the Eucharist:

From the Catechism:
1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.

And from Canon Law:
Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone.

Can. 900 §1. The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.

Apart from these requirements, EVERY other breach of the rubrics or canons makes the sacrament merely illicit and not invalid.

 

[MusicMan]

I don’t believe that the Mass itself can be rendered “illicit.” It can be made “invalid” through certain illicit acts, but the Mass itself cannot be illicit. Actions within the Mass are what can be considered illicit.

Skipping the Gloria on Sundays (excpet for Advent and Lent where the Gloria is omitted) would be an illicit action, but the Mass wouldn’t be illicit.

Skipping the Creed on Sundays would be an illicit action, but the Mass wouldn’t be illicit.

The celebrant leaving the distribution of Holy Communion to lay people (unless he had good cause) would be an illicit action, but the Mass wouldn’t be illicit.

Even vesting as circus clowns would only be an illicit action.

And adding all these together still wouldn’t invalidate the Mass. They would only be illicit practices within the Mass.

 

[Corki]

I don’t believe that the Mass itself can be rendered “illicit.” It can be made “invalid” through certain illicit acts, but the Mass itself cannot be illicit. Actions within the Mass are what can be considered illicit.

Skipping the Gloria on Sundays (excpet for Advent and Lent where the Gloria is omitted) would be an illicit action, but the Mass wouldn’t be illicit.

Skipping the Creed on Sundays would be an illicit action, but the Mass wouldn’t be illicit.

The celebrant leaving the distribution of Holy Communion to lay people (unless he had good cause) would be an illicit action, but the Mass wouldn’t be illicit.

Even vesting as circus clowns would only be an illicit action.

And adding all these together still wouldn’t invalidate the Mass. They would only be illicit practices within the Mass.

I tend to agree with you that those actions would be illicit but they wouldn’t make the Mass illicit. I don’t agree that a Mass cannot be rendered illicit.

For example, a Mass offered by a valid priest who does not have the required faculties from the ordinary would be illicit. A Mass offered in an irregular place (ie the beach) without the express permission of the ordinary would be an illicit Mass.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

A Mass celebrated by a priest who is suspended or has no faculties from the local ordinary (except for very special circumstances).

 

[JimG]

A Mass celebrated by a priest who is suspended or has no faculties from the local ordinary (except for very special circumstances).

That’s a good example. Illicit means “not lawful.” If a priest decided on a whim to celebrate Mass on a picnic table while out with his relatives enjoying a summer afternoon, the Mass would be illicit in many ways, even while being valid.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\I don’t believe that the Mass itself can be rendered “illicit.” It can be made “invalid” through certain illicit acts, but the Mass itself cannot be illicit. Actions within the Mass are what can be considered illicit.\

**There is a fourth thing that would render a Mass invalid–not having a validly ordained priest or bishop as celebrant.

But no illicit action, or even combination of them makes a Mass invalid–only the four defects mentioned. (Lack of minister, matter, form, or intention.)

However, an entire mass may be illicit if celebrated by a priest who has been canonically barred from celebrating.

In this case, barring an emergency, the Priest celebrates to his own damnation.**

 

[JimG]

However, an entire mass may be illicit if celebrated by a priest who has been canonically barred from celebrating.

Exactly.
Of course a Mass may be illicit while not being invalid.

If I recall correctly, all the Masses celebrated by SSPX priests (who were ordained illicitly but validly by bishops who were forbidden to ordain) are illicit, while being valid.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Exactly.
Of course a Mass may be illicit while not being invalid.

If I recall correctly, all the Masses celebrated by SSPX priests (who were ordained illicitly but validly by bishops who were forbidden to ordain) are illicit, while being valid.

In fact, on two separate occasions this year alone, Pope Benedict has said that the clergy of SSPX do NOT exercise a legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church.

 

[FrDavid96]

That’s a good example. Illicit means “not lawful.” If a priest decided on a whim to celebrate Mass on a picnic table while out with his relatives enjoying a summer afternoon, the Mass would be illicit in many ways, even while being valid.

Not necessarily. In general a priest who has faculties from his own bishop can celebrate Mass just about anywhere–so long as it’s a dignified place. A picnic table might or might not be a dignified place; even though it might seem at first-glance to not be that. If the table is clean, the priest brings altar cloths, candles, chalice, and everything else necessary for Mass, it might be completely licit. Most bishops permit the priest himself to determine if an outdoor Mass is appropriate–as long as it’s not done on a regular basis.

 

[JimG]

Thanks for the clarification, Fr. David.

 

[Digitonomy]

A mass celebrated on Good Friday would be illicit in most cases.