What makes a Mass illicit?

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

ClemtheCatholic

Guest
Does a single illicit act on the Priest’s part render the entire Mass illicit? Are the specific rules for all this?

Thanks!
ClemtheCatholic 🙂
 
40.png
St_Hilary:
If the priest was ordained with (name removed by moderator)ediments and not telling the bishop, this wouold make the mass illicit and invalid.

If the priest doesn’t sday the proper words at consecration, this makes the mass iollicit and invalid.

Or, if he adds something of his own during the consecration–iololicit and invalid.

God bless you know
 
ClemtheCatholic said:
Does a single illicit act on the Priest’s part render the entire Mass illicit? Are the specific rules for all this?

Thanks!
ClemtheCatholic 🙂
Click to expand...
The Mass can be illicit when the priest severely strays from the rubrics, and adds something of his own or subtracts some of the parts.

The only part of the mass, that if changed, will render the mass invalid, is the consecration. If the priest does any changes here, transubstantiation did not happen.

Other changes, however, are only illicit.
 
St_Hilary said:
If the priest was ordained with (name removed by moderator)ediments and not telling the bishop, this wouold make the mass illicit and invalid.
Click to expand...
It makes the Mass illicit, not invalid.
If the priest doesn’t sday the proper words at consecration, this makes the mass iollicit and invalid.
Click to expand...
Correct.
Or, if he adds something of his own during the consecration–iololicit and invalid.
Click to expand...
God bless you know
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. For as long as he says “This is my body…This is … my blood.” is remains valid.
 
dshix said:
The Mass can be illicit when the priest severely strays from the rubrics, and adds something of his own or subtracts some of the parts.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say the Mass is illicit if the priest is in good standing, but each individual violation would be illicit. If the priest has an impediment, such as excommunication, suspension or is laicized, it makes the Mass illicit, but not invalid.
The only part of the mass, that if changed, will render the mass invalid, is the consecration. If the priest does any changes here, transubstantiation did not happen.
Click to expand...
There are two others that are generally accepted that can also make the Mass invalid even if there is a valid Consecration. Those are the Offertory and the Communion of the priest. Even if the Consecration was properly said, the common opinion is that the Eucharist is present but without the other two, the Sacrifice has not been offered, and therefore no Mass.
 
porthos11 said:
I wouldn’t say the Mass is illicit if the priest is in good standing, but each individual violation would be illicit. If the priest has an impediment, such as excommunication, suspension or is laicized, it makes the Mass illicit, but not invalid.

There are two others that are generally accepted that can also make the Mass invalid even if there is a valid Consecration. Those are the Offertory and the Communion of the priest. Even if the Consecration was properly said, the common opinion is that the Eucharist is present but without the other two, the Sacrifice has not been offered, and therefore no Mass.
Click to expand...
You are correct. Thank you for reminding me.
 
So would the Priest for no reason missing the Gospel make a Mass illicit?
 
If this happened on a weekday should the faithful leave the Mass right away and report the affair to the local Bishop? 🙂
 
ClemtheCatholic said:
If this happened on a weekday should the faithful leave the Mass right away and report the affair to the local Bishop? 🙂
Click to expand...
No! I would first question the priest.why are people so quick to go running to the bishop. He has bigger things to concern himself about.
 
ClemtheCatholic said:
Does a single illicit act on the Priest’s part render the entire Mass illicit? Are the specific rules for all this?

Thanks!
ClemtheCatholic 🙂
Click to expand...
Anything which makes the mass in violation of canon law.

This can be (but isn’t limited to):
  • Said without permission of the pastor, chaplain, or bishop-ordinary
  • said in violation of a suspension
  • violating the rubrics
  • said without vestments
  • said with wrong vestments (such as a cope instead of a chasuble)
  • said with improper vessels
  • said in violation of a restriction of faculties
  • said according to the wrong missal (Such as using the Lutheran Missal)
  • uses bread with more than wheat flour and water. (Wheat flour, water, yeast, and salt for certain Rites’ Divine Worship Services)*
  • uses wine with more than grapes as the base fruit
  • uses raisin wine.**
None of those make it invalid.
Almost Anything which makes it invalid is also illicit… including…
  • lacking the words of institution
  • celebrant isn’t a priest †
  • celebrant was invalidly ordained
  • Host isn’t made from wheat
  • wine is not made from grape (or raisin)**
  • Celebrant states it isn’t valid
  • grape juice isn’t fermented***
  • Many of the Eastern Churches in union use leavened bread. Leaven is not permitted in the Roman Mass, but does not invalidate the Sacrifice if used. The requirement for validity is wheat flour. For licity in the Roman Rite, wheat and water only, perhaps with a glaze of wheat starch.
    ** Raisin Wine is illicit, but valid, as raisins are grapes. It was used a lot by priests in the Soviet Gulags.
    *** Mustum is permitted in special cases, but it’s fermented slightly. Totally unfermented is invalid.
    † Seminarians are permitted to practice - the so-called “dry mass” - but have to do so in such a manner as to neither confuse the faithful nor cause scandal. This is a case of licit but invalid…
 
Aramis said:
Anything which makes the mass in violation of canon law.

This can be (but isn’t limited to):
  • Said without permission of the pastor, chaplain, or bishop-ordinary
  • said in violation of a suspension
  • violating the rubrics
  • said without vestments
  • said with wrong vestments (such as a cope instead of a chasuble)
  • said with improper vessels
  • said in violation of a restriction of faculties
  • said according to the wrong missal (Such as using the Lutheran Missal)
  • uses bread with more than wheat flour and water. (Wheat flour, water, yeast, and salt for certain Rites’ Divine Worship Services)*
  • uses wine with more than grapes as the base fruit
  • uses raisin wine.**
None of those make it invalid.
Almost Anything which makes it invalid is also illicit… including…
  • lacking the words of institution
  • celebrant isn’t a priest †
  • celebrant was invalidly ordained
  • Host isn’t made from wheat
  • wine is not made from grape (or raisin)**
  • Celebrant states it isn’t valid
  • grape juice isn’t fermented***
  • Many of the Eastern Churches in union use leavened bread. Leaven is not permitted in the Roman Mass, but does not invalidate the Sacrifice if used. The requirement for validity is wheat flour. For licity in the Roman Rite, wheat and water only, perhaps with a glaze of wheat starch.
    ** Raisin Wine is illicit, but valid, as raisins are grapes. It was used a lot by priests in the Soviet Gulags.
    *** Mustum is permitted in special cases, but it’s fermented slightly. Totally unfermented is invalid.
    † Seminarians are permitted to practice - the so-called “dry mass” - but have to do so in such a manner as to neither confuse the faithful nor cause scandal. This is a case of licit but invalid…
Click to expand...
So, equipped with this information, what level of culpability descends on someone who knowingly attends an illicit Mass? Asked another way, while an individual is not responsible for the priest’s illicit actions / choices, once that individual KNOWS that what the priest is doing is wrong, is it incumbent on that individual to leave the Mass so as not to participate in an illicit liturgy?

And are there degrees to all this? For example, based on what you said regarding vestments (and as has been covered in other threads), we know that it is illicit for the priest to wear his stole outside the chasuble - and thus presumably that Mass is therefore illicit. Would this “stole situation” make it proper for an individual to walk out of that Mass? And if not, how about a situation where the priest violated some other, perhaps more important rubric, such as using leavened bread in a Latin Rite Mass?
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
So, equipped with this information, what level of culpability descends on someone who knowingly attends an illicit Mass? Asked another way, while an individual is not responsible for the priest’s illicit actions / choices, once that individual KNOWS that what the priest is doing is wrong, is it incumbent on that individual to leave the Mass so as not to participate in an illicit liturgy?

And are there degrees to all this? For example, based on what you said regarding vestments (and as has been covered in other threads), we know that it is illicit for the priest to wear his stole outside the chasuble - and thus presumably that Mass is therefore illicit. Would this “stole situation” make it proper for an individual to walk out of that Mass? And if not, how about a situation where the priest violated some other, perhaps more important rubric, such as using leavened bread in a Latin Rite Mass?
Click to expand...
You should not leave mass because it is illicit, unless it is so bad that it distracts from the liturgy, and you have assurance that you can make it to another mass to fulfill your Sunday obligation. Do not let an illicit mass stand between you and God.

However, do speak to the pastor about it, and bring your concerns to his attention.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
So, equipped with this information, what level of culpability descends on someone who knowingly attends an illicit Mass? Asked another way, while an individual is not responsible for the priest’s illicit actions / choices, once that individual KNOWS that what the priest is doing is wrong, is it incumbent on that individual to leave the Mass so as not to participate in an illicit liturgy?

And are there degrees to all this? For example, based on what you said regarding vestments (and as has been covered in other threads), we know that it is illicit for the priest to wear his stole outside the chasuble - and thus presumably that Mass is therefore illicit. Would this “stole situation” make it proper for an individual to walk out of that Mass? And if not, how about a situation where the priest violated some other, perhaps more important rubric, such as using leavened bread in a Latin Rite Mass?
Click to expand...
It is never proper to be disrespectful of a valid mass, even if it is illicit. If you choose to leave, you should do so respectfully and without drawing attention in so doing.

It is my understanding that leaving because it was illicit does not render your obligation fulfilled. It is explicit that one can fulfill one’s obligation at an illicit mass - the response to the dubia about SSPX masses are clear that their illicit masses (since they are all suspended) will fulfill your obligation.

It boils down to this: you are not culpable for another’s error, only for supporting them in that error or directing them to take that error.

If you go in good faith, you’re not obliged to leave. If you go knowing it will be illicit, but can’t find and/or can’t get to a more licit mass, it’s better to go to an illicit mass than not to go.

The stole is a minor issue - especially since it was, for a while, permitted by some national conferences, and is still permitted by some ordinaries.

The use of leavened bread is minor - it’s a common issue in the persecutions in various places, and a priest using what bread is available.

Per Redeptionis Sacramentum:
6. Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

Note that obligation is to report. Not to avoid, not to chastise, but to report. Also, note: the Eucharist needs to be protected from every irreverence… a valid but illicit liturgy needs be treated with reverence.

Also, it’s important to note that what is illicit for most of the church may not be illicit for all of the church.

EG:
If you attend a Syrian Catholic or Maronite parish - they have no bar on leaven in the host. They don’t normally use leavened hosts, but may. A Byzantine parish using unleavened hosts is, however, a liturgical abuse, because the Byzantine Churches in union are required to use leavened bread.

Also, not every apparent abuse is actually an abuse.

EG: A mass said without a crucifix is illicit - but just because you don’t see one doesn’t mean the priest doesn’t have an icon of the crucifixion lain upon the altar or a cruciix laid flat upon the altar.

You’re not expected to know the ins and outs of all of what is licit or not. You are expected, if you know something to be illicit, to report it to the bishop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top