What would constitute an invalid Mass?

[ConstantineTG]

I was a bit surprised by your response. I have given that four point list before in various posts and not had it contradicted before. Another post in this thread supports the list as does this website.

The four points you listed are for Sacraments. Since Mass is a Liturgy, there’s a lot more going there. For one thing, what is the matter of the Mass? The Sacrifice? The Readings? You can probably quantify the legality of it using those four points, but since there is a lot more going on in Liturgy than in conferring Sacraments it will make it rather complicated. Also, what is the valid form of Mass? Remember that in many abuses, many of the words to be used in Mass are altered, but it does not invalidate the Mass.

I’m not saying that you’re entirely wrong, but from my point of view I think a different approach to determining validity of the Mass should be taken just because a Liturgy is far more complex.

 

[MarkThompson]

The business of a stipend is rather extraneous, but no, it was not a complete Mass. More important than stipends is that any “obligation” to assist at Mass is not met in such a case, unless dispensed by the bishop or pastor (assuming that it was not the pastor who offered an incomplete Mass in the first place). The “obligation” is to assist at Mass, and that means a complete Mass. If the Mass is not complete (for reasons other than extreme emergency: say, e.g., the priest takes ill before the final blessing) the “obligation” is clearly not satisfied.

Yes, certainly. The stipend is a minor point, but I was using it as an easy example of something that depends on the validity of the Mass rather than merely of the Eucharist.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The four points you listed are for Sacraments. Since Mass is a Liturgy, there’s a lot more going there. For one thing, what is the matter of the Mass? The Sacrifice? The Readings? You can probably quantify the legality of it using those four points, but since there is a lot more going on in Liturgy than in conferring Sacraments it will make it rather complicated. Also, what is the valid form of Mass? Remember that in many abuses, many of the words to be used in Mass are altered, but it does not invalidate the Mass.

I’m not saying that you’re entirely wrong, but from my point of view I think a different approach to determining validity of the Mass should be taken just because a Liturgy is far more complex.

It would seem that there are two issues at hand. The first is what makes the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist valid. I would venture to suggest that the four points I made are necessary for this sacrament to be valid. As the intent of the priest must be to confect the Eucharist; and the form (the words of institution) and the matter (the nature of the bread and wine used) would all seem to relate to the Holy Eucharist.

The second issue is what invalidates the Mass. It is this second point that people seem to have difficulty is answering. As far as I can see other posters have only tentatively proposed suggestions as to what may invalidate Mass but no one seems certain.

At a simple level I suggest my four points matter to the extent that while other things being done or omitted may invalidate the Mass surely the Mass is invalid if the Holy Eucharist is not confected. If the bread and wine are not changed into the Body and Blood and we receive only bread and wine instead of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ - those things surely invalidate the Mass. However, it would appear that the validity of the Mass does not rely soley on a valid Eucharistic sacrament. The Mass may still be invalid even if the Holy Eucharist is valid.

We also know that in the Liturgy of the Mass the priest must both confect the Eucharist and consume both species to complete the sacrifice. Is the Mass invalid if the priest does not complete the sacrifice?

Just to make the matter more interesting: what happens at a concelebration? Must all the concelebrants have the right intent in order for the Holy Eucharist to be confected? Is it necessary for all the concelebrants to receive under both Species for the sacrifice to be completed?

We still have the unresolved issue that the OP’s question remains unanswered. What invalidates the Mass?

 

[SMHW]

After reading a fiew threads about liturgical abuses, now I’m curious. What would need to happen at a Mass to make it invalid?

While they can be useful in some cases, the words/qualities “valid” and “invalid” are probably not the best to describe the Mass or other liturgies. Licitity and completeness are better choices.

It’s probably better to use “valid” and “invalid” in reference to sacraments.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

While they can be useful in some cases, the words/qualities “valid” and “invalid” are probably not the best to describe the Mass or other liturgies. Licitity and completeness are better choices.

It’s probably better to use “valid” and “invalid” in reference to sacraments.

Are you able to tell us what is required for the liceity and completeness of the Mass?

 

[Cirdan_XII]

The words are important too as they are part of the Form of the Sacrament. However, audibility of the words are not as important. In the East, sometimes the words for consecration are silent, such is in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari (Syriac Rite), but have been determined to validly consecrate the sacrament.

So if the priest has a sore throat and speaks but cannot be understood clearly, assuming he says the proper words, its still valid.

Also, the priest has to receive both the Precious Body and the Precious Blood of our Lord. If the priest celebrant doesn’t receive, then the Mass is invalid. Its not enough that the Eucharist is validly consecrated. You can have a valid Eucharist but an invalid Mass.

Also if any major parts are taken out or ommitted, then the Mass is invalid. So if there is no Gospel reading, there is no valid Mass.

If the priest is celebrating the mass by himself, ie, nobody else is present. Must the words still be spoken out loud?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

If the priest is celebrating the mass by himself, ie, nobody else is present. Must the words still be spoken out loud?

I do not know if the priest has to say them out loud as he would at a Mass with the people. However, I believe that he cannot just “say” the words in his brain as one would when reading a book. I believe he has to form the words with his lips. He may, if no one else is present, be permitted to say the words sotto voce, i.e. so quietly that anyone who is not very close to him could not hear them.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It would seem that there are two issues at hand. The first is what makes the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist valid. I would venture to suggest that the four points I made are necessary for this sacrament to be valid. As the intent of the priest must be to confect the Eucharist; and the form (the words of institution) and the matter (the nature of the bread and wine used) would all seem to relate to the Holy Eucharist.

The second issue is what invalidates the Mass. It is this second point that people seem to have difficulty is answering. As far as I can see other posters have only tentatively proposed suggestions as to what may invalidate Mass but no one seems certain.

At a simple level I suggest my four points matter to the extent that while other things being done or omitted may invalidate the Mass surely the Mass is invalid if the Holy Eucharist is not confected. If the bread and wine are not changed into the Body and Blood and we receive only bread and wine instead of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ - those things surely invalidate the Mass. However, it would appear that the validity of the Mass does not rely soley on a valid Eucharistic sacrament. The Mass may still be invalid even if the Holy Eucharist is valid.

We also know that in the Liturgy of the Mass the priest must both confect the Eucharist and consume both species to complete the sacrifice. Is the Mass invalid if the priest does not complete the sacrifice?

Just to make the matter more interesting: what happens at a concelebration? Must all the concelebrants have the right intent in order for the Holy Eucharist to be confected? Is it necessary for all the concelebrants to receive under both Species for the sacrifice to be completed?

We still have the unresolved issue that the OP’s question remains unanswered. What invalidates the Mass?

Also there are two parts of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. So if you omit an Epistle, Psalms or even the Gospel, that means the Liturgy of the Word is incomplete. Therefore I think that would also invalidate the Mass. You may have a complete Liturgy of the Eucharist but not Liturgy of the Word.

As for completing the Sacrifice, yes, the Mass is invalid if the priest does not complete the Sacrifice. So even if he just misses out on receiving one of the Sacred Species, then the Sacrifice is not complete, Mass is invalid.

As for concelebration, I would think that it all hinges on the main celebrant. I could be wrong, so hopefully someone else will give a better answer.

 

[malphono]

The term “validity” (in Western parlance) pertains to Sacraments. While the Mass is the vehicle for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, the Mass itself is not a Sacrament. Any discussion of “validity” must concern the Sacrament, so to say a Mass is “invalid” really means that the Eucharist is invalid.

To put it in another way, there are no criteria for an “invalid Mass” other than an invalid Eucharist. Without a valid Eucharist, there is no Mass.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Also there are two parts of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. So if you omit an Epistle, Psalms or even the Gospel, that means the Liturgy of the Word is incomplete. Therefore I think that would also invalidate the Mass. You may have a complete Liturgy of the Eucharist but not Liturgy of the Word.

As for completing the Sacrifice, yes, the Mass is invalid if the priest does not complete the Sacrifice. So even if he just misses out on receiving one of the Sacred Species, then the Sacrifice is not complete, Mass is invalid.

As for concelebration, I would think that it all hinges on the main celebrant. I could be wrong, so hopefully someone else will give a better answer.

This seems to be a correct assumption. I would source the closing Mass of the Year for Priests, where not all concelebrants received under both kinds. They all received in one species, and many received in two. It may also depend on how many concelebrants there are; this is a relatively new thing, as well, so it may not be quite as hammered out as many other rubrics. Granted, the rubrics are much less precise in the Novus Ordo…but I digress.

 

[VBibleSociety]

Greetings,
My wife and I left our home parish and moved downtown to a traditonal Catholic parish almost a year ago. The parish we moved to celebrates the NO Mass, but does so very respectfully. The parish we came from is a “progressive” church in that they have stripped every statue out of the church, altered the rubrics, ect.
On Sunday we decided to try our home parish again and see if anything had changed. We usually go to Mass an hour early for quite time with Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. That didn’t happen. You couldn’t hear yourself think due to the noise level.
The words to the Kyrie were changed along with the words to the Agnus Dei. The music was more along the lines of pentecostal worship and not Catholic. People were dancing and clapping along with discussing the days events.

My question is whether or not altering the rubics of the Mass invalidates it. There were more alterations, but I can’t remember them. The words of concecration were not changed, but it was done so quickly that you’d miss it if you weren’t paying attention.

 

[malphono]

In case you missed it, there is a current thread [thread=520888]here[/thread] in this forum about the same basic issue.

 

[Skeptic92]

as has already been said, a Mass can only be ‘invalid’ without the Eucharist, however it can be illicit, if the Priest does not have the permission from their Bishop to perform a Mass (for example SSPX) or incomplete (if the liturgy of the Word is not complete, for example the Gospel is omitted).

So you can have an illicit (or incomplete) Mass but it is still valid.

 

[ConstantineTG]

How can an incomplete Mass be valid?

 

[Skeptic92]

How can an incomplete Mass be valid?

Because the Sacrifice was still complete, the Eucharist itself was completed, so the Sacrament within the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass, was completed licitly and validly.

Many Parishes at the Easter Vigil don’t use all the readings, and effectively are “incomplete” according to the GIRM, however it is a perfectly valid Mass in the Eyes of the Church. The only way to invalidate the Mass is to invalidate the Sacrifice of the Mass, the most Blessed Sacrament, by either not being ordained, not forming the proper intent, improper form (the words of consecration not being spoken, or correctly spoken) or improper matter (leavened Bread, Rice Wine etc).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Because the Sacrifice was still complete, the Eucharist itself was completed, so the Sacrament within the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass, was completed licitly and validly.

Many Parishes at the Easter Vigil don’t use all the readings, and effectively are “incomplete” according to the GIRM, however it is a perfectly valid Mass in the Eyes of the Church. The only way to invalidate the Mass is to invalidate the Sacrifice of the Mass, the most Blessed Sacrament, by either not being ordained, not forming the proper intent, improper form (the words of consecration not being spoken, or correctly spoken) or improper matter (leavened Bread, Rice Wine etc).

The Easter Vigil readings are not all required to be read. The minimum is two. So reading two fulfills the minimum requirement. Would it be a Mass if only one reading is read? Still perhaps, as on most ordinary days or in the EF or Byzantine Divine Liturgy, there is usually only one reading even on Sundays (plus the Gospel. By reading I meant an Epistle). So the bare minimum for a Mass of any for is there be one Epistle, Psalms and Gospel. If one of those is missing then the Mass is truly incomplete.

I don’t know, like I said I don’t know the full answer to this, but I doubt that a Mass will be Mass if the minimum requirement for the Liturgy of the Word is not fulfilled.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The Easter Vigil readings are not all required to be read. The minimum is two.

Perhaps there are different rubrics in the liturgical books approved for use in Canada but in England and Wales the requirement at the Easter Vigil is a minimum of three.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Perhaps there are different rubrics in the liturgical books approved for use in Canada but in England and Wales the requirement at the Easter Vigil is a minimum of three.

Sorry I was talking about the readings sans the Gospel. Unless you meant the two Old Testament readings + Gospel = three. But of the seven Old Testament readings, the requirement as mentioned by our priest is two. We did five anyways, plus the Gospel.

 

[malphono]

The only way to invalidate the Mass is to invalidate the Sacrifice of the Mass, the most Blessed Sacrament, by either not being ordained, not forming the proper intent, improper form (the words of consecration not being spoken, or correctly spoken) or improper matter (**leavened **Bread, Rice Wine etc).

Very good and to the point! Just one small point if I may: leavened bread (provided it’s wheat bread without additives) is not invalid matter, even in the Latin Church. It is, however, illicit. Rice crackers, or rye bread, etc, OTOH, would be invalid matter.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Sorry I was talking about the readings sans the Gospel. Unless you meant the two Old Testament readings + Gospel = three. But of the seven Old Testament readings, the requirement as mentioned by our priest is two. We did five anyways, plus the Gospel.

You may very well be right. I’d always read the directive regarding three readings in the Ordo to mean the minimum number of OT readings. Our parish does them all anyway.