Would this be a valid mass?

[TraderTif]

Once, when my family was traveling, we stumbled across a parish that didn’t quite feel right.

I’m not the most knowledgable person, so I didn’t quite catch all the irregularities at the time.

But what made us walk out was at the consecration. The priest lifted the bread, and the lady next to him (who gave the homily, and acted like a deacon really) was raising her hands, and sort of, I dunno, co-consecrating or something. (Even I noticed this as abnormal).

Surely that wasn’t right?

How abnormal does a mass have to be, to be considered invalid?

Tif =

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

TraderTif:

Once, when my family was traveling, we stumbled across a parish that didn’t quite feel right.

I’m not the most knowledgable person, so I didn’t quite catch all the irregularities at the time.

But what made us walk out was at the consecration. The priest lifted the bread, and the lady next to him (who gave the homily, and acted like a deacon really) was raising her hands, and sort of, I dunno, co-consecrating or something. (Even I noticed this as abnormal).

Surely that wasn’t right?

How abnormal does a mass have to be, to be considered invalid?

Tif =

As long as the priest himself says the words “This is my Body” and “This is the cup of my Blood” over real bread and wine (and intends to consecrate it) the sacrament was valid. What you describe was pretty illicit, but doesn’t affect the validity.

 

[TraderTif]

As I recall, I think both the priest and lady said the words of the consecration together.

Tif =

 

[GoLatin]

I think that as long as the material used for the Eucharist was valid(wheat and water only used for the Host, alcoholic grape wine used for the other part), and the Priest himself said the words of Consecration, and actually intended to consecrate the Eucharist, that it was valid.

 

[johnnykins]

GoLatin:

I think that as long as the material used for the Eucharist was valid(wheat and water only used for the Host, alcoholic grape wine used for the other part), and the Priest himself said the words of Consecration, and actually intended to consecrate the Eucharist, that it was valid.

Any wheat bread should be valid - additional matter in the bread would be illicit [except in Byzantine Rite Churches where leaven is licit]
The grape wine would also need to meet minimum alcohol standards to be licit.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

johnnykins:

Any wheat bread should be valid - additional matter in the bread would be illicit [except in Byzantine Rite Churches where leaven is licit]
The grape wine would also need to meet minimum alcohol standards to be licit.

There is no set guideline for when additional ingredients render bread invalid, but any addition runs the risk. Certainly illicit, possibly invalid.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

I recall seeing something similar when therehas been a visiting priest and he is co-celebrating. But…a lady? Hmmm…that does seem a little strange.

:heart:Blyss

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Are you sure you didn’t stumble into an Episcopal or Lutheran church?

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Indeed, many of them use Saints’ names and have “masses” equivocal to those of lapsed Catholicism.

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

It is valid if the priest recited the wrds of consecration. It is valid but it is an abuse if he do it every time he celebrate the mass…

 

[mosher]

There is no set guideline for when additional ingredients render bread invalid, but any addition runs the risk. Certainly illicit, possibly invalid.

This is not quite correct. There are some formal rejections such as the practice of some that were using honey in the bread and the like. However, most of these issues were settled in the Early Church. It is a shame that we have to revisit all these past errors once again in the history of the Church.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Once, when my family was traveling, we stumbled across a parish that didn’t quite feel right.

I’m not the most knowledgable person, so I didn’t quite catch all the irregularities at the time.

But what made us walk out was at the consecration. The priest lifted the bread, and the lady next to him (who gave the homily, and acted like a deacon really) was raising her hands, and sort of, I dunno, co-consecrating or something. (Even I noticed this as abnormal).

Surely that wasn’t right?

How abnormal does a mass have to be, to be considered invalid?

Tif =

Tif:

Are you sure this was a Catholic Church and not an Epicopal or a Lutheran one. In the case of the later two, no matter what the Priest said, because of the ordination of “Women Priestesses” and conecration of “Women Bishopesses”, the Orders of the Churches which have done these have been rendered invalid (“Apostolicae Curae” and the “Dutch Touch” notwithstanding).

Therefore, the Sacraments are INVALID.

If this were a Catholic Church, then you do have a different situation. I remember attending a Campus Ministry Mass at a Catholic University where the WORDS OF INSTITUTION (“This is My Body…This is My Blood.”) Weren’t said.

That Mass was NOT VALID.

If the Woman was acting as a “Concelebrant” and handled the sacred vessels during CONSECRATION and said the WORDS OF INSTITUTION along with the priest (acted as a Priest), then the Mass, even if it were at a CATHOLIC CHURCH and the Primary Celebrant had been a Catholic Priest, was probably NOT VALID. By having a “Woman Priestess” “Concelebrate” during the Canon of the Mass, they were NOT doing what the Church does, which is to have MALE PRIESTS Offer the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving to God the Father and to Confect the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, Our Lord.

I can go into other abuses that I’ve seen later, but that one took some thought, and I don’t want that to get lost in any other descriptions.

It’s not vary often that those who celebrate the Mass for us do something so egregious that it renders the Mass Invalid. More often than not, the act is such that it makes the Mass neither lawful nor edifying, and, therefore, one faithful Catholics should avoid.

The more I thought about what you’ve described, and the more I thought about recent disobedint ordinations of “Women Priestesses” by Apostate Bishops, the more I realized you just might have run into one of these “Priestesses”.

Therefore, I’ve modified my orginal assessment. The Masses this pair is saying are so Illicit that faithful Catholics should avoid them like the Plague (at the very least, the lady is a “Priestess Wannabie”). If this woman has been “ordained”, then this mass is INVALID, and every Mass the MALE priest does is INVALID until he repents of Participating in this act of Apostacy.

Many here may have tried to minimize what you described, but what you saw was serious.

You might try to find out the lady’s name and if she was one of the women who was recently “ordained”.

Either way, steer clear of that parish if you can. If all else fails, try the Eastern Rite Catholics - The language will be unfamiliar, but you can trust that the Masses are Licit and Valid, that the Gospel will be preached and the Catholic Faith proclaimed.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[TimOliv]

It is valid if the priest recited the wrds of consecration. It is valid but it is an abuse if he do it every time he celebrate the mass…

Assuming of course the priest was validly (even if illicitly) ordained. If the priest was Episcopal, Lutheran or any number of denominations which just freely ordain each other, the sacrament would not be valid.

 

[PopePaddy]

Yeah. If the priest was validly ordained, and he said the words of institution over valid species with the intent to consecrate, then the Mass was valid, though inconceivably illicit. A defect in any of those conditions, which you can’t really tell just by being in the pew, would render it invalid.

 

[GoLatin]

Tif:

Are you sure this was a Catholic Church and not an Epicopal or a Lutheran one. In the case of the later two, no matter what the Priest said, because of the ordination of “Women Priestesses” and conecration of “Women Bishopesses”, the Orders of the Churches which have done these have been rendered invalid (“Apostolicae Curae” and the “Dutch Touch” notwithstanding).

Therefore, the Sacraments are INVALID.

If this were a Catholic Church, then you do have a different situation. I remember attending a Campus Ministry Mass at a Catholic University where the WORDS OF INSTITUTION (“This is My Body…This is My Blood.”) Weren’t said.

That Mass was NOT VALID.

If the Woman was acting as a “Concelebrant” and handled the sacred vessels during CONSECRATION and said the WORDS OF INSTITUTION along with the priest (acted as a Priest), then the Mass, even if it were at a CATHOLIC CHURCH and the Primary Celebrant had been a Catholic Priest, was probably NOT VALID. By having a “Woman Priestess” “Concelebrate” during the Canon of the Mass, they were NOT doing what the Church does, which is to have MALE PRIESTS Offer the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving to God the Father and to Confect the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, Our Lord.

I can go into other abuses that I’ve seen later, but that one took some thought, and I don’t want that to get lost in any other descriptions.

It’s not vary often that those who celebrate the Mass for us do something so egregious that it renders the Mass Invalid. More often than not, the act is such that it makes the Mass neither lawful nor edifying, and, therefore, one faithful Catholics should avoid.

The more I thought about what you’ve described, and the more I thought about recent disobedint ordinations of “Women Priestesses” by Apostate Bishops, the more I realized you just might have run into one of these “Priestesses”.

Therefore, I’ve modified my orginal assessment. The Masses this pair is saying are so Illicit that faithful Catholics should avoid them like the Plague (at the very least, the lady is a “Priestess Wannabie”). If this woman has been “ordained”, then this mass is INVALID, and every Mass the MALE priest does is INVALID until he repents of Participating in this act of Apostacy.

Many here may have tried to minimize what you described, but what you saw was serious.

You might try to find out the lady’s name and if she was one of the women who was recently “ordained”.

Either way, steer clear of that parish if you can. If all else fails, try the Eastern Rite Catholics - The language will be unfamiliar, but you can trust that the Masses are Licit and Valid, that the Gospel will be preached and the Catholic Faith proclaimed.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

I think that a male Priest could validly celebrate Mass, even if he had a lady “con-celebrant”. Of course, having a lady “con-celebrant” would be GRAVELY illicit, but I don’t think that it would necessarily render the Mass of a male Priest invalid.

 

[MusicMan]

Strictly speaking, when there are concelebrants, each concelebrant is celebrating his own separate Mass. Therefore, in this case, the Mass celebrated by the male priest would be considered valid, and the one concelebrated by the woman would be considered invalid.

If she was indeed attempting to concelebrate, she would also incur an automatic ex communication, because anyone who not ordained to celebrate the Mass who attempts to confect the sacrifice of the Mass is automatically ex communicated.

 

[mosher]

Strictly speaking, when there are concelebrants, each concelebrant is celebrating his own separate Mass. Therefore, in this case, the Mass celebrated by the male priest would be considered valid, and the one concelebrated by the woman would be considered invalid.

If she was indeed attempting to concelebrate, she would also incur an automatic ex communication, because anyone who not ordained to celebrate the Mass who attempts to confect the sacrifice of the Mass is automatically ex communicated.

And also the priest by his being complicit in the sacrilegious act.