When is the Mass valid vs. invalid or licit vs.illicit

As I was sitting waiting for Mass to start this evening, a retired priest that fills in at area churches came walking down the aisle. I said a quick prayer to help me get through this "mass" without loosing my patience. This priest in my opinion should not be saying Mass. There are many things he does and says that are in my opinion are very wrong and misleading for the average parishioner to know that it is wrong or misleading. But the one thing he does that bothers me most is when he breaks the host at the time of the consecration. He breaks the bread into two pieces at the moment he is saying" Jesus took the bread broke it and gave it to his disciples. " Then he holds the two pieces of bread, one in one hand, one in the other. Then he spreads his hands wide apart, and as he pronounces the words of consecration, he brings his hand together.
I cannot find any answer as to whether this invalidates the Mass or makes it illicit. I have read it needs to be corrected, but no one in my diocese will correct it. Do to the lack of priests they consider themselves lucky to have someone fill in. My priest has made that known that he doesn't want to hear the complaints about him.
So my real question here is as we progress further into this storm is what and how do we prepare ourselves in knowledge as to what will prevent a Mass from being valid or licit. There are not to many people sitting in the pews these days that could answer that question. We receive our strength through the participation of the Mass and our spiritual nourishment from the Eucharist. At some point people will be receiving"junk food" from and illicit or non valid Mass and not even realize it.

 

That does not invalidate the consecration, but I would be writing the bishop, as it goes against the Church rubrics and liturgical norm. If anyone has a concern about the matter of how mass is said by a priest, they should pass this on to the bishops office. Then we have done our part. If it is a grave abuse of the liturgy, it suggest sending a letter to ones country papal nuncio as well. From the VatII documents, #45 on the sacred liturgy: "In the celebration of the Eucharist above all, no one, not even a priest, may on his own authority add, omit, or change anything in the liturgy. Only the supreme authority of the Church, and according to the provisions of the law, the Bishop and the Episcopal conferences, may do this. Priests should, therefore, should assure that they so preside over the celebration of the Eucharist, that the faithful know they are attending, not a rite established on private initiative, but the Churches public worship, the regulation of which was entrusted by Christ to his apostles and their successors".

 

soldier,

On the surface it would appear proper to break the Host at the Consecration since the words "he broke the bread" are included at that point in the Mass. To do so would be an illicit act, however, since liturgically speaking the breaking, or rather, fracturing of the Host, is to occur at the Agnus Dei. The Host is at that point broken in two and then a small piece is broken off and placed in the Precious Blood.

The separate consecrations of the bread and wine is a liturgical action pointing to the death of the Lord. The fracturing and placement of a fragment of the Host in the Precious Blood is a liturgical action pointing to the Resurrection of the Lord. It is essential that we never lose sight of the realty of being present at the Holy Sacrifice, but so too, we must never lose sight of the Resurrection. We enter into both the dying and rising of Jesus so as to receive the living Christ in Holy Communion. Jesus is truly our life! Alleluia!

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him, and I will raise him up on the last day!

 

You could just go to a Latin Mass if there is one near you then you wouldn't need to become an expert on knowing whether a priest has done something that invalidates the Mass or not.

 

So what does this mean in terms of the faithful sitting in the pews? Knowing he does this, are we obliged to get up and leave and attend another Mass somewhere else?

 

You should not leave a Holy Mass unless an invalid action or change is done. Illicit acts do not invalidate a Holy Mass. However, it is best you try to find a trustworthy priest so you don't have to be concerned and distracted by such liturgical abuse. When you're not confident of doing so, I think it would be best to follow Praetorian's advice above.

Safe Under Mary's Mantle!

 

I just have to say that it's really great having such well versed members amongst us. I have wondered about this as well as we have seen this practice with visiting priests who fill in and it was very noticeable since Father never does this.

Thank you!

 

So when there is no access to a TLM, what should the Catholic do?

 

Lutherans do this.

 

I wouldn't feel comfortable telling someone what Mass they should or shouldn't go to. I suggest the TLM, but it is just a suggestion. It is such a confusing time for all of us and the Masses vary greatly from area to area and Church to Church. I think the TLM is the "safest" option and I think as things get worse and worse in the Church invalid Masses may become more and more common, but that is just a guess. It is our obligation to go to Sunday Mass if we can, but we are also not to attend invalid Masses if we know they are going to be invalid.

Also I just thought of this, the Catholic Eastern Rite Liturgies generally do not have a lot of innovations by their clergy so those are probably a safer bet as well. They are also quite beautiful and remind us what an ancient and glorious Church we belong to. There is a Maronite Church about an hour and a half from where I live and they actually still say the consecration in Aramaic, which is pretty amazing to hear.

 

What you describe seems to have been a common enough practice for Rome to have issued an instruction that it be corrected. See here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur55.htm

The practice, according to the priest who answered a question similar to yours on the website in the attached link, was illicit but didn't invalidate the Mass. The priest recommends how to go about having it corrected. https://www.spiritualdirection.com/2015/01/12/is-breaking-the-host-at-consecration-correct

There's a very good article written by Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers about Invalid Masses which you may find helpful: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/invalid-masses Essentially, what he's saying is that as long as the priest is properly ordained, there is valid matter (wheat bread and wine) and he says the correct words of Consecration, the Mass is valid.

And if you think you have it bad, have a read of this: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2012/12/20/canon-law-and-consecrating-the-eucharist/

 

I experience a similar concern/ quandary. Our parish priest during the consecration of the wine, substitutes the word, "all," instead of the liturgical, "many." I wonder too if the mass is not licit because of this change. I realize that at one time, the word was all, but since Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI had changed it during his tenure as pope.

I've been hesitant to bring it to the Bishop's attention because I am unsure whether this is another correct form, I guess I could ask him the question. And no, I can't attend a Latin Mass, as the nearest is way too far.

 

Sounds like it's not licit but is valid. If it were invalid, then every Mass celebrated before the return to using "many" would have been invalid. That's just my guess based on the Jimmy Aiken article linked in my previous post. Valid is what matters most because it gives us the Eucharist.

Why wouldn't you just have a quiet word with your priest about it? Maybe he was ordained during the time that "all" was used and using that word is second nature to him.

 

It

should be “many” as per the words of Christ. The priest could be making a mistake of memory or he could be disobedient to the Sacred text. Pope Benedict changed it back to the proper translation of “many”

 

I left Mass recently because I was worried that by what the priest was doing the Mass might not be valid and I knew I could get to another Mass very near by that would be starting within half an hour. I wasn't the only one who left. The priest in his homily denied the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist but that wasn't why I left. For the Eucharistic Prayer he took out a folder and placed it over the Roman Missal and told us that we wouldn't be familiar with this Eucharistic Prayer but he personally found it beautiful. That's when I left because I didn't know what was going to happen and I knew I could get to another Mass.

 

I would have done the same thing if I were there
How very sad

 

What about asking a deacon or a priest in another parish
Maybe in Confession and you can remain anonymous

 

I would have left as well. This priest is clearly not trustworthy, and in your place I would immediately refuse to attend any Mass said by him.

 

Mario, what would be your answer regarding leaving the mass Jonah mentioned above? I attended the same mass and also left because the priest started using a made-up Eucharistic prayer and I assumed that invalidated the mass. Apparently the words he used for the consecration itself were correct, I found out afterwards. Should we have sat it out and waited to see? It's very hard to know what to do in such instances and I didn't want my son being exposed to his heresy.

 

Adoremus,

My answer depends on the situation. If your child is at least 3-yr-old, if there is a chance he may be exposed to this again, and you could make it to another Holy Mass, then I would advise you to leave. If I was by myself and the possibility of this re-occurring is remote, I would stay because the Mass is valid.

Safe in the Refuge of the Sacred Heart!