I have realized to my shame that I do not know for sure the answer to this question. I have done a quick Google search and found this article. It is clear that what is offered is NOT a good answer, but I have decided to c&p it because it must reflect how a number of traditional minded Catholics feel. " When is a Mass invalid? For many years now we have only ever attended the Extraordinary Form of Mass. When our children were small we were English Mass Catholics with an intensely traditional outlook. When we moved to Wales we found that the Novus Ordo Mass, as it then was called, was quite different from what we had been used to. There was little reverence, the laity milled around on the sanctuary at various odd occasions during the Mass, children were invited up to sit on the priest's lap while he gave his sermon and much more besides. After a great deal of soul searching we left never to return. From that day on we only ever went to a Latin Mass and it has held our children (for the most part) in good stead. Whereas the children of our contemporaries have all with one exception, left the faith (along with their parents). Part of our rationale was that there was an issue at the time, of a large percentage of British priests who reportedly did not believe in transubstantiation. Now, if what I read today is true there are Bishops and other members of the hierarchy who also now hold to this lack of belief. If the priest does not believe then each and every Mass that he celebrates must surely be invalid? That was our basis for change. There was never a shadow of doubt that a priest who celebrated the Latin Mass did not believe that the bread and wine changed to the body and blood of Our Lord at the Consecration. And that, I believe, holds true today. If I am correct in my analysis, this does make attending an Ordinary Form Mass something of a lottery. How are you to know whether the priest believes or not? Well, I tend to observe the outward signs; if the Mass is celebrated reverently and if all liturgical requirements are observed, I am certain that the Mass is valid. If, however, some or all of the following indicators are in place, my estimate would be that the priest does not believe in transubstantiation and, therefore, the Mass is invalid:- 1. Ceramic chalices and vessels 2. Ordinary bread or wine that does not conform to specification 3. Garish and inappropriate vestments 4. Liturgical aberrations such as lay men and women joining the priest at the Consecration and taking an active role, EMHCs removing or returning the Blessed Sacrament to the tabernacle..." http://linenonthehedgerow.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/when-is-mass-invalid.html?m=1
A respondent to the blog made the following clarifying comment: "... 1) When we speak about the Mass, we do not speak in terms of validity or invalidity. The Mass is the ceremony that is wrapped around the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Mass can be illicit to varying degrees, but it is not able to be classified as invalid. 2) The Eucharist is a Sacrament, so the conditions for any sacrament would apply for validity. The conditions are as follows: proper form (for the Eucharist, the words This is my Body/ This is my Blood); proper matter (unleavened bread and wine as specified by Church regulations); the intention to perform the act as the Church intends (not necessarily belief – so a priest who has lost his faith in the true presence CAN still perform a valid consecration); and the proper person (an ordained priest) ... " I shall now go off and research this topic carefully. In the meantime those of the forum that want to add what they know...
The oldest and most notable Eucharistic miracle took place at Lanciano, Italy in the 6th century when a monk upon pronouncing the words of consecration doubted the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist and Blood of Christ. At that moment the bread turned into real flesh and the wine turned into 5 globbles of blood. This miracle has only been outdone by the fact that it is still present today 1300 years later. There has been a few extensive scientific examinations of this miracle that concluded: 1) the flesh is real flesh and the blood is real blood 2) the flesh consists of the muscular tissue of hte heart (myocardium) 3) the flesh and the blood belong to the same human spcies 4) the flesh and the blood have the same blood type (AB) 5) In the blood, there were found protiens in the same normal proprtions as are found in the sero-proteic make up of fresh normal blood 6) In the blood there were also found these mineral: Chlorides, phosphorous, magnesium, potasium, sodium and calcium 7) the preservation of the flesh and blood were left in their natural state since the miracle wihout any chemical preservations and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents. * The only thing that I understand that would invalidate the consecration would be to use altered words for the consecration, assuming they are using unleavened bread and wine from grapes. Certainly a glass chalice would not invalidate the consecration, although this is forbidden.
I think it is worth raising here what may be a controversial point but it is something I have often thought about when reflecting on Mass when celebrated by, for example, a High Church Anglican priest. It is my view that, as Kathy mentions, intention cannot affect validity but I actually believe it is important to recognise that God can not be restricted through 'formula'. He can not be stopped from performing the miracle of transubstantiation at an invalid Mass in certain cases. I believe it is likely that the miracle has taken place at many Masses which may, if analyzed, have been invalid.
I believe there is a difference between illicit actions at a Mass (i.e. vesting as a clown) and an invalid Mass. My understanding from Canon laws is that for a Mass to be invalid would require: 1) incorrect form for wording of the Consecration 2) invalid matter of bread and wine ( must be unleavened wheat) 3) invalid intent of priest- in other words the priest must intend to consecrate 4) an invalidly ordained priest or one that is not in canonical good standing with his diocese. I think all other actions that do not follow rubrics or the GIRM may be illicit, but do not invalidate a Mass.
Thank you Miker. That is what I thought and I asked Kathy on another thread about that. The invalid intent of a priest is one.
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure a priest with bad intent who consecrates the host does not invalidate the consecration. I investigated this years ago when my parish priest was way off the reservation, and I didn't trust him any farther than I could throw him. Regardless, we have a very big God. Even if the priest pulled a fast one and said the consecration wrong, God is perfectly capable of giving us Jesus, body, blood, soul and divinity, despite one of his own shepherds trying to serve the enemy.
I rather like this bloggers (who was studying for his cannon law exams) take on the difference between licit/valid. " I took some time to think about the terms, though, pondering it through, taking also into consideration what our professor taught us in his notes and lecture. Validity versus Invalidity is a question of whether Jesus is actually present in that act, or especially (in my mind), a Sacrament. Something that is Valid has all the juridic effects (i.e. all the effects of the law), while an Invalid act does NOT have the juridic effects. Licit versus Illicit doesn't leave us the question of whether Jesus is there or not; rather, the question becomes: is Jesus there and pleased, or is He MAD? An act that is licit is done according to the norm of the law (ie the GIRM, Redemptionis Sacramentum, etc.) or whether it is NOT done according to the law. Thus, an act can be illicit but still retain validity. That would be a way of saying that Jesus is present but very upset! I was trying to think of a way to explain this in other terms, and so, the following is what I came up with this morning while I was brushing my teeth: * Let's say that you are a child and you pretty much have standing permission, within certain defined and obvious parameters, to ride your bike to the corner store every day after school and get a candy bar or bag of chips or a pop or something. And you have to take your little brother and little sister with you because they are your willing responsibility and how you make your allowance. This is routine, you're in charge of them and that's part of the understanding. And as you ride with them down the sidewalk to the store, you wave at Harry the Barber who is reading the newspaper next to his barber pole, and you pass Mrs. Green at the vegetable stand a few more doors down, and they all know you and know that it's OK for you to be doing this. They know your Mom, you see, and because this town is kind of a big family, they're also looking out for you. And because of this, they also know that this trip to the store is a valid act, done with the Mother's blessing and permission, which, in effect, means that she is present with you on these trips. Now, if they saw you driving Mom's car down the road with baby sister on the hood at 3 am, they would ALSO know that this is VERY invalid and they'd be calling your Mom because this is CLEARLY outside of the boundaries and there's NO WAY this would have her blessing! Now, as far as Licit/Illicit goes, let's say that you got home from school and just before you left to take your daily trip to the store, you got a call from your Mother, who said that you should wait because she didn't want you to take your little sister that day. She wanted you to wait until she got home from work because of something to do with your little sister. But, instead of being obedient to that command, you copped an attitude, got on your bikes, and all three went to the store as usual. Now, Harry the Barber and Mrs. Green the vegetable lady wouldn't know the difference, and would wave as they always do. And, in fact, that ride to the store would have all the same juridic effects as that of every other day; it would in fact, be taking place. You would in fact be paying actual money for your actual snack, and your act would be witnessed by others. And so, in effect, your Mother would still be with you because this is a normal function of your day, except for one thing....the fact that you are doing it as usual on that day is in DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE to a particular law or directive laid down by your Mother, which renders that trip to the store ILLICIT. In other words...Jesus is there but He. Is. MAD! And, my son....YOU ARE SOOOO GROUNDED! So, we could say that the just penalty of the the betrayal of the Mother's trust is Excommunication, which you have enacted of your own accord. Because, in fact, your baby sister was supposed to be going to the doctor for an important diagnoses and because you took her away from her mother she missed her appointment and is going to become very, very sick...because of YOUR disobedience. So...firstly, listen to your Mother! So, you're grounded (excommunicated), and certain things need to be in play in order for you to be able to act in the same capacity. You have to admit that what you have done is wrong, you have to apologize for that wrong, and that you understand the effect of your action. (there's actually more to this so don't take this paragraph to be canonical...and it's not on this test, anyway.) DISCLAIMER: The above (hopefully fictional) scenario is NOT meant to parody ANYTHING in real life, but only explain things in entertaining terms which maybe I'll remember when I'll take the test. If my understanding is flawed, please tell me so before I take the test! And suggest changes to the scenario that would make the example proper. http://adorotedevote.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/valid-and-invalid-licit-vs-illicit-in.html?m=1
Jerry I believe the above is sound. (Except for the unleavened bread bit. I believe leavened bread is illicit not invalid). The following may help further: "Is it true that a heretic, who does not believe in the Real Presence, can have the intention of doing what the Church does, and celebrate a valid Mass? It is certainly true, as St. Thomas Aquinas explains, that faith is not required of necessity in the minister for the sacraments he administers to be valid (ST, IIIa, Q. 64, a. 9). In the same way that a heretic can validly administer the sacrament of baptism (e.g., a Protestant), and even the fact that he does not believe in original sin does not invalidate this sacrament, so also can a heretic celebrate a valid Mass. He does not have to intend what the Church intends, but only what the Church does, which latter is possible even when he has a gross misunderstanding of what the Church really does." But in the end I think we need to be careful not to take an isolated, mechanical, "physicalist" approach to your legitimate concerns. If the priest is in communion with the bishop of your diocese then why would God expect anymore enquiry from you than this? Sure, if the priest is known to deny doing what the Church intends by his priestly actions then don't go to that Mass and indeed inform the bishop who would surely be most concerned. Otherwise I believe God expects us to assume all is well and (even if unbeknown to us it is not well) God will supply the usual graces to you and your family regardless. As Aquinas was want to say, "it is the Church that is limited by the Sacraments, not God."
Here is the best article i could find on the topic. i c&p it in full. Issue: Which changes and omissions render a Mass of the Roman Rite invalid? Response: A Mass of the Roman Rite is invalid when the celebrant of the Mass is not a validly ordained priest, when the priest does not have the proper intention, when wheat bread or grape wine is not used, or when the words “This is my Body” or “This is . . . my Blood” are not said. Discussion: The Mass is the unbloody renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary in which bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. However, the Mass is not itself the Sacrament of the Eucharist; the Sacrament of the Eucharist could be validly confected outside of Mass if a priest were to pronounce the words of consecration over bread and wine with the intention of consecrating them. However, the Church considers this act the most heinous of crimes and gravely illicit in all cases, as is the consecration of one element without the other (Code of Canon Law, canon 927).[my bold] The Sacrament of the Eucharist’s “inexhaustible richness” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1328) comprises Holy Communion and Eucharistic reservation and adoration as well as the Eucharistic Sacrifice, for the Holy Eucharist “is at one and the same time a Sacrifice-Sacrament, a Communion-Sacrament, and a Presence-Sacrament.”[1] Moreover, the Blessed Sacrament is confected at Mass, while it may be received outside of Mass. The Second Vatican Council teaches: Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium), December 4, 1963, 22). Unauthorized liturgical changes, then, are against the law of the Church: they are illicit. But not every illicit act renders the Mass invalid. The valid celebration of any sacrament requires the proper minister and intention, sacramental signs (matter), and form (usually words). Only changes to these render the Eucharistic Sacrifice invalid. The Celebrant of the Eucharistic Sacrifice and his Intention The Church teaches that “it is Christ himself, the eternal high priest of the New Covenant who, acting though the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. . . . Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord” (Catechism, nos. 1410-11). This dogma of the Catholic faith was defined at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215: “And surely no one can accomplish this sacrament except a priest who has been rightly ordained according to the keys of the Church which Jesus Christ Himself conceded to the Apostles and to their successors.”[2] A priest is validly ordained when a validly ordained bishop lays his hands on the man to be ordained and says the consecratory prayer (Catechism, no. 1538). “Only a baptized man (Latin:vir) validly receives sacred ordination” (Catechism, no. 1577). Thus priests, however vicious they may be, validly consecrate the Holy Eucharist; others, however virtuous, cannot. The validity of ordinations of other Churches and ecclesial communities: The Church teaches that the priestly ordinations of Eastern Orthodox Churches and ancient Christian Churches of the East are valid, as are the ordinations of more recent schismatics (e.g., the ordinations conferred by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre). The Church has also ruled that Anglican ordinations are invalid (Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896). After that ruling, some Anglican bishops sought ordination from validly ordained schismatic bishops. Their ordinations may be valid, and these bishops in turn may have validly ordained men to the priesthood. Intention: The priest’s proper intention to confect the Eucharist is ensured by the words that precede the consecration (“so that they may become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” or similar words).[3] The Matter for the Eucharistic Sacrifice The Catechism teaches that “the essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine” (Catechism, no. 1412). The Council of Florence (1438-45) taught: We have likewise defined that the body of Christ is truly effected in unleavened or leavened or wheaten bread; and that priests ought to effect the body of our Lord in either one of these, and each one namely according to the custom of his Church, whether that of the West or of the East.[4] Thus canon 926 of the Code of Canon Law prescribes, “In the Eucharistic celebration, in accordance with the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread wherever he celebrates Mass.” It is gravely illicit for a priest to use leavened bread in the Roman Rite, but such an action, of itself, does not make the Mass invalid. For most Eastern Catholic Churches, the matter for the Eucharistic Sacrifice is leavened bread. Sacramental theologian Father Nicholas Halligan summarizes magisterial pronouncements on the matter for Eucharist: The bread must be made from wheat, mixed with natural water, baked by the application of fire heat (including electric cooking) and substantially uncorrupted. The variety of the wheat or the region of its origin does not affect its validity, but bread made from any other grain is invalid material. Bread made with milk, wine, oil, etc., either entirely or in a notable part, is invalid material. Any natural water suffices for validity, e.g., even mineral water or sea water. The addition of a condiment, such as salt or sugar, is unlawful but valid, unless added in a notable quantity. Unbaked dough or dough fried in butter or cooked in water is invalid matter; likewise bread which is corrupted substantially, but not if it has merely begun to corrupt…. The bread must be of wheat flour and only in case of necessity a white material thrashed or crushed from wheat. It must be free from mixture with any other substance besides flour and water. It is gravely unlawful to consecrate with doubtful matter. Altar breads must be fresh or recently baked and must not be allowed to get moldy, which condition varies with regions, climates, etc…. To be valid, wine must be made from ripe grapes of the vine and not substantially corrupted; it cannot come from any other fruits or from unripe grapes or from the stems and skins of the grapes after all the juice has been pressed out. In regions where fresh grapes cannot be obtained, it is lawful to use raisin wine, i.e., wine made by adding water to raisins. Wine from which all alcohol has been removed or which on the other hand has more than twenty percent alcohol or to which foreign ingredients (e.g., water) have been added in equal or greater quantities is invalid material. Wine is likewise invalid which has turned to acid or which is not natural but was manufactured by some chemical process, i.e., by mixing the constituents found in wine so that the product resembles wine. Wine must also be in a potable [i.e., drinkable] state, and thus if it is congealed (although most probably valid), it must be melted. The color, strength, or origin of wine does not affect its validity.[5]
cont. The Form (Words of Consecration) of the Eucharistic Sacrifice Over the wheat bread and grape wine, “the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: ‘This is my body which will be given up for you…. This is the cup of my blood….’ ” (Catechism 1412). The words of consecration have varied slightly in the different rites throughout the Church’s history, in part because the words vary slightly in different New Testament passages. In the Roman Missal of 1962, the words of consecration said over the bread are simply “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum.” In the Roman Missal of 1962, the words of consecration said over the wine are “Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei, novi et æterni testamenti: Mysterium Fídei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hæc quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis.” In his apostolic constitution Missale Romanum (1969), which promulgated the current Roman Missal, Pope Paul VI writes: We have ordered that the words of the Lord be identical in each form of the canon. Thus in each Eucharistic Prayer we wish those words to be as follows: over the bread: “Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur”; over the chalice: “Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.” The words “Mysterium fidei” have been removed from the context of Christ’s own words and are spoken by the priest as an introduction to the faithful’s acclamation. Summarizing the Church’s theological tradition, Ludwig Ott believes that “Jesus effected the transmutation by the words: ‘This is My Body,’ ‘This is My Blood’.”[6] These words, which are never omitted in any formula of consecration, are undoubtedly essential for the validity of the sacrifice. Liturgical Presence In her desire to safeguard the mystery of the Holy Eucharist and protect the Blessed Sacrament from profanation, the Church clearly teaches the requirements for the validity of the Mass. The Church also teaches that the Mass, within which the Blessed Sacrament is confected and received, should be celebrated properly and reverently. This reverence is fitting, for we enter into the presence of Jesus Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity during Mass. Let us strive to make our worship of God during Mass a time of “worship in Spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:23). Pasted from <http://www.cuf.org/2005/02/invalid-masses/>
Jerry you may be interested in refinements wrt what makes valid matter for the Sacrament. Due to Celiac concerns the bread, which must have some gluten, may have very low percentages of gluten. Celiacs seem to need 0.01% or less which hosts do seem to be being acceptably made. The Church only states it must "contain enough gluten to effect the confection of bread". Likewise with the alcohol in wine. It must be of the grape but it doesn't necessarily have to have an alcohol content if naturally made. Such a wine exists and it is called "mustum". Use of such matter is only licit by those with the condition requiring their use. http://www.catholicceliacs.org/Bishops.html
