Validity and Liceity

It's been a while since the last post. Quite a few things have happened here in the South that has caused me to neglect the blog: the storm that blew through in late April; preparations for the LSAT; thesis work; and many other things that have kept me from blogging. It's a big shame, too, because a lot happened in Catholic news! Off to the post:





Questions often arise about the validity of particular Sacraments, like Masses, Baptisms, Confessions, etc. Going further, liceity goes hand-in-hand with validity.This question is particularly relevant for our own time, when the laity is faced with priests that try and change the liturgy. Is a Mass valid if the priest doesn't believe in Transubstantiation? Is a Confession valid if a priest doesn't provide a penance? Is a Mass valid without the Nicene Creed, with a female priest, or with something other than wine? These questions all relate to the validity and liceity of the Mass, which paints a larger picture of what makes a Sacrament licit and/or valid, and what the difference is between these two terms. For the remainder of this post, I'll explain the difference between validity and liceity, with a follow-up post(s) on what makes particular Sacraments valid or invalid, licit or illicit.

Validity affects the act, while liceity affects the 'legality' of the act. So if a baptism is invalid, then the baptism never occurred (i.e. one has not been baptized and needs to be baptized). So if a baptism is illicit, then it was not celebrated under the structures that the Catholic Church has defined (i.e. one has been baptized, but the Sacrament was not celebrated in a way directed/authorized by the Church or with the full approval of the Church).

It should quickly become apparent why this matters, and why it is important to know what makes a Sacrament fall into one or the other camp! It can be the difference between having the Eucharist, and not; between having your sins absolved, and not; between having Original Sin washed away, and not.

Here is a general rule of thumb:
Validity: the form & matter (the 'substance' of a Sacrament) must be fulfilled, and disposition must be satisfied (this includes a broad range, which will be discussed later). Matter is understood as the element of a Sacrament (though the element is not always a physical substance). For the Eucharist, Bread and Wine. Form is understood as the word(s). For the Eucharist, "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood."

Licit: all other rules and guidelines surrounding the Sacrament! Seems like it covers a large area? That's because it does. These are the 'rules.' For example, it is required that the sacred vessels should be made of precious materials, such as gold or silver. If one uses wood, however, the Eucharist is still valid (it exists as the Body and Blood of Christ) but the action was illicit (should not have been done). A further example is a layperson baptizing an individual in a non-emergency. While the person is now baptized (it was valid), the action itself was illicit (should not have been done by that person at that time). These are all non-essential to the Sacrament. They can, and have, changed throughout the history of the Church.

I mentioned earlier that disposition has a broad meaning. I have not often heard discussion of disposition, and I think this is a result of an inability (or lack of attempt) to classify a wide range of smaller issues. Disposition includes issues such as the degree of ordination of the celebrant(s), intent of the celebrant(s), etc. This does not include the state of the celebrant's soul (anyone who believes it does would be a Donatist).

In the future I would like to look at specific Sacraments, and how these two criteria (form & matter and  disposition) fit with them.