In light of Traditionis Custodes, is the TLM celebrated by a well known schismatic Priest an invalid Mass?

The recent motu proprio of Pope Francis spoke more on "disunity" rather than the liturgy of celebrating the Holy Mass. This can be seen from Pastor Aeturnus, citing unity is vital in celebrating Holy Mass.

  1. The unity of the Church, which the ministry of Peter's Successor serves in a unique way, reaches its highest expression in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the centre and root of ecclesial communion; this communion is also necessarily based on the unity of the Episcopate. Therefore, "every celebration of the Eucharist is performed in union not only with the proper Bishop, but also with the Pope, with the episcopal order, with all the clergy, and with the entire people. Every valid celebration of the Eucharist expresses this universal communion with Peter and with the whole Church, or objectively calls for it",43 as in the case of the Churches which are not in full communion with the Apostolic See. - The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

Perhaps, the subject of validity is more focus on the consecration of the "bread and wine". Since Art.5 in Traditionis Costudes stated the priestly faculties status quo is not supplied unless a Bishop grant the priest permission to celebrate the TLM. This specific question or scenario must be answer.

If Art.#5 of Traditionis Custodes stated, the priest have no supplied faculties to celebrate the TLM, will the Holy Spirit descend on a restricted celebration and will the Holy Spirit sanctifies the bread & wine tainted with disobedience? If the Holy Spirit do not descend, does it mean the consecration was not confected, therefore invalid?

Art. 5. Priests who already celebrate according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 should request from the diocesan Bishop the authorization to continue to enjoy this faculty.

No Authorization means No Faculties.

No Faculties to celebrate the TLM, will it also means no faculties to consecrate the bread and wine? Just like when Pope Francis had not yet supplied the faculties to SSPX priest administer Sacrament of Confession to absolve sins?


Other Source(s):

Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custodes is for the Sake of Unity

  • 2
    The schismatic Eastern so-called "Orthodox" have valid Orders and Eucharist.
    – Geremia
    Sep 5, 2021 at 23:12
  • @Geremia The Roman Canon in Eucharistic Prayers does not apply to Easter Churches, right? Sep 5, 2021 at 23:16
  • 1
    Validly ordained schismatics can validly (but illicitly) consecrate; cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III q. 82 a. 7 "Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?"
    – Geremia
    Sep 7, 2021 at 22:40
  • 1
    @jongricafort The rubrics of TLM forbid saying the canon aloud. To do so would be valid but illicit. Sep 8, 2021 at 5:42
  • 1
    @jongricafort you are ignoring the "or objectively calls for it" in the document you cite. It's allowing for valid Eucharists which don't explicitly express unity (e.g. by schismatics) by stating those Eucharists still call for unity with the Pope. In any case, the document you cite is not dogmatic per se and thus cannot and does not contradict the doctrine as taught by Aquinas et al
    – eques
    Sep 8, 2021 at 13:41

1 Answer 1


In light of Traditionis Custodes, is the TLM celebrated by a well known schismatic Priest an invalid Mass?

The short answer no.

The Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes of Pope Francis deals with simply putting more restrictive measures for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (TLM) usages.

If the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is celebrated by a well known schismatic Priest, the Mass would be considered valid but illicit.

Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, a canon lawyer, excommunicated a priest and that very priest celebrated a Mass which is considered valid, yet illicit.

The Rev. Marek Bozek left his previous parish without his bishop’s permission and was hired by St. Stanislaus Kostka Church earlier this month. As a result, Bozek and the six-member lay board were excommunicated last week by Archbishop Raymond Burke for committing an act of schism.

Burke said it would be a mortal sin for anyone to participate in a Mass celebrated by a priest who was excommunicated — the Catholic Church’s most severe penalty. Burke, who couldn’t stop the Mass, said it would be “valid” but “illicit.” -Excommunicated priest holds ‘illicit’ Mass

Please remember that even though a cleric that has even been laicized and no longer functions as a deacon, priest, or bishop, he still has the sacramental character of Holy Orders. Technically, if he were to perform a sacrament in accord with the norms of the Church, that sacrament would indeed be valid. However, the sacrament would be illicit, meaning he violated Church law and would be culpable for this infraction since he no longer has the faculties to function as a priest. Pope Francis’ Motu Proprio can not change that. End of story.

The indelible mark conferred at priestly ordination can not be undone. It lasts for eternity.

  • 1
    As far as I can see, validity does not require reciting the Eucharistic prayers sincerely; what is required is the intention to consecrate the host and wine, and even that can be somewhat vague, an intention to do what the Church does. (See the decree "De defectibus" of Pope St. Pius V, especially sections 6 and 7.) Sep 6, 2021 at 23:41
  • 1
    @jongricafort Please post a link so it can be analyzed? Not worried about Canon Law. The intention to say the words of consecration suffice to make it valid, regardless if said by schismatic or not. The Orthodox have a valid priesthood and sacraments, even though not in union with Rome!
    – Ken Graham
    Sep 7, 2021 at 0:03
  • 3
    @jongricafort literally that's not how it works. This was settled with the Donatist controversy of the 5th Century
    – eques
    Sep 7, 2021 at 14:09
  • 2
    @jongricafort Could you please provide a link to the text of Pastor Aeturnus? At first, I thought that was a typo and you meant the famous decree "Pastor Aeternus", but neither I nor my computer find the sentence you quote there, so apparently "Pastor Aeturnus" is something else. Sep 8, 2021 at 1:10
  • 1
    @AndreasBlass the quote appears to be from a CDF statement vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/…
    – eques
    Sep 8, 2021 at 13:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .