Illicit Vs. Valid

[CreepyCrawler]

What's the difference between an illicit and a valid Eucharist?

[BLAZEr]

The Eucharist can be celebrated in a way that is licit and valid, illicit and valid, and illicit and invalid.

The first, licit and valid, is a mass that is offered according to the rules and rubrics of the Roman Catholic Church. The priest must be a validly ordained priest, in obedience to his local bishop, using wheat bread and wine, and following the rubrics and canon of the mass.

A mass is illicit if any part of the mass is offered contrary to the rubrics or laws of the Church. For instance, the Society of St. Pius the X, the traditionalist schismatic group, offers a Tridentine mass without permission of the Bishop, they are offered by priests who have been ordained against the laws of the church, and they do not use the approved canon for the mass (novus ordo missae). This mass, while valid, is illicit (illicit literally means against the law).

An invalid mass is one where the bread and wine do not become the body and blood, sould and divinity of Christ. This is either because the substances (the bread and wine) are not valid matter (meaning they are not wheat bread and wine). The church has specific guidelines for what the matter should be. The other ways a mass could be invalid is if the words of consecration are intentionally changed or if the priest is not a validly ordained priest.