Are Masses by sinning Priests valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YinYangMom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YinYangMom

Guest
There was a conversation here from someone who had a bad experience with their priest…turns out he was gay, among other issues this person was having with their faith…

but that got me wondering about all the other priests involved in scandals, and the bishops who harbored them as well…

During the time that these priests were conducting Mass while living this lifestyle…were the Masses valid? Was the bread and wine truly turned into Christ’s Body and Blood? What happens to all those parishioners who received the Eucharist or Reconciliation from these priests? Did they receive the Grace they expected?

At first I figured the priest surely went to confession before each Mass to ensure that his actions would not jeopardize his flock, but then that would get me more upset because if he had confessed after each ‘incident’ in order to conduct Mass then why didn’t the person he confessed to turn him in for counseling or something - anything to protect the victims and to save the soul of the priest himself?
 
Are Masses by sinning Priests valid?

Yes, they are valid.
The moral disposition of the priest has no effect on the validity of the sacrament.
 
40.png
JimG:
Are Masses by sinning Priests valid?

Yes, they are valid.
The moral disposition of the priest has no effect on the validity of the sacrament.
Click to expand...
Whew! What a relief. Thanks!

Why is that so? It wouldn’t seem to make sense that a priest in the state of dire sin would be able to do something as Holy as changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

We, as followers, are not supposed to receive the Eucharist if we are in a state of sin. I was under the impression that doing so would result in not getting the full Grace of the sacrament. I could be wrong.

But if our receiving the Eucharist in a sinful state diminishes the effect of that sacrament, then why wouldn’t the sinful state of the priest have a diminishing effect on the sacrament from the other end??
 
YinYangMom said:
But if our receiving the Eucharist in a sinful state diminishes the effect of that sacrament, then why wouldn’t the sinful state of the priest have a diminishing effect on the sacrament from the other end??
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It does make a difference to the priest. He will be Consecrating in mortal sin and receiving the Body and Blood in mortal sin. His punishment will be grave indeed, but at the same time will not affect the validity of the sacrament. Jesus said this is my Body and this is my blood, and do this in memory of me. He never said this is my Body and Blood provided the celebrant is free of mortal sin.🙂
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
Whew! What a relief. Thanks!

Why is that so? It wouldn’t seem to make sense that a priest in the state of dire sin would be able to do something as Holy as changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

We, as followers, are not supposed to receive the Eucharist if we are in a state of sin. I was under the impression that doing so would result in not getting the full Grace of the sacrament. I could be wrong.

But if our receiving the Eucharist in a sinful state diminishes the effect of that sacrament, then why wouldn’t the sinful state of the priest have a diminishing effect on the sacrament from the other end??
Click to expand...
YinYangMom,

I think those are excellent questions. I’ve often thought that those who are in a state of sin are the ones most in need of the Eucharist. After all Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors and broke bread with them, and said the righteous don’t need a hospital; sinners do, etc.

But then I know very well that’s not what the Church teaches, so I’ll save everyone the trouble of going off on me by telling myself, “bad Alan! Naughty Alan! Get back in line and be quiet!!”:tsktsk:

Alan
 
Priest consecrate in *persona Christi. *Christ himself is consecrating the bread and wine. The priest prays to God “let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Lawfully ordained priests aminister valid sacraments, according to the Church, when three conditions are present: 1) valid intention, 2) valid matter, 3) valid form.

If the sinfulness of the priest were a condition of valid sacraments, they’d never be valid, as I don’t know any other sinless priest other than Jesus Christ.
 
40.png
tru_dvotion:
It does make a difference to the priest. He will be Consecrating in mortal sin and receiving the Body and Blood in mortal sin. His punishment will be grave indeed, but at the same time will not affect the validity of the sacrament. Jesus said this is my Body and this is my blood, and do this in memory of me. He never said this is my Body and Blood provided the celebrant is free of mortal sin.🙂
Click to expand...
:hmmm: I would think in all the studying and training one has to undergo before being ordained, that somewhere along the line priests would be charged with the obligation to be sure they were in a clear state of grace before conducting Mass and that there would be consequences if not - not just for the priest but for those he administers to as well.
 
After all Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors and broke bread with them, and said the righteous don’t need a hospital; sinners do, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, but he insisted that they repent. Likewise, he told the adultress, for example, to “Go and sin no more.”

Jesus still eats with sinners and tax collectors in my parish. 😉 Except those that are obstinately impenitent in their sins ought to refrain from participation in “communion” as their communion is lacking without repentance.

Even though you like to color outside the lines, Alan, the Church is patiently and persistently there to correct you. 😉
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Priest consecrate in *persona Christi. *Christ himself is consecrating the bread and wine. The priest prays to God “let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy.”

Lawfully ordained priests aminister valid sacraments, according to the Church, when three conditions are present: 1) valid intention, 2) valid matter, 3) valid form.

If the sinfulness of the priest were a condition of valid sacraments, they’d never be valid, as I don’t know any other sinless priest other than Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. But then why have priests at all?
If it only matters that the intent is valid, the matter is valid and the form is valid - why shouldn’t all Catholics be able to consecrate in persona Christi?

I always thought it is reserved for priests because of the training they receive and the calling they have to rise above ordinary Catholics by accepting the responsibility of conducting their lives in a purer state than the rest of us - and for that response to duty they are given the power from the Pope to act in persona Christi. With that power comes greater responsibility - so when they fail to meet that responsibility in such a grave manner as living a gay lifestyle or participating in sexual molestation why should they be able to take on *persona Christi?*I can’t imagine Christ willing to work through such a person.

But He is Christ…so I shouldn’t be surprised that he’d be willing to work through such a person in order to secure the Graces given to those of us who need it and who, in good faith, believe we are receiving it. If that’s the case, that’s just another reason to be in such awe of Jesus.
 
40.png
JimG:
The moral disposition of the priest has no effect on the validity of the sacrament.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say (at newadvent.org/summa/408209.htm):

(H)eretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John’s Second Canonical Epistle (11) that “He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.” Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.

Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church’s sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church’s sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.

I assume this extends somehow to sinning Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist as well… but whose job is it to pronounce ecclesiastical sentence? The local pastor’s? The bishop’s? And exactly when (and how) would such sentence be pronounced? Or is it “automatic” as soon as, say, guilt of adultery is established in a secular court?
 
40.png
Erich:
The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say (at newadvent.org/summa/408209.htm):

(H)eretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John’s Second Canonical Epistle (11) that “He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.” Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.

Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church’s sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church’s sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass.

I assume this extends somehow to sinning Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist as well… but whose job is it to pronounce ecclesiastical sentence? The local pastor’s? The bishop’s? And exactly when (and how) would such sentence be pronounced? Or is it “automatic” as soon as, say, guilt of adultery is established in a secular court?
Click to expand...
Very interesting. And very good questions. Surely if a pronouncement is not made that a particular priest is suspended then we would not be affected by participating in a Mass by said priest.

But it also gets me angry that more suspensions weren’t handed out once the bishops learned of the priest’s afflictions - but rather the priests were moved to other parishes (as was the case with that particular poster). Shouldn’t those bishops then be held accountable for putting all of his flock at risk?
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
That makes sense. But then why have priests at all?
If it only matters that the intent is valid, the matter is valid and the form is valid - why shouldn’t all Catholics be able to consecrate in persona Christi?
Click to expand...
Part of the proper form is that a priest is celebrating the Mass.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Part of the proper form is that a priest is celebrating the Mass.
Click to expand...
Ah. Ok. But not necessarily a priest in clear conscience. Interesting.
 
YinYangMom said:
:hmmm: I would think in all the studying and training one has to undergo before being ordained, that somewhere along the line priests would be charged with the obligation to be sure they were in a clear state of grace before conducting Mass and that there would be consequences if not - not just for the priest but for those he administers to as well.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

As one of the previous posts said, it is not the priest who transsubstiates, it is Christ himself. So have no fear on account of the priest being in the state of grace. It would be better for all concerned, but not imperative for the validity of the sacrament.

The consequences for the congregation would be in areas of possible false teaching if the priest was habitually in the state of mortal sin. But your question was regarding the validity of the sacraments and these do not change, unless the priest is schismatic and have broken away from the Church. Even then, the sacraments may only be illicit, and not invalid, provided he was validly ordained and used all the lawful words and actions of the mass.
 
But then why have priests at all?
If it only matters that the intent is valid, the matter is valid and the form is valid - why shouldn’t all Catholics be able to consecrate in persona Christi?
Click to expand...
You’ll have to ask Jesus that question. He gave this authority only to certain men. Those men ordained others to do so. The Church probably figures if Jesus wanted everyone to be able to do so, that would have been part of the deposit of faith. It wasn’t.
 
Shouldn’t those bishops then be held accountable for putting all of his flock at risk?
Click to expand...
If one has true sorrow for their sins, confesses their sins to their priest in the Sacrament of Penance, receives absolution and does penance, his past sins are forgiven. What risk do you speak of? The risk of sinning again? Or the risk of receiving Communion from an absolved and penitent, and truly forgiven priest?
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
Whew! What a relief. Thanks!

Why is that so? It wouldn’t seem to make sense that a priest in the state of dire sin would be able to do something as Holy as changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
Click to expand...
Because its not the Priest doing it. Its God at work. If we were dependant on men, men with thier own personal failures and sins, for our salvation we would be in big trouble.

Thank GOD it is HE who works in the Sacraments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top