Can a priest cancel your sacraments at his discretion?

[Dissenter]

The Baltimore Catechism No. 3 states:

Q. 612: Can the Sacraments be given conditionally?
A. The Sacraments can be given conditionally as often as we doubt whether they were properly given before, or whether they can be validly given now.

Q. 613: What do we mean by giving a Sacrament conditionally?
A. By giving a Sacrament conditionally we mean that the person administering the Sacrament intends to give it only in case it has not been given already or in case the person has the right dispositions for receiving it, though the dispositions cannot be discovered. [emphasis added.]

Q. 614: Give an example of how a Sacrament is given conditionally.
A. In giving Baptism, for instance, conditionally-or what we call conditional Baptism-the priest, instead of saying absolutely, as he does in ordinary Baptism: "I baptize thee," &c., says: "If you are not already baptized, or if you are capable of being baptized, I baptize thee." &c., thus stating the sole condition on which he intends to administer the Sacrament.

Q. 617: What is the use and effect of giving the Sacraments conditionally?
A. The use of giving the Sacraments conditionally is that there may be no irreverence to the Sacraments in giving them to persons incapable or unworthy of receiving them; and yet that no one who is capable or worthy may be deprived of them. The effect is to supply the Sacrament where it is needed or can be given, and to withhold it where it is not needed or cannot be given.

I have a CCC but I could not find whether it superseded any of these points.


My question: what’s to stop priests from using Conditional Salvation to knowingly or unknowingly enforce a mistaken agenda, if they may set conditions at their discretion?

What if their bishop had thought it surely is God’s will to send laborers into the vineyard, and so they didn’t save the potential candidate unless they resolved to be a priest?

What if, hypothetically speaking of course, a bishop had caved a bit to the needs of his people and mistakenly decided some of their vain ambitions were morally imperative for the candidates he ordained to the priesthood?

Is conditional salvation thought to be passed on in the case of Holy Orders? Suppose there was some priest somewhere who read The Communist Manifesto and thought Marxism is surely what the Lord intended, and he became a bishop, and felt sure in his conscience that the Lord only wanted to ordain Marxists? Would all the priests he ordained not be able to administer the Sacraments unless they tried to convert people to Marxism? Would the priests they ordained be also unable?



I have also heard it suggested, but I can’t remember where, that the fact that a priest can apply conditional salvation without discovery implies they are not actually making Christ present but are “putting on Christ” as the Protestants say they do when they read scripture and get saved. Can it be the cost of not having to be one’s own priest and live a little closer to God is being subject to the choices of a fallible person?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Baltimore Catechism No. 3 states:

Q. 612: Can the Sacraments be given conditionally?
A. The Sacraments can be given conditionally as often as we doubt whether they were properly given before, or whether they can be validly given now.

Q. 613: What do we mean by giving a Sacrament conditionally?
A. By giving a Sacrament conditionally we mean that the person administering the Sacrament intends to give it only in case it has not been given already or in case the person has the right dispositions for receiving it, though the dispositions cannot be discovered. [emphasis added.]

Q. 614: Give an example of how a Sacrament is given conditionally.
A. In giving Baptism, for instance, conditionally-or what we call conditional Baptism-the priest, instead of saying absolutely, as he does in ordinary Baptism: "I baptize thee," &c., says: "If you are not already baptized, or if you are capable of being baptized, I baptize thee." &c., thus stating the sole condition on which he intends to administer the Sacrament.

Q. 617: What is the use and effect of giving the Sacraments conditionally?
A. The use of giving the Sacraments conditionally is that there may be no irreverence to the Sacraments in giving them to persons incapable or unworthy of receiving them; and yet that no one who is capable or worthy may be deprived of them. The effect is to supply the Sacrament where it is needed or can be given, and to withhold it where it is not needed or cannot be given.

I have a CCC but I could not find whether it superseded any of these points.


My question: what’s to stop priests from using Conditional Salvation to knowingly or unknowingly enforce a mistaken agenda, if they may set conditions at their discretion?

What if their bishop had thought it surely is God’s will to send laborers into the vineyard, and so they didn’t save the potential candidate unless they resolved to be a priest?

What if, hypothetically speaking of course, a bishop had caved a bit to the needs of his people and mistakenly decided some of their vain ambitions were morally imperative for the candidates he ordained to the priesthood?

Is conditional salvation thought to be passed on in the case of Holy Orders? Suppose there was some priest somewhere who read The Communist Manifesto and thought Marxism is surely what the Lord intended, and he became a bishop, and felt sure in his conscience that the Lord only wanted to ordain Marxists? Would all the priests he ordained not be able to administer the Sacraments unless they tried to convert people to Marxism? Would the priests they ordained be also unable?



I have also heard it suggested, but I can’t remember where, that the fact that a priest can apply conditional salvation without discovery implies they are not actually making Christ present but are “putting on Christ” as the Protestants say they do when they read scripture and get saved. Can it be the cost of not having to be one’s own priest and live a little closer to God is being subject to the choices of a fallible person?

This passage from the Baltimore Catechism refers to sacraments administered when it cannot be determined that a prior reception of the sacrament (for instance, baptism) was valid, or when the priest cannot know whether the person would want to receive the sacrament if they could consent to it (as in administering absolution or Extreme Unction, also known as Anointing of the Sick, to an unconscious person), or when conferring an emergency baptism upon a person if the priest cannot know whether the soul has left the body or not. It doesn't mean that the priest deliberately withholds consent to administering the sacrament according to a personal prejudice he might have. As long as the priest recites the words, uses the proper manner, and intends to do what the Church does, a valid sacrament is conferred.

This is referred to in theological manuals as conferral of a sacrament sub conditione.

 

[Dissenter]

This passage from the Baltimore Catechism refers to sacraments administered when it cannot be determined that a prior reception of the sacrament (for instance, baptism) was valid, or when the priest cannot know whether the person would want to receive the sacrament if they could consent to it (as in administering absolution or Extreme Unction, also known as Anointing of the Sick, to an unconscious person), or when conferring an emergency baptism upon a person if the priest cannot know whether the soul has left the body or not. It doesn't mean that the priest deliberately withholds consent to administering the sacrament according to a personal prejudice he might have. As long as the priest recites the words, uses the proper manner, and intends to do what the Church does, a valid sacrament is conferred.

This is referred to in theological manuals as conferral of a sacrament sub conditione.

You have made my point. They can make their intention contingent.

The intention is where the conditional salvation rests. The priest has the power to withhold intention or to intend his sacraments to only have saving efficacy when his conditions are met.

Question 613 spells out that the priest need not discover whether the right dispositions are present.

It seems that it is thought sacramental efficacy can be withheld simply by the priest not wanting to help anyone who doesn't believe in his faction's cherished views.

If no one argues about what Christianity means, why are there over 2,000 Christian denominations? Religious wars between Christians? Schisms? Heresies? One pope says one cannot at the same time be a true Catholic and a sincere Socialist, another pope says Christianity and Marxism share a common goal?

Look at the Albigensian heresy. St. Dominic gave us the Rosary in order to let the faithful meditate on scripture in the areas where the priests were all subscribing to Albigensianism.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

You have made my point. They can make their intention contingent.

The intention is where the conditional salvation rests. The priest has the power to withhold intention or to intend his sacraments to only have saving efficacy when his conditions are met.

Question 613 spells out that the priest need not discover whether the right dispositions are present.

It seems that it is thought sacramental efficacy can be withheld simply by the priest not wanting to help anyone who doesn't believe in his faction's cherished views.

If no one argues about what Christianity means, why are there over 2,000 Christian denominations? Religious wars between Christians? Schisms? Heresies? One pope says one cannot at the same time be a true Catholic and a sincere Socialist, another pope says Christianity and Marxism share a common goal?

Look at the Albigensian heresy. St. Dominic gave us the Rosary in order to let the faithful meditate on scripture in the areas where the priests were all subscribing to Albigensianism.

You are misunderstanding what Question 613 says. It refers to cases where the internal dispositions of the person cannot be known, as in when someone is unconscious and the priest administers Extreme Unction (Anointing of the Sick), absolution (sacrament of Penance), or baptism in case of an emergency where the consent of the baptized cannot be had (as with a priest going to the scene of an accident and finding a person who may or may not be dead, and/or who may or may not have been baptized). In all such cases, it cannot be known whether the person would have wished to receive the sacrament or not. If they would not have wished to receive the sacrament, there would be no sacrament.

A priest wants to help anyone he can, to save their souls. Your assessment of a priest's motivations is oddly malignant.

Your latter two sentences are a kind of non sequitur. The proliferation of Christian denominations is due to error and heresy spreading and feeding on itself. Our Lord wills all people to adhere to His one true Catholic Church. As to your implicit assertion that two Popes (presumably Pius XI and Francis) contradict one another, first, certain socialist movements may have evolved (there are many flavors of socialism) from the time of Pius such that they are no longer antithetical to Catholicism, and secondly, to say that Christianity and Marxism share a common goal (I would have said "some common goals") does not necessarily bless Marxism or socialism based upon Marxism. They both seek the common good, just with different emphases and methodologies.

 

[Dissenter]

You are misunderstanding what Question 613 says. It refers to cases where the internal dispositions of the person cannot be known, as in when someone is unconscious and the priest administers Extreme Unction (Anointing of the Sick), absolution (sacrament of Penance), or baptism in case of an emergency where the consent of the baptized cannot be had (as with a priest going to the scene of an accident and finding a person who may or may not be dead, and/or who may or may not have been baptized). In all such cases, it cannot be known whether the person would have wished to receive the sacrament or not. If they would not have wished to receive the sacrament, there would be no sacrament.

I agree they can use it in the examples provided. I was hoping to find out whether there were a reason to think they can only use it in the way outlined in the examples provided.

A priest wants to help anyone he can, to save their souls. Your assessment of a priest's motivations is oddly malignant.

Are all priests always honest? Why did (St. Augustine, was it?) have to point out that a priest's sacraments are valid even if he is in a state of mortal sin?

Your latter two sentences are a kind of non sequitur. The proliferation of Christian denominations is due to error and heresy spreading and feeding on itself. Our Lord wills all people to adhere to His one true Catholic Church. As to your implicit assertion that two Popes (presumably Pius XI and Francis) contradict one another, first, certain socialist movements may have evolved (there are many flavors of socialism) from the time of Pius such that they are no longer antithetical to Catholicism, and secondly, to say that Christianity and Marxism share a common goal (I would have said "some common goals") does not necessarily bless Marxism or socialism based upon Marxism. They both seek the common good, just with different emphases and methodologies.

Couldn't an error spread because the faithful weren't being saved by an adherent of said error unless they adhered to it?

Can it be it's not the socialism which is changing? Can it be dissenters are changing the Church?
(I'm sure socialism is changing but that may not be the relevant issue.) From a Bing search summary:

"The “Long March through the Institutions” is a phrase coined by Italian communist Antonio Gramsci to describe how a society could be subverted without recourse to arms. By co-opting society’s chief institutions—schools, universities, courts, corporations, media and political parties—dedicated leftists could effect revolutionary change."

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I agree they can use it in the examples provided. I was hoping to find out whether there were a reason to think they can only use it in the way outlined in the examples provided.

I think it is reasonable to say that a priest, using the proper form and matter, can be assumed to have the proper intention. The form itself (viz. the words used) ensures that the intention is intact. A priest who would have it in his mind to simulate sacraments without the penitent's knowledge would commit a very grave sin.

Are all priests always honest? Why did (St. Augustine, was it?) have to point out that a priest's sacraments are valid even if he is in a state of mortal sin?

A priest in mortal sin can still intend to confect a valid sacrament. He may have some gravely sinful habit he is unwilling to break, but at the same time wants to provide sacraments to the faithful. Even though in every Mass he offers, when he consumes the sacrifice, he commits yet another mortal sin (unworthy reception), so far as I am aware, he commits no sin in conferring any other of the six sacraments, nor is his Mass invalid.

Couldn't an error spread because the faithful weren't being saved by an adherent of said error unless they adhered to it?

I really struggle to understand what you are saying here. Could you break this idea down, or provide an example?

Can it be it's not the socialism which is changing? Can it be dissenters are changing the Church?
(I'm sure socialism is changing but that may not be the relevant issue.) From a Bing search summary:

"The “Long March through the Institutions” is a phrase coined by Italian communist Antonio Gramsci to describe how a society could be subverted without recourse to arms. By co-opting society’s chief institutions—schools, universities, courts, corporations, media and political parties—dedicated leftists could effect revolutionary change."

First of all, I'd want to define "socialism". Is someone who belongs to one of the European social democratic parties, which admit that private enterprise can coexist along socially owned enterprises, a true "socialist"? Is someone who advocates public ownership of such things as health care, telecommunications, common carrier transportation, or even manufacture of some goods, a "socialist" in the sense that Pius XI condemned? Or did Pius have in mind solely those forms of socialism that owe a debt to Marx and Lenin?

 

[po18guy]

The Baltimore Catechism No. 3 states:

Q. 612: Can the Sacraments be given conditionally?
A. The Sacraments can be given conditionally as often as we doubt whether they were properly given before, or whether they can be validly given now.

Q. 613: What do we mean by giving a Sacrament conditionally?
A. By giving a Sacrament conditionally we mean that the person administering the Sacrament intends to give it only in case it has not been given already or in case the person has the right dispositions for receiving it, though the dispositions cannot be discovered. [emphasis added.]

Q. 614: Give an example of how a Sacrament is given conditionally.
A. In giving Baptism, for instance, conditionally-or what we call conditional Baptism-the priest, instead of saying absolutely, as he does in ordinary Baptism: "I baptize thee," &c., says: "If you are not already baptized, or if you are capable of being baptized, I baptize thee." &c., thus stating the sole condition on which he intends to administer the Sacrament.

Q. 617: What is the use and effect of giving the Sacraments conditionally?
A. The use of giving the Sacraments conditionally is that there may be no irreverence to the Sacraments in giving them to persons incapable or unworthy of receiving them; and yet that no one who is capable or worthy may be deprived of them. The effect is to supply the Sacrament where it is needed or can be given, and to withhold it where it is not needed or cannot be given.

I have a CCC but I could not find whether it superseded any of these points.


My question: what’s to stop priests from using Conditional Salvation to knowingly or unknowingly enforce a mistaken agenda, if they may set conditions at their discretion?

What if their bishop had thought it surely is God’s will to send laborers into the vineyard, and so they didn’t save the potential candidate unless they resolved to be a priest?

What if, hypothetically speaking of course, a bishop had caved a bit to the needs of his people and mistakenly decided some of their vain ambitions were morally imperative for the candidates he ordained to the priesthood?

Is conditional salvation thought to be passed on in the case of Holy Orders? Suppose there was some priest somewhere who read The Communist Manifesto and thought Marxism is surely what the Lord intended, and he became a bishop, and felt sure in his conscience that the Lord only wanted to ordain Marxists? Would all the priests he ordained not be able to administer the Sacraments unless they tried to convert people to Marxism? Would the priests they ordained be also unable?



I have also heard it suggested, but I can’t remember where, that the fact that a priest can apply conditional salvation without discovery implies they are not actually making Christ present but are “putting on Christ” as the Protestants say they do when they read scripture and get saved. Can it be the cost of not having to be one’s own priest and live a little closer to God is being subject to the choices of a fallible person?

Which Protestant denomination are you?

 

[Dissenter]

Which Protestant denomination are you?

Former Catholic, haven't picked one yet.

 

[Dissenter]

I think it is reasonable to say that a priest, using the proper form and matter, can be assumed to have the proper intention. The form itself (viz. the words used) ensures that the intention is intact. A priest who would have it in his mind to simulate sacraments without the penitent's knowledge would commit a very grave sin.

This despite the fact that the catechism explicitly spells out that they can have the intention to not confer the sacraments on certain people.

A priest in mortal sin can still intend to confect a valid sacrament. He may have some gravely sinful habit he is unwilling to break, but at the same time wants to provide sacraments to the faithful. Even though in every Mass he offers, when he consumes the sacrifice, he commits yet another mortal sin (unworthy reception), so far as I am aware, he commits no sin in conferring any other of the six sacraments, nor is his Mass invalid.

But by extension, it is possible for a priest to be offering Mass even while acting badly by withholding the sacraments for his own reasons.

I really struggle to understand what you are saying here. Could you break this idea down, or provide an example?

What if Albigensianism spread because priests began preaching it, and only saving those who adhered to it, leaving the rest to face the consequences of their sins as if they were not saved? What if some Communist or Liberation Theologist spread Marxism by only saving those who start to practice Marxist principles?

First of all, I'd want to define "socialism". Is someone who belongs to one of the European social democratic parties, which admit that private enterprise can coexist along socially owned enterprises, a true "socialist"? Is someone who advocates public ownership of such things as health care, telecommunications, common carrier transportation, or even manufacture of some goods, a "socialist" in the sense that Pius XI condemned? Or did Pius have in mind solely those forms of socialism that owe a debt to Marx and Lenin?

Socialism is definitely evolving but it is beside the point.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

This despite the fact that the catechism explicitly spells out that they can have the intention to not confer the sacraments on certain people.

This passage from the catechism refers to conferring sacraments conditionally. That is not the same thing as simulating a sacrament, which is what seems to be concerning to you here. Canon Law expressly forbids simulating a sacrament:

https://www.catholicculture.org/Culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36493&randomterm=false

For whatever reason, you seem to wish to apply one concept to another scenario, viz. withholding the possibility of a sacrament being conferred because the penitent does not consent to it or because it would, in fact, be invalid (as in conditionally baptizing someone who is already baptized, or who would not want to be baptized if they were able to render consent, such as a militant atheist who is unconscious but the priest does not know that he is a militant atheist), and applying it to a priest who does not want to confer sacraments upon penitents whom he disfavors. Priests do not do the latter.

But by extension, it is possible for a priest to be offering Mass even while acting badly by withholding the sacraments for his own reasons.

If the priest uses the proper form, matter, and intention, he confects a valid sacrament.

What if Albigensianism spread because priests began preaching it, and only saving those who adhered to it, leaving the rest to face the consequences of their sins as if they were not saved? What if some Communist or Liberation Theologist spread Marxism by only saving those who start to practice Marxist principles?

Socialism is definitely evolving but it is beside the point.

Granting that your wild hypothetical did happen (and, by the way, once he has offered Mass, those hosts are consecrated, the priest is not a magician who can only consecrate those hosts that will end up being administered to those who are in his favor, and either not consecrate hosts that will be received by those in his disfavor, or the Real Presence will get "zapped out" of hosts in the latter scenario), Almighty God is perfectly able to confer grace anyway. It would not be the grace of the sacrament itself, but God and His grace are not confined to the sacraments. It is not the penitent's fault.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Former Catholic, haven't picked one yet.

You need to return to the Church. Your salvation depends upon it.

Are you sure that you are not just trying to pick holes in Catholic doctrine, to justify your leaving the Church?

 

[Dissenter]

The concern isn't entirely Socialism so much as

This passage from the catechism refers to conferring sacraments conditionally. That is not the same thing as simulating a sacrament, which is what seems to be concerning to you here. Canon Law expressly forbids simulating a sacrament:

Next you're going to tell me that violating canon law is a mortal sin.

But no, I was not solely referring to simulating a sacrament. I was referring to setting conditions.

For whatever reason, you seem to wish to apply one concept to another scenario, viz. withholding the possibility of a sacrament being conferred because the penitent does not consent to it or because it would, in fact, be invalid (as in conditionally baptizing someone who is already baptized, or who would not want to be baptized if they were able to render consent, such as a militant atheist who is unconscious but the priest does not know that he is a militant atheist), and applying it to a priest who does not want to confer sacraments upon penitents whom he disfavors. Priests do not do the latter.

The rule clearly spells out that a priest can place conditions based on a recipient's dispositions, not only whether they're an atheist or have already been baptized.

If the priest uses the proper form, matter, and intention, he confects a valid sacrament.

And if his intention is to exclude you, he does not confer a valid sacrament.

Granting that your wild hypothetical did happen (and, by the way, once he has offered Mass, those hosts are consecrated, the priest is not a magician who can only consecrate those hosts that will end up being administered to those who are in his favor, and either not consecrate hosts that will be received by those in his disfavor, or the Real Presence will get "zapped out" of hosts in the latter scenario), Almighty God is perfectly able to confer grace anyway.

They may ask a penitent to "pray with the church" or accept the church's conditions regarding a penitent's dispositions, or confuse a penitent about what constitutes correct dispositions.

Your point that once a priest says mass the hosts are cosecrated implies the Lord doesn't know where each host is going.

You also overlook the possibility that a priest could hypothetically count on the Lord conferring grace anyway if the priest believes his condition is necessary, even if it be selfish.

It would not be the grace of the sacrament itself, but God and His grace are not confined to the sacraments. It is not the penitent's fault.

Maybe if you pray a lot.

 

[po18guy]

Something is inciting you to remain distant from Christ. Is it a Church teaching?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Next you're going to tell me that violating canon law is a mortal sin.

Simulating a sacrament would certainly be grave matter, so, yes, it would be.

But no, I was not solely referring to simulating a sacrament. I was referring to setting conditions.

The conditions to which the canon refers are whether the penitent either has not previously received the sacrament (as in a conditional baptism where it is not known whether the recipient is baptized or not), or whether the penitent would wish to receive the sacrament if he could make his wishes known (as in the unconscious person receiving Extreme Unction). "Right dispositions" here does not mean "being in the priest's favor"

The rule clearly spells out that a priest can place conditions based on a recipient's dispositions, not only whether they're an atheist or have already been baptized.

See above.

And if his intention is to exclude you, he does not confer a valid sacrament.

No, he simulates one. Again, Canon Law forbids this.

They may ask a penitent to "pray with the church" or accept the church's conditions regarding a penitent's dispositions, or confuse a penitent about what constitutes correct dispositions.

This is a bizarre hypothetical which would never be found in practice. Again, he would be simulating a sacrament.

Your point that once a priest says mass the hosts are consecrated implies the Lord doesn't know where each host is going.

It is certainly within God's omnipotence to withdraw His Real Presence from an individual host, but we can never assume that this happens.

You also overlook the possibility that a priest could hypothetically count on the Lord conferring grace anyway if the priest believes his condition is necessary, even if it be selfish.

Maybe if you pray a lot.

God confers grace as He will. Certainly someone who receives a simulated sacrament in good faith, not knowing it is simulated, receives some kind of grace, even if it is not sacramental grace.

Again, this is a bizarre hypothetical, and it is hard to understand why one would have so much interest in it. I am not continuing this discussion. If others here wish to, that is their business, but at this point, we are just going around in circles. You appear determined to assert that a priest wtih malignant intent could prevent someone who is not in his personal favor from receiving a sacrament, and if you want to think that such a hypothetical could ever exist in practice, that is your business, but I have no interest in such a discussion. Peace and all good.

 

[po18guy]

My question: what’s to stop priests from using Conditional Salvation to knowingly or unknowingly enforce a mistaken agenda, if they may set conditions at their discretion?

Q: What is "conditional salvation"? I know of no such thing.
Q: Why are you so focused in on hypotheticals?
Q: Why so focused on what a priest does or does not do?