Can a Priest in Mortal Sin Consecrate the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter dgeier0725
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dgeier0725

Guest
****Can a priest who is in mortal sin still consecrate the Eucharist? Is the Holy Communion be valid.

If you are in mortal sin you can not receive the Host because that is also a grave sin. But if a priest is in mortal how does he have the grace to turn the host into Christ?
 
****Can a priest who is in mortal sin still consecrate the Eucharist? Is the Holy Communion be valid.

If you are in mortal sin you can not receive the Host because that is also a grave sin. But if a priest is in mortal how does he have the grace to turn the host into Christ?
the sacraments do not depend on the holiness of the priest, Hitler could have been ordained a priest and even though he may have caused grave sin, the sacraments are not made invalid because of his sin.
 
As always, “ite ad Thomam” (go to Thomas) for the answer to another riddle: 😃

Summa Theologiae: Part III, Question 64, Article 5:

Objection 1. It seems that the sacraments cannot be conferred by evil ministers. For the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for the purpose of cleansing from sin and for the bestowal of grace. Now evil men, being themselves unclean, cannot cleanse others from sin, according to Sirach 34:4: “Who [Vulgate: ‘What’] can be made clean by the unclean?” Moreover, since they have not grace, it seems that they cannot give grace, for “no one gives what he has not.” It seems, therefore, that the sacraments cannot be conferred by wicked men.

Objection 2. Further, all the power of the sacraments is derived from Christ, as stated above (3; 62, 5). But evil men are cut off from Christ: because they have not charity, by which the members are united to their Head, according to 1 John 4:16: “He that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him.” Therefore it seems that the sacraments cannot be conferred by evil men.

Objection 3. Further, if anything is wanting that is required for the sacraments, the sacrament is invalid; for instance, if the required matter or form be wanting. But the minister required for a sacrament is one who is without the stain of sin, according to Leviticus 21:17-18: “Whosoever of thy seed throughout their families, hath a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God, neither shall he approach to minister to Him.” Therefore it seems that if the minister be wicked, the sacrament has no effect.

On the contrary, Augustine says on John 1:33: “He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit,” etc. (Tract. v in Joan.), that “John did not know that our Lord, having the authority of baptizing, would keep it to Himself, but that the ministry would certainly pass to both good and evil men . . . What is a bad minister to thee, where the Lord is good?”

I answer that, the ministers of the Church work instrumentally in the sacraments, because, in a way, a minister is of the nature of an instrument. But an instrument acts not by reason of its own form, but by the power of the one who moves it. Consequently, whatever form or power an instrument has in addition to that which it has as an instrument, is accidental to it: for instance, that a physician’s body, which is the instrument of his soul, wherein is his medical art, be healthy or sickly; or that a pipe, through which water passes, be of silver or lead. Therefore the ministers of the Church can confer the sacraments, though they be wicked.

Reply to Objection 1. The ministers of the Church do not by their own power cleanse from sin those who approach the sacraments, nor do they confer grace on them: it is Christ Who does this by His own power while He employs them as instruments. Consequently, those who approach the sacraments receive an effect whereby they are enlikened not to the ministers but to Christ.

Reply to Objection 2. Christ’s members are united to their Head by charity, so that they may receive life from Him; for as it is written (1 John 3:14): “He that loveth not abideth in death.” Now it is possible for a man to work with a lifeless instrument, and separated from him as to bodily union, provided it be united to him by some sort of motion: for a workman works in one way with his hand, in another with his axe. Consequently, it is thus that Christ works in the sacraments, both by wicked men as lifeless instruments, and by good men as living instruments.

Reply to Objection 3. A thing is required in a sacrament in two ways. First, as being essential to it: and if this be wanting, the sacrament is invalid; for instance, if the due form or matter be wanting. Secondly, a thing is required for a sacrament, by reason of a certain fitness. And in this way good ministers are required for a sacrament.

END

St. Thomas shows that priests are used as instruments and actors, by God who is the AGENT effecting the sacraments.
 
****Can a priest who is in mortal sin still consecrate the Eucharist? Is the Holy Communion be valid.

If you are in mortal sin you can not receive the Host because that is also a grave sin. But if a priest is in mortal how does he have the grace to turn the host into Christ?
Yes he can. Ultimately the Sacraments come from God. The priest is just a minister. The priest’s sin, or anything else, cannot diminish God.

Though the priest would be sinning for receiving the Eucharist in that state.
 
OK, so the sin of the priest has no bearing on the Eucharist as long as the Priest is a real priest and the consecration is valid. The trasformation comes from God and the priest just the instrument. Thanks for clearing this up.

So is there ever a time when the Eucharist is NOT valid by a priest?
 
OK, so the sin of the priest has no bearing on the Eucharist as long as the Priest is a real priest and the consecration is valid. The trasformation comes from God and the priest just the instrument. Thanks for clearing this up.

So is there ever a time when the Eucharist is NOT valid by a priest?
If the priest does not employ the proper form (at least the minimal words of consecration) and the proper matter (wheat bread and grape wine), the consecration would not occur.

This would also apply if the priest does not have the proper intention, but the Church defines “the proper intention” pretty broadly so that the faithful need not fear that they are unknowingly receiving unconsecrated elements. I’m not sure that even a priest who doesn’t believe in transubstantiation would be prevented from doing it – indeed, many of the reported Eucharistic miracles (hosts turning visibly into flesh or bleeding, etc.) are supposed to have occurred during consecration by priests who doubted the Real Presence.

Usagi
 
I think the others have already given good posts; the only thing I would add is two stories from the saints- St. Teresa of Avila and St. Faustina about the holiness of priests and the consecration:

St. Teresa of Avila wrote: “Once, while approaching to receive Communion, I saw with my soul’s eyes more clearly than with my bodily eyes two devils whose appearance was abominable. It seems to me their horns were wrapped around the poor priests’s throat, and in the host that was going to be given to me I saw my Lord with the majesty I mentioned placed in the priest’s hands, which were clearly seen to be His offender’s; and I understood that that soul was in mortal sin. What would it be my Lord, to see Your beauty in the midst of such abominable figures? They were as though frightened and terrified in Your presence, for it seems they would have very eagerly fled had You allowed them. This vision caused me such great disturbance I don’t know how I was able to receive Communion, and I was left with a great fear, thinking that if the vision had been from God, His Majesty would not have permitted me to see the evil that was in that soul. The Lord Himself told me to pray for him and that He had permitted it so that I might understand the power of the words of consecration and how God does not fail to be present, however evil the priest who recites them, and that I might see His great goodness since He places Himself in those hands of His enemy, and all out of love for me and for everyone. I understood well how much more priests are obliged to be good than are others, how deplorable a thing it is to receive this most Blessed Sacrament unworthily, and how much the devil is lord over the soul in mortal sin. It did me a great deal of good and brought me deep understanding of what I owed God. May He be blessed forever and ever.”

As for St. Faustina, I cannot find the specific passage in the Diary, but I know that she wrote about how important it was for priests to be holy and one with God’s will, because although any priest, even one in mortal sin, can consecrate the Eucharist, the graces are not the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top