Can a priest in mortal sin still consecrate the host?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Urmine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Urmine

Guest
Hypothetical question, because I don’t know anyone in this situation - Can a priest who is not in good standing with God…, say for example he has taken inappropriate advantage of children (and he is still conducting Mass)…, (because we know this has happened) - can he then still be able to consecrate the host and wine? Does he still have the power to be a conduit for God in the process of transubstantiation? If a person takes communion from such a priest, is it still the body/blood of Christ?
 
Yes. This was a heresy widespread in the 1200’s, I can’t remember the name at the moment, perhaps the Albigensian.

It is not the priest as a man who consecrates, it is God working through the priest who has this power through ordination (which is permanent on a soul).
 
Hypothetical question, because I don’t know anyone in this situation - Can a priest who is not in good standing with God…, say for example he has taken inappropriate advantage of children (and he is still conducting Mass)…, (because we know this has happened) - can he then still be able to consecrate the host and wine? Does he still have the power to be a conduit for God in the process of transubstantiation? If a person takes communion from such a priest, is it still the body/blood of Christ?
Yes. The Mass is valid, and transsubstantiation takes place in spite of the personal sins of the priest, so long as his intention in saying the Mass is proper.
 
Yes. The Church believes that only the intent is important, which is expressed in Latin as Ex opere operato.

It isn’t ideal, that’s for sure, but the short answer is Yes.
 
Greetings Urmine,

Yes to all three of your questions.

God bless.
Anathama Sit
 
Yes. This was a heresy widespread in the 1200’s, I can’t remember the name at the moment, perhaps the Albigensian.

It is not the priest as a man who consecrates, it is God working through the priest who has this power through ordination (which is permanent on a soul).
Greetings 0129141,

One of my favorite references as a student that lists quite readily all the Church dogmas is Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott.

I quote from page 342
As against the teaching of the Donatists, Waldenses, Fraticelli, Wycliffians, and Hussites the Council of Trent declared: If anyone says that a minister who, though he be in a state of mortal sin, does everything that is essential for the perfection and administration of a sacrament, does not perfect or administer the sacrament let him be Anathema Sit.
God bless.
Anathama Sit
 
The mass and consecration are valid, but the priest has added a very grave sin to his total.

Can. 916 is for the use of such a priest who is repentant and must say mass.
A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
 
More importantly, if the priest lost his faith, the bread would not be changed into the
Body of Christ.
 
But he definately wont be allowed to receive it? or can there be an exception here?
 
But he definately wont be allowed to receive it? or can there be an exception here?
Greetings Divinefaith,

That is a interesting question to ponder for sure. The rubrics call for him to receive the Eucharist. With the priest facing the people in the Novus Ordo Missae the people surely would notice if he received or not.

It will be interesting to see what the others answer your question as. I am sure the Code of Canon Law addressed this, I shall look for what it says later today.

God bless.
Anathama Sit
 
More importantly, if the priest lost his faith, the bread would not be changed into the
Body of Christ.
Greetings Fred conty,

Yet what if the priest still intended to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, even if he lost his faith, then what?

This is a possible scenario.

God bless.
Anathama Sit
 
More importantly, if the priest lost his faith, the bread would not be changed into the
Body of Christ.
He must receive it, and receive both species, for the mass to be valid.

Some time back we had a priest who was trying to institute the practice of the priest receiving last [illicit but valid]. We receive both species. When he picked up the chalice it was empty. It was a mad scramble to find a chalice with a drop [literally one drop] left in it to make the mass valid.
 
He must receive it, and receive both species, for the mass to be valid.

Some time back we had a priest who was trying to institute the practice of the priest receiving last [illicit but valid]. We receive both species. When he picked up the chalice it was empty. It was a mad scramble to find a chalice with a drop [literally one drop] left in it to make the mass valid.
Greetings Joe Kelley,

A friend and I are discussing this very topic, can you please cite the sources that would support what you say. I am thinking it would be covered in the Code of Canon Law, but am not too sure.

Thank you.

God bless.
Anathama Sit
 
I’ll just refer you to the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Part III, Question 82, Article 5 - “Whether a Wicked Priest Can Consecrate the Eucharist?”

Taken from newadvent.org/summa/4082.htm (emphases mine)

Article 5. Whether a wicked priest can consecrate the Eucharist?

Objection 1. It seems that a wicked priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist. For Jerome, commenting on Zephaniah 3:4, says: “The priests who perform the Eucharist, and who distribute our Lord’s blood to the people, act wickedly against Christ’s law, in deeming that the Eucharist is consecrated by a prayer rather than by a good life; and that only the solemn prayer is requisite, and not the priest’s merits: of whom it is said: ‘Let not the priest, in whatever defilement he may be, approach to offer oblations to the Lord’” (Leviticus 21:21, Septuagint). But the sinful priest, being defiled, has neither the life nor the merits befitting this sacrament. Therefore a sinful priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist.

Objection 2. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that “the bread and wine are changed supernaturally into the body and blood of our Lord, by the coming of the Holy Ghost.” But Pope Gelasius I says (Ep. ad Elphid., cf. Decret. i, q. 1): “How shall the Holy Spirit, when invoked, come for the consecration of the Divine Mystery, if the priest invoking him be proved full of guilty deeds?” Consequently, the Eucharist cannot be consecrated by a wicked priest.

Objection 3. Further, this sacrament is consecrated by the priest’s blessing. But a sinful priest’s blessing is not efficacious for consecrating this sacrament, since it is written (Malachi 2:2): “I will curse your blessings.” Again, Dionysius says in his Epistle (viii) to the monk Demophilus: “He who is not enlightened has completely fallen away from the priestly order; and I wonder that such a man dare to employ his hands in priestly actions, and in the person of Christ to utter, over the Divine symbols, his unclean infamies, for I will not call them prayers.”

On the contrary, Augustine (Paschasius) says (De Corp. Dom. xii): "Within the Catholic Church, in the mystery of the Lord’s body and blood, nothing greater is done by a good priest, nothing less by an evil priest, because it is not by the merits of the consecrator that the sacrament is accomplished, but by the Creator’s word, and by the power of the Holy Spirit."

I answer that, As was said above (1,3),** the priest consecrates this sacrament not by his own power, but as the minister of Christ, in Whose person he consecrates this sacrament. But from the fact of being wicked he does not cease to be Christ’s minister; because our Lord has good and wicked ministers or servants. Hence (Matthew 24:45) our Lord says: “Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise servant?” and afterwards He adds: “But if that evil servant shall say in his heart,” etc. And the Apostle (1 Corinthians 4:1) says: “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ”; and afterwards he adds: “I am not conscious to myself of anything; yet am I not hereby justified.” He was therefore certain that he was Christ’s minister; yet he was not certain that he was a just man. Consequently, a man can be Christ’s minister even though he be not one of the just. And this belongs to Christ’s excellence, Whom, as the true God, things both good and evil serve, since they are ordained by His providence for His glory. Hence it is evident that priests, even though they be not godly, but sinners, can consecrate the Eucharist.**

Reply to Objection 1. In those words Jerome is condemning the error of priests who believed they could consecrate the Eucharist worthily, from the mere fact of being priests, even though they were sinners; and Jerome condemns this from the fact that persons defiled are forbidden to approach the altar; but this does not prevent the sacrifice, which they offer, from being a true sacrifice, if they do approach.

Reply to Objection 2. Previous to the words quoted, Pope Gelasius expresses himself as follows: “That most holy rite, which contains the Catholic discipline, claims for itself such reverence that no one may dare to approach it except with clean conscience.” From this it is evident that his meaning is that the priest who is a sinner ought not to approach this sacrament. Hence when he resumes, “How shall the Holy Spirit come when summoned,” it must be understood that He comes, not through the priest’s merits, but through the power of Christ, Whose words the priest utters.

Reply to Objection 3. As the same action can be evil, inasmuch as it is done with a bad intention of the servant; and good from the good intention of the master; so the blessing of a sinful priest, inasmuch as he acts unworthily is deserving of a curse, and is reputed an infamy and a blasphemy, and not a prayer; whereas, inasmuch as it is pronounced in the person of Christ, it is holy and efficacious. Hence it is said with significance: “I will curse your blessings.”
 
Greetings Joe Kelley,

A friend and I are discussing this very topic, can you please cite the sources that would support what you say. I am thinking it would be covered in the Code of Canon Law, but am not too sure.

Thank you.

God bless.
Anathama Sit
I don’t have any reference. I am going on what the priest told me at the time of the incident I related. I have read and heard confirmation of that in various sources.

There is also a requirement that once the Consecration is started the mass must be completed through the priest’s communion. If the celebrant is unable to continue - heart attack etc. - another priest must come in and complete the mass.

Canon Law doesn’t discuss this. You may find something in the GIRM which I don’t have. It is the authority on the rubrics of the mass.
 
He must receive it, and receive both species, for the mass to be valid.

Some time back we had a priest who was trying to institute the practice of the priest receiving last [illicit but valid]. We receive both species. When he picked up the chalice it was empty. It was a mad scramble to find a chalice with a drop [literally one drop] left in it to make the mass valid.
Greetings Joe Kelley,

I talked with a priest about this question. He said it that the priest not taking Holy Communion would not invalidate the Mass, as the Eucharist would be confected. However, he was not sure if it would make the Mass illicit.

This is an interesting thing to be sure. I am going to do some more digging around.

God bless.
Anathama Sit
 
Greetings Fred conty,

Yet what if the priest still intended to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, even if he lost his faith, then what?

This is a possible scenario.

God bless.
Anathama Sit
This seems so wierd so I will dispense with the greetings.

Greetings to all who are posting and or reading in this thread,

The reason that I am quoting my above post, is because I have talked with a priest and asked him this question.

Here is his answer.

If he intends to consecrate the Eucharist even though he has lost his faith, the Eucharist will be confected.

However, he did say, that he had a hard time imagining that if a priest has lost all his faith, then why would he be offering Mass in the first place.

God bless.
Anathama Sit
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top