Catholic Priest who doesnt believe in Jesus

[Owari]

There is a visiting priest from seattle who is on vacation from hawaii, he celebrated mass for the community in seattle area,
my question is, what should be done if he stated that the scripture might be wrong and he doesnt believe entirely that Jesus is God, and everything in the scripture might not reflect the true story especially the Gospel?

My other question, if he himself doesnt believe in Jesus, is the consecration of the eucharist valid?

 

[Trishie]

The priest has openly admitted to beliefs that are contrary to Church faith and teaching, and in his position of priest publicly denying the bible and the teachings of the Church, he is endangering the faith of members of his congregations.
I would feel that this is a matter his bishop and yours should know about, because of the danger to souls. Already you yourself have painful questions arising from the priest’s declarations. If you know a trusted fellow witness of his words, then perhaps you might join together in alerting the bishops. Errors remain to do damage if good people do nothing.

The priest needs compassionate prayer regarding his personal doubts. I’m sure it has been a struggle for him. However as a priest of the Church making his doubts public to the people for whom he temporarily…or more permanently…is responsible to lead in revealed truth, then he is in danger of being a wolf in sheep’s clothing for the people.

May God guide you

 

[Trishie]

Regarding your question.

ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm
4.2 Condition Two - Intent of the Priest

The priest must have the intent of doing what the Church does, that being the intent to make Jesus physically present via the miracle of transubstantiation at the consecration. The Council of Trent - a dogmatic council in response to the Protestant heresy - declared against the Protestant view which denies the necessity of the intention of the minister. St. Thomas Aquinas also covers this requirement in Summa Theologica (Third Part, Question 64, Articles 8, 9, 10).

Council of Trent, Seventh Session, March 3, 1547; Canon 11: " If anyone says that in ministers, when they effect and
confer the sacraments, there is not required at least the intention of doing what the Church does, [Eugene IV in the decr. cited.] let him be anathema."

…However, unless you speak to him it may not be possible to determine the priest’s intent.
Yet, if he doesn’t believe Jesus is God, then what does he think Consecration is?

 

[quiet52]

There is a visiting priest from seattle who is on vacation from hawaii, he celebrated mass for the community in seattle area,
my question is, what should be done if the stated that the scripture might be wrong and he doesnt believe entirely that Jesus is God, and everything in the scripture might not reflect the true story especially the Gospel?

My other question, if he himself doesnt believe in Jesus, is the consecration of the eucharist valid?

Thank you for your concern about the souls of the faithful who attend the Masses celebrated by this priest. If he explicitly stated that the scriptures might be wrong, and that he doubts that Jesus is God, then please inform his bishop and the archbishop of Seattle. State clearly what he said, the date, time and location of the Mass, and include your name and address. If you don’t include your name and address, your letter will be discarded and your effort will be fruitless. If you cannot remember, or if you have any doubts as to what he might have said, then don’t pursue any course of action other than to pray for this priest. Please pray for him no matter what!

Archbishop J. Peter Sartain D.D., S.T.L.
Archdiocese of Seattle
710 9th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104

Bishop Clarence “Larry” Silva
Diocese of Honolulu
1184 Bishop Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

 

[TheophilusOD]

Well, based on the fact that this priest is visiting in Seattle, I would say you would likely have a difficult time getting a hold of him to discuss your thoughts. Perhaps discussing them with the head priest in your parish. I, too, am in the Seattle area and have never seen such a thing here, but when I went to Hawaii for vacation and went to mass, well, let’s just say it was unorthodox with dancing and parades during the mass by hula dances.

Ultimately, if you and your priest deem these actions as contrary to the teachings of Christ and the requirements of the Missal, you will want to inform the Archbishops in both Seattle and Honolulu.

For now, in addition to discussing this with your priest, my recommendation is to pray for this visiting priest to pull away the devil that may have taken him away from his faith.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is a visiting priest from seattle who is on vacation from hawaii, he celebrated mass for the community in seattle area,
my question is, what should be done if he stated that the scripture might be wrong and he doesnt believe entirely that Jesus is God, and everything in the scripture might not reflect the true story especially the Gospel?

My other question, if he himself doesnt believe in Jesus, is the consecration of the eucharist valid?

Q1, what should be done if a priest doesn’t believe Jesus is God.
A: Anathemize him. It worked for Arius, it will work for this priest.

Q2, does this invalidate the Eucharist?
A: If the priest still intends to do what the Church does, that is to consecrate the bread and wine, then yes its valid. How do we verify that, I do not know.

 

[Lady_Marchmain]

It takes a bit more than that to make it valid, the words must be accurate. Maybe this seems like stating the obvious but with a priest who says maybe Jesus is not divine, who knows what else he said.

(1) The words of the Consecration itself must be exact (he cannot omit, change or add words). I’m not talking about the whole Eucharistic prayer, just this one sentence that confects the Eucharist. The one before the bells are rung if your parish does that: “This is my Body which will be given up for you.”

(2) As for intention, if the priest does not deliberately intend to withhold (negate) consecration, that is, he is not willfully wanting to deny the Consecration, his “intent” is “with the Church” (although in his case with a bunch of doubt and confusion mixed in). He can be very individually in a distressed spiritual state, he need not even believe himself, and may still maintain a drop of good intention to perform this priestly duty. Which seems to be evidenced by his saying Mass at all.

It would be a rare and possibly diabolic case where a priest would not just be like this poor man, a spiritual basket case, but actually defy God’s will. More likely this priest is confused and “going through the motions” - and that is enough for intent.

 

[Digitonomy]

(1) The words of the Consecration itself must be exact (he cannot omit, change or add words). I’m not talking about the whole Eucharistic prayer, just this one sentence that confects the Eucharist. The one before the bells are rung if your parish does that: “This is my Body which will be given up for you.”

Your second point was very well-stated. On this first point, however, I don’t believe there is any official support for the notion that the words of consecration must be exactly verbatim as you typed above, or the consecration is invalid. Rather, any deviation runs some risk of being an invalid formula, and the greater the deviation, the greater the risk.

But I think it would be difficult to argue that a priest who says e.g. “This here is my body…” invalidates the Eucharist by adding that single word.

 

[Owari]

Thank you so much for the answers,

I’ll try to follow what you guys recommended

 

[Stylites]

Thank you so much for the answers,

I’ll try to follow what you guys recommended

One good idea would be to ask the priest who is being talked about behind his back to come join the forum and express himself in his own words, just in case something inadvertently got lost in the translation.

 

[Lady_Marchmain]

Your second point was very well-stated. On this first point, however, I don’t believe there is any official support for the notion that the words of consecration must be exactly verbatim as you typed above, or the consecration is invalid. Rather, any deviation runs some risk of being an invalid formula, and the greater the deviation, the greater the risk.

But I think it would be difficult to argue that a priest who says e.g. “This here is my body…” invalidates the Eucharist by adding that single word.

Perhaps it seems amazing, but I have now confirmed this with two priests, the wording must be exact. An accidental slip of the tongue that the priest is unaware of would not interfere, as this is not a magic potion after all. For example, your sample of adding “here” could easily happen INADVERTENTLY by someone who uses that slang phrase habitually. That would not invalidate, although it is illicit. You could see a similar situation with a priest who has a speech impediment or a strong accent. But barring these rare abnormalities, he must intend to and say the precise formula.

One priest is an orthodox and extremely highly educated Jesuit, the other priest is a diocesan pastor of a large parish.

One thought he could find me the reasoning for this in Aquinas, but it might take a while to research.

I will get back to you on this thread. It would be interesting for you to ask a priest, too? We are talking about something not quite trivial! Could you please email me if you have further info and any interest in seeing if we can get this perfectly clear? Thanks.

 

[Digitonomy]

"Lady Marchmain:

An accidental slip of the tongue that the priest is unaware of would not interfere, as this is not a magic potion after all. For example, your sample of adding “here” could easily happen INADVERTENTLY by someone who uses that slang phrase habitually. That would not invalidate, although it is illicit. You could see a similar situation with a priest who has a speech impediment or a strong accent. But barring these rare abnormalities, he must intend to and say the precise formula.

You are suggesting that if the priest intends to say the word “here,” the consecration is invalid, but if he does it unintentionally, the consecration is valid. I could understand that using a different formula could call into question whether the priest actually intends to do what the Church intends. That brings us back to the real issue in the OP. But again, that goes to intent, not form.

If the priest really does want to consecrate the Eucharist, and has simply chosen what he feels is the best translation of the Words of Institution, then we are quibbling over a matter of translation. Perhaps the priest is a native francophone, and is used to saying “ceci,” meaning “this,” but also meaning “this here.” Not remembering whether this particular English translation of “ceci” is supposed to include the “here,” he may intentionally include it to be on the safe side.

Perhaps it seems amazing, but I have now confirmed this with two priests, the wording must be exact…One priest is an orthodox and extremely highly educated Jesuit, the other priest is a diocesan pastor of a large parish.

One thought he could find me the reasoning for this in Aquinas, but it might take a while to research.

I will get back to you on this thread. It would be interesting for you to ask a priest, too? We are talking about something not quite trivial!

It’s true that it’s not trivial. However, I don’t plan to actively pursue it since I don’t see it as an open question. I’m certainly open to reading arguments or references that could reverse or modify my view, but the issue itself seems fairly straightforward to me.

Nothing against the priests you asked, but while priests are obviously much better-educated on these issues than the average Catholic, they aren’t always thinking through the arcane points we discuss on this forum. The reason is that while they certainly cover theoretical issues like this in seminary, the emphasis is quite rightly on doing what is proper and how to correct what was done improperly.

Priests (most of them, anyway) know that you shouldn’t monkey around with the Words of Institution, and that doing so could have grave consequences. That doesn’t mean monkeying around will necessarily invalidate the sacrament. Consider this creative wording:

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”

I regret that some priests are illicitly using poetic license to change the formula in this way. The good news is that they are in good company, and the masses they celebrate should be just as valid as those attended by St. Paul.

 

[Lady_Marchmain]

You just proved my point. Change the words, change the meaning. You cannot change EITHER. In your example, clearly the meaning is changed by changing the words. The priest is to use the words of the Last Supper. He is to act In Persona Christi, not Father the Innovator.

I’m not sure why you find this so incredible. This is a SACRAMENT, of course the words must be correct! Baptism is the same. Not only must the form be precise - water flowing over the forehead - but the words must be exact. Even to change “I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son…” TO “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son…” invalidates the baptism. There is NO baptism. Why? Well, just read it, the MEANING is different.

Words have meaning. It’s astonishing to me all the worry over “INTENT” when we can feel fairly secure almost any priest has the proper intent. Yet, the words you don’t care about? Even though the priest is mutilating the words of Christ in the Last Supper, stepping out of his critical role at Mass as “in persona Christi” and depriving people of the Eucharist.

 

[Digitonomy]

"Lady Marchmain:

The priest is to use the words of the Last Supper. He is to act In Persona Christi, not Father the Innovator.

Have I said otherwise?
Lady Marchmain:

I’m not sure why you find this so incredible.

Depends on what you mean by incredible. I’m not mouth agape in amazement with my head in my hands. But it’s true I don’t find your argument credible.
Lady Marchmain:

Yet, the words you don’t care about?

Not sure where I said anything like that. Try to address my actual argument, not the straw man version of me you’d prefer to bludgeon.
Lady Marchmain:

It’s astonishing to me all the worry over “INTENT” when we can feel fairly secure almost any priest has the proper intent.

I discussed intent because that seemed to be the crux of your point that it was OK for the priest to change the words, so long as he didn’t intend to.

You just proved my point. Change the words, change the meaning. You cannot change EITHER. In your example, clearly the meaning is changed by changing the words. This is a SACRAMENT, of course the words must be correct!

Of course, the words have already changed. They are now being recited in Latin and English, not Greek or Aramaic. There are no doubt tiny shades of difference in the meanings of words in the different languages. The differences in meaning are probably slightly greater when translated into non-European languages. But these differences are tiny; the words have essentially the same meaning, and the Church has said it is close enough. The question then becomes, how big a difference must there be for it not to be close enough?

I gave an example that I found questionable on its face but apparently valid, and you seem to be arguing it is definitely invalid. If you are correct, Paul was apparently celebrating or attending invalid masses, and spreading his error up to the present day through sacred scripture. That I would find truly incredible.
Lady Marchmain:

Even to change “I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son…” TO “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son…” invalidates the baptism.

I would be interested to see your cite for this.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Perhaps it seems amazing, but I have now confirmed this with two priests, the wording must be exact. An accidental slip of the tongue that the priest is unaware of would not interfere, as this is not a magic potion after all. For example, your sample of adding “here” could easily happen INADVERTENTLY by someone who uses that slang phrase habitually. That would not invalidate, although it is illicit. You could see a similar situation with a priest who has a speech impediment or a strong accent. But barring these rare abnormalities, he must intend to and say the precise formula.

One priest is an orthodox and extremely highly educated Jesuit, the other priest is a diocesan pastor of a large parish.

One thought he could find me the reasoning for this in Aquinas, but it might take a while to research.

I will get back to you on this thread. It would be interesting for you to ask a priest, too? We are talking about something not quite trivial! Could you please email me if you have further info and any interest in seeing if we can get this perfectly clear? Thanks.

You are correct. Last year, our parochial vicar who normally says the Mass in Spanish was sick and our pastor, who does not speak spanish, had to fill in. When he got to the words of Consecration, he said them in English because he did not want to make a mistake.

 

[Lady_Marchmain]

You are correct. Last year, our parochial vicar who normally says the Mass in Spanish was sick and our pastor, who does not speak spanish, had to fill in. When he got to the words of Consecration, he said them in English because he did not want to make a mistake.

Whew, thanks Angel! Nice to have your confirmation after I’ve been accused of nasty things here and I was, I thought, just having a polite conversation.

Your Pastor realized the necessity (not preference) of proper form.

Considering the Eucharist is the absolute core of the practice of our Faith, it’s perfectly logical the Church would have it defined and not let priests make up their own words for the Consecration, of all things!!!

And this precision is also required for other sacraments as well. Baptism is exact. The words of Absolution also must contain certain phrases. This is so logical I’m surprised another poster questions it, even implying it is somehow unreasonable. What could be more reasonable than the Sacraments be clear and have words, form and meaning that all work together?

Some years ago a parish priest was “baptizing” using the trendy formula, “…in the name of the Creator, the Savior and the Sanctifier…”! This went on for years with about 200 babies and some adults “baptized” until someone complained to the Bishop. The response was immediate and caused an uproar. The Bishop declared none of those baptisms were valid!

The parish had to contact everyone to come back and be REALLY baptized. Of course in such a large parish, some had moved away, etc. They never were able to find all the people and baptize them. Some probably believe they are baptized and they are not. Why? Because of WORDS! Due to that priest’s cute little variations on the Church’s formula, people are walking around today who believe they are baptized and they are not.

To be clear about the Mass:

THE CONSECRATION IS INVALID if the priest does not say, “This is my Body,” and "This is…my Blood."

I dearly wish for people to know this so if they are at an invalid consecration, they don’t go to “communion” and then they talk to the priest, and if he denies it, then to the bishop. This is the most important thing in our spiritual lives, and I sincerely do not want people unknowingly deprived of the Sacrament of the Eucharist!

 

[smichhertz]

There is a visiting priest from seattle who is on vacation from hawaii, he celebrated mass for the community in seattle area,
my question is, what should be done if he stated that the scripture might be wrong and he doesnt believe entirely that Jesus is God, and everything in the scripture might not reflect the true story especially the Gospel?

My other question, if he himself doesnt believe in Jesus, is the consecration of the eucharist valid?

Owari,

Firstly, welcome to CAF! I hope you have positive experiences on these forums and that it greatly aids you in your spiritual journey. I have found CAF to be a wonderful resource and community for my faith!

As to this unfortunate situation I can not offer any advice, but please know that I am praying for this poor priest. May he be inspired by the Holy Spirit to see and know the truth of God.

 

[Digitonomy]

Some years ago a parish priest was “baptizing” using the trendy formula, “…in the name of the Creator, the Savior and the Sanctifier…”! This went on for years with about 200 babies and some adults “baptized” until someone complained to the Bishop. The response was immediate and caused an uproar. The Bishop declared none of those baptisms were valid!

This is a far more blatant and obvious case than your earlier example in post #13.