H
Horton
Guest
I don’t think you are really understanding what it means to be a priest in the Catholic Church. It is not a “title” or “credentials”. Once a man is ordained a priest he is changed, he is a priest forever.
- Status
G
GKMotley
Guest
There is the process of Degradation, which removes the sacerdotal authority and power.
But not, as far as I know, the indelible character imposed at ordination.
But not, as far as I know, the indelible character imposed at ordination.
A
annad347
Guest
Explain that… are we not all changed when we accept the Lord?
Last edited:
A
annad347
Guest
So basically if he changes churches, he can still perform the sacraments, all 7 of them if he wishes, though they wouldn’t be valid in the Catholic church they would still be valid to God?
Last edited:
G
gohjedrek
Guest
Priest make an official vow to be celibate and to serve their holy orders. On the other hand, we do not take an official vow when we accept the Lord.
Of course for both sides, each can fall short over time. However the former is less likely to change their vocation, while the latter has more latitude. For instance, my family accepted the Lord as their personal savior many years back, but none of them go to church today.
Of course for both sides, each can fall short over time. However the former is less likely to change their vocation, while the latter has more latitude. For instance, my family accepted the Lord as their personal savior many years back, but none of them go to church today.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Let us recall that I am expressing my understanding (relatively informed) on the RCC take on it.
If a validly ordained RC priest were to formally leave the RCC, but no other disciplinary action was taken by the Church against him, and he were to confect a sacrament (assuming all sacramental factors other than the minister of the sacrament to be normal and valid), the sacrament is validly, but illicitly confected. The Eucharist is always a good example. Some years back, a prominent RC priest (with a TV ministry) left the RCC and became an Episcopal priest. Much discussion on boards like this, particularly on the Eucharist, since (not looking in detail at the subject of Anglican orders here) the priest in question would be, visually, doing what he had done as a RC priest, when confecting the Eucharist. And he had valid priestly orders. But not valid faculties and jurisdiction, from the RCC. So, a valid but illicit Eucharist would be confected, all other sacramental factors being assumed valid.
Which brings up the last question you asked. Such a sacrament would be valid, not invalid, to the RCC. But it would be illicit/illegal, not licit. Which is an excellent place to let some knowledgeable RC comment on the last part of your question. What does such a sacrament look like in God’s eyes.
Incidentally, the issue only arises for those sacraments of the seven which require an ordained minister (speaking briefly).
If a validly ordained RC priest were to formally leave the RCC, but no other disciplinary action was taken by the Church against him, and he were to confect a sacrament (assuming all sacramental factors other than the minister of the sacrament to be normal and valid), the sacrament is validly, but illicitly confected. The Eucharist is always a good example. Some years back, a prominent RC priest (with a TV ministry) left the RCC and became an Episcopal priest. Much discussion on boards like this, particularly on the Eucharist, since (not looking in detail at the subject of Anglican orders here) the priest in question would be, visually, doing what he had done as a RC priest, when confecting the Eucharist. And he had valid priestly orders. But not valid faculties and jurisdiction, from the RCC. So, a valid but illicit Eucharist would be confected, all other sacramental factors being assumed valid.
Which brings up the last question you asked. Such a sacrament would be valid, not invalid, to the RCC. But it would be illicit/illegal, not licit. Which is an excellent place to let some knowledgeable RC comment on the last part of your question. What does such a sacrament look like in God’s eyes.
Incidentally, the issue only arises for those sacraments of the seven which require an ordained minister (speaking briefly).
G
GKMotley
Guest
Yes. Particularly, in a sacramental sense, when one is validly baptized.
But the ontological change when one is validly ordained, to do those things the form of the sacramental act specifies, and as defined by the Church to be imparted, specifically, in the sacramental act, are unique to that act.
But the ontological change when one is validly ordained, to do those things the form of the sacramental act specifies, and as defined by the Church to be imparted, specifically, in the sacramental act, are unique to that act.
H
Horton
Guest
Again you are using Protestant language to describe a Catholic sacrament. Catholics do not believe in the one time “accept the Lord” type of theology. We are more of accepting Jesus every day, continuously. We do not believe in “once saved, always saved”.
We are all changed at baptism, left with an indelible mark. All priests have been baptized. When they are ordained there is another change that is only conferred on those who receive Holy Orders. This is what sets them apart from the laity, the rest of us. They are able to administer 5 of the 7 sacraments, and may administer confirmation with delegation from their bishop.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Huh? Not sure what you mean. The OP seemed to be asking about the rules for receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church and I tried to summarize them. I didn’t think of it at the time but I probably should simply have referred her to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ 1996 Guidelines for the Reception of Communion.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Jacques/jacks/jakes, I’m guessing
I got an endless supply of emoji-popcorn, thanks to the kindness of others.
Every man for himself.
Will Geer.
I got an endless supply of emoji-popcorn, thanks to the kindness of others.
Every man for himself.
Will Geer.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
They would be fully valid under condition that he actually administers them! For example if Priest went to denomination which denies Transubstantiation, he would not be able to consecrate Eucharist anymore… just because he would not do so. This is my understanding and correct me if I am wrong.
On the other note, even if one Priest became Protestant, next ones would not. Only Bishops can confer Priesthood on other people and hence for Apostolic Succession and valid priesthood you need Bishops. At the same time, if Protestant denomination viewed sacraments differently or understood them incorrectly, then conferring Priesthood would not happen. This is what, from Catholic view, happened with Anglicans.
What it generally means that sacrament is valid and God, by his promise to His Church, views it as valid and confers grace. At the same time though, it should be avoided to actually administer such sacraments and is irregular way of receiving grace, which can also lead to a mortal sin, as it is grave matter.
Yes and no. While being baptized changed my soul forever, I did not really become Christian until much later. I was not raised in the faith. When I got my first Communion I actually believed in the Lord and everything Church taught and accepted the Lord- but for like a month or two. Then I simply started living old way again. I was changed for month or two, not permanently. I had to accept Lord for second time. However, I did not need baptism as my soul was already changed by it before. I was baptized whether or not I was Christian! And I am pretty sure that grace of baptism also helped Holy Spirit work and bring me back.
When Priests become Priests, their soul changes forever… same as with my baptism. They can lose faith, they can become heretics… but they remain Priests… same as I remained baptized even when I did not believe in the Lord.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
I’m not sure that it is considered to confer grace, but you may be right. I thank you for the info.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
What I mostly meant is that sacraments “do their work”. Baptism actually changes soul of recipient, so do Holy Orders (in Orthodox Churches for example), and Matrimony is deemed as valid union of spouses in eyes of God and hence the Church. Way I understood it was that effect of sacraments is part of “grace” we receive from God. Though I might have misused word “grace” there… some other posters will probably know better.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Ex opere operato. I understand. I’m not trying to refute the assertion, but it is a fuzzy point in my grasp of the general subject of validity of orders and such like (something of a hobby of mine). I will add the datum to the pile I’ve accumulated.
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
Big question, really. I know in my situation I decided I want to know God because I realized he first loved me. So I decided to find the tradition that explained that love most completely.
I came to the conclusion only the Catholic Church attempts to explain that love.
My advice to you, keep searching for the truth. & when you think you’ve found it, go further.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Accreditation or de-accreditation are not terms I had seen in this context, but the valid/illicit point is precisely what I assumed was the case.
T
TomH1
Guest
Once a man is ordained as a priest he remains a priest for eternity. Even if he should die in a very grave state of sin and go to Hell he’ll still be a priest.
Ordination brings about an ontological change, like baptism and confirmation. This is why these sacraments cannot be repeated. Likewise, they can never be undone.
Taking the case of the scenario you give the priest retains his sacerdotal powers even if he decided that he was going to become, say, a Buddhist. It does not mean he can do everything a priest can do. For example, he cannot hold any office reserved to clerics. He would not validly assist at a marriage. However, he could still validly confect the Eucharist; although, if he did it would be illicit.
I think, if I’m reading some posts correctly, that some are claiming he could still absolve from sin. This is not true. To grant absolution a priest needs the power of orders (which he has and always will have) but he also needs faculties and these will be withheld. A priest does not absolve validly without both the power of order and with the necessary jurisdiction, i.e. faculties. Of course, such a priest can absolve someone in danger of death but he’s granted faculties for this by Canon Law.
Ordination brings about an ontological change, like baptism and confirmation. This is why these sacraments cannot be repeated. Likewise, they can never be undone.
Taking the case of the scenario you give the priest retains his sacerdotal powers even if he decided that he was going to become, say, a Buddhist. It does not mean he can do everything a priest can do. For example, he cannot hold any office reserved to clerics. He would not validly assist at a marriage. However, he could still validly confect the Eucharist; although, if he did it would be illicit.
I think, if I’m reading some posts correctly, that some are claiming he could still absolve from sin. This is not true. To grant absolution a priest needs the power of orders (which he has and always will have) but he also needs faculties and these will be withheld. A priest does not absolve validly without both the power of order and with the necessary jurisdiction, i.e. faculties. Of course, such a priest can absolve someone in danger of death but he’s granted faculties for this by Canon Law.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Sort of what I’ve been saying, yes.
A
annad347
Guest
So what he does would not be accepted by God? If I went to the priest at the Lutheran church I attend to confess my sins, my confession would not be forgiven, because he isn’t a Catholic priest? Is that my understanding… even if he was an ordained priest, because he isn’t a Catholic priest with the “authority” given to the Catholic’s my confession would not be forgiven by God?
and what mortal sin would a person be committee by receiving a the Eucharist from a non-Catholic church, if those sacraments were given by a pastor or minister? Which of the 10 commandments are being broken? What if the pastor or minister giving the sacrament was an ordained priest, he would have made the same vow, given the same powers but because he is no longer in the Catholic church he keeps his vow, but his power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of God would be illegal, a sin against God… is that the mortal sin, and if its a mortal sin, then it wouldn’t be acceptable to God… and if that’s true then who’s sin would it be the giver or the taker?
and why do Catholic always say they’d don’t believe “once saved always saved” yet they only believe in one baptism… is it because we are suppose to believe we lose our salvation when we sin, that we must earn our salvation back by doing good works for God, that repenting our sins to God is not enough, to keep the salvation we were given when we were baptized?
sorry for all the edits…
and what mortal sin would a person be committee by receiving a the Eucharist from a non-Catholic church, if those sacraments were given by a pastor or minister? Which of the 10 commandments are being broken? What if the pastor or minister giving the sacrament was an ordained priest, he would have made the same vow, given the same powers but because he is no longer in the Catholic church he keeps his vow, but his power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of God would be illegal, a sin against God… is that the mortal sin, and if its a mortal sin, then it wouldn’t be acceptable to God… and if that’s true then who’s sin would it be the giver or the taker?
and why do Catholic always say they’d don’t believe “once saved always saved” yet they only believe in one baptism… is it because we are suppose to believe we lose our salvation when we sin, that we must earn our salvation back by doing good works for God, that repenting our sins to God is not enough, to keep the salvation we were given when we were baptized?
What is PTS?
sorry for all the edits…
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Please see my post #82 on this thread, which was a reply to your question about an ordained Catholic priest who changes churches. That’s what Dominic Stockford did. You will find a link there.
Last edited:
- Status