Consecration of priests

[Cirdan_XII]

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario.

A group of people is shipwrecked on an island. The island is far away from civilisation and they have no means to communicate with the outside world and nobody from the outside world ever comes to the island. So effectively they are a community in total and indefinite isolation. This group contains one priest, and so the member of the group can continue to fulfill their sunday obligations by attending the masses celebrated by this priest. Also, he continues to perform sacraments, so people can marry, children can be baptised, people go to confession etc.

But the priest is basically cut off from his bishop so effectively he doesn’t belong to any diocese. I suppose this also means that sacraments such as confirmation that are dispensed by bishops can no longer be dispensed. Is that correct? Does every parish strictly need a diocese and a bishop, or what would be the status of this priest in the eyes of the Church. Especially considering that any new teachings or advice by the Church or liturgical changes etc could not be communicated or put into effect. Also, seeing there was no other priest, to who would the priest go for his confession?

Now suppose after many many years, the priest is growing old. Now being a priest, he cannot consecrate another man to be the priest in his stead should he pass away. What would be the lesser wrong, that he consecrate somebody anyway, or that he pass away in the knowledge that he is leaving his flock without a priest and hence without access to sacraments etc.

 

[Phemie]

How convenient that they were shipwrecked on an island where there was wheat growing. Otherwise there would be nothing to make bread and therefore no Mass.

 

[Waiting]

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario.

A group of people is shipwrecked on an island. The island is far away from civilisation and they have no means to communicate with the outside world and nobody from the outside world ever comes to the island. So effectively they are a community in total and indefinite isolation. This group contains one priest, and so the member of the group can continue to fulfill their sunday obligations by attending the masses celebrated by this priest. Also, he continues to perform sacraments, so people can marry, children can be baptised, people go to confession etc.

But the priest is basically cut off from his bishop so effectively he doesn’t belong to any diocese. I suppose this also means that sacraments such as confirmation that are dispensed by bishops can no longer be dispensed. Is that correct? Does every parish strictly need a diocese and a bishop, or what would be the status of this priest in the eyes of the Church. Especially considering that any new teachings or advice by the Church or liturgical changes etc could not be communicated or put into effect. Also, seeing there was no other priest, to who would the priest go for his confession?

Now suppose after many many years, the priest is growing old. Now being a priest, he cannot consecrate another man to be the priest in his stead should he pass away. What would be the lesser wrong, that he consecrate somebody anyway, or that he pass away in the knowledge that he is leaving his flock without a priest and hence without access to sacraments etc.

What good would it do to ordain someone? He doesn’t have the authority to make it a fact. It would just be pretend. Let’s be happy that this in an imaginary siuation.

 

[1ke]

This group contains one priest, and so the member of the group can continue to fulfill their sunday obligations by attending the masses celebrated by this priest.

Only if this island has wheat and grapes. Otherwise there will be no Mass. And, if they are unable to have Mass, then there is no obligation.

Also, he continues to perform sacraments, so people can marry, children can be baptised, people go to confession etc.

Yes, he could do that.

But the priest is basically cut off from his bishop so effectively he doesn’t belong to any diocese. I suppose this also means that sacraments such as confirmation that are dispensed by bishops can no longer be dispensed. Is that correct?

Corrrect, he could not confirm Catholics.

Does every parish strictly need a diocese and a bishop, or what would be the status of this priest in the eyes of the Church.

Every priest reports to a Bishop. The fact that he is cut off from his bishop doesn’t change that reporting structure.

Also, seeing there was no other priest, to who would the priest go for his confession?

That is correct. The priest could not go to confession.

Now suppose after many many years, the priest is growing old. Now being a priest, he cannot consecrate another man to be the priest in his stead should he pass away.

That is correct he cannot.

What would be the lesser wrong, that he consecrate somebody anyway, or that he pass away in the knowledge that he is leaving his flock without a priest and hence without access to sacraments etc.

He cannot “consecrate somebody” as he has no ability to do so.

The priestless flock could continue to baptize and to marry (because the Church canons allow for the marriage to be before witnesses only in danger of death or in certain circumstances when there is no possibility of a priest). The people would have to have perfect contrition for forgiveness of sins.

God does not hold us to what is impossible. They would have no ability to receive the sacraments of Confession, Eucharist, Confirmation, or Anointing.

 

[TheMc]

Actually, he would be able to validly ordain another man deacon, then priest. Any priest can, although it is only licit in situations like you mention. Also, he would be able to confirm, again, any priest can (they only need permission to “follow the rules”, lack of permission does not invalidate the sacrament).

 

[FrDavid96]

Actually, he would be able to validly ordain another man deacon, then priest. Any priest can, although it is only licit in situations like you mention. Also, he would be able to confirm, again, any priest can (they only need permission to “follow the rules”, lack of permission does not invalidate the sacrament).

Since a priest cannot validly ordain, he cannot do so even in extreme circumstances. So there would be no ordination.

Confirmation requires either a bishop, or a priest with faculties for validity. A bishop can validly confirm anyone, but a priest without faculties who attempts to Confirm does something that is both illicit and invalid.

A priest who doesn’t specifically have those faculties (either from the bishop, or “by the law itself”) only has faculties in danger-of-death (and that’s likewise “by the law itself”).

When it comes to Confirmation, if a priest doesn’t have faculties the attempt is outright invalid, not just illicit.

See c. 882

Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confirmation is a bishop; a presbyter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament validly.

Note that the canon says “validly” not just “licitly.”

 

[TheMc]

Since a priest cannot validly ordain, he cannot do so even in extreme circumstances. So there would be no ordination.

Confirmation requires either a bishop, or a priest with faculties for validity. A bishop can validly confirm anyone, but a priest without faculties who attempts to Confirm does something that is both illicit and invalid.

A priest who doesn’t specifically have those faculties (either from the bishop, or “by the law itself”) only has faculties in danger-of-death (and that’s likewise “by the law itself”).

When it comes to Confirmation, if a priest doesn’t have faculties the attempt is outright invalid, not just illicit.

See c. 882

Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confirmation is a bishop; a presbyter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament validly.

Note that the canon says “validly” not just “licitly.”

Hmmm. Never seen that. Thanks!

 

[ConstantineTG]

How convenient that they were shipwrecked on an island where there was wheat growing. Otherwise there would be nothing to make bread and therefore no Mass.

Bread may be easier to come by than wine. Unless the ship contains bottles and bottles of valid wine. But still would all that wine last?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Since a priest cannot validly ordain, he cannot do so even in extreme circumstances. So there would be no ordination.

I’ve heard of a story, but could not confirm if it was true but shared by a priest, that a priest was asked to ordain a Bishop. But this was in China and no other Bishop can enter to country to perform the consecration.

Assuming this is true, is this just a matter of the priest being a stand-in for the ordaining Bishop? That the intention of the Sacrament came from a Bishop who may be far away?

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ve heard of a story, but could not confirm if it was true but shared by a priest, that a priest was asked to ordain a Bishop. But this was in China and no other Bishop can enter to country to perform the consecration.

Assuming this is true, is this just a matter of the priest being a stand-in for the ordaining Bishop? That the intention of the Sacrament came from a Bishop who may be far away?

A bishop has to administer ordination personally. He can delegate the faculties to another bishop, but he can’t delegate the “episcopal character” that is required for a valid ordination.

 

[ConstantineTG]

A bishop has to administer ordination personally. He can delegate the faculties to another bishop, but he can’t delegate the “episcopal character” that is required for a valid ordination.

That is what I thought too. I wanted to ask the preist about it but we had to move on to another subject. It was in a class.