Does transubstantiation occur if priest has mortal sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter blaskoman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

blaskoman

Guest
In order to confect the host into the Eucharist, does not the priest have to be without stain of mortal sin? If the priest is conscious of mortal sin, should he abstain from consuming the Eucharist at the mass he is presiding at?
 
The personal sanctity of the priest does not affect the validity of a sacrament in the slightest. To believe that it does is the ancient heresy of Donatism, which Augustine is notable for having condemned. The sacraments work ex opere operato–by the working of the work itself–and are thus not dependent upon the priest to be in a state of grace. If they were, do you think there would ever be any certainty about having conferred a sacrament?

-ACEGC
 
blaskoman said:
In order to confect the host into the Eucharist, does not the priest have to be without stain of mortal sin? If the priest is conscious of mortal sin, should he abstain from consuming the Eucharist at the mass he is presiding at?
Click to expand...
Consecration is the word you’re looking for. Anyway,

A priest’s holiness or lack thereof does not affect the administration of the Sacraments. As far as consuming the Body of Christ while in a state of mortal sin, the priest (or anyone in a state of mortal sin) would be receiving to his own detriment and condemnation.
 
mangy_dog said:
Consecration is the word you’re looking for. Anyway,

A priest’s holiness or lack thereof does not affect the administration of the Sacraments. As far as consuming the Body of Christ while in a state of mortal sin, the priest (or anyone in a state of mortal sin) would be receiving to his own detriment and condemnation.
Click to expand...
Actually, “confect” is an appropriate term. It just isn’t very common.

I understand that, contrary to the above, the priest is required to consume the Eucharist in order to complete the Mass. Hopefully, he is at least repentant and intends to make it to confession at the earliest possible convenience.
 
If the priest is working, In Persona e Christi, the in the person of Christ.

How could one work in the person of Christ in a state of mortal sin? Christ is not in a state of mortal sin, nor should he work through one.

But I can always be corrected on that stated above.
Thanks!
 
JD27076 said:
If the priest is working, In Persona e Christi, the in the person of Christ.

How could one work in the person of Christ in a state of mortal sin? Christ is not in a state of mortal sin, nor should he work through one.

But I can always be corrected on that stated above.
Thanks!
Click to expand...
This is EXACTLY what crossed my mind. Of course, Judas was one of the 12 sent out to cast out devils and even Christ later stated, “Hath not I chosen 12 and one of you is a devil.”

I honestly do not think the Lord would hold somebody accountable receiving for whatever mortal sin the priest may or may not be carrying. just my 2 cents!
 
mangy_dog said:
Consecration is the word you’re looking for. Anyway,

A priest’s holiness or lack thereof does not affect the administration of the Sacraments. As far as consuming the Body of Christ while in a state of mortal sin, the priest (or anyone in a state of mortal sin) would be receiving to his own detriment and condemnation.
Click to expand...
That is the reason for the exception in Canon Law
Can. 916 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.
Click to expand...
 
just_came_back said:
This is EXACTLY what crossed my mind. Of course, Judas was one of the 12 sent out to cast out devils and even Christ later stated, “Hath not I chosen 12 and one of you is a devil.”

I honestly do not think the Lord would hold somebody accountable receiving for whatever mortal sin the priest may or may not be carrying. just my 2 cents!
Click to expand...
In the person of Christ is not affected by the sins of the priest. A sin is a sin is a sin and it is an offense to God. The Lord is not affected or infected by the sins of the priest.

Therefore, the Sacrament is preserved from blemish although mediated by the priest.

Think of the inverse: How many “invalid sacraments would there be if it were a fact that the sins of a priest render the Sacrament invalid?”

It goes against logic, reason and authoritative teaching of the church.

You give the example of Judas- how about Peter, who the Lord said to one time, " …depart from me Satan"… and who also denied Jesus 3 times.
 
A priest could turn atheist and his consecrations would still be valid. He could not believe in Transubstantiation or the Church, and his consecrations would still be valid. The sacrament is confected by virtue of the validly ordained priest saying the approved form of Mass and intending to do what the Church does. The amount of faith required by the priest is actually very small. This is standard theology that has been taught in seminaries for hundreds of years.

There is a reason for this. The faithful have a right to know that they are receiving valid sacraments. They need to know they are absolved. They need to know they are worshipping and receiving the Lord in the Sacred Host at Mass and not a wafer of bread (for that would be idolatry). Priests need to know that they are validly ordained so that their own sacraments are valid. If the validity of the sacraments was dependent on the personal sanctity of the minister then there would be no certainty at all. How do you KNOW the minister is free of sin? You can’t. Therefore you’d be in perpetual doubt.

Celebrating Mass while conscious of grave sin still results in a valid consecration, but the priest incurs judgement and sin upon himself for celebrating the sacrament in sin. As cited in Canon Law above, the priest may make an act of contrition with a firm purpose to confess his sins asap (traditionally accepted to be within 3 days) if there is a grave need (example: providing the sacraments to the lay faithful).
 
So if I’m reading Canon 916 correctly, a priest conscious of mortal sin can easily go forward and say Mass, so long as he may confess as soon as possible… However, I’m still not confident the priest should consume the Host during Mass. Another poster claims that the Mass cab only be validated if the priest consumes the Host. This claim seems to contradict other posters’ claims that the validity of the sacrament does not depend on the holiness of the priest. So it’s my understanding now that a priest conscious of mort. Sin still contexts the Eucharist even if he does not consume? Wrong?
 
blaskoman said:
So if I’m reading Canon 916 correctly, a priest conscious of mortal sin can easily go forward and say Mass, so long as he may confess as soon as possible… However, I’m still not confident the priest should consume the Host during Mass. Another poster claims that the Mass cab only be validated if the priest consumes the Host. This claim seems to contradict other posters’ claims that the validity of the sacrament does not depend on the holiness of the priest. So it’s my understanding now that a priest conscious of mort. Sin still contexts the Eucharist even if he does not consume? Wrong?
Click to expand...
If he is in a state of mortal sin, the priest must make a perfect act of contrition prior to celebrating Mass, and then must confess to a priest and receive sacramental absolution as soon as possible.
 
Should a priest consume the Eucharist during Mass if in a state of mortal sin? I would think that he would be adding a mortal sin by not being disposed to receive
 
Windmill said:
A priest could turn atheist and his consecrations would still be valid. He could not believe in Transubstantiation or the Church, and his consecrations would still be valid.
Click to expand...
i’m not sure about this i remember reading an article that for consecration to be valid the priest must believe in transubstantiation.
as i say i’m not sure, so i would be delighted if you could provide a link. below is what i thought it was but i’m not sure how trustworthy the site is
google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CE8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ourladyswarriors.org%2Farticles%2Fbadliturgy.htm&ei=HnUMUOruCoPMhAf06s3kCQ&usg=AFQjCNE1QT3o-mJayYLpyPhQBXmHpOuRaw&sig2=500nkA2KnO4hi-fVWzA2DA
thanks.

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."
 
By virtue of the Atheist priest approaching the altar and going through the rites of the Mass as prescribed by the Church, the priest is intending to do what the Church does. That, combined with his valid ordination and proper matter (the bread and wine) makes the sacrament valid. The licitness of such an act is a different matter. However, the intent of the priest is simply to do what the church does. He has done that. His personal beliefs have no bearing on the sacrament’s validity.

One may compare this to an atheist physician baptizing a newborn child who is immediately about to die. He may know the parent’s religion (Catholic) and know what they would want, so he baptizes the child just before it dies. He may personally believe there is no real effect, but by virtue of his intent to do what the Church asks in the rite, it is a valid baptism and the grace of the sacrament is conferred.

The article you link to infers too much from the quoted text. It infers that the priest must believe in transubstatiation, but that is not true. The priest only has to intend to minister the sacramental rite. In fact, it references St. Thomas’s Summa Theologica where he says precisely what I’ve said above. See for yourself:

Summa Theologica: 3rd Part, Question 64: Articles 8-10

You can always trust St. Thomas Aquinas:thumbsup:
 
when i saw the title of this thread i thought, gee this the second time in as many days this question has been asked.glad i looked at it,pretty interesting thread.
 
blaskoman said:
Should a priest consume the Eucharist during Mass if in a state of mortal sin? I would think that he would be adding a mortal sin by not being disposed to receive
Click to expand...
Yes, he would. But by not receiving the Eucharist, he is offering an illicit Mass. That’s also gravely sinful. So either way, he is adding a sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top