Fallen Priests and Sacraments

[tafan2]

Verified, reported, factual cases condemned 15-20% publicall

The report showed 8% credibly accused.

 

[Fauken]

The special power of the priest for trans sub.
And forgiveness of sins.
Doesn’t seem to be what saint Paul wrote in 1 Corinthian 11: 25-29 . where priests were not necessarily used during that time.
It seemed that apostles had that power.

The Apostles were bishops.

 

[annad347]

Because Christ promised it. Remember: at the time Christ made the promise (John 20), Peter hadn’t yet been forgiven of his sin (the three denials). Yet, Christ doesn’t say “whoever’s sins you forgive – except for you, Peter, since you’re still in the doghouse – are forgiven them”! Jesus says, without exception, “whoever’s sins you forgive, are forgiven them.”

That’s exactly what I’m looking for, things that make me think, read, seek to find answers that help me to get a better understanding of God, and willing an understanding of His will.

I have more questions about this comment… because the passage actually explains what you said and what I said. But to discussing it on this thread, I think would take us too far off topic… so I’m not sure it can be discussed here.

As for the doctor, who is not really a doctor not being able to give medicine to help people who are ill… you’ve never been to the ghetto. That was not as an insult so I hope you don’t take it that way, but just a fact. In poor neighborhoods, people can get almost anything they shouldn’t be able to get, including medicine.

But aside from that, there will a point a chain-smoking, overweight, unhealthy doctor will not be able to do his job. Even if he thinks he’s okay, someone will know because of his inability to follow his own advise, he will be to sick to work. When that happens, he will lose his license, which means he will no longer be a doctor.

The idea that, a priest who is in a constant state of moral sin, has no intentions of ever turning from sin, purposely sins over and over again, someone would not realize that he has a problem, that he is “too sick” do his job as God intended. That anyone not questioning his ability to do his job properly, is sad. That someone would not realize allowing him to continue to call himself a priest is an insult to God.

It doesn’t matter if his state of sin has any negative affect on the Sacraments or not, it matters to the core value of the church. (hope I said that right).

Keep in mind I said there is no such thing as a fallen priest. A priest who goes to confession when he needs to, turns from sin when he can, does as God intended is not a fallen priest… he’s human.

 

[Gorgias]

As for the doctor, who is not really a doctor not being able to give medicine to help people who are ill… you’ve never been to the ghetto. That was not as an insult so I hope you don’t take it that way, but just a fact. In poor neighborhoods, people can get almost anything they shouldn’t be able to get, including medicine.

No, I know that people can obtain things illegally, but that’s not what the analogy is trying to show, is it? Rather, the question here is whether the doctor himself is able to heal. The not-quite-doctor cannot; the actual doctor – inspiring or ‘fallen’ – can. That’s the whole ballgame, in this analogy, right?

he will be to sick to work. When that happens, he will lose his license, which means he will no longer be a doctor.

No, that’s not true. Doctors don’t lose their licenses when they get sick.

(This could lead us to another point, and this one is pretty relevant to this thread!)

Let’s continue the analogy: a doctor who commits an act of professional malfeasance can have his license revoked. When that happens, he’s still a doctor, but he’s not permitted to practice medicine.

A priest who commits a heinous act can have his faculties revoked or even be dismissed from the clerical state. When that happens, he’s still a priest, but he’s not permitted to minister to anyone (with an exception or two) or present himself as a priest.

So, it’s not the act that prevents him from ministering; it’s the consequences imposed by the Church that might do so.

It doesn’t matter if his state of sin has any negative affect on the Sacraments or not, it matters to the core value of the church. (hope I said that right).

Yep. I get what you’re saying, and I think I agree. It’s not that his sacraments are invalid – what matters is that his behavior is just wrong, it’s so out of whack with who he should be!

 

[annad347]

Actually the part I thought would take us off topic really doesn’t

Because Christ promised it. Remember: at the time Christ made the promise (John 20)…

I asked how do you know, your sins are forgiven by going thorough a priest. Specifically John 20:23. That’s the part that agree on. I was correct about is they couldn’t do that in a state of sin, because of the verse just before. He breathed The Holy Spirit on them first. John 20:22.

When Jesus gave Peter the Holy Spirit, it was His way of forgiving him for denying Him. He knew Peter was sorry for what he did and Jesus blessed Peter with The Holy Spirit. Do you think Peter ever denied Jesus again, do you think he ever allowed himself to ever be in mortal sin? Those clergies in the article posted, they repented for what they did. They knew they had to cleanse their souls, get right with God again. Yes, they denied God to save their own lives, but they repented… Do you think they allowed themselves to be in mortal sin again? (well that one, we’re not sure about but you know what I mean).

Jesus made sure the apostles who are listening to the sins of others can hear how honest and remorseful a person is in their confessions, they couldn’t do that without The Holy Spirit. They can’t read your mind The Holy Spirit must be present. If a priest is in a constant state of mortal sin, turning his back on God by committing mortal sin without repentance, how can The Holy Spirit be present? If, The Holy Spirit isn’t present, how can God be present, if God isn’t present then how can a priest in a constant state of mortal sin be persona Christi?

God forgives us, God is always present, God knows us. Yes, we are truly confessing to God and not to the priest… so if the priest is in a constant state of mortal sin, if the Holy Spirit isn’t present, then what purpose does the priest serve, if God isn’t present with him?

 

[annad347]

@Davdur posted about 1 Corinthian 11:25-29, it clearly explains you should examine yourself carefully before eating the body and blood of God… how does that not apply to the priest who is blessing the body and blood of God?

Constant state, Constante state, Constante state… that is what I’m talking about, how can a priest do his job effectively? Bring his church, his parish to God if he himself isn’t with God?

@Tis_Bearself said:

… a priest with a credible allegation of sexual abuse against him, or any other major scandal (such as he stole a large amount of collection money, he was caught making gay dates on Grindr, he had heroin mailed to himself at the rectory) would be pulled from his parish immediately…

and you, @Gorgias said:

A priest who commits a heinous act can have his faculties revoked or even be dismissed from the clerical state…

so what exactly are we disagreeing about?

Doctors don’t lose their licenses when they get sick

I said too sick to work. I believe, if a doctor starts hacking up a lung, walking around with an oxygen tank or so high on some drug (legal or not) to ease the pain his unhealthy body is in, he will lose his license to work. Yes, he can still call himself a doctor, but he will not be practicing medicine, have patients or a job in a hospital without the risk of ending up in jail… who cares what he calls himself… but in that case you are right, with you’re analogy of the two… its exactly the same thing.

YEA!!! I finally agreed with you. big hugs

 

[Vico]

…

One situation that is limiting:

CIC (Latin Canon Law)

Can. 977 The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.

 

[Gorgias]

I was correct about is they couldn’t do that in a state of sin, because of the verse just before. He breathed The Holy Spirit on them first. John 20:22.

Was Peter in a state of mortal sin, considering he had betrayed Christ publicly? If so, could he have forgiven sin at that point (John 20:22)? And if that’s true (and I’d assert that it is), then your point doesn’t hold up: even though Peter wasn’t in a state of grace, he was able to perform the ministry that Christ had just imposed on the apostles!

When Jesus gave Peter the Holy Spirit, it was His way of forgiving him for denying Him.

That’s a nice thought, but I think it’s in service of your idea, rather than anything anyone’s ever suggested. Is there any Scriptural support for your idea, here? Have you ever read any theologian or preacher who has suggested it?

Moreover, the “do you love me? feed my sheep” passage makes no sense whatsoever if Peter had already “been forgiven by the giving of the Holy Spirit”. Scripture kinda refutes your notion here, I’d say.

Jesus made sure the apostles who are listening to the sins of others can hear how honest and remorseful a person is in their confessions, they couldn’t do that without The Holy Spirit.

That’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. However, that heresy was condemned millennia ago.

so what exactly are we disagreeing about?

We’re disagreeing because you seem to think that “removal of faculties” happens ‘automatically’ through sin, while I’m pointing out that it only happens through a positive juridical act of the Church.

I said too sick to work. I believe, if a doctor starts hacking up a lung, walking around with an oxygen tank… he will lose his license to work.

You’re mistaken, then. This is not true. Next time you’re at your doctor’s, ask him or her.

 

[annad347]

We’re disagreeing because you seem to think that “removal of faculties” happens ‘automatically’ through sin, while I’m pointing out that it only happens through a positive juridical act of the Church.

I’m sorry, when did I say that? When did I say it happened automatically?

and when was it considered heresy to understand that the apostles had the Holy Spirit within them? was John 20:22. a lie?

John 20:21-23 (NRSVCE)
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

also didn’t Peter deny Jesus, before said to them, what you said was proof that our sins are forgiven, when spoken to a priest. He denied Jesus during His trials. John 18:17 then John 18:25-27. That took place before John 20:23.

When Jesus asked Peter to feed his sheep 3 times, John 21:15-17. That also took place after the resurrection, after Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into them… but what does that have to do with a priest not repenting?

Maybe you don’t understand what I mean by a constant state of mortal sin, with no intentions of repenting? That’s not something a person is in on a one-time bases, it can take years to determine if your priest is in a constant state of mortal sin. He’s not be someone we ever know about unless he is constantly committing the sin against you or someone specifically in your church, that you know about. And, If someone knew the sins a priest who never repents is allowed to continue his ministry, without question… then I don’t know what to think, especially if the sin is constantly harmful to someone else.

@Tis_Bearself, muted me because she said I was close minded. Sorry to say @Tis_Bearself might be right. I expect my priest to live in the light. I expect my priest to follow the commandment given to us by God. I expect my priest to live with the word of God in his mind, on his lips and in his heart. I expect my priest to turn from sin and when he falls short, I expect my priest to repent. I feel sorry for anyone who accepts anything less.

As for the doctor/priest analogy, it will never ever, ever be the same IMO, I’m sorry. I expect more from my priest who is ministering the Sacraments to me, then my doctor… I’m allowed. Am I headed for a fall when it comes to my expectations from my priest… maybe? but that’s okay, I have faith God will catch me.

So we will never agree… that’s okay. Just because the people in charge of The Catholic church says its okay, for a priest who never repents to keep his ministry, doesn’t mean I have to accept it.

You can also say I’m closed minded, I’m use to people thinking that about me… so its also okay… we’re good.

God Bless.

 

[whatistrue]

and when was it considered heresy to understand that the apostles had the Holy Spirit within them

It’s not and that wasn’t what was said. The heresy is the belief that a priest must be in a personal state of grace for the Sacraments that priest performs to be valid or effective.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m sorry, when did I say that? When did I say it happened automatically?

That’s how I took what you wrote below, as in “too sick to work? License goes ‘poof’.”

So, you’re saying that, when a doctor is too sick to work, there’s a process for removing his license? I’m not certain that’s accurate.

I said too sick to work. I believe, if a doctor starts hacking up a lung, walking around with an oxygen tank or so high on some drug (legal or not) to ease the pain his unhealthy body is in, he will lose his license to work.

See what I mean? I took you to mean “sick == no more license”.

and when was it considered heresy to understand that the apostles had the Holy Spirit within them?

The heresy is thinking that, when a priest is in a state of sin, his sacraments are therefore invalid.

That also took place after the resurrection, after Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into them… but what does that have to do with a priest not repenting?

The forgiveness of Peter – and the renewal of his office in the Church – happen after John 20. By your standard, Peter wasn’t given the faculties to forgive, since he was still in the state of sin. (Except that, you seem to have come up with a novel interpretation of that passage and the reception of the Holy Spirit.)

Maybe you don’t understand what I mean by a constant state of mortal sin, with no intentions of repenting? That’s not something a person is in on a one-time bases, it can take years to determine if your priest is in a constant state of mortal sin.

I think you’re inventing something brand new, here. In any case, it’ll make for an interesting discussion: how might you suggest that we discern whether a person is “in a constant state of mortal sin”? How might we discern whether a person has “no intentions of repenting”?

Now you’ve moved to a different invalid belief that we find in history: the idea that only the sinless can hold office. We find that in the Plymouth Brethren of the 1600s (IIRC): they held that no one could be in a position of leadership unless he wasn’t a sinner. You can imagine what happened, can’t you? Oh, the arguments and accusations and dissent that prevailed! So, no… unless you have a mortal-sin-o-meter, then there’s no way to make your idea feasible (or even demonstrate it to be true). You can’t “take years to determine if your priest is in a constant state of mortal sin”; in fact, you can’t determine it at all! In fact, the very attempt to do so is sinful itself… as Jesus said, “judge not, lest you be judged”!

I expect my priest to turn from sin and when he falls short, I expect my priest to repent . I feel sorry for anyone who accepts anything less.

How would you know that your priest doesn’t repent?

 

[Gorgias]

As for the doctor/priest analogy, it will never ever, ever be the same IMO, I’m sorry.

It’s just an analogy. No analogy is perfect. Do I expect more from a priest than a doctor, in terms of the moral life? Sure. Does the analogy work, as such? Yep.

Just because the people in charge of The Catholic church says its okay, for a priest who never repents to keep his ministry

Whoa whoa whoa! Who ever said that ?!?!? (No one !!!)

You can also say I’m closed minded

I’m not saying that, either. (And, as charitably as I can muster, let me ask: if you can’t judge whether I’m writing you off… how can you hope to judge the state of grace of a priest?)

 

[annad347]

how can you hope to judge the state of grace of a priest?

the same way a priest is discovered to be a priest who has credible allegation of sexual abuse against him, or any other major scandal (such as he stole a large amount of collection money, he was caught making gay dates on Grindr, he had heroin mailed to himself at the rectory)… the same way a priest is known to commits a heinous act.

Those are the people I’m talking about when I say they are in a constant state of mortal sin.

…how can you hope to judge the state of grace of a priest?

Your right I can’t… I can’t trust my priest. I can’t trust the person who is suppose to be there for me where God is concerned, that’s kind of sad. I can’t trust my priest, when I don’t know who he is or trust he is who he is suppose to be… but your right I don’t know.

 

[annad347]

It’s not and that wasn’t what was said. The heresy is the belief that a priest must be in a personal state of grace for the Sacraments that priest performs to be valid or effective.

why not, the apostles were, not required but they were… but then again maybe they were required. Jesus did breath The Holy Spirit in them. Jesus did tell His disciples to wait in Jerusalem (??) to receive the Holy Spirit. If it was necessary for the apostles, why not their decedents… those whom the church was left to in present time?

 

[Gorgias]

the same way a priest is discovered to be a priest who has credible allegation of sexual abuse against him, or any other major scandal (such as he stole a large amount of collection money, he was caught making gay dates on Grindr, he had heroin mailed to himself at the rectory)… the same way a priest is known to commits a heinous act.

That’s only evidence of a sin or of a number of sins. The bar you’re attempting to assert is much, much higher: a constant state of mortal sin, over a period of time. “A credible allegation of sexual abuse” doesn’t come anywhere near that bar, nor do “gay dates on Grindr” or “heroin abuse.”

Those are the people I’m talking about when I say they are in a constant state of mortal sin.

Yeah, but how could you possibly assert that these guys aren’t going to confession and making honest attempts to avoid sin and reform their lives? For that matter, aren’t you saying that you yourself are “in a constant state of mortal sin”, if you commit the same (serious) sin over and again in your life?

Your right I can’t… I can’t trust my priest.

I’m not asking you to trust him, per se. I’m just asking you to stop attempting to judge the state of his soul. Only God can do that.

 

[annad347]

Why is what I’m saying so hard to understand? Its like if I don’t say what you’re saying exactly the way you’re saying it, you correct it, as if trying to pick at it just to prove me wrong… and I don’t understand why, when I’m saying the same thing you’re saying.

I’m not judging these priest, the people who took them out of the church did… that’s what you said would happen.

You said if a priest is found out to be doing a hideous sin they will be removed. He’d still be a priest, but a priest without a church… and I said who cares what he calls himself, its what he can do that matters.

If they proven to be a child molester or doing any other sin that @Tis_Bearself mentioned, they wouldn’t be listing to you’re confessions, performing the Eucharist or any other Sacrament, they would have quietly been removed and never heard from again. That was the concern of the OP. If it was find out they were committing a sin that got whoever is in charge to take action, I said they were in a consistent state of sin.

Now you’re going to say, how do you know they didn’t repent, how do you know they were in a consistent state of sin. Just because they were found to be in such a state, how do I know the priest I go to is in the same? Then I said, you’re right I don’t unless they were committing a sin directly against me or they were consistently harming someone I knew.

Unless that happens I will never know what kind of relationship that priest has with God… but I would hope that the priest I go to, that I kneel in front of for confess, who baptized my children (if I had any), who performs The Sacraments on my family had a type of relations that made him an honorable man, because that’s the type of relationship a priest should with God. That’s the kind of relationship I expect my priest to have with God. To expect anything less is sad and an insult to God. and for a priest to have a relationship that was less then what I mentioned is sad and an insult to God.

I never said that a priest doesn’t sin, but I did say if they repent then they are not a fallen priest. If he repented, if he’s trying to fix his relationship with God, how does that make him a fallen priest? and if he is a fallen priest, how do you know?

I’m not asking you to trust him, per se. I’m just asking you to stop attempting to judge the state of his soul. Only God can do that.

and why did you say trust him, per se?

 

[Gorgias]

Its like if I don’t say what you’re saying exactly the way you’re saying it, you correct it… when I’m saying the same thing you’re saying.

No, it’s not that. It’s that I’m thinking that it’s important to be precise. And, while you raise valuable perspectives, it’s nevertheless critical to understand accurately and precisely what the Church teaches. Otherwise, we end up believing shades of meaning that are not at all what the Church intends to teach. And, in all charity, I think that, while you’re generally right on track with Church teaching, there are certain ways that you misunderstand or misrepresent that teaching. Sorry for being blunt – that’s how I see it, though. It’s not that you’re being obstinate or difficult; it just seems to me that there’s a real opportunity to unpack Church teaching here, and reach a common understanding!

annad347:

I’m not judging these priest

But… you are. That’s exactly what Christ meant when He said “judge not”! We have a really weird understanding of that notion of “judging” in the 21st century Western culture. For some bizarre reason, we think “judging” means “telling someone that what he wants to do isn’t right.” It’s not. In the context of Jesus’ teaching, telling someone that he’s on the wrong path and he needs to get right with God is virtuous. On the other hand, what we cannot do is pass judgment on people – that is, to assert that they’re bound for damnation instead of eternal glory. After all, that’s beyond our capacity – only God can do that!

So… when you declare someone to be doing something wrong – sexual scandal, or drug use, or whatever – that’s merely admonishing the sinner… and we’re supposed to do that. On the other hand, when you point to a sinner and declare him to be “constantly in a state of moral sin”… you’re passing judgment in a way that you have no competency to do.

annad347:

You said if a priest is found out to be doing a hideous sin they will be removed.

No… what I said is that it’s possible for the Church to remove the faculties of a priest to minister, or to remove him from the clerical state altogether. This is not the same as “being in a constant state of mortal sin”, which is the measuring stick that you propose.

annad347:

If they proven to be a child molester or doing any other sin, they wouldn’t be listing to your confessions, performing the Eucharist or any other Sacrament, they would have quietly been removed

As a prudential judgment on the part of the Church? Perhaps. But, that’s a far cry from looking at a priest who is currently in ministry and unilaterally deciding on your own that he’s “in a constant state of mortal sin”. You can see that, right?

annad347:

if he’s trying to fix his relationship with God, how does that make him a fallen priest?

How would you know that he isn’t, such that you could reasonably declare him to be “in a constant state of mortal sin”?

annad347:

and why did you say trust him, per se?

Trust God and trust the sacraments He gave us.

 

[whatistrue]

If it was necessary for the apostles

The point is that it was not necessary for the Apostles, who were just as sinful as any other group of people. The belief that a priest must be in a personal state of grace for his sacraments to be valid has been defined by the Church as a heresy. I really don’t know how else to say it - it is a heresy.

 

[Mi_Rose]

Has anyone posted this from the Catechism? SACRAMENTS OF SALVATION

**[1127] Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify.48 They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son’s Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power.

**[1128]This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation49 that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.”

 

[whatistrue]

Has anyone posted

I don’t believe that there was previously a direct copy/paste from the CCC, but the facts have been posted multiple times by multiple people. Perhaps the direct method will work?