What do you base this statement on?
except that Holy Orders is a sacrament, which creates a real change of the spirit, right?
Yes…I do not think a Catholic Priest ever ceases to be a Catholic Priest. The character of priesthood is such that you do not simply cease to be a Priest.
yeah that’s what I was thinking about. So his orders are now valid but illicit. It seems that the logical conclusion then is that, by virtue of his sacramental, Catholic priesthood, his masses would be valid, with a valid consecration, but illicit. Is this correct? Does it also depend on him holding the same view on the Real Presence?
For RCs (and for Anglicans, but let’s pass over that for a moment), valid ordination imparts an indelible character; he is a priest (if validly ordained), forever. This (and I am open to correction) holds even of he becomes a schismatic, apostate or heretic, as I read Ott. I am not aware that even the act of degradation would affect this, degradation not removing the character, but the right to exercise it…
I agree, the Eucharist would be valid but illicit if he says ‘this is My body’ and ‘this is the cup of my blood’. He remains a Catholic priest so he has the power to consecrate the Eucharist. His faculties (the right to do so) comes from the Catholic bishop. So, from the Catholic point of view, he has the power but not the right to do so. He was unfaithful to his vows. He gave scandal as a Catholic priest. From the outside, it appears that he moved to the Episcopal church so he could have his priestly ministry and his girlfriend too. It seems dishonest to me. But I don’t really know anything about the case and can’t judge his motives.
I am glad he has found love, and glad he has found a way to go, but I do thank it sad that he couldn’t remain a Catholic Priest, and still have his wife, but I do not run the RCC, so it’s not my choice, I just voice my opinoin.
I don’t think it’s a simple matter of substituting a validly ordained priest for an Episcopalian priest and, viola, you have the Eucharist at Episcopalian Mass. No, I thnk in the Episcopalian Church there is not a belief in the Real Presence, and therefore their form and intent would reflect that.
As I said, the form and matter are not an issue. The liturgical form is valid, only the epiclesis (IIRC) was changed slightly in adapting it to the Anglican Use. Matter is identical. And intent is not an aspect of Anglican or RC, it inheres in the minister, and is accepted as being facere quod facit Ecclesia, by the act itself, unless there is direct contrary evidence (this is brought out in Apostolicae Curae. While belief in the Real Presence is commonplace in Anglicanism, it would not be required for a valid confection, provided the intent was to do whatever the Church does in the action. Even an atheist can validly baptize, with such an intent, of doing whatever the Church does.
By the logic of what I posted, yes, and for the same reason. Intent, form, matter:water, Trinity, living human subject. The minister need only be a human with intent of doing what the Church does.
He’d have to both admit his error, appeal to the pope for laicization, wait for that permision, and give up public ministry.I can’t believe he would LEAVE the Church???
Isn’t there some way to stop being a Priest or to be relieved of his duties somehow so he could marry his girlfriend and remain Catholic just not as a Priest?
Apparently.
