Host ?

[Pophead]

Would the prayers of a priest defile the host, in the case where it was discovered that for many years he had been committing grievious sexual sins ? Surely all those who ate this defiled host, would also be defiled ? Lastly, would a priest who is found guilty of such charges be allowed to continue this ?


Pophead.

 

[rwoehmke]

This would be the Donatist Heresy that St. Augustine waged war against. The priest might certainly unworthy, but as a properly ordained priest if he properly consecrates a host with the intent to do so, it happens. Without the assurance that the worthiness of the priest does not invalidate a sacrament, no one could ever be sure if they received the sacrament or not. Hence the Church has always held since the earliest times that Donatism is a heresy.

 

[Pophead]

‘The priest might certainly unworthy, but as a properly ordained priest if he properly consecrates a host with the intent to do so, it happens. Without the assurance that the worthiness of the priest does not invalidate a sacrament, no one could ever be sure if they received the sacrament or not.’

This is tantamount to saying that a servant of satan, who has been ordained by the Church, could perform such a priestly office and the host would remain undefiled. Correct ?

 

[LilyM]

This is tantamount to saying that a servant of satan, who has been ordained by the Church, could perform such a priestly office and the host would remain undefiled. Correct ?

All sinners are servants of satan in ways great or small. That means every last one of us is so, since we all sin. No priest could validly administer any sacrament and it would be impossible for God to grant His grace through any of them.

As stated above, God makes sure His sacraments operate regardless of the state of soul of the human agent though whom he works. They are gifts of God’s grace, not given by the priest at all except in the most indirect of ways.

It’s similar to a diamond retaining its value and character whether it is in the hands of a jeweller or a thief. The thief himself is stained morally by his theft, the diamond is unchangingly precious irrespective.

 

[NMJenny]

But it is important to point out that the priest is piling up one mortal sin after another, each time he celebrates mass without going to Confession, when he is committing grevious sins.

But non of this affects his ability to confect the Sacrament…

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Matthew 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

 

[Pophead]

It’s similar to a diamond retaining its value and character whether it is in the hands of a jeweller or a thief. The thief himself is stained morally by his theft, the diamond is unchangingly precious irrespective.

What you are trying to say is that the host remains undefiled, regardless of whether or not a priest has been participating in grievious sexual sins, or not.

As stated above, God makes sure His sacraments operate regardless of the state of soul of the human agent though whom he works.

iow. Does this mean that God is able to minister His grace through a servant of satan, as well as a servant of Christ ?

All sinners are servants of satan in ways great or small. That means every last one of us is so, since we all sin. No priest could validly administer any sacrament and it would be impossible for God to grant His grace through any of them.

I think you mean that all sinners who are still in the darkness are servants of satan in ways great and small. Also that a true child of God should not sin, but occassionally they do. This does not make them servants of satan in ways great or small, for they are children of their heavenly Father.


Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

But it is important to point out that the priest is piling up one mortal sin after another, each time he celebrates mass without going to Confession, when he is committing grevious sins.

Regardless of whether or not he is going to confession, the priest is still continuing to commit greivious sexual sins…

But non of this affects his ability to confect the Sacrament

…and you say that the host is undefiled.


Pophead

 

[Pophead]

Matthew 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Sure one could eat poison and not die. However this verse just upholds the fact that no matter what you put in your mouth it does not change you, for the change needs to take place in the heart. The context reveals that tradition can be most blinding.

Thanks,
Pophead

 

[Pophead]

Please don’t forget my third question.

Lastly, would a priest who is found guilty of such charges be allowed to continue this ?

Pophead.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I shall try to say this plainly, so you will not have to ask if I mean what I say.

The state of a priest’s soul has no bearing on his ability to confect the Eucharist.

tee

 

[Pophead]

I shall try to say this plainly, so you will not have to ask if I mean what I say.

The state of a priest’s soul has no bearing on his ability to confect the Eucharist.

tee

Tee,
It is a fair statement.

However, all statements need to be substantiated with reasonable argument.

The fact is that as in the physical world certain diseases are contagious, so in the spiritual certain sins, like grievious sexual sins are contagious and there is every possibility that a priest who was a child of darkness would have a terrible influence on any sacred office, and who knows what foul incantations might have been procured upon the host, thereby rendering it defiled and unusable.


Pophead.

 

[thistle]

Tee,
It is a fair statement.

However, all statements need to be substantiated with reasonable argument.

The fact is that as in the physical world certain diseases are contagious, so in the spiritual certain sins, like grievious sexual sins are contagious and there is every possibility that a priest who was a child of darkness would have a terrible influence on any sacred office, and who knows what foul incantations might have been procured upon the host, thereby rendering it defiled and unusable.


Pophead.

For arguments sake let’s say you are right. What difference does it make? Receiving the Eucharist is not required for our salvation.

 

[Pophead]

For arguments sake let’s say you are right. What difference does it make?

I think this should be pretty obvious.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Isn’t this the type of legalism that Christ spoke out against?

The Lord decides what the eucharist conveys those who take it - not you, or anyone else.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Pophead,

I’m going to borrow a statement from Fr. Serpa, which I read in the AAA forum: we’re not dealing with magic here.

A properly ordained priest has the ability to confer sacraments. If he is in a state of moral sin, he still has that ability, by virtue of his office, though I expect he is sinning further if he confers the sacraments. His sin does not affect other people, and it certainly does not have the ability to impact wheher or not Christ is present in the Eucharist or whether sanctifying grace is received by some he baptises, or whether the absolution he grants in confession is valid.

If the priest’s intent is to perform the sacrament, it’s performed. If he is secretly in league with Satan and seeks to defile the Eucharist, that may be a different story, but that’s not what the OP is asking.

The idea of the priest’s sin being contagious is odd, too. Have you a source for that?

Peace,
Dante

 

[FCEGM]

Was Christ defiled by the sinners who touched Him? Did He pass on their “defilement” to others? A priest who validly confects the Sacrament no more defiles it by his personal sin, however grievous, than was Christ defiled by His encounters with sinners - or by His encounter with Satan in the desert.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

My understanding is that the consecration is done in persona Christi, so it is Christ acting through the priest.
Something like this happened in the early church. There was a dispute whether or not baptisms performed by hetertical priests could be valid, and whether those baptised by heretical priests needed rebaptism. The decision eventually was that they did not need rebaptism because of the nature of the Sacrament of Baptism.
It’s been so long since I studied this stuff.
I don’t know whether this is helpful at all in terms of the point in question:shrug:

 

[tee_eff_em]

It is a fair statement.

However, all statements need to be substantiated with reasonable argument.

Do you accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a reasonable enough argument? (with emphases added)

1127 Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. 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 affirmation 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.” From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

The fact is that as in the physical world certain diseases are contagious, so in the spiritual certain sins, like grievious sexual sins are contagious …

I am unaware that this is the case.

indeed,
tee

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Yeah, something like that