Is Communion Valid if Unbelieving Priest?

[buc_fan33]

My opinion is that it is incumbent upon lay people to find faithful and holy priests. We need to know what the church teaches and find the true liturgy in order to participate in the fullness of grace that Christ intended.

With respect, this is your opinion, which you correctly acknowledge. And, I would add, a faulty one. It places an undue burden and responsibility on the lay faithful.

1. Who determines “what” is holy? Does simply praying the Mass in Latin mean the priest is holier than another? Does wearing an amice make him a holy priest? Does genuflecting make him holy? Surely you are aware of the story of the tax collector and the publican? Often times, those who are closest to God are those who, in earthly terms, appear furthest away. The simple fact of the matter is holiness is more about an internal disposition, and a humility of soul than any external. Externals can also cover over a lot of hidden issues. I remember a priest I had for formation in seminary, telling a story about a young seminarian once who knelt during his entire holy hour and everyone thought was so pious. They came to realize one day, after he fell over, that he was actually asleep, and he was covering this up by kneeling so his formators all “thought” he was holy and there was no issue.
2. The Church determines the true liturgy.
3. I’m not sure what “the fullness of grace” means. A priest could be a raging heretic, but as long as he uses the correct matter and form with the intention to do what the Church does, he validly confects the Eucharist, ex opere operato, This is precisely what the formula was intended to convey…that you can’t quantify grace. Jesus is Jesus. Period. You don’t get “more” Jesus from going to a Mass with the Pope than you do a Mass with a simple country priest in the middle of nowhere.
4. Finally, even if all of the aforementioned were true, it still doesn’t take into consideration someone who lived in a rural area where you can’t “pick and choose” which Church to attend. You get St. James…take it or leave it since the next closest Catholic Church is 120 miles away. I’ve actually heard of Catholics choosing to forego assistance at Sunday Mass in such a situation due to not liking the music, or the priest, or the homily, or whatever. The reality is that this side of Heaven, there are no “perfect” priests, there are no “perfect” members of the lay faithful, there are no “perfect” Masses, except for every Mass which is objectively “perfect” because Jesus is there. I don’t know how you get more perfect than that.

I hope you understand that I write this in all charity.

 

[MtnDwellar]

A minister can be a complete hypocrite and yet form the proper intention. None of what you described, although illicit, are any evidence at all that your priest has not at least the intention to do at least what the Church does.

In order to posit that a person’s action do not relate to his intentions, the person must be assumed to be a hypocrite. So, if a minister acts as if Christ is not really present during and after the consecration, then are we to assume that he is a hypocrite? The more likely assumption is that his intention is aligned with his action.

I don’t know what your point is in quoting the anathema, since it only confirms what I’m saying: a minister needs only intend to at least do what the Church does. The anathema is directed not against priests and defective intentions, but against those who deny the necessity of proper intention for a valid sacrament, and it sets the bar at which the intention suffices: virtual, and to at least do what it is the Church does…

I only quoted the anathema to show the strong language which indicates the spirit of the council.

Intention, while it is ideal that it be actual, may also be virtual for the sacrament to be valid. Words are a matter of form, not intention. For the intention to be defective, given the Church’s requirements, the minister would actually have to actively intend to NOT do what the Church does.

YES. That’s what I am saying. If the priest’s intention aligns with his actions, then he intends NOT to do what the Church does.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Thanks for the reply to my post.

With respect, this is your opinion, which you correctly acknowledge. And, I would add, a faulty one. It places an undue burden and responsibility on the lay faithful.

It is not an undue burden. We are each responsible for our own salvation.

1. Who determines “what” is holy? Does simply praying the Mass in Latin mean the priest is holier than another? Does wearing an amice make him a holy priest? Does genuflecting make him holy? Surely you are aware of the story of the tax collector and the publican? Often times, those who are closest to God are those who, in earthly terms, appear furthest away. The simple fact of the matter is holiness is more about an internal disposition, and a humility of soul than any external. Externals can also cover over a lot of hidden issues. I remember a priest I had for formation in seminary, telling a story about a young seminarian once who knelt during his entire holy hour and everyone thought was so pious. They came to realize one day, after he fell over, that he was actually asleep, and he was covering this up by kneeling so his formators all “thought” he was holy and there was no issue.

I said holy and faithful. Both of these are internal, however, we can sometimes make inferences from a person’s outward actions and statements. As an example, a priest who doesn’t believe in mortal sin or who contradicts other catechism doctrine is suspect. If he blatantly contradicts the Church’s teachings on important matters, how can I trust him to have the proper intention during sacraments?

1. The Church determines the true liturgy.

Of course the Church determines the true liturgy, but she doesn’t keep it a secret. It is up to each lay person to learn what the Church teaches.

1. I’m not sure what “the fullness of grace” means. A priest could be a raging heretic, but as long as he uses the correct matter and form with the intention to do what the Church does, he validly confects the Eucharist, ex opere operato, This is precisely what the formula was intended to convey…that you can’t quantify grace. Jesus is Jesus. Period. You don’t get “more” Jesus from going to a Mass with the Pope than you do a Mass with a simple country priest in the middle of nowhere.

I know that I often stand alone on this opinion. My experience tells me that if a Mass is performed with reverence, by a faithful priest, with a prayerful congregation, more grace is made available. And you are right. There is no graceometer. I didn’t say that you get more Jesus. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Jesus is not grace.

1. Finally, even if all of the aforementioned were true, it still doesn’t take into consideration someone who lived in a rural area where you can’t “pick and choose” which Church to attend. You get St. James…take it or leave it since the next closest Catholic Church is 120 miles away. I’ve actually heard of Catholics choosing to forego assistance at Sunday Mass in such a situation due to not liking the music, or the priest, or the homily, or whatever. The reality is that this side of Heaven, there are no “perfect” priests, there are no “perfect” members of the lay faithful, there are no “perfect” Masses, except for every Mass which is objectively “perfect” because Jesus is there. I don’t know how you get more perfect than that.

It is unfortunate that some people do not have access to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.The Church requires Mass on Sundays.

 

[RyanBlack]

Thanks for the reply to my post.

It is not an undue burden. We are each responsible for our own salvation.

I said holy and faithful. Both of these are internal, however, we can sometimes make inferences from a person’s outward actions and statements. As an example, a priest who doesn’t believe in mortal sin or who contradicts other catechism doctrine is suspect. If he blatantly contradicts the Church’s teachings on important matters, how can I trust him to have the proper intention during sacraments?

Of course the Church determines the true liturgy, but she doesn’t keep it a secret. It is up to each lay person to learn what the Church teaches.

I know that I often stand alone on this opinion. My experience tells me that if a Mass is performed with reverence, by a faithful priest, with a prayerful congregation, more grace is made available. And you are right. There is no graceometer. I didn’t say that you get more Jesus. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Jesus is not grace.

It is unfortunate that some people do not have access to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.The Church requires Mass on Sundays.

Knowing the interior disposition of a priest most certainly is an undue burden–one that neither the Church nor God places upon the believer.

It is not your responsibility to know if a priest has the proper intent in administering sacraments. Furthermore, our faith is not to be placed in the morality or orthodoxy of the priest, but rather in Christ, acting by the power of the Holy Spirit. Neither the morality of the priest, nor the degree of his orthodoxy (beyond a very minimal requirement of proper intent) affects the efficacy of the sacraments.

I suggest you reconsider your statement that “Jesus is not grace.” He, being God, most certainly is grace. He is more than grace, but he most certainly is grace. I would also suggest that your contention that “experience tells me that if a Mass is performed with reverence, by a faithful priest, with a prayerful congregation, more grace is made available” is highly problematic, and sounds too much like Donatism for my comfort. I would say that such an experience may make it easier for us to cooperate with the grace of God offered to us during the Mass/Divine Liturgy, but that the celebration of the Eucharist is, well, the celebration of the Eucharist, irrespective of the dispositions of the priest and the congregation.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Knowing the interior disposition of a priest most certainly is an undue burden–one that neither the Church nor God places upon the believer.

I never said that anyone should or can know anyone’s interior disposition. There you go again!!! Please let me be the only one who puts words in my mouth. Thanks

It is not your responsibility to know if a priest has the proper intent in administering sacraments. Furthermore, our faith is not to be placed in the morality or orthodoxy of the priest, but rather in Christ, acting by the power of the Holy Spirit. Neither the morality of the priest, nor the degree of his orthodoxy (beyond a very minimal requirement of proper intent) affects the efficacy of the sacraments…

Again with more words being put in my mouth. I specifically said that we cannot know anyone’s intention in an earlier post. I put my faith totally in God. He is the one who gives us priests and the Church. The Church teaches that the intent of the priest is necessary for valid consecration. I believe what the Church teaches. I know that this is not taught without a reason. She would not make this requirement if it was always met. Since the possibility truely exists for a lack of intention to invalidate a consecration, we have to take steps to insure that we are participating in a valid Mass.

I

suggest you reconsider your statement that “Jesus is not grace.” He, being God, most certainly is grace. He is more than grace, but he most certainly is grace. I would also suggest that your contention that “experience tells me that if a Mass is performed with reverence, by a faithful priest, with a prayerful congregation, more grace is made available” is highly problematic, and sounds too much like Donatism for my comfort. I would say that such an experience may make it easier for us to cooperate with the grace of God offered to us during the Mass/Divine Liturgy, but that the celebration of the Eucharist is, well, the celebration of the Eucharist, irrespective of the dispositions of the priest and the congregation.

Thanks for the suggestion. Saying Jesus is grace is like saying a car is horsepower. Is there a difference between God and God’s power?

Grace has an effect in our lives. The effect is real and can be recognized.

 

[RyanBlack]

I never said that anyone should or can know anyone’s interior disposition. There you go again!!! Please let me be the only one who puts words in my mouth. Thanks

Again with more words being put in my mouth. I specifically said that we cannot know anyone’s intention in an earlier post. I put my faith totally in God. He is the one who gives us priests and the Church. The Church teaches that the intent of the priest is necessary for valid consecration. I believe what the Church teaches. I know that this is not taught without a reason. She would not make this requirement if it was always met. Since the possibility truely exists for a lack of intention to invalidate a consecration, we have to take steps to insure that we are participating in a valid Mass.

I

Thanks for the suggestion. Saying Jesus is grace is like saying a car is horsepower. Is there a difference between God and God’s power?

Grace has an effect in our lives. The effect is real and can be recognized.

I’m not putting “words in your mouth.” Neither is the other poster you have accused of so doing. Rather, we are addressing the problematic implications of some of the things you have stated.

As to your analogy that saying Jesus is grace is like saying a car is horsepower, I would disagree. All that is not created is God. God has never been without his grace, just as he has never been without his holiness, his goodness, his truth, his power, etc. Just as we can say that God is love, we can say that God is grace. Since Jesus is God, we can also say that Jesus is grace.

 

[buc_fan33]

I never said that anyone should or can know anyone’s interior disposition. There you go again!!! Please let me be the only one who puts words in my mouth. Thanks

But, you also said this:

My opinion is that it is incumbent upon lay people to find faithful and holy priests.

Since we’ve established that holiness and faithfulness are interior dispositions of the soul, and you said that it is incumbent upon the laity to find holy and faithful priests, it seems reasonable to me to imply that you are expecting the laity to read a priest’s soul. Otherwise, there is no way to know for sure if the priest is holy and faithful.

Again with more words being put in my mouth. I specifically said that we cannot know anyone’s intention in an earlier post. I put my faith totally in God. He is the one who gives us priests and the Church. The Church teaches that the intent of the priest is necessary for valid consecration. I believe what the Church teaches. I know that this is not taught without a reason. She would not make this requirement if it was always met. Since the possibility truely exists for a lack of intention to invalidate a consecration, we have to take steps to insure that we are participating in a valid Mass.

And, this is the point. We CAN’T know anyone’s intention. This is why the Church ALWAYS assumes validity of all of the sacraments. Every single marriage is assumed to be valid, for example, until proven otherwise. It’s why the Church has gone to exhaustive measures to determine which Protestant baptisms are valid and which are not, rather than just simply celebrating conditional baptism every time someone wishes to enter the Church.

It’s why, especially, if someone were to question the validity of an ordination (which directly bears upon the validity of all of the other sacraments), the burden of proof would be incredibly high. The assumption is ALWAYS that the sacrament is validly confected.

I think what might be happening is a confusion regarding ex opere operato and ex opere operantis. The former teaches, definitively, that the sacraments confer grace, regardless of the dispositions of the minister. The latter teaches that how that grace is received, depends on the dispositions of the recipient. The only thing the lay faithful need concern themselves with is their own holiness. Can a good and holy priest help the lay faithful grow in holiness? Certainly! But, the way you are wording this seems to indicate that the lay faithful should doubt the validity of the Eucharist when celebrated by a priest who may be, shall we say, left of center.

Again, the assumption is ALWAYS that the sacraments are valid. And, if they are valid, they confer grace. Period. To “not intend to do what the Church does,” would be to actually INTEND to NOT consecrate the Eucharist. If any priest ever had that as his intention, I don’t know why he would be in the church in the first place.

 

[FrDavid96]

I think that the bar is being set too low…
What if the priest intends to not do what the Church does? If the priest’s intention is opposite that of the Church, does a valid consecration take place?

This question is not absurd. In my parish, lay people self communicate, salad bowls and wine glasses are used for the Precious Body and Blood, the priest does not elevate the host or the wine glass during consecration, nor does he genuflect or bow. The pastor has stated that he will give Communion to anyone who presents themselves. When a priest’s action are opposite Church teaching is it also likely that his intention is opposed to the Church?

Is it a valid consecration?

You are confusing two different uses of the word “intention” or “intend.”

The intention to “do as the Church does” is required for a valid Eucharist. This refers to the intent to actually consecrate the Eucharist, as the Church understands consecration. No human being can fully grasp the theology of the mystery of transubstantiation. No priest can fully understand it, regardless of how well it’s explained in the seminary. The priest must intend to do “whatever it is the Church believes when She says consecrate.”

On the other hand, the intention to properly follow the rubrics is a different matter. Using a glass chalice (while illicit) has no effect on the validity of the Eucharist. Neither do any of the other things you mentioned. Sometimes the priest is at fault. Sometimes he is not. If the priest accidentally makes the wrong choice for a Preface, it does not affect the validity of the Mass.

I often see that notion of the “intent to do as the Church does” misrepresented and misunderstood here on CAF.

The intention required for a valid consecration is NOT the same thing as the intention to follow the rubrics. They are simply two different things, that happen to have a word in common.

 

[MtnDwellar]

I’m not putting “words in your mouth.” Neither is the other poster you have accused of so doing. Rather, we are addressing the problematic implications of some of the things you have stated.

As to your analogy that saying Jesus is grace is like saying a car is horsepower, I would disagree. All that is not created is God. God has never been without his grace, just as he has never been without his holiness, his goodness, his truth, his power, etc. Just as we can say that God is love, we can say that God is grace. Since Jesus is God, we can also say that Jesus is grace.

They are not problematic implications. They are inferences. I did not imply what you are saying, rather you infer that which is problematic.

God is love is derived from a fairly complex theology. This seems like semantics rather than doctrine or theology. It all depends upon what you think the meaning of the word “is” is. *Bill Clinton

 

[RyanBlack]

They are not problematic implications. They are inferences. I did not imply what you are saying, rather you infer that which is problematic.

You might want to consider that I’m not the only person in this thread who has seen these implications in what you have stated. My concerns are shared by multiple other posters, two of whom are priests.

 

[RyanBlack]

God is love is derived from a fairly complex theology. This seems like semantics rather than doctrine or theology. It all depends upon what you think the meaning of the word “is” is. *Bill Clinton

No, I was not just engaging in semantics, but in doctrine. God is eternal and changeless. All that is not God is created. If God’s love, grace, power, holiness, power, etc., are not eternal, then God has changed, and the Church has consistently taught that God does not change. If they are eternal (and they must be, otherwise God has changed), they must be intrinsic to God. Whether you use the Eastern construct of God’s divine energies, or the Western construct of God as pure act, God is grace, just as God is love. Since Jesus is God, Jesus is grace.

 

[MtnDwellar]

You are confusing two different uses of the word “intention” or “intend.”

Both words mean an aim or a plan.

The intention to “do as the Church does” is required for a valid Eucharist. This refers to the intent to actually consecrate the Eucharist, as the Church understands consecration. No human being can fully grasp the theology of the mystery of transubstantiation. No priest can fully understand it, regardless of how well it’s explained in the seminary. The priest must intend to do “whatever it is the Church believes when She says consecrate.”

Right

On the other hand, the intention to properly follow the rubrics is a different matter. Using a glass chalice (while illicit) has no effect on the validity of the Eucharist. Neither do any of the other things you mentioned. Sometimes the priest is at fault. Sometimes he is not. If the priest accidentally makes the wrong choice for a Preface, it does not affect the validity of the Mass.

I never said that these things effect the validity of the consecration. I said that they may reflect upon the priest’s intention. To think that a person’s actions do not reflect upon their intentions is to call the person a hypocrite. If the actions are that of someone who believes that Jesus is not present in the Eucharist or in the tabernacle, then there is a chance that his intention is not that of the Church. On that risk, I will not attend such a Mass. I choose, instead, to attend a liturgy that is consistent with the truths taught by the Church.

Given a choice, do you say that the liturgy is not important and I should not let that influence me? Should I make my decision based upon distance only?

 

[MtnDwellar]

You might want to consider that I’m not the only person in this thread who has seen these implications in what you have stated. My concerns are shared by multiple other posters, two of whom are priests.

I’m glad to have such good people reading my posts! Thanks.
I take care to choose my words carefully and write succinctly. People seem not to take the same care when reading them.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Since we’ve established that holiness and faithfulness are interior dispositions of the soul, and you said that it is incumbent upon the laity to find holy and faithful priests, it seems reasonable to me to imply that you are expecting the laity to read a priest’s soul. Otherwise, there is no way to know for sure if the priest is holy and faithful.

Sorry, I must not have been clear.
We cannot read souls.
We can expect priests to conduct the liturgy in accordance with the manner taught by the Church. We can expect priests to teach in accordance with the CCC. If a priest does not follow the norms established by the Church and teaches heresy, I will say that priest is not faithful (to the Church). Although we can’t know anyone’s intention, I say that we do not have reasonable expectation that an unfaithful priest has the intention of the Church.

I think what might be happening is a confusion regarding ex opere operato and ex opere operantis. The former teaches, definitively, that the sacraments confer grace, regardless of the dispositions of the minister. The latter teaches that how that grace is received, depends on the dispositions of the recipient. The only thing the lay faithful need concern themselves with is their own holiness. Can a good and holy priest help the lay faithful grow in holiness? Certainly! But, the way you are wording this seems to indicate that the lay faithful should doubt the validity of the Eucharist when celebrated by a priest who may be, shall we say, left of center.

I am not confused by that, but thanks for implying that I am.

Again, the assumption is ALWAYS that the sacraments are valid. And, if they are valid, they confer grace. Period. To “not intend to do what the Church does,” would be to actually INTEND to NOT consecrate the Eucharist. If any priest ever had that as his intention, I don’t know why he would be in the church in the first place.

The assumption by whom?
Every major heresy was started by priests. Do we really assume that their intentions are that of the Church?

 

[RyanBlack]

Although we can’t know anyone’s intention, I say that we do not have reasonable expectation that an unfaithful priest has the intention of the Church.

The Church herself does not operate according to this standard. Otherwise, people would constantly have to wonder whether their participation in what they believe to be the sacraments of the Church are in fact sacraments. Moral laxity on the part of a priest, or even heretical beliefs on the part of the priest do not equate with defect of intent. If that were the case, we’d be in serious jeopardy–receiving and worshiping mere bread and wine, not having actually been christmated or confirmed, thinking ourselves to be absolved when we weren’t, men believing themselves to have been ordained when they in fact were not (think of all the invalid masses, confirmations, absolutions, and even ordinations would arise in this scenario), or even invalid baptisms. I cannot believe that God would permit this to happen to us.

 

[RyanBlack]

The assumption by whom?
Every major heresy was started by priests. Do we really assume that their intentions are that of the Church?

The assumption by the Church herself. And yes, without clear evidence of defect intent, we assume that there is no defect of intent. For example, baptisms can be validly be performed by those who are not even baptized; in such cases, defect of intent would involve active intent not to baptize.

 

[glendab]

Hello Buc!

1. The Church determines the true liturgy.
2. I’m not sure what “the fullness of grace” means. A priest could be a raging heretic, but as long as he uses the correct matter and form with the intention to do what the Church does, he validly confects the Eucharist, ex opere operato, This is precisely what the formula was intended to convey…that you can’t quantify grace. Jesus is Jesus. Period. You don’t get “more” Jesus from going to a Mass with the Pope than you do a Mass with a simple country priest in the middle of nowhere.

.

Bravo! Bravo! :clapping: I love you 2nd and 3rd answers! They’re perfect.

I’d stress out way too much at a Mass given by the Holy Father to get much out of it anyway and I’d be way too flustered to recollect myself at Communion time, so I’d be better off with the simple country priest.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Thank you Father.

You are confusing two different uses of the word “intention” or “intend.”

The intention to “do as the Church does” is required for a valid Eucharist. This refers to the intent to actually consecrate the Eucharist, as the Church understands consecration. No human being can fully grasp the theology of the mystery of transubstantiation. No priest can fully understand it, regardless of how well it’s explained in the seminary. The priest must intend to do “whatever it is the Church believes when She says consecrate.”

On the other hand, the intention to properly follow the rubrics is a different matter. Using a glass chalice (while illicit) has no effect on the validity of the Eucharist. Neither do any of the other things you mentioned. Sometimes the priest is at fault. Sometimes he is not. If the priest accidentally makes the wrong choice for a Preface, it does not affect the validity of the Mass.

I often see that notion of the “intent to do as the Church does” misrepresented and misunderstood here on CAF.

The intention required for a valid consecration is NOT the same thing as the intention to follow the rubrics. They are simply two different things, that happen to have a word in common.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Mountain.

Sorry, I must not have been clear.

Every major heresy was started by priests. Do we really assume that their intentions are that of the Church?

Wrong. Not all heresies were started by priests. Take for example Islam. It was started by Mohammed and he was never a priest and yes, Islam started as a heresy. Read some Belloc about it.

And I think this thread is getting too mean spirited. So why not all of us tone it down a few notes please.

Glenda

 

[MtnDwellar]

The Church herself does not operate according to this standard. Otherwise, people would constantly have to wonder whether their participation in what they believe to be the sacraments of the Church are in fact sacraments. Moral laxity on the part of a priest, or even heretical beliefs on the part of the priest do not equate with defect of intent. If that were the case, we’d be in serious jeopardy–receiving and worshiping mere bread and wine, not having actually been christmated or confirmed, thinking ourselves to be absolved when we weren’t, men believing themselves to have been ordained when they in fact were not (think of all the invalid masses, confirmations, absolutions, and even ordinations would arise in this scenario), or even invalid baptisms. I cannot believe that God would permit this to happen to us.

The Church made the rules. This sacrament is dependent upon proper intention.

These are straw man arguments. The Church does not require the intention of the priest for Confession, Confirmation, or Baptism. Communion is different. For example - There is no Communion by desire, but we do have Baptism by desire.

I seem to be alone on this. If you guys can please help me with this one example, then I’ll stop.

We know from Redemptionis Sacramentus that changing the words of the Eucharistic Prayer constitutes grave matter. We know it and all priests should also know it.

If a priest makes up his own prayer, willingly uses it in place of the approved prayers, and partakes in the Eucharist, did he:

A. Just commit two mortal sins in front of the entire congregation.
B. Probably not have the proper intention and then no mortal sins were committed

Either way, given a reasonable alternative, why would I want to participate in that activity?