Is Communion Valid if Unbelieving Priest?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathy_in_Oregon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MtnDwellar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Intent on the part of the minister is required in all the sacraments, so no, they are not straw man arguments.
 
MtnDwellar said:
The Church made the rules. This sacrament is dependent upon proper intention.
Click to expand...
All sacraments require proper intention. I never said otherwise. However, the bar for what constitutes proper intention is set rather low. Also, proper intent is never dependent upon being in a state of grace, and would rarely be compromised by heretical beliefs on the part of the minister.
 
MtnDwellar said:
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.
…
Click to expand...
I can assure you that the intention of the priest to actually celebrate the sacrament is required for all sacraments.

If I am instructing an RCIA class and someone asks “what are the words of absolution?”

I then speak the words of absolution “God the Father of mercies…” in front of the whole class, no absolution occurs. Why? Because I did not intend to absolve. My intention was only to instruct.

The reason why I’m writing this is an attempt to explain to you that you do not understand what you’re posting. That much is very clear.
 
FrDavid96 said:
I can assure you that the intention of the priest to actually celebrate the sacrament is required for all sacraments.

If I am instructing an RCIA class and someone asks “what are the words of absolution?”

I then speak the words of absolution “God the Father of mercies…” in front of the whole class, no absolution occurs. Why? Because I did not intend to absolve. My intention was only to instruct.

The reason why I’m writing this is an attempt to explain to you that you do not understand what you’re posting. That much is very clear.
Click to expand...
A priest is not necessary for baptism. Obviously the intent of a priest is not required.
For Absolution, the confessor does not need to have the proper intention. The penitent can rely upon the faith of the Church.
The priest is a witness to the sacrament of marriage. His presence, let alone his intention is not required.

You really haven’t cleared things up with your statement. Saying that I am ignorant does not make me ignorant.
 
MtnDwellar said:
A priest is not necessary for baptism. Obviously the intent of a priest is not required.
For Absolution, the confessor does not need to have the proper intention. The penitent can rely upon the faith of the Church.
The priest is a witness to the sacrament of marriage. His presence, let alone his intention is not required.

You really haven’t cleared things up with your statement. Saying that I am ignorant does not make me ignorant.
Click to expand...
Proper intention of the minister of the sacrament is required for all sacraments. If the minister of the sacrament is a priest, then the intention of the priest is required.
 
RyanBlack said:
All sacraments require proper intention. I never said otherwise. However, the bar for what constitutes proper intention is set rather low. Also, proper intent is never dependent upon being in a state of grace, and would rarely be compromised by heretical beliefs on the part of the minister.
Click to expand...
Why do you argue about being in a state of grace? I have never made that argument.
 
MtnDwellar said:
A priest is not necessary for baptism. Obviously the intent of a priest is not required.
For Absolution, the confessor does not need to have the proper intention. The penitent can rely upon the faith of the Church.
The priest is a witness to the sacrament of marriage. His presence, let alone his intention is not required.

You really haven’t cleared things up with your statement. Saying that I am ignorant does not make me ignorant.
Click to expand...
As someone who regularly is a minister of baptism, and a regular confessor, I can assure you that intention is required.

And yes, the intention of the priest to accept the consent of the couple is likewise required for a valid marriage. When a couple speak their vows in the presence of a priest, unless that priest intends to accept their consent in the name of the Church, no marriage occurs. Otherwise, a teenage couple could recite vows in front of me in the cereal aisle of the grocery store and that would make them married. I assure you, it doesn’t work that way.
 
MtnDwellar said:
Why do you argue about being in a state of grace? I have never made that argument.
Click to expand...
My intention was to make clear (for anyone reading–this Forum is public) that the moral disposition of the minister of the sacrament is irrelevant to the efficacy of the sacrament.
 
It would almost amount to mental illness to perform any sort of act without having the intention for the outcome of the act. Split personality or something.
 
FrDavid96 said:
I can assure you that the intention of the priest to actually celebrate the sacrament is required for all sacraments.
.
Click to expand...
FrDavid96 said:
As someone who regularly is a minister of baptism, and a regular confessor, I can assure you that intention is required.

And yes, the intention of the priest to accept the consent of the couple is likewise required for a valid marriage. When a couple speak their vows in the presence of a priest, unless that priest intends to accept their consent in the name of the Church, no marriage occurs. Otherwise, a teenage couple could recite vows in front of me in the cereal aisle of the grocery store and that would make them married. I assure you, it doesn’t work that way.
Click to expand...
Restating your point does not make it any more true. Two very clear cases are Baptism and Marriage. Both are sacraments and neither requires a priest, hence the intention of a priest is not required. These are off topic.

Let me move on…

Cardinal Burke once spoke about Mass and grace. He said that all grace enters the world through the Sacrifice of the Mass. Any trouble in the Church, or even in the world can be traced to a lack of Masses being offered or weak liturgy.

Pope Francis, when talking about corrupt priests, said ~When we are corrupt “we do not give the Bread of Life to eat, but many times, we offer a poisoned meal!”

As laity we have the right to expect true liturgy in accordance with Church doctrine.

Pope Benedict said the laity have to teach the priests to be priests and the bishops to be bishops.
 
MtnDwellar said:
Restating your point does not make it any more true. Two very clear cases are Baptism and Marriage. Both are sacraments and neither requires a priest, hence the intention of a priest is not required. These are off topic.
Click to expand...
But they do require the intent of the minister of the sacrament. All sacraments require intent on the part of the minister, whether the minister of the sacrament is a layperson, deacon, priest, or bishop.
 
MtnDwellar said:
Restating your point does not make it any more true. Two very clear cases are Baptism and Marriage. Both are sacraments and neither requires a priest, hence the intention of a priest is not required. These are off topic.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not off topic. The principle remains the same: proper intention is required for all sacraments.

For emergency baptisms, intent is definitely required by the minister, and that intent is the same: to do whatever it is the Catholic Church does. This is true whether the minister is a priest, deacon, layman, heretic, infidel or atheist. All these kinds of people can indeed have the necessary intention to do whatever the Church does, even if they don’t believe in the the efficacy of baptism (e.g. atheists).

Marriage requires proper intent too: the spouses being ministers of the sacrament must at least intend to do whatever it is the Church does.
 
MtnDwellar said:
As laity we have the right to expect true liturgy in accordance with Church doctrine.
Click to expand...
Yes, we do. However, priests who ignore rubrics, live an immoral life, or are heretical do not negate the validity of the Eucharist.
 
porthos11 said:
No, it’s not off topic. The principle remains the same: proper intention is required for all sacraments.

For emergency baptisms, intent is definitely required by the minister, and that intent is the same: to do whatever it is the Catholic Church does. This is true whether the minister is a priest, deacon, layman, heretic, infidel or atheist. All these kinds of people can indeed have the necessary intention to do whatever the Church does, even if they don’t believe in the the efficacy of baptism (e.g. atheists).

Marriage requires proper intent too: the spouses being ministers of the sacrament must at least intend to do whatever it is the Church does.
Click to expand...
Baptism by desire does not require a minister.

The statement we were discussing was “the intention of the** priest **to actually celebrate the sacrament is required for all sacraments.”
.
 
RyanBlack said:
Yes, we do. However, priests who ignore rubrics, live an immoral life, or are heretical do not negate the validity of the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
I never claimed that they do.

What I am claiming is that lack of fidelity MAY be an indication of intent. As such I will choose to participate in some other Mass.
 
MtnDwellar said:
Baptism by desire does not require a minister.

The statement we were discussing was “the intention of the** priest **to actually celebrate the sacrament is required for all sacraments.”
.
Click to expand...
Baptism of desire isn’t a sacrament.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top