There are 4 criteria for validity:
- valid form (the correct formula as approved by the Church)
- valid matter (unadulterated bread and pure grape wine – there have been many threads about this here so there’s no need to go into the specific details again now)
- valid Orders (valid ordination to the priesthood according to the prescriptions of HMC)
- valid intent (the intent of the priest to do what the Church intends, i.e. to consecrate the offerings that the Real Presence be made present in them.)
The first three are easy. The fourth much less so. Admittedly it’s hard to prove lack of intent, but if a priest does not believe in the Real Presence and publicly expresses that disbelief, it’s a good bet that he has no intention of doing what the Church intends. IMO, to say that the Eucharist is valid in such a case is to say that the beliefs of the priest count for nothing, and if that were true, “intent” would not be one of the four criteria. Here, I do not see that the principle of
Ecclesia supplet can be applied, since the Church cannot supply what the Church does not have: in this case, she (the Church) does not have the
intention of the priest, so she cannot supply it.
Let’s look at it this way: if the candidate had publicly expressed such beliefs before ordination, there would have been no ordination, not because the disbelief would have affected the validity of Orders, but because the disbelief would affect the validity of the Eucharist.
Now, in a case where the disbelief was not expressed publicly, the situation becomes less clear, but in such a case, the principle of
Ecclesia supplet would, I believe, compensate, and the Eucharist would be considered valid.
Just my :twocents:
