On validity of Sacraments

[Thomasbradley312]

In every Sacrament there are words a priest needs to recite in order for it to be valid. I’m just curious, if the priest on accident forgets to say a word or forgets something while performing the Sacrament, does this mean the person receiving the Sacrament did not actually receive it? For example, one time I went to a weekday mass and the priest actually forgot to consecrate the wine. Seems like a big thing to forget but he did, and afterward I wondered if it was even a valid mass. Was the Eucharist I received actually the Lord in this case? Another time another priest while saying the words of absolution, he definitely forgot to say part of it. Were my sins not forgiven? Does the Church in these cases where a priest makes an error yet the laity had the intent to receive the Sacrament receive it through the Church even though there was an error in a necessary part of the formula for the Sacrament to be valid?

 

[Fauken]

In every Sacrament there are words a priest needs to recite in order for it to be valid.

Not every Sacrament is/must be performed by a priest.

I’m just curious, if the priest on accident forgets to say a word or forgets something while performing the Sacrament, does this mean the person receiving the Sacrament did not actually receive it?

Correct. What those words are, however, depends on the Sacrament in question.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

Okay. But so we are saying here in essence that if someone goes to confession and the priest makes a mistake, the person leaves the church after doing penance and then dies the next day; the person will be doomed to hell for eternity when they had the intent to make the sacrament of reconciliation? That seems somewhat wrong…

 

[Fauken]

Okay. But so we are saying here in essence that if someone goes to confession and the priest makes a mistake, the person will be doomed to hell for eternity when they had the intent to make the sacrament of reconciliation? That seems somewhat wrong…

Just because the Sacrament is invalid doesn’t mean (in the case of confession) God can’t work outside of it.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

Yah that is true. I guess I’m looking into it in to much of a legalistic way.

 

[Fauken]

The form and matter are important. Obviously they are, otherwise there is no Sacrament. If you realize that the priest failed to give you absolution, go to confession again and explain what happened. But at the same time, God isn’t blind to our efforts. It’s a balance: do what you need to do, and trust in God.

 

[jimXroberts]

It’s not magic. It doesn’t require the exact words for something to happen. If the celebrant intends to convey the sacrament, an unintentional slip does not invalidate it. On the other hand, if the celebrant deliberately departs from the set Rite, the Church might regard the sacrament as invalidly conveyed although that does not necessarily mean that the sacrament itself is invalid.

The sacrament of matrimony is conveyed by the parties agreeing before witnesses to a lifelong relationship. There are set words to say, but the sacrament is not invalidated because of the common occurrence of the couple stumbling over the words. However, there are conditions that have to be fulfilled for the marriage to be legally effective, so carelessness on the part of the priest could lead to the couple being married in the eyes of the Church, but not in law.

 

[KyPerson]

If a priest intends to convey the sacrament and absentmindedly omits a phrase, I don’t think that invalidates anything. BUT, if a priest, out of pride, deliberately changes things (for instance baptizing in the name of the creator, redeemer and sustainer) then that is another thing. As Father Z is fond of repeating: Say the black, do the red.

 

[acanonlawyer]

It’s not magic. It doesn’t require the exact words for something to happen.

I’ve seen this comment several times over the years and wonder: how is it dependent on “magic” to insist that if the essential, proper words are not used then the Sacrament will not be valid?

Seems just as “magical” to say that the Sacrament will be valid even if the essential words of the form are not present, as long as the priest wants it to be valid.

Dan

 

[Diaconia]

God is not bound by mistakes made by priests. He can change wine into Blood in the example given.

The deliberate action of a priest to NOT confer a sacrament by using some made-up words would be very rare, and, most likely a priest doing something like that would result in his leaving ministry. That’s not what @Thomasbradley312 is asking about.

People make mistakes, even priests.

Help and save us, O Lord, by Your grace,
Deacon Christopher

 

[Hodos]

I would not view the Sacraments as incantations or spells that if you deviate from the printed liturgy renders the rite inefficacious. The liturgy is a man-made tradition that is used to convey what is going on in the sacrament for the benefit of those who are receiving the sacrament. In other words, it is the priest or bishop proclaiming the law or gospel depending on the specific sacrament for the edification of the recipients. As such the liturgy for the sacrament is beneficial for the purposes of catechesis and for allowing God’s word to shape and form our faith and practice, but not a spell rendered unprofitable if the priest makes a mistake.

 

[InThePew]

so we are saying here in essence that if someone goes to confession and the priest makes a mistake, the person leaves the church after doing penance and then dies the next day; the person will be doomed to hell for eternity when they had the intent to make the sacrament of reconciliation?

No. Whether their sins are forgiven regardless is something covered here but, regardless, it is completely incorrect to say that they would be subjected to eternal damnation were they to die before their next confesion (which would solve the problem in any event).

Where a priest forgets to consecrate the wine or baptises “in the name of the creator, redeemer and the sanctifier” the sacrament is invalid. As a general rule, the greater the deviation the more likely it is that the sacrament is invalid and very little “wriggle room” is allowed for when it comes to eucharist and reconciliation especially.

 

[Head]

If spiritual grace is not imparted than it didn’t work.

 

[Hodos]

I would disagree on both your comments. The validity of the sacrament is NOT dependent on the form, but on Christ and the word proclaimed in faith. Again, it is NOT a spell or incantation. If the priest stumbles on a word or forgets a word that doesn’t invalidate the work of Christ in dying on the cross for your sin. But hey, its your doctrine. If the validity of your sacraments is dependent upon the priest you can join the Donatists.

 

[HopkinsReb]

The validity of the sacrament is NOT dependent on the form, but on Christ and the word proclaimed in faith.

If the priest baptizes a baby in the name of Gorklesplat, Monduseville, Hank Aaron, and Cthulu while dunking the baby twice in olive oil, is that a sacramental baptism if the priest is otherwise orthodox and has a sacramental intent?

 

[acanonlawyer]

The validity of the sacrament is NOT dependent on the form, but on Christ and the word proclaimed in faith.

What word would that be?

Dan

 

[Hodos]

If the priest baptizes a baby in the name of Gorklesplat, Monduseville, Hank Aaron, and Cthulu while dunking the baby twice in olive oil, is that a sacramental baptism if the priest is otherwise orthodox and has a sacramental intent?

Refer back to the OP, clearly that is not what was being discussed.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

If the priest baptizes a baby in the name of Gorklesplat, Monduseville, Hank Aaron, and Cthulu while dunking the baby twice in olive oil, is that a sacramental baptism if the priest is otherwise orthodox and has a sacramental intent?

Refer back to the OP, clearly that is not what was being discussed.

It’s reducto ad absurdum. You say that the efficacy of a sacrament is:

NOT dependent on the form, but on Christ and the word proclaimed in faith.

If this is the case, then the “baptism” I described would be valid.

I would generally agree with what you’ve said in this thread about deviations from the liturgy, but the liturgy surrounding the Sacrament is a different thing from the form of the Sacrament. We are to Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The words used matter, just like it matters that we use water instead of melted butter and administer the Baptism to a person, not an aardvark.

 

[Hodos]

Again, refer back to the original post for the context of my answers.