Priest belief in transubstantiation

[luvbp681]

must a priest truly believe in transubstantiation to make it really happens. sometimes I have seen a priest rush through the words and look sooo distracted, it makes me wonder sometimes. Also, must a priest be in a state of grace, to say mass?
just wonder

 

[ConstantineTG]

must a priest truly believe in transubstantiation to make it really happens. sometimes I have seen a priest rush through the words and look sooo distracted, it makes me wonder sometimes. Also, must a priest be in a state of grace, to say mass?
just wonder

Not really. You’d have to wonder though why they would be a priest if they don’t believe in what they are doing. But its not dependent on the faith of the priest, but if his hands were consecrated upon ordination, then he can make a valid Sacrament. Ultimately its Jesus Christ who effects the Sacrament.

 

[Spirithound]

must a priest truly believe in transubstantiation to make it really happens. sometimes I have seen a priest rush through the words and look sooo distracted, it makes me wonder sometimes. Also, must a priest be in a state of grace, to say mass?
just wonder

His intention must be simply to do what the Church does.

The state of his own soul has no bearing on the validity of the Eucharist.

 

[dconklin]

A priest ‘rushing through’ the Eucharistic prayer is not necessarily a sign of disbelief. The priest that married my wife and I said all of the prayers quickly. He would begin his next line before the congregation was finished with theirs. He is a holy and spiritual man.

He did not rush through the homily or the exchange of vows at our wedding. We kneeled through most of our wedding (1st two readings and the homily as well as the regularly scheduled kneeling). It seemed like a two hour Mass - in a good way.

 

[malphono]

luvbp681;7336564:

must a priest truly believe in transubstantiation to make it really happens. sometimes I have seen a priest rush through the words and look sooo distracted, it makes me wonder sometimes. Also, must a priest be in a state of grace, to say mass?
just wonder

His intention must be simply to do what the Church does.

The state of his own soul has no bearing on the validity of the Eucharist.

Yes, that’s exactly right.

On the first point, let me expand a bit. There are 4 criteria for validity (and the priest “rushing through” or “seeming to be distracted” are not among them):

• 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.

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.

I recall from many years ago a Latin Rite priest who fit that bill. His theological position on the Eucharist was very clear and very well known (he was a seminary professor, believe it or not) and was basically this: “the Church can say whatever she wants, but (a) there is no such thing as the Real Presence and (b) the Eucharist is nothing more than symbolic anyway.” He was known for “chips & Coke” fests in informal setting, and those, of course, were invalid from the get-go due to lack of matter (and, usually, form as well). But, even in a formal setting, (where matter and form were correct), it seems to me the service was a travesty and no Eucharist was (to use the Western term) confected.

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:

 

[OraLabora]

Not really. You’d have to wonder though why they would be a priest if they don’t believe in what they are doing. But its not dependent on the faith of the priest, but if his hands were consecrated upon ordination, then he can make a valid Sacrament. Ultimately its Jesus Christ who effects the Sacrament.

Agreed, but I have heard of priests, like the rest of us, going through periods of doubt. For me anyway, I usually manage to come out of through prayer and recognizing the graces that we get from God (from which our own sinfulness often blinds us), and I suspect the same thing can happen to priests as well.

 

[TedDC]

Not really. You’d have to wonder though why they would be a priest if they don’t believe in what they are doing. But its not dependent on the faith of the priest, but if his hands were consecrated upon ordination, then he can make a valid Sacrament. Ultimately its Jesus Christ who effects the Sacrament.

That’s what I’d always believed, but I was recently urprised to read some quotes in another thread from highly respected authorities (I apologize for not remembering who, but I think they were well-known saints) stating quite emphatically that the priest in effect has the power to compel God to become present in the Eucharist. One quote even said something along the lines of “the priest can carry Him around and lock Him up in the tabernacle”.

Now, those quotes may well be inaccurate or grossly out of context, but the ideas expressed were really shocking to me. They sounded more like a description of a pagan conjuring up spirits than my understanding of consecration.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Agreed, but I have heard of priests, like the rest of us, going through periods of doubt. For me anyway, I usually manage to come out of through prayer and recognizing the graces that we get from God (from which our own sinfulness often blinds us), and I suspect the same thing can happen to priests as well.

Don’t forget that we also have to pray for our priests

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s what I’d always believed, but I was recently urprised to read some quotes in another thread from highly respected authorities (I apologize for not remembering who, but I think they were well-known saints) stating quite emphatically that the priest in effect has the power to compel God to become present in the Eucharist. One quote even said something along the lines of “the priest can carry Him around and lock Him up in the tabernacle”.

Now, those quotes may well be inaccurate or grossly out of context, but the ideas expressed were really shocking to me. They sounded more like a description of a pagan conjuring up spirits than my understanding of consecration.

Its possible those saints are talking to the level of the people. I wouldn’t say the priest is conjuring God, but it was Jesus Christ who commanded the Apostles to “do this in remembrance of Me.” So the priest is just doing what Christ asks of him.

 

[TedDC]

Its possible those saints are talking to the level of the people. I wouldn’t say the priest is conjuring God, but it was Jesus Christ who commanded the Apostles to “do this in remembrance of Me.” So the priest is just doing what Christ asks of him.

OK, that would make sense. I apologize again for not being able to provide citations - I’m hoping someone will recognize the statements and post the actual text.

But this leads to another question, that I’d never given much thought to: what is the exact nature of the “transaction” (for want of a better word) between God and the priest at consecration? Is God in effect saying to the priest “If you do X and say Y, then I will become present in the host?”

And since God intends to become present in the host so that He can be received by the faithful (which after all is the main point of the Mass), what does the priest have to do or say anything, since the outcome is predetermined? Is the consecration ritual just a formality for the benefit of the faithful, to impress on them the importance of what’s happening? In other words, why would the transubstantiation not simply occur automatically to the moment the communicant receives the host?

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, transubstantiation will only happen if the proper way to confect a Sacrament is done. That is:

1. Use valid matter - wheat bread and grape wine
2. Use valid formula - Saying the words, “This is my body,” “This is my blood”
3. Have valid intention with a valid minister - a validly ordained priest intendint to do what the Church does

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

No the intention must be to use the correct formula in order for Transubtantiation to occur.

 

[Spirithound]

No the intention must be to use the correct formula in order for Transubtantiation to occur.

The correct formula is part of the form requirement. The required intent is to do what the Church does.

 

[johnnykins]

Agreed, but I have heard of priests, like the rest of us, going through periods of doubt. For me anyway, I usually manage to come out of through prayer and recognizing the graces that we get from God (from which our own sinfulness often blinds us), and I suspect the same thing can happen to priests as well.

Doubt is not the same thing as denial. Plus, who can truly understand the miracle of the Eucharist in its totality? If the priest intends to do what the Church intends, then ex opere operato the consecration takes place if the other factors are in place.

Priests who do not intend what the Church intends do not confect the sacrament. They can be terrible sinners, and they confect the sacrament as their personal holiness is irrelevant. They can deny certain dogmae (and be heretics and/or schismatics), e.g. the Petrine dogmae, and confect the sacrament. What they can’t do is deny that the elements become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ upon consecration. If they deny that, they do not intend what the Church intends.

BTW this intention bit applies, as particular, to the other sacraments, as well. The problem becomes difficult when priests start to move away from orthodoxy as the issue becomes: at what point have they ceased to intend what the Church intends for the sacrament. A heterodox priest certainly calls into question the validity of the sacraments he “confects.” They may be valid; but they may not.

 

[johnnykins]

No the intention must be to use the correct formula in order for Transubtantiation to occur.

If that were the case training sessions would need be weirdly stilted, etc. Further, the formula need not be exact to be valid - though exactness is required for liceity. Naturally, the purpose of laws - liceity issues - is to minimize invalidity by having prescribed texts and rubrics that act as a safeguard against invalidity. That is why “Say the Black and do the Red” is so important.