Priests That Don't Believe in the Real Presence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jinc1019
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jinc1019

Guest
If a priest or bishop doesn’t believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, either as a deviation from Catholic doctrine or completely, then is the bread and wine, according to Catholic teaching, actually transformed?

I recall reading somewhere that it is, but I have not been able to find the same source. Does anyone have a good source for this (including the CCC)?
 
The priest must possess valid intent. That does not mean that the priest needs to believe in the Real Presence, only that he intends to do what the Church does in Eucharist.

Priests (like everyone else) have crises of faith, where they may struggle with disbelief. This does not invalid their Sacraments as long as they intend to do what the Church does (even if they are having trouble believing it themselves).

It is possible that a priest may desire to completely abandon his priestly office, and no longer has the intent to do what the Church does. If this happens, his Sacraments are not valid. So it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that any particular Mass is valid (unless you’re the priest). But, as you can imagine, this would be a highly unusual situation.

Another example of valid intent is that anyone may validly Baptize. The person need not be Christian, and need not believe in God or Jesus. The person need only intend to do what the Church does in Baptism, even if he has no flippin’ idea what that is. Strange, but true.
 
Did Jesus take all the apostles with him when he was transfigured?
 
DavidFilmer said:
The priest must possess valid intent. That does not mean that the priest needs to believe in the Real Presence, only that he intends to do what the Church does in Eucharist.

Priests (like everyone else) have crises of faith, where they may struggle with disbelief. This does not invalid their Sacraments as long as they intend to do what the Church does (even if they are having trouble believing it themselves).

It is possible that a priest may desire to completely abandon his priestly office, and no longer has the intent to do what the Church does. If this happens, his Sacraments are not valid. So it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that any particular Mass is valid (unless you’re the priest). But, as you can imagine, this would be a highly unusual situation.

Another example of valid intent is that anyone may validly Baptize. The person need not be Christian, and need not believe in God or Jesus. The person need only intend to do what the Church does in Baptism, even if he has no flippin’ idea what that is. Strange, but true.
Click to expand...
I have never heard of the intent thing…I trust your answer but do you have an official statement on this? From the CCC or elsewhere? It would be useful when explaining this.
 
DavidFilmer said:
Another example of valid intent is that anyone may validly Baptize. The person need not be Christian, and need not believe in God or Jesus. The person need only intend to do what the Church does in Baptism, even if he has no flippin’ idea what that is. Strange, but true.
Click to expand...
Also, since you brought it up…Any idea what ANYONE can baptize but only priests can transform and perform the sacrifice?
 
jinc1019 said:
Transubstantiation is a transformation…Obviously.
Click to expand...
The Eucharist is in the form of bread and wine. These forms, or accidents, are not changed in the consecration. We receive Communion under the species, or form, of bread and/or wine.

Also, it can be confusing to speak of the form of the Eucharistic elements when there is also a “form” of the sacrament: the words of consecration are the form in this case.
 
Elizium23 said:
The Eucharist is in the form of bread and wine. These forms, or accidents, are not changed in the consecration. We receive Communion under the species, or form, of bread and/or wine.

Also, it can be confusing to speak of the form of the Eucharistic elements when there is also a “form” of the sacrament: the words of consecration are the form in this case.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you posting and giving your thoughts. I understood what you meant and I am sure you understood what I meant, so I won’t take this any further since it really doesn’t apply to my question. I do understand the teaching on the Eucharist by the Catholic Church well and it really has nothing to do with my question, but again, I appreciate you posting.
 
Still looking for an official source from the Church about my question…What happens if priests don’t believe?
 
jinc1019 said:
I appreciate you posting and giving your thoughts. I understood what you meant and I am sure you understood what I meant, so I won’t take this any further since it really doesn’t apply to my question. I do understand the teaching on the Eucharist by the Catholic Church well and it really has nothing to do with my question, but again, I appreciate you posting.
Click to expand...
If you understand it well, then you should be able to convey it in your posts, so try that. I want future readers to be able to come here and see true Church teaching on the subject; if I see a potential heresy then I will correct it.
 
Elizium23 said:
If you understand it well, then you should be able to convey it in your posts, so try that. I want future readers to be able to come here and see true Church teaching on the subject; if I see a potential heresy then I will correct it.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but I am not going to go through the process of explaining transubstantiation every single time I mention the Eucharist. Your argument is totally out of context and as nothing to do with the purpose of this thread, which you are now completely derailing.
 
Elizium23 said:
If you understand it well, then you should be able to convey it in your posts, so try that. I want future readers to be able to come here and see true Church teaching on the subject; if I see a potential heresy then I will correct it.
Click to expand...
The inquisition has finally arrived:thumbsup:. Lets gather the firewood and start looking for heresy!!!
 
jinc1019 said:
I have never heard of the intent thing…I trust your answer but do you have an official statement on this? From the CCC or elsewhere? It would be useful when explaining this.
Click to expand...
Well, certinally - let me Google this for you.

David goes to Dubya Dubya Dubya - dot - Google - dot - com and types “catechism minister of baptism” (without quotes). And the second hit finds CCC 1256 from the Vatican website:
V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE?
Click to expand...
1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.[emphasis mine]
Click to expand...
 
I realized that my reply applies only to the intent of Baptism, whereas your question might apply to either Baptism or Eucharist.

The Catholic doctrine of “intent” is not sacramentally-specific. It applies to ALL Sacraments:
If anyone says that, in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does, let him be anathema. [Council of Trent, 7th Session of March 1547, Canon 11, emphasis mine]
Click to expand...
 
DavidFilmer said:
I realized that my reply applies only to the intent of Baptism, whereas your question might apply to either Baptism or Eucharist.

The Catholic doctrine of “intent” is not sacramentally-specific. It applies to ALL Sacraments:
Click to expand...
Thank you for this, I appreciate it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top