Sacrilegious liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmjconder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If he uses valid form, with intent, and unleavened bread and wine, then yes.

It just shows how vulnerable Jesus became.
 
jmjconder said:
catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop-hart-blasts-melbourne-paper-for-highlighting-sacrilegious-mass/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher&utm_term=daily+news

This is a follow up article on Father Greg Reynolds.

My question is: even though he may not have had permission to say Mass - when he does - is the Consecration valid?
Click to expand...
Not enough information to say if it is valid or not. Certainly it is illicit, if the priest does not have faculties in the diocese.
Assuming he is an ordained priest, and he had valid form and matter and intent, it would still be a valid mass.
 
lssanjose said:
Right. The characterization of it being a grave sin, if the bread is leavened seems a little misguided; and unfair to many Eastern Christian brethren who use leavened bread for their communion hosts.
Click to expand...
**Thank you for this post…since I am married to an Eastern Rite Catholic.

My main question was - if a person - who was ordained a priest - celebrates Mass - even without permission - does he change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ - given the truth that a man can be laicized however they still process all the of facilities priesthood.

It may not be “right” however it is still a Sacrament?**
 
jmjconder said:
**Thank you for this post…since I am married to an Eastern Rite Catholic.

My main question was - if a person - who was ordained a priest - celebrates Mass - even without permission - does he change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ - given the truth that a man can be laicized however they still process all the of facilities priesthood.

It may not be “right” however it is still a Sacrament?**
Click to expand...
Thanks for steering the discussion, into the right direction. To address your main issue, I don’t think it would be valid, if the priest wasn’t given the permission, or authority I should say, to celebrate the mass.

I think of it, in this perspective: apostolic succession. Jesus gave the apostles the permission, and authority to do what they needed to do. The apostles, in turn, did the same. Even though the priest in question has been ordained, I suppose he still needed that link in the chain to properly dispense of the body/blood. This isn’t to mean the rest of his ordination is invalid, as I think he should be able to to give spiritual guidance, and other duties bestowed upon a priest, at time of ordination.
 
lssanjose said:
Thanks for steering the discussion, into the right direction. To address your main issue, I don’t think it would be valid, if the priest wasn’t given the permission, or authority I should say, to celebrate the mass.
.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with this. The simple fact that a priest does not have permission to celebrate a sacrament does not make it invalid!!! It does make it illicit.
 
The sacrament is valid but illicit.

The priest is in grave sin.

As (probably) are the participants (based on their individual circumstances)

I meant no offence to our Eastern brothers and sisters.

The dog remains innocent.
 
lssanjose said:
To address your main issue, I don’t think it would be valid, if the priest wasn’t given the permission, or authority I should say, to celebrate the mass.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with “permission” or anything else like that. Given that (a) the priest was properly ordained and (b) the matter (wheat bread – not brioche or challah etc) and pure grape wine, used was proper, and (c) the form used is one approved by the Church, the validity (to use a purely Western term) hinges on intent. The intent of the priest must be that of the Church. Intent is always difficult to prove, but in the case noted in the OP, it would seem to be negative. Despite what some will say, social issues do not necessarily impinge on intent, but I certainly wouldn’t be kindly disposed to any so-called priest who had the audacity to commune a canine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top