The state of excommunicated clergy

[CapIV]

Hi. I asked this in ask an apologist but never got an answer. Hopefully someone can help me in here.

As a result of the many liturgical abuses in the Church, it is no doubt that some clergymen have been automatically excommunicated. Particularly with regards to Eucharistic desecration. So, my question is, does a priest who is excommunicated, still have the power to transform the bread and wine into the Eucharist? If he still has this power despite being excommunicated, would it take his formal laicization in order to take this power away from him.

I have heard from some that Holy Orders is an indelible mark, but then why would the Pope laicize some priests?

 

[Mankney]

Hi, I have heard and read that even when a Priest leaves the Church he can still transform the bread and wine. Once a Priest always a Priest.

Laicizing does not take away his “power” but it releases him from the duties of being a Priest or another way is to say it secularizes him. It also releases him from the control of the Church.

Anyways that is the way I understand it maybe someone else can add additional insights.

 

[LRThunder]

When a priest is ordained, he’s a priest forever, even if he’s excommunicated, laicized (or defrocked). However, if he’s excommunicated and/or laicized, then he cannot licitly act as a priest: can’t consecrate the bread and wine or, barring emergency, hear confessions.

 

[Cluny]

barring emergency, hear confessions.

Emergency here means immediate danger of death.

 

[LRThunder]

barring emergency, hear confessions.

Emergency here means immediate danger of death.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[TMC]

Hi. I asked this in ask an apologist but never got an answer. Hopefully someone can help me in here.

As a result of the many liturgical abuses in the Church, it is no doubt that some clergymen have been automatically excommunicated. Particularly with regards to Eucharistic desecration. So, my question is, does a priest who is excommunicated, still have the power to transform the bread and wine into the Eucharist? If he still has this power despite being excommunicated, would it take his formal laicization in order to take this power away from him.

I have heard from some that Holy Orders is an indelible mark, but then why would the Pope laicize some priests?

A priest has no “power,” at least as I understand that word. I think the proper way to frame the question is whether sacraments performed by an excommunicated priest are valid. The answer is that the sacraments remain valid, but are illict. The illict nature of the act may add to the excommunicated clergy’s burden, but is not sin for an otherwise well-meaning lay participant.

You can read any of the many things written about SSPX Masses for more detail. I realize that you are not asking about SSPX - but the same analysis applies.

 

[CapIV]

I’m not asking if the Sacraments performed by an excommunicate are valid. The clear answer to that is no.

I’m asking if the excommunicated priest can (not should, but actually CAN) transform the bread and wine into the Eucharist.

So it sounds like the priest still has the power to transform the bread and wine into the Eucharist even when excommunicated. But doing so is abstractly wrong even though it in no way affects the Sacrament itself or the recipient of the Sacrament. Is this correct?

By the way, priests are obviously entrusted with some sort of power. I could say the entire Mass in my basement if I wanted to but it wouldn’t turn some bread into the Eucharist.

 

[JaMc]

I’m not asking if the Sacraments performed by an excommunicate are valid. The clear answer to that is no.

I’m asking if the excommunicated priest can (not should, but actually CAN) transform the bread and wine into the Eucharist.

Well, “valid” means he “can”, but “illicit” means he “shouldn’t.” So, if you think the answer is “no” on validity, then you’ve answered your own question. Unless you mean that there is no question that the consecration would be “illicit”, which I don’t think would get you any argument anywhere.

 

[anamchrist]

Hi. I asked this in ask an apologist but never got an answer. Hopefully someone can help me in here.

As a result of the many liturgical abuses in the Church, it is no doubt that some clergymen have been automatically excommunicated. Particularly with regards to Eucharistic desecration. So, my question is, does a priest who is excommunicated, still have the power to transform the bread and wine into the Eucharist? If he still has this power despite being excommunicated, would it take his formal laicization in order to take this power away from him.

I have heard from some that Holy Orders is an indelible mark, but then why would the Pope laicize some priests?

A priest who is validly ordained is a priest forever according to Roman Catholic teaching. That meaning he can confect any sacrament that does not require jurisdiction (Penance, Matrimony, and some say Confirmation). An excommunicated priest who celebrates Mass, celebrates a valid but illicit Mass, meaning Christ is present in the Eucharist. All laicization does is remove the priest from the privileges of the clerical state, they still remain priests. The same goes for those who receive ordination illicitly, Old Catholics and SSPX. They are true priests provided they have valid apostolic succession, were ordained using the correct matter and have the right intention.

 

[kermitz06]

So it sounds like the priest still has the power to transform the bread and wine into the Eucharist even when excommunicated. But doing so is abstractly wrong even though it in no way affects the Sacrament itself or the recipient of the Sacrament. Is this correct?

It does affect the recipient, if the recipient knows about the illicit nature of the Sacrament in question and does not have a good reason (emergency, etc) to receive said Sacrament from the excommunicated priest, then the recipient is also in sin.

 

[thistle]

Hi. I asked this in ask an apologist but never got an answer. Hopefully someone can help me in here.

As a result of the many liturgical abuses in the Church, it is no doubt that some clergymen have been automatically excommunicated. Particularly with regards to Eucharistic desecration. So, my question is, does a priest who is excommunicated, still have the power to transform the bread and wine into the Eucharist? If he still has this power despite being excommunicated, would it take his formal laicization in order to take this power away from him.

I have heard from some that Holy Orders is an indelible mark, but then why would the Pope laicize some priests?

I think you have to be careful saying there is no doubt some clergymen have been automatically excommunicated. What do think they have done that merits automatic excommunication (Latae Sententiae Excommunication).

Ferendae Sententiae Excommunication:

Canon 1378: The pretended celebration of the Eucharist or of sacramental Confession
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by an interpreter

Latae Sententiae Excommunication:

Canon 1364: Apostasy, heresy or schism
Canon 1367: Violation of the Sacred Species
Canon 1370: Laying violent hands on the Pope
Canon 1378: Absolution of an accomplice
Canon 1382: Episcopal consecration without authorization from the Holy See
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by a confessor
Canon 1398: Procuring abortion

 

[ProVobis]

You can read any of the many things written about SSPX Masses for more detail. I realize that you are not asking about SSPX - but the same analysis applies.

SSPX priests have never been excommunicated. They have been and are still suspended. Big difference. They themselves can receive the Sacraments; excommunicant priests can’t receive the Sacraments though they can say/perform valid Masses.

 

[ProVobis]

It does affect the recipient, if the recipient knows about the illicit nature of the Sacrament in question and does not have a good reason (emergency, etc) to receive said Sacrament from the excommunicated priest, then the recipient is also in sin.

If the recipient doesn’t do his Easter duty or fulfill his Sunday obligation, he is in sin if valid Masses and Sacraments are available. However, it may not be to his spiritual advantage to attend just any valid Mass. So maybe better that he stays home and prays?

 

[TMC]

I’m not asking if the Sacraments performed by an excommunicate are valid. The clear answer to that is no.

I’m asking if the excommunicated priest can (not should, but actually CAN) transform the bread and wine into the Eucharist.

So it sounds like the priest still has the power to transform the bread and wine into the Eucharist even when excommunicated. But doing so is abstractly wrong even though it in no way affects the Sacrament itself or the recipient of the Sacrament. Is this correct?

By the way, priests are obviously entrusted with some sort of power. I could say the entire Mass in my basement if I wanted to but it wouldn’t turn some bread into the Eucharist.

Referring to the line I bolded in your quote. As I said in my earlier post, priests have no power as I understand the word. I would say that a priest has the authority or has the right to perform the Sacrament. I know that some people refer the priest’s authority to perform the sacrament as a power. I find that phrasing distasteful, if not plain wrong.

To me the word “power” implies that it is some divine power within the priest that transforms the bread and wine. It is not, the divine power of the consecration comes from God through the Spirit. Power implies that the priest binds Christ to appear, whether He wills it or not. That smacks of paganism, and it is not what happens at the Mass.

 

[TMC]

SSPX priests have never been excommunicated. They have been and are still suspended. Big difference. They themselves can receive the Sacraments; excommunicant priests can’t receive the Sacraments though they can say/perform valid Masses.

Yes, as I said in my post this is a very different situation. But the things that have been said by Church officials about the SSPX Mass are a useful guide to the correct analysis for three reasons: 1) they discuss the difference between valid and licit Sacraments; 2) they explain the consequence for the laity of participating in valid but illicit Sacraments; 3) the SSPX bishops were (but are no longer) excommunicated, so some of the guidance addresses this topic directly. Some of the kinds of statements I am talking about have been gathered by the helpful folks at CAF into a sticky thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=269697

 

[CapIV]

Referring to the line I bolded in your quote. As I said in my earlier post, priests have no power as I understand the word. I would say that a priest has the authority or has the right to perform the Sacrament. I know that some people refer the priest’s authority to perform the sacrament as a power. I find that phrasing distasteful, if not plain wrong.

To me the word “power” implies that it is some divine power within the priest that transforms the bread and wine. It is not, the divine power of the consecration comes from God through the Spirit. Power implies that the priest binds Christ to appear, whether He wills it or not. That smacks of paganism, and it is not what happens at the Mass.

Well I find your demeanor distasteful. The word ‘power’ in no way implies divine power. i.e ‘The teacher has power of his students.’ Doesn’t imply the teacher is divine. ‘The priest has power over the laity’. This also carries no such implications of divinity. Are judges, politicians, policemen (all powerful men) divine? No. Give me a break.

 

[CapIV]

I think you have to be careful saying there is no doubt some clergymen have been automatically excommunicated. What do think they have done that merits automatic excommunication (Latae Sententiae Excommunication).

Ferendae Sententiae Excommunication:

Canon 1378: The pretended celebration of the Eucharist or of sacramental Confession
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by an interpreter

Latae Sententiae Excommunication:

Canon 1364: Apostasy, heresy or schism
Canon 1367: Violation of the Sacred Species
Canon 1370: Laying violent hands on the Pope
Canon 1378: Absolution of an accomplice
Canon 1382: Episcopal consecration without authorization from the Holy See
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by a confessor
Canon 1398: Procuring abortion

You have never heard a priest preach heresy or schism? Or have never heard of a priest desecrating the Eucharist?

 

[TMC]

Well I find your demeanor distasteful. The word ‘power’ in no way implies divine power. i.e ‘The teacher has power of his students.’ Doesn’t imply the teacher is divine. ‘The priest has power over the laity’. This also carries no such implications of divinity. Are judges, politicians, policemen (all powerful men) divine? No. Give me a break.

I’m sorry if I have given offense, maybe this is my own little semantic peccadillo. I don’t like the word as it is applied to clergy. I think it is more accurate to say that the priest has the authority to call on the divine, but I am willing to accept that I may be wrong (or at least being overly picky).

 

[thistle]

You have never heard a priest preach heresy or schism? Or have never heard of a priest desecrating the Eucharist?

How does a priest preach schism?
How does a priest desecrate the Eucharist?

I note from your comments you are condemning priests from hearsay and you have not witnessed and have evidence of such.