Valid consecration of the Eucharist?

[bquinn]

I have a question that I can’t seem to find anywhere. Several people in a particular parish are upset because their Priest has said he does not believe in the infallability of the Magisterium or the Pope, he does not believe in purgatoy, he’s not a proponent of the Church’s teaching on life issues, he does not show honor to Our Lady.

He has not said he doesn’t believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but some of his actions infer he does not. To get to the question, they are worried that they are not receiving the eucharist when they go to Mass, because they don’t believe he has intent when he does the consecration. Can anyone tell me whether or not the consecration would be valid?? And can you back it up with any Church doctrine?? I thought I saw somewhere that it would be valid, as it is independent of the state of the soul of the Priest. Help please!! Thanks!!

 

[LilyM]

It is independent of the state of soul of the priest.

However, it is not independent of the INTENTION of the priest - he must intend to confect the Eucharist, if he doesn’t believe in the Real Presence it is quite possible that he lacks requisite intention.

Only one way to be sure - ask him

 

[T700]

I have a question that I can’t seem to find anywhere. Several people in a particular parish are upset because their Priest has said he does not believe in the infallability of the Magisterium or the Pope, he does not believe in purgatoy, he’s not a proponent of the Church’s teaching on life issues, he does not show honor to Our Lady.

He has not said he doesn’t believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but some of his actions infer he does not. To get to the question, they are worried that they are not receiving the eucharist when they go to Mass, because they don’t believe he has intent when he does the consecration. Can anyone tell me whether or not the consecration would be valid?? And can you back it up with any Church doctrine?? I thought I saw somewhere that it would be valid, as it is independent of the state of the soul of the Priest. Help please!! Thanks!!

A more fundamental question is, why is he a Catholic priest? It surely isn’t for the salary. Perhaps a heart to heart with his bishop would be in order to set him on a more appropriate career path.

Paul

 

[bquinn]

A more fundamental question is, why is he a Catholic priest? It surely isn’t for the salary. Perhaps a heart to heart with his bishop would be in order to set him on a more appropriate career path.

Paul

I wanted to ask him that when he told me personally that he didn’t believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium, but I felt like I was trying to prove all points at once from a biblical perspective and honestly, I was totally thrown off guard. He just returned to the Priesthood after being away on discernment for several years. I honestly thought that anyone who came back to the Priesthood after being on discernment would be true to the faith. I walked out on him before I even thought to ask him that question. The Bishop’s right hand man defends him. We’re having trouble in our diocese, as the Bishop has managed to get rid of several strong, excellent Priests who had a reputation of bringing many back to the Sacraments. I think the Bishop believes in the fundamental teachings of the Church, but he does not want anyone who is “Zealous”. Those were his words.

 

[jmcrae]

I wanted to ask him that when he told me personally that he didn’t believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium, but I felt like I was trying to prove all points at once from a biblical perspective and honestly, I was totally thrown off guard. He just returned to the Priesthood after being away on discernment for several years. I honestly thought that anyone who came back to the Priesthood after being on discernment would be true to the faith. I walked out on him before I even thought to ask him that question. The Bishop’s right hand man defends him. We’re having trouble in our diocese, as the Bishop has managed to get rid of several strong, excellent Priests who had a reputation of bringing many back to the Sacraments. I think the Bishop believes in the fundamental teachings of the Church, but he does not want anyone who is “Zealous”. Those were his words.

Yikes.

 

[japhy]

… he does not believe in the infallability of the Magisterium or the Pope, he does not believe in purgatoy, he’s not a proponent of the Church’s teaching on life issues, he does not show honor to Our Lady.

I wouldn’t be a parishioner there, then, unless there was no alternative, but I would indeed fear that he was not confecting a real and valid Eucharist.

I thought I saw somewhere that it would be valid, as it is independent of the state of the soul of the Priest.

The most wicked priest can confect a valid Eucharist, assuming he is a priest, uses the proper words, the proper materials (bread made of wheat and water; pure grape wine), and has the proper intention. But if the priest doesn’t believe that he’s actually making Christ present, I would question whether he has the proper intention.

The Bishop’s right hand man defends him. We’re having trouble in our diocese, as the Bishop has managed to get rid of several strong, excellent Priests who had a reputation of bringing many back to the Sacraments. I think the Bishop believes in the fundamental teachings of the Church, but he does not want anyone who is “Zealous”.

Zeal for his Father’s house consumed Jesus… but we see where that got him. I will pray for your bishop, for your priest, for you, and for your parishioners.

 

[teachccd]

“This is my Body”

“This is my Blood”

These are the only eight words that are absolutely necessary for a valid Mass. Any other areas will allow for an illicit Mass but still valid. If those eight words were spoken from an ordained priest or bishop then the Mass is valid with a valid Eucharist.

What you express here is a very sad state of affairs. This man is leading many down a wrong path and promotes a mockery of our faith. I will pray for him and your parish. God Bless you…teachccd

 

[bquinn]

“This is my Body”

“This is my Blood”

These are the only eight words that are absolutely necessary for a valid Mass. Any other areas will allow for an illicit Mass but still valid. If those eight words were spoken from an ordained priest or bishop then the Mass is valid with a valid Eucharist.

What you express here is a very sad state of affairs. This man is leading many down a wrong path and promotes a mockery of our faith. I will pray for him and your parish. God Bless you…teachccd

Can anyone point to where it says this in a document of the Church? If these words are said, but without intent, is the consecration valid? Thanks so much for your prayers! This goes for all of you who are offering prayers.

 

[starchyp]

bquinn:
What you need to do is cite all of the errors this priest has said, and write him a letter refuting them. If he changes his way and corrects his errors, then you did your job. If he persists, write the bishop of your diocese, explaining the situation and showing the letter you wrote the priest. If this does not work, then you got to write to the Holy See. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith if it is doctrinal/Church teaching errors, Congregation of Divine Worship and Sacraments if it concerns the Liturgy. You need to establish a clear paper trail. Anything you or he or the bishop says must be clearly documented. If possible, have others document anything that they have experienced regarding the priest. Hopefully, when you confront the priest, he will stop and change his ways. When confronted, it is the Bishops responsibility to take matters into his own hands. If he ignores you or puts it off, you must write the Holy See. Do not be afraid of retaliation, as you are defending the true and Holy Faith of Christ’s Church. Hopefully, you won’t need to get the Vatican involved, but if you must, so be it. If you need the addresses of the CDF or CDWS, ask me. Don’t be afraid!!!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Can anyone point to where it says this in a document of the Church? If these words are said, but without intent, is the consecration valid?

bquinn,

The crucial source is from the Council of Trent, Seventh Session, Canon 11:

CANON XI.-If any one saith, 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.
The question is, to my mind, how broad of an intention is possible. Although I can’t point to more sources at this time, it does seem to me that Aquinas takes a rather broad interpretation of this intention here Summa Theologica, III, 64, 9:

although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (A[8], ad 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister’s faith is made good.

It seems that unless the minister of the Sacrament forms an explicit counter intention, then the sacrament would be valid.

Again, I am not entirely certain about this, and I welcome more guidance or correction. I offer it as a starting point for more discussion, if necessary.

God bless you,
VC

 

[bquinn]

bquinn:
What you need to do is cite all of the errors this priest has said, and write him a letter refuting them. If he changes his way and corrects his errors, then you did your job. If he persists, write the bishop of your diocese, explaining the situation and showing the letter you wrote the priest. If this does not work, then you got to write to the Holy See. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith if it is doctrinal/Church teaching errors, Congregation of Divine Worship and Sacraments if it concerns the Liturgy. You need to establish a clear paper trail. Anything you or he or the bishop says must be clearly documented. If possible, have others document anything that they have experienced regarding the priest. Hopefully, when you confront the priest, he will stop and change his ways. When confronted, it is the Bishops responsibility to take matters into his own hands. If he ignores you or puts it off, you must write the Holy See. Do not be afraid of retaliation, as you are defending the true and Holy Faith of Christ’s Church. Hopefully, you won’t need to get the Vatican involved, but if you must, so be it. If you need the addresses of the CDF or CDWS, ask me. Don’t be afraid!!!

I tried to defend the teachings of the Church on contraception, then on purgatory, then on the Catechism and the infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium. He didn’t budge, then he made some comments regarding devotion to Our Lady and that’s when my emotions got the best of me, and I told him I didn’t believe he was a Priest, and walked out. ( It broke my heart to hear him speak dishonoring Our Blessed Mother, but I still should have been more respectful as he is still an ordained Priest.) Anyway, I spoke to the Priest who is the right hand of the Bishop. He did not listen to what I had to say, just yelled (yes, yelled) that he was ‘disappointed in me for being involved with dinigrating a Priest’. I finally was able to get out that I had not told others, but others were asking me about the validity of the Eucharist, because of their own experiences. He told me it was up to them to figure it out and to ‘leave it alone’. So, I received no help there.

My spiritual director will be back in a couple of weeks, so I will ask him about writing to the Holy See, or if he knows how to bypass the Priest I went to. Considering history in this diocese, I do not want him to ‘get in trouble’. Anyway, maybe you can pm with the addresses, so I can write a draft of a letter for my s.d. to look at.

Thanks!

 

[AJV]

I have a question that I can’t seem to find anywhere. Several people in a particular parish are upset because their Priest has said he does not believe in the infallability of the Magisterium or the Pope, he does not believe in purgatoy, he’s not a proponent of the Church’s teaching on life issues, he does not show honor to Our Lady.

He has not said he doesn’t believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but some of his actions infer he does not.

What actions of his lead you to this conclusion?
Does he genuflect after showing the Host and Chalice to the people?

 

[AJV]

bquinn,

The crucial source is from the Council of Trent, Seventh Session, Canon 11:

CANON XI.-If any one saith, 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.
The question is, to my mind, how broad of an intention is possible. Although I can’t point to more sources at this time, it does seem to me that Aquinas takes a rather broad interpretation of this intention here Summa Theologica, III, 64, 9:

although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (A[8], ad 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister’s faith is made good.

It seems that unless the minister of the Sacrament forms an explicit counter intention, then the sacrament would be valid.

Again, I am not entirely certain about this, and I welcome more guidance or correction. I offer it as a starting point for more discussion, if necessary.

God bless you,
VC

I think you are correct, VC: it seems that the majority of theologians, and definitely after Trent held that one must not form a contrary intention, and that the intention must be to do what the Church/Christ does, not believe what the Church believes, or in its effects, etc. That’s one reason why the Church admits the validity of Protestant baptisms.

 

[LilyM]

I tried to defend the teachings of the Church on contraception, then on purgatory, then on the Catechism and the infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium. He didn’t budge, then he made some comments regarding devotion to Our Lady and that’s when my emotions got the best of me, and I told him I didn’t believe he was a Priest, and walked out. ( It broke my heart to hear him speak dishonoring Our Blessed Mother, but I still should have been more respectful as he is still an ordained Priest.) Anyway, I spoke to the Priest who is the right hand of the Bishop. He did not listen to what I had to say, just yelled (yes, yelled) that he was ‘disappointed in me for being involved with dinigrating a Priest’. I finally was able to get out that I had not told others, but others were asking me about the validity of the Eucharist, because of their own experiences. He told me it was up to them to figure it out and to ‘leave it alone’. So, I received no help there.

My spiritual director will be back in a couple of weeks, so I will ask him about writing to the Holy See, or if he knows how to bypass the Priest I went to. Considering history in this diocese, I do not want him to ‘get in trouble’. Anyway, maybe you can pm with the addresses, so I can write a draft of a letter for my s.d. to look at.

Thanks!

One reason why I personally would do all such communications by letter or email and request all responses to be the same - people tend to be more charitable when they reflect as writing necessarily forces them to do.

 

[bquinn]

bquinn,

The crucial source is from the Council of Trent, Seventh Session, Canon 11:

CANON XI.-If any one saith, 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.
The question is, to my mind, how broad of an intention is possible. Although I can’t point to more sources at this time, it does seem to me that Aquinas takes a rather broad interpretation of this intention here Summa Theologica, III, 64, 9:

although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (A[8], ad 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister’s faith is made good.

It seems that unless the minister of the Sacrament forms an explicit counter intention, then the sacrament would be valid.

Again, I am not entirely certain about this, and I welcome more guidance or correction. I offer it as a starting point for more discussion, if necessary.

God bless you,
VC

Wow, I just tried reading this, and after rereading a couple of times am still a bit confused. The Council of Trent sounds like he must definitely have intent, but Aquinas seems to say if his intent is to carry out the actions/words of the Church, that’s enough, without needing to believe in the Sacrament. So as long as he uses the correct ‘formula’, the Eucharist is valid. Now my lack of knowledge. Obviously the Council of Trent is infallible teaching. Is Aquinas considered absolute teaching of the Church. (infallible?)

 

[bquinn]

What actions of his lead you to this conclusion?
Does he genuflect after showing the Host and Chalice to the people?

No, although when another Priest was there, he did. I’ve been taking my family to a parish further away, so I don’t know if he is now or not. He also told my children who were alter serving a funeral, not to use the patens, that he doesn’t use them. (They have always been taught to use the paten…)

 

[AJV]

Wow, I just tried reading this, and after rereading a couple of times am still a bit confused. The Council of Trent sounds like he must definitely have intent, but Aquinas seems to say if his intent is to carry out the actions/words of the Church, that’s enough, without needing to believe in the Sacrament. So as long as he uses the correct ‘formula’, the Eucharist is valid. Now my lack of knowledge. Obviously the Council of Trent is infallible teaching. Is Aquinas considered absolute teaching of the Church. (infallible?)

The Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas are not opposed to each other. Both acknowledge the intention “to do what the Church does”. “To do what the Church does” does not mean “intend what the Church intends” or “intend to produce the effects”.

 

[Timothysis]

In my most humble opinion, I would never go to Mass with a priest like that again. We are supposed to be at peace when we go to Mass and receive Jesus. Anything that creates anxiety for us cannot be good. And just think how hurtful it is to Christ Himself to know that one of his own priest could treat Him with such apathy and indifference. That man certainly needs our prayers but he also doesn’t need to be celebrating Mass in such an irreverent manner.

 

[bquinn]

The Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas are not opposed to each other. Both acknowledge the intention “to do what the Church does”. “To do what the Church does” does not mean “intend what the Church intends” or “intend to produce the effects”.

Ok, so since he intends to use the correct matter, correct wordings and gestures regardless of his beliefs, the consecration is valid, whether or not he believes that what he does produces the effect… It sounds to me that this is a safeguard (of course Our Lord would do that) to ensure that the Sacraments are valid, regardless of the Priests shortcomings, whether it be belief or a poor memory, or what ever… At least there has to be an outward sign of an invalid Sacrament, so someone couldn’t be ‘duped into not receiving valid Sacraments’. Right?

 

[bquinn]

In my most humble opinion, I would never go to Mass with a priest like that again. We are supposed to be at peace when we go to Mass and receive Jesus. Anything that creates anxiety for us cannot be good. And just think how hurtful it is to Christ Himself to know that one of his own priest could treat Him with such apathy and indifference. That man certainly needs our prayers but he also doesn’t need to be celebrating Mass in such an irreverent manner.

I ended up having to go there for Mass this morning, as the family was involved in a ministry fair. And Praise God, he did all the correct actions during the consecration, and did not say anything heretical during his homily. BUT, instead of focusing on our Dear Lord and giving thanks and praise, I’m begging God that he does not say anything that my children should not hear… So, yes, I am definitely trying to go to other parishes as much as possible… Please pray for all our Priests!! The good ones are so attacked, and others just need help as we all do to grow in Faith, Love and Trust.

Thanks so much!! I’ve just joined CA and I can already tell, this is the place for me. God Bless!!!