Validity of Consecration

[KateD]

A friend has asked me the following question: If a priest who is in grave mortal sin (specifically one involved in the recent abuse scandal) says the words of Consecration, does transubstantiation occur? His question, which I am having difficulty answering, is that if this individual is breaking his vows and living in such a grave state, how can his words bring us Jesus’ presence more validly than that of an unordained man who is not in a state of mortal sin? Can anyone help answer this? I’ve tried explaining that ordination changes a man forever, but his question has still left me searching for a good answer.

 

[rpp]

Yes, the consecration is valid.

Donatism is a recognized heresy that effectively states that the Church is a Church of saints and the perfect, and not a church of sinners. That a priest who has sinned mortally cannot confect ANY sacrament.

To hold to the opinion that the consecration is not valid is a heresy. After all, how can the faithful possibly know the state of the soul of the priest. As long as he follows the correct form, the consecration, and any other sacrament for that matter, is valid.

A similar line of thought, popular among certain sedevacantist groups, claim that if a priest has doubts about transubstantiation then the consecration is invalid. Again, for the same reason, that is also an aspect of the recognized heresy of Donatism and is not correct. Even a priest who has doubts about transubstantiation can still validly confect Holy Communion.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Donatists

 

[baltobetsy]

The consecration occurs regardless of the state of the priest’s soul, as long as he intends to do what the Church does, says the proper words, and uses proper matter. By virtue of his ordination, he is changed forever and always has the ability to consecrate.

The belief that the priest’s sinful state prevents him from performing the sacraments is a heresy called the Donatist heresy. It’s probably in the Catholic Encyclopedia or surely can be Googled.

Betsy

 

[Victorious]

A friend has asked me the following question: If a priest who is in grave mortal sin (specifically one involved in the recent abuse scandal) says the words of Consecration, does transubstantiation occur? His question, which I am having difficulty answering, is that if this individual is breaking his vows and living in such a grave state, how can his words bring us Jesus’ presence more validly than that of an unordained man who is not in a state of mortal sin? Can anyone help answer this? I’ve tried explaining that ordination changes a man forever, but his question has still left me searching for a good answer.

Yes, a priest in mortal sin validly confects the Sacrament. He is committing a sacrilege, but this particular sacrilege has no effect on the validity of the Mass. This protects the faithful from having to judge the state of a priest’s immortal soul, which would be sinful on our part.

By the way, an unordained man not in a state of mortal sin trying to consecrate a host is a contradiction in terms. Simulating the Sacraments is a mortal sin and a canonical crime.

 

[rpp]

Yes, a priest in mortal sin validly confects the Sacrament. He is committing a sacrilege, but this particular sacrilege has no effect on the validity of the Mass. This protects the faithful from having to judge the state of a priest’s immortal soul, which would be sinful on our part.

By the way, an unordained man not in a state of mortal sin trying to consecrate a host is a contradiction in terms. Simulating the Sacraments is a mortal sin and a canonical crime.

A good amplification on the previous answers. Thank you.

 

[otjm]

That question has been around for a very long time. The answer is that the priest does not consecrate the Eucharist, Christ does. Christ acts through the ministry of the priest. The priest is referred to as an “alter Christus”; that is, another Christ, not that he actually becomes Christ, but that Christ acts through his ministry. As such, it is not the worthiness of the priest, but the worthiness of Christ that matters. The priest may be an abject serious sinner, but as long as he intends what the Church intends, Mass is valid and the Eucharist is confected (or if another sacrament he is authorized to perform, it is valid).

 

[MarkThompson]

By the way, an unordained man not in a state of mortal sin trying to consecrate a host is a contradiction in terms. Simulating the Sacraments is a mortal sin and a canonical crime.

However, if a person were, for instance, insane and believed he were a priest, no sin would attach. (Obviously, he still could not confect the Eucharist.)

 

[rpp]

However, if a person were, for instance, insane and believed he were a priest, no sin would attach. (Obviously, he still could not confect the Eucharist.)

Sin is always mitigated by mental defect. Only the Lord knows the extent of the mitigation.

 

[MarkThompson]

Exactly; my point is just that “an unordained man not in a state of mortal sin trying to consecrate a host” is not, in fact, “a contradiction in terms.”

 

[rpp]

Exactly; my point is just that “an unordained man not in a state of mortal sin trying to consecrate a host” is not, in fact, “a contradiction in terms.”

An unordained man (or any woman) would commit grave sin (presuming they are not insane) for intending to consecrate a Host. Whether it is mortal sin or not depends on their understanding of Catholic teaching.

 

[Victorious]

Exactly; my point is just that “an unordained man not in a state of mortal sin trying to consecrate a host” is not, in fact, “a contradiction in terms.”

The original question was why a priest in a state of mortal sin can confect the Eucharist, while a virtuous, unordained man cannot. All things being equal, an unordained man trying to consecrate a host is committing a mortal sin. It should be obvious from the context that I was not talking about somebody who lacks the capacity to commit a mortal sin.

 

[MarkThompson]

The original question was why a priest in a state of mortal sin can confect the Eucharist, while a virtuous, unordained man cannot. All things being equal, an unordained man trying to consecrate a host is committing a mortal sin. It should be obvious from the context that I was not talking about somebody who lacks the capacity to commit a mortal sin.

Oh, I know, I just thought it merited pointing out to be exact. It seemed like you were making that point that there could be no such thing as “a virtuous unordained man” who tries to confect the Eucharist, thereby answering the original question by denying its premise. I wouldn’t want the OP to go back to his friend with that answer alone, only to have it shot down.

 

[rpp]

Oh, I know, I just thought it merited pointing out to be exact. It seemed like you were making that point that there could be no such thing as “a virtuous unordained man” who tries to confect the Eucharist, thereby answering the original question by denying its premise. I wouldn’t want the OP to go back to his friend with that answer alone, only to have it shot down.

A “virtuous unordained man” would NOT attempt to confect Holy Communion… By definition, a man **cannot **be a virtuous lay person and attempt to perform those actions reserved to a priest alone. The very attempt would prove they are not virtuous.

 

[MarkThompson]

An unordained person who, believing himself to be a priest as a result of mental defect, attempted to confect the Eucharist, would not commit sin thereby. Assuming no other moral failings, he would be “a virtuous unordained man who tries to confect the Eucharist.”

Don’t get me wrong, I haven’t posted on this four times because I think it’s a vital issue or crucial to the original question. I don’t want to totally derail the conversation either, but the claim, “a man cannot be a virtuous lay person and attempt to perform those actions reserved to a priest alone. The very attempt would prove they are not virtuous,” is not correct in all cases. An attempt caused by insanity would not abnegate his virtue.

 

[rpp]

An unordained person who, believing himself to be a priest as a result of mental defect, attempted to confect the Eucharist, would not commit sin thereby. Assuming no other moral failings, he would be “a virtuous unordained man who tries to confect the Eucharist.”

Don’t get me wrong, I haven’t posted on this four times because I think it’s a vital issue or crucial to the original question. I don’t want to totally derail the conversation either, but the claim, “a man cannot be a virtuous lay person and attempt to perform those actions reserved to a priest alone. The very attempt would prove they are not virtuous,” is not correct in all cases. An attempt caused by insanity would not abnegate his virtue.

Yeah. Now we all know where you are coming from. Thank you for demonstrating your commitment to honest discussion.

PS, Do not try to “friend” me here.

 

[Elizium23]

A similar line of thought, popular among certain sedevacantist groups, claim that if a priest has doubts about transubstantiation then the consecration is invalid. Again, for the same reason, that is also an aspect of the recognized heresy of Donatism and is not correct. Even a priest who has doubts about transubstantiation can still validly confect Holy Communion.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Donatists

I see what you are saying, but another poster said the priest must “intend to do what the Church does.” If a priest disbelieves transubstantiation so much, how can he properly intend to consecrate the sacred species?

 

[rpp]

I see what you are saying, but another poster said the priest must “intend to do what the Church does.” If a priest disbelieves transubstantiation so much, how can he properly intend to consecrate the sacred species?

That condition is not exactly correct. Rather the correct standard is “is the priest following the correct formula.” That is because no one person can know the actual intention of another person. As long as the the priest performs the consecration in the correct manner, and he is indeed a priest, the consecration is valid.

 

[MarkThompson]

PS, Do not try to “friend” me here.

Uh, okay. No danger of that, then.

 

[bmadamsberry]

That condition is not exactly correct. Rather the correct standard is “is the priest following the correct formula.” That is because no one person can know the actual intention of another person. As long as the the priest performs the consecration in the correct manner, and he is indeed a priest, the consecration is valid.

There are 4 criteria for valid consecration:

1. Valid Priest- He must be validly ordained
2. Valid Intent- The Priest MUST intend to do as the Church does. Now this is a tricky one, because it used to be widely thought that this meant that the Priest had to intend to consecrate the Host. It is now (better) understood, and it is virtually impossible for this one to be broken. Pretty much, the Priest would have to think “I do not intend to consecrate this Host or do this sacrament”. It is a lot more open now, which is good because there are some very liberal priests.
3. Valid Matter- This changes depending on your Rite. But, accross the board, no Priest could consecrate a steak (although if he could validly do that… I think that parish might see a lot more people. Just kidding)
4. Valid Form- Pretty much, for this be valid the priest simply has to say “This is my body” & “This is my blood”. Good news for folks with liberal priests who like to change the wording of the Mass.

• This is to show that intent is important, but it is misunderstood. Furthermore to address the OP, being in grave sin does not break one’s vows. A priest does not vow to not gravely sin! So your friend is a little confused, as well, about priests.

 

[malphono]

That condition is not exactly correct. Rather the correct standard is “is the priest following the correct formula.” That is because no one person can know the actual intention of another person. As long as the the priest performs the consecration in the correct manner, and he is indeed a priest, the consecration is valid.

I’m not comfortable with that since it seems to equate “intent” with “form” and the two things are not the same.

There are 4 criteria:

• 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.

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: