Validity of Consecration

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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! The power to Consecrate is given in the Sacrament of Ordination. So an un-ordained man cannot do this no matter how hard he tries.

 

[rpp]

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.

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:

After reading these two posts, I believe I see your points. Yes, I think my earlier characterization was not correct. Thank you for the well meaning correction.

 

[otjm]

It also helps to keep in mind that a man could be virtuous, have no knowledge of the sinfulness of an attempt, and attempt to do so. Knowledge that attempting to do so is a serious sin is not automatic; that is, it is not something that people inately understand as they do the natural moral law (e.g. adultery and murder). Insanity may be a defense; so is lack of knowledge of the sinfulness of the act (gotta love that Baltimore Catechism training 50+ years ago)!

 

[KateD]

I think my friend is just really trying to understand how a priest who may have committed a terrible sin and knows he will probably do it again (as in the case of some serial abusers) can consecrate the Host. (My friend is not Catholic but is considering converting.) There are some very helpful answers here.

 

[bmadamsberry]

I think my friend is just really trying to understand how a priest who may have committed a terrible sin and knows he will probably do it again (as in the case of some serial abusers) can consecrate the Host. (My friend is not Catholic but is considering converting.) There are some very helpful answers here.

I think that the ebst thing to tell your friend, besides the answers already given, is that G-d transcends and overcomes our obstacles as humans. G-d, knowing that man is sinful, based his criteria for a valid consecration upon matters that would not be determined by one’s holiness. Thank G-d for that!

 

[MikeDunphy]

1. 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.

I am **not **saying you are wrong, but can you point to an authoritative source that says that a priest can consecrate a host without intending to consecrate it?

 

[bmadamsberry]

I am **not **saying you are wrong, but can you point to an authoritative source that says that a priest can consecrate a host without intending to consecrate it?

Not Vatican documents, but there are many theologians that think so (though there might be). However, it logically follows from our beliefs about baptism.

Here’s what I mean: We believe that Protestants can validly baptise someone because they “intend to do as the Church does”. Now, they obviously don’t know what the Church actually does, just like a priest that doesn’t believe in the literal body and blood of Christ. However, they do inted to do what the Church does… though they have a different idea of what that is.

If you still want documents just ask me, and I will provide them. All I ask is that you look for them first.

 

[malphono]

Not Vatican documents, but there are many theologians that think so (though there might be). However, it logically follows from our beliefs about baptism.

Here’s what I mean: We believe that Protestants can validly baptise someone because they “intend to do as the Church does”. Now, they obviously don’t know what the Church actually does, just like a priest that doesn’t believe in the literal body and blood of Christ. However, they do inted to do what the Church does… though they have a different idea of what that is.

If you still want documents just ask me, and I will provide them. All I ask is that you look for them first.

Big stretch there between Baptism and the Eucharist. In the first, the principle of Ecclesia supplet would clearly apply provided the form and matter are are valid. In the second, as I remarked earlier, Ecclesia supplet would not necessarily even be applicable. In the case of a priest who publicly professes disbelief in (to use Latin terms) the confection of the Eucharist, i.e., that he could (and most importantly here, present the proper intent) make the Real Presence manifest, I continue to assert that that Ecclesia supplet does not apply. The Church cannot supply what the Church does not have: in this case, she (the Church) does not have the intention of the priest, so she cannot supply it.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Big stretch there between Baptism and the Eucharist. In the first, the principle of Ecclesia supplet would clearly apply provided the form and matter are are valid. In the second, as I remarked earlier, Ecclesia supplet would not necessarily even be applicable. In the case of a priest who publicly professes disbelief in (to use Latin terms) the confection of the Eucharist, i.e., that he could (and most importantly here, present the proper intent) make the Real Presence manifest, I continue to assert that that Ecclesia supplet does not apply. The Church cannot supply what the Church does not have: in this case, she (the Church) does not have the intention of the priest, so she cannot supply it.

No, it’s not a big stretch. Just becaue the two are different, does not mean that the same logic does not apply, nor the same theology.

See catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905chap.asp. This is from This Rock. Look under the heading of Intent. While This Rock isn’t a Vatican document, I would give it a good amount of credability (after all, we’re using the site opperated by the same people).

 

[malphono]

No, it’s not a big stretch. Just becaue the two are different, does not mean that the same logic does not apply, nor the same theology.

See catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905chap.asp. This is from This Rock. Look under the heading of Intent. While This Rock isn’t a Vatican document, I would give it a good amount of credability (after all, we’re using the site opperated by the same people).

Yes, it does, and the link is kind of superfluous. If you noticed, I specifically said “publicly professed” and therein lies the difference. Please reread my [post=6446994]earlier post[/post].

 

[bmadamsberry]

Yes, it does, and the link is kind of superfluous. If you noticed, I specifically said “publicly professed” and therein lies the difference. Please reread my [post=6446994]earlier post[/post].

I think that you are trying to make it superfluous. But no matter, I have my proof and that’s all I have to say on the subject.

G-d bless.

 

[malphono]

I think that you are trying to make it superfluous. But no matter, I have my proof and that’s all I have to say on the subject.

As you wish. It makes no difference to me in the least.

 

[Ginkgo100]

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, because the miracle of the consecration is not dependent on the priest’s virtue. It comes directly from God. All that is necessary is that the priest’s ordination was valid, that the “matter” is valid (i.e. wheat bread and grape wine), that the proper words are said, and that the priest have the intention to consecrate the bread and wine. All priests are sinners, so if priestly virtue were needed, we would have precious few, if any, valid consecrations.

 

[choy]

CCC 1584 Since it is ultimately Christ who acts and effects salvation through the ordained minister, the unworthiness of the latter does not prevent Christ from acting. St. Augustine states this forcefully:

As for the proud minister, he is to be ranked with the devil. Christ’s gift is not thereby profaned: what flows through him keeps its purity, and what passes through him remains dear and reaches the fertile earth. . . . The spiritual power of the sacrament is indeed comparable to light: those to be enlightened receive it in its purity, and if it should pass through defiled beings, it is not itself defiled.

 

[CEPS]

Let me see if I understand this:

A properly ordained priest is in a state of mortal sin which would mean that he obviously does not have the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God), he would have to have an unholy spirit.

Another possibility would be that there are 2 spirits in that priestly body, one holy and one unholy. Since the priest is in a state of mortal sin that would mean that the unholy spirit beat the Holy Spirit in the sense that mortal sin was committed by said priest while both spirits were in there and the unholy spirit had more control than the Holy Spirit.

This priest with an unholy spirit has valid form, valid matter, valid orders and valid intent.

God obeys the unholy spirit controlled priest and gets into the bread and wine.

Since when does God obey an unholy spirit? That makes absolutely no sense!

 

[Ginkgo100]

Let me see if I understand this:

A properly ordained priest is in a state of mortal sin which would mean that he obviously does not have the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God), he would have to have an unholy spirit.

Another possibility would be that there are 2 spirits in that priestly body, one holy and one unholy. Since the priest is in a state of mortal sin that would mean that the unholy spirit beat the Holy Spirit in the sense that mortal sin was committed by said priest while both spirits were in there and the unholy spirit had more control than the Holy Spirit.

This priest with an unholy spirit has valid form, valid matter, valid orders and valid intent.

God obeys the unholy spirit controlled priest and gets into the bread and wine.

Since when does God obey an unholy spirit? That makes absolutely no sense!

Er, no. First, the priest (or his “spirit”) is not the one whose power consecrates the Eucharist. It’s all God doing it. Second, God is not obeying the priest (or his “spirit”) at all. Nobody can command God; he effects the consecration because it is his will to do so, via priests.

It sounds as if you have an incomplete understanding of what Catholicism believes about souls and spirits, as well. In a nutshell, every human has a personal soul as part of his or her being. Like all creaiton, the soul is fundamentally good because it was made by God; however, due to original sin, it starts out in a “fallen” state, separated from God. Baptism reunites the soul to God. Personal sin separates it from him again. In this state, the soul is unclean. It may be said to be sick (in the case of minor or “venial” sin) or even dead (in the case of major or “mortal” sin; of course it does not die in the sense of ceasing to exist, but rather the life of Christ is gone from it). Except in the very rare case of demonic possession, which is not the question here, people are not occupied by multiple spirits; they have only their soul, who is not just a resident, but rather part of one’s being. You are your soul as well as your body, and that’s the only spirit you have. Unlike some religious traditions, in Catholicism, one’s soul = one’s spirit.

So a priest who has committed a grave sin, and who has not been forgiven for it, has an unclean soul, but the priest’s soul is not the “agent” of consecration. It’s required to have a priest with a soul marked by ordination, but not for that soul to be clean, because Christ himself is the agent of the consecration. Does that make more sense?

 

[ProVobis]

1. Valid Intent-

This is almost assumed unless he specifically says he is demonstrating to or for a class, for example.

1. 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 not accurate. There is now a Rite (Chaldean) that doesn’t have any words of Consecration, yet it’s an approved Catholic Rite. The entire canon or EP must be said according to approved language, not parts of it or paraphrases.

 

[CEPS]

So if you believe that there is only one spirit in a body as I do, the 2 spirit thing was just a what if, then my point still stands.

God is still obeying something unclean, something other than himself. You are saying that God is performing something through an unclean entity which makes God look weak. I can’t buy it.

 

[rpp]

So if you believe that there is only one spirit in a body as I do, the 2 spirit thing was just a what if, then my point still stands.

God is still obeying something unclean, something other than himself. You are saying that God is performing something through an unclean entity which makes God look weak. I can’t buy it.

As stated arlier, to believe that a valid priest in a state of mortal sin cannot validly consecrate Holy Communion is to believe in the heresy of Donatism.

 

[CEPS]

Well, I guess I’m a heretic then. I also believe in Nestorianism (I think that is the right term).

Where do I get my Certificate?