Validity of Consecration

[anthony_c]

the above answers seem to indicte that even though a priest is not in a state of grace by his ordination he can still distribute a consecrated communion.

Does that also mean that as he has to consume the host before distrbution his receiving the host is acceptable?

If so why then if he is not in a state of grace can he receive communion and a divoriced and remarried catholic cannot.

Is it one law for the priests and another for the laity. It certainly seems that way.

 

[Ginkgo100]

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.

Again, God doesn’t obey humans. Humans obey God.

Is a priest ever in a perfectly sinless state? Unless he has gone to Reconciliation immediately before Mass, and is free from all mental sins such as pride, he will almost certainly have at least venial sins at the Consecration. If that’s the case, and if God won’t effect transubstantiation except through a perfectly clean priestly soul, then very, very few (if any) consecrations are valid. And this would go for all of human history. And the faithful would have no way of knowing whether the consecration were valid. Now that makes God look weak.

God has always acted through weak humans. Moses was a murderer. David was an adulterer and a murderer. Many prophets openly questioned God (read the anguished words of Jeremiah in ch.20 v.7). Peter denied Christ three times. Yet God intentionally acted with and through them.

 

[choy]

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!

please read my post which i quoted from the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

the graces come from Jesus, not the priest. so it doesn’t matter if the priest is sinful or not (we all are). God does not obey the priest. you have a big misconception here, God is not being invoked like Aladdin would to a genie. Jesus does His works through the priests that were chosen to receive Holy Orders. its God at work here, not the priest.

 

[choy]

the above answers seem to indicte that even though a priest is not in a state of grace by his ordination he can still distribute a consecrated communion.

Does that also mean that as he has to consume the host before distrbution his receiving the host is acceptable?

If so why then if he is not in a state of grace can he receive communion and a divoriced and remarried catholic cannot.

Is it one law for the priests and another for the laity. It certainly seems that way.

of course the host is acceptable. if the priest is in mortal sin, then he is unworthy and committing another sin himself. but that sin is his, not anyone elses

we are not saying that the priest can receive communion if he’s not in a state of grace. but if his sin is private, which is usually the case, then how can we stop him? only God knows, therefore God would know if the priest is sinning.

by the way, divorcees can receive communion. divorce is not a sin. if they re-marry or engage in intimate relations with someone else, that is a sin.

 

[rpp]

the above answers seem to indicte that even though a priest is not in a state of grace by his ordination he can still distribute a consecrated communion.

Does that also mean that as he has to consume the host before distrbution his receiving the host is acceptable?

If so why then if he is not in a state of grace can he receive communion and a divoriced and remarried catholic cannot.

Is it one law for the priests and another for the laity. It certainly seems that way.

Yes, that is a serious problem for the priest, he must consume Holy Communion even when he knows he is unworthy. And when a priest does this, they know they are committing a grave sin. This is why frequent personal holiness and confession are so important for priests.

Your comparison of this to person in an invalid marriage is not appropriate. Receiving Holy Communion is not a right nor a reward for “being good”. It carries both great reward and the gravest of responsibility. When a person has grave unconfessed sins on their conscious, or they are in a state of manifest (i.e. public) grave sin, such as a person in an invalid marriage or a politician who supports abortion, revieving Holy communion is a sacrilege and very grave sin.

As for different rules for priests vs laity. That is true. Priests are held to a much higher standard.

 

[CEPS]

Good point Anthony c, sure sounds like the Good Old Boys Network protecting its own.

Ginko100, In the Old Testament, men did not have the Holy Spirit on a permanent basis as they now do under the New Covenant (Paul tells us that we are now SEALED with the Holy Spirit: 2Cor 1:22, Eph 1:13 and 4:30). This is what the Day of Pentecost was all about. Peter denied the Messiah BEFORE Pentecost not after. the Holy Spirit does not go getting in and out of bodies any more, Once you got it you got it. Boy is that statement gonna open a can of worms. Go for it boys!

Choy: forget the CCC, I’m a former Catholic and an self admitted heretic according to Catholic teaching so I consider the Catechism and traditions of men as invalid. Give me scripture.

 

[malphono]

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.

That’s true but it’s the Anaphora of Ss Addai & Mari according to its original recension as used by the ACoE. The recension used by the Chaldean Church has an added Institution Narrative which is essentially a translation of the form from the Roman Canon. If I’ve said this before, I apologize for the duplication.

 

[malphono]

Good point Anthony c, sure sounds like the Good Old Boys Network protecting its own.

choy and rpp both addressed this, and so, for that matter, did I earlier in this thread. I have little to add now except to say that the above comment is bosh.

Choy: forget the CCC, I’m a former Catholic and an self admitted heretic according to Catholic teaching so I consider the Catechism and traditions of men as invalid.

Which kind of disqualifies you to comment on what constitutes a valid Mass.

Give me scripture.

By all means, be my guest. But scripture-only is as meaningless as scripture-absent.

 

[CEPS]

choy and rpp both addressed this, and so, for that matter, did I earlier in this thread. I have little to add now except to say that the above comment is bosh.

Must be your not paying attention to what is going on in the church right now. Perfect example of the Old Boys Network tap dancing to save themselves and this is about a 1600 year tradition among these guys. [edited]

Which kind of disqualifies you to comment on what constitutes a valid Mass.

I was very close to going into the seminary at one point in time. I have probably more training in the Roman Catholic Church than the average practicing Catholic. I’ve also read the Bible and the Catechism more than once. I’ve also personally witnessed priests so drunk that they could hardly stand up say mass and you want to tell me this is valid!

By all means, be my guest. But scripture-only is as meaningless as scripture-absent.

Maybe so, but scripture only is a lot better than none at all.

 

[malphono]

Must be your not paying attention to what is going on in the church right now.

Excuse me?

Perfect example of the Old Boys Network tap dancing to save themselves and this is about a 1600 year tradition among these guys. [edited].

Whatever, it seem that self-styled “Nestorians” [edited].

I was very close to going into the seminary at one point in time. I have probably more training in the Roman Catholic Church than the average practicing Catholic. I’ve also read the Bible and the Catechism more than once.

Could you perhaps blow your own horn a little louder? I don’t think they heard you in Peoria.

I’ve also personally witnessed priests so drunk that they could hardly stand up say mass and you want to tell me this is valid!

And this has a bearing how? Obviously all that horn-tooting doesn’t mean that much was learned.

Maybe so, but scripture only is a lot better than none at all.

Obviously the point didn’t sink in: both are meaningless.

 

[rpp]

Good point Anthony c, sure sounds like the Good Old Boys Network protecting its own.

Ginko100, In the Old Testament, men did not have the Holy Spirit on a permanent basis as they now do under the New Covenant (Paul tells us that we are now SEALED with the Holy Spirit: 2Cor 1:22, Eph 1:13 and 4:30). This is what the Day of Pentecost was all about. Peter denied the Messiah BEFORE Pentecost not after. the Holy Spirit does not go getting in and out of bodies any more, Once you got it you got it. Boy is that statement gonna open a can of worms. Go for it boys!

Choy: forget the CCC,** I’m a former Catholic and an self admitted heretic according to Catholic teaching so I consider the Catechism and traditions of men as invalid.** Give me scripture.

This is a question to Catholics about Catholic doctrine. Since you admittedly reject Catholic teachings and have made it very clear you are unwilling to learn, why are you on this thread?

 

[rpp]

Must be your not paying attention to what is going on in the church right now. Perfect example of the Old Boys Network tap dancing to save themselves and this is about a 1600 year tradition among these guys. [edited]

I was very close to going into the seminary at one point in time. I have probably more training in the Roman Catholic Church than the average practicing Catholic. I’ve also read the Bible and the Catechism more than once. I’ve also personally witnessed priests so drunk that they could hardly stand up say mass and you want to tell me this is valid!

Maybe so, but scripture only is a lot better than none at all.

Most of what you posted here is off topic and you make it very clear that you are trying to bait Catholic. Please do not post off topic and stop insulting the Church and other CAF members. All three of which, by the way, are against forum rules.

 

[CEPS]

RPP,
Please accept my apology for anything I may have posted that was offensive. This was not my intent when I first came on this particular thread. Looking back, I do see some things that I probably should not have posted. Sometimes reason can be replaced with emotion, again I apologize for that.

When I first got the email with reference to this topic I became interested because it was something that hit home and I felt I may have something to offer. Let me explain.

In the late 1960’s I was a high school student and an altar boy in the parish where I lived. As I stated in one of my posts I was sincerely considering the priesthood. Then several things happened that led me away from that vocation: 1.) It came to my attention that a Franciscan Friar assigned to the parish was having multiple simultaneous adulterous affairs with several married women in the parish. 2.) Another priest would come to the church early whenever he would say mass and proceed to get drunk on the Christian Brothers wine that was kept for the purposes of celebrating mass.

When these transgressions came to light the two priests were still saying mass regularly but nothing changed from their ends. Within a few weeks several secret meetings were convened in the back room of the church. Unbeknownst to the meeting participants I was in an adjacent room during the last meeting (totally coincidental) and overheard how the two priests would be moved out of the parish and all would be forgotten. Within a few weeks of that meeting they were gone but the damage had been done. I served mass for both of these men while this was going on, which by the way did not stop until they were gone, and I was aware of the situation at the same time. I saw many sincere people parade to the altar to receive communion that was “consecrated” by these two men and I do not believe for a second that this was valid. I could see into their (the priests) eyes and they had looks that I will never forget. Purposeful deceit is not a pretty thing.

These actions by the two priests led to two results that I am aware of: 1.) At least one divorce as a result of the adultery. 2.) The loss of at least one potential Catholic priest (me). Do you see where I am coming from now?

One last thing I should tie in: The Apostle Saul filled with the Holy Spirit tells us in Romans 1:19-20 that the physical reveals the spiritual. This is why I covertly referenced the present child abuse scandal plaguing the church. In my opinion that physical abuse is pointing to spiritual abuse and I and the rest of the parish were spiritually abused by these two men and the resulting cover up.

All that being said, this will be my last post on this thread.

 

[choy]

Choy: forget the CCC, I’m a former Catholic and an self admitted heretic according to Catholic teaching so I consider the Catechism and traditions of men as invalid. Give me scripture.

the CCC and Scripture came from the same source, the Church

you can’t consider one valid and the other invalid, its all or nothing

 

[rpp]

RPP,
Please accept my apology for anything I may have posted that was offensive. This was not my intent when I first came on this particular thread. Looking back, I do see some things that I probably should not have posted. Sometimes reason can be replaced with emotion, again I apologize for that.

When I first got the email with reference to this topic I became interested because it was something that hit home and I felt I may have something to offer. Let me explain.

In the late 1960’s I was a high school student and an altar boy in the parish where I lived. As I stated in one of my posts I was sincerely considering the priesthood. Then several things happened that led me away from that vocation: 1.) It came to my attention that a Franciscan Friar assigned to the parish was having multiple simultaneous adulterous affairs with several married women in the parish. 2.) Another priest would come to the church early whenever he would say mass and proceed to get drunk on the Christian Brothers wine that was kept for the purposes of celebrating mass.

When these transgressions came to light the two priests were still saying mass regularly but nothing changed from their ends. Within a few weeks several secret meetings were convened in the back room of the church. Unbeknownst to the meeting participants I was in an adjacent room during the last meeting (totally coincidental) and overheard how the two priests would be moved out of the parish and all would be forgotten. Within a few weeks of that meeting they were gone but the damage had been done. I served mass for both of these men while this was going on, which by the way did not stop until they were gone, and I was aware of the situation at the same time. I saw many sincere people parade to the altar to receive communion that was “consecrated” by these two men and I do not believe for a second that this was valid. I could see into their (the priests) eyes and they had looks that I will never forget. Purposeful deceit is not a pretty thing.

These actions by the two priests led to two results that I am aware of: 1.) At least one divorce as a result of the adultery. 2.) The loss of at least one potential Catholic priest (me). Do you see where I am coming from now?

One last thing I should tie in: The Apostle Saul filled with the Holy Spirit tells us in Romans 1:19-20 that the physical reveals the spiritual. This is why I covertly referenced the present child abuse scandal plaguing the church. In my opinion that physical abuse is pointing to spiritual abuse and I and the rest of the parish were spiritually abused by these two men and the resulting cover up.

All that being said, this will be my last post on this thread.

While I can appreciate the fact that this experience could affect a person, it is clear that you have put your faith in men and made your spiritual decisions based on the worst conduct of men, not the ideal that Christ calls all us fallible humans to. that you use this unfortunate experience to somehow justify leaving the Church I find puzzling. If your faith is really based on the Truth of God ,you will clearly see that in some cases the actions of men will fail.

But that is topic for another thread. You apology making offensive posts is accepted. However, I think your reasons deserve a separate and specific thread.

 

[PJM]

=KateD;6446081]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 it is VALID so long as there is proper intent; proper form and proper manner.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Debra_C]

the reason the priest being in mortal sin does NOT matter in regard to his consecration of the host, is that Holy Orders, like Baptism, leaves an indelible mark on the soul, which God has promised His Church He will honor.

 

[anthony_c]

The answers to my question still seem to be favoring the clergy. surly just because a man takes holy orders does not make him different from the rest of us. Or are some sacrements greater then others? Each man has to face god ALONE. just because he has a collar does’nt give him a leg up. as previous noted he must be held to a higher standard. To divorce the actions of a man from his soul so that at long as he has received the right to consecrate the host he always retains that right no matter what he does does not make sense.
All people have the right to forgiveness I am not saying that a person who asks for forgiveness and accepts gods love cannot attain redemption for their past sins As per prieits who have strayed. BUT to continue as they have done for many years must mean that they have rejected gods love. God forgives all things and sees all things even when we don’t love him.

God came to earth as a man he did not divorce himself from his divinity he was wholy both.
so why is it that we try to split our soul from our actions.

 

[antonabe]

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).

Well said,in adddition we also associate ourselves in the offering,The priest says “Pray bretheren that out sacrifice may be acceptable to God,our almighty father” to which we reply
“May the Lord accept the sacrfice at your hands for the praise and Glory of his name for our good and for the good of the Church”

 

[choy]

to add

it is the power of God that makes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. there is nothing from the priest that goes into it, it is all from God. so it doesn’t matter if the priest is sinful or in a state of grace, it should not accept the Sacraments (Eucharist or the 6 other ones) because all grace comes from Christ and there is nothing that can defile the grace of God