Validity of Sacraments

[jerabekk66]

Hi:

I’m talking to a Catholic who left the Church after the scandals broke in 2001.

He admits that the RCC is the Church founded by Christ but states that since most of the bishops and the Pope (I have asked him for proof) knew about and covered up the scandals that their Holy Orders are no longer valid. Therefore, he asserts, most of the priests administering the Sacraments have no authority to do so (since they were ordained by the bishops whose Holy Orders were not valid.

He also states that even if there are some priests out there who were validly ordained, that because they sign state marriage licenses which permit divorce to be obtained, that invalidates their Holy Orders.

Therefore, according to him, there’s no reason to be a Catholic because there is no Eucharist there.

I’m citing scripture about the Church being visible and that the gates will not prevail against it but with no luck.

Could someone give me a nutshell about what Holy Orders do? My nutshell is that God ordains through the bishop who lays on hands. It changes the interior disposition of the priest so that even if he sins the Sacraments are still valid because he is simply in the place of Christ. It seems to me that this would nullify both of his objections above.

I would also love to know how you would respond to the marriage objection.

Also, if anyone out there has a good source of what the Church did actually do before the scandals became public, a timeline or something, that would help a lot also.

Thanks very much.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The heresy that a priest in a state of sin is somehow no longer validly bound by Holy Orders, or that because he is in mortal sin he can no longer validly administer sacraments, is just that. A heresy. It’s called Donatism. Here’s a link to an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia. newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm

So right from the start, your friend is wrong about the ‘invalidity’ of sacraments.

Further, he is wrong in his ‘judgment’ that any individual priest, let alone the whole scale indictment of ‘all priests’, were complicit in mortal sin, coverups, etc. How does he ‘know the heart’, know the circumstances, etc. of every single person and ‘if’ they were ever involved and what they may have done, or not done, etc.?

May God guide him back to the truth.

 

[jerabekk66]

Yes I told him that he was indicting the whole and that he couldn’t prove that.

I’ll go read up on Donatism right now.

Thank you very much.

 

[jay29]

I come across this garbage sometimes as well. I just say a priest’s sanctity has nothing to do with the graces the Lord is working through him. I also state that Holy Orders as well as baptism impart an indelible mark on a person’s soul. In addition, I state that the church is under attack from militant homosexuals. In other words, a satanic attack from the enemy within. I also state that people who leave the church are falling into the hands of satan and his plans to draw people away from the cc and quit possibly lose salvation as a result. Just my opinion.

 

[jerabekk66]

Thanks Jay. I said all of that too. But he insists that there haven’t been Holy Orders in the Church for 30 years b/c of the scandal and because of marrying people with state licenses that permit them to divorce.

I’m going to continue to try and get through to him by stepping it back. I’ve already established with him the our Lord established the RCC and he agrees. Next I’m going to work on Jesus establishing the Sacraments and take it one step at a time.

Pray for me that I can get through to him.

 

[otjm]

Thanks Jay. I said all of that too. But he insists that there haven’t been Holy Orders in the Church for 30 years b/c of the scandal and because of marrying people with state licenses that permit them to divorce.

I’m going to continue to try and get through to him by stepping it back. I’ve already established with him the our Lord established the RCC and he agrees. Next I’m going to work on Jesus establishing the Sacraments and take it one step at a time.

Pray for me that I can get through to him.

Ask him for specific proof. Not some jaw boning that he is putting out, but something specific in Canon Law. He won’t come up with anything anywhere near on point.

Some people you cna help, some you can’t. I have a friend (sort of) who was a school teacher and coach. Somewhere along the line he had a massive brain f&rt and fell of the edge of the earth. Sedevacantist and the whole bit. Talking to him is about as effective as trying to empty to ocean with a teaspoon. I don’t even waste my time.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hi:

I’m talking to a Catholic who left the Church after the scandals broke in 2001.

He admits that the RCC is the Church founded by Christ but states that since most of the bishops and the Pope (I have asked him for proof) knew about and covered up the scandals that their Holy Orders are no longer valid. Therefore, he asserts, most of the priests administering the Sacraments have no authority to do so (since they were ordained by the bishops whose Holy Orders were not valid.

He also states that even if there are some priests out there who were validly ordained, that because they sign state marriage licenses which permit divorce to be obtained, that invalidates their Holy Orders.

Therefore, according to him, there’s no reason to be a Catholic because there is no Eucharist there.

I’m citing scripture about the Church being visible and that the gates will not prevail against it but with no luck.

Could someone give me a nutshell about what Holy Orders do? My nutshell is that God ordains through the bishop who lays on hands. It changes the interior disposition of the priest so that even if he sins the Sacraments are still valid because he is simply in the place of Christ. It seems to me that this would nullify both of his objections above.

I would also love to know how you would respond to the marriage objection.

Also, if anyone out there has a good source of what the Church did actually do before the scandals became public, a timeline or something, that would help a lot also.

Thanks very much.

He is a bit off to the side there. It is not possible to un-Baptize, un-Ordain, un-Confirm, or un-Marry someone. They are the Sacraments that cannot be repeated, except Marriage after a spouse dies, but not during the life of a spouse. The first three impose an indelible mark on the soul not only for this life but for Eternity.

A state Marriage license is not a requirement of the Church, and has nothing to do with the Church. A divorce also has nothing to do with the Church either. It only has effects on the civil status of the Marriage, not the Spiritual. A Civil Divorce does not in any way undo a valid Marriage as far as the Church is concerned and does not permit a person to enter into another Marriage, as far as the Church is concerned.

 

[stmaria]

Yes I told him that he was indicting the whole and that he couldn’t prove that.

I’ll go read up on Donatism right now.

Thank you very much.

This is a view of current day sedevacantists. In 1968, the Consilium writing the liturgy for the New Mass also rewrote the wording used for Holy Orders. Sedevacantists claim that this new wording invalidated the priesthood because the new wording was similar to the Angleican rite which was declared invalid by Pope Leo XIII.

stjosephschurch.net/cekada.htm

 

[jerabekk66]

Br. Rich:

He is saying that by allowing a couple to walk in and get married in the Church and signing the marriage license, the Church is endorsing civil divorce and thus violating Catholic Doctrine.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The reality is, the Church handled the sexual abuse cases exactly the same way other institutions, religious and secular, handle them.

Cover up? There was, but it was not for the sake of protecting abusive priest, but rather, for the sake of protecting the victim.

Most of the sex abuses cases are more than 20 years old. Twenty plus years ago, when a woman was raped, there was a negative stigma attached to here that she would have to live with. The goal was to keep the story out of the news, in order to protect her. This was before there were rape shield protection laws. I remember a young teen girl who was brutally raped in my neighborhood. The police and the prosecutors, did everything they could to keep her name out of the news. It failed however and this young girl suffered a mental breakdown to where she spent years in mental institutions.

And for young adult males, the stigma of being molested would be devastating. As a result, the psychiatrist and authorities would advise keeping it quiet. This often meant, sending the offender off for treatment, and telling no one about it. This is the way schools handled it, the way synagogues handled it and churches handled it.

Also, not every priest knew about specific cases of abuse. To blame them is wrong.

Yes, Bishops like Cardinal Law, handled it badly by passing off the problem to their subordinates, only to have the entire thing come back at them. He was wrong in giving a pedophile priest, a glowing letter of recommendation to another dioceses, just to get rid of him

We need to take a rational look at the scandal that rocked the Church, and to be fair in our judgment.

Could the Church done a better job? Having the hindsight we have today, we can say yes. But would any of us hand been any wiser, if we were there when it was happening?

Jim

 

[jerabekk66]

Jim:

Yes I mentioned those things also but he is very hard of heart about this.

I’m now trying to at least show that the Sacraments a priest administers are not invalidated by the state of HIS soul.

I think that’s really the best I can do besides pray!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Br. Rich:

He is saying that by allowing a couple to walk in and get married in the Church and signing the marriage license, the Church is endorsing civil divorce and thus violating Catholic Doctrine.

I personally don’t see how we get from signing a Marriage license attesting that an exchange of promises acceptable to the state were exchanged, to something sounding like the priest is signing a civil Divorce decree. A Marriage license isn’t a Divorce decree. It’s sort of like saying that since the state issues a drivers license they are issuing a license to drink and drive, because people use the license to drive while drunk.

 

[johnnydigit]

this reminds me of a comment i made just the other day to a friend about those websites that map out where convicted sexual offenders live. i mentioned how sick i felt when i saw how many offenders were in local neighborhoods, and my friend reminded me that we should not condemn the sinner, but the sin.

i was so disgusted by pedophilia and their offenders, that i could not look past it, specifically to the individual and consider the justice that has been served. i realized that i was blinded by the sin and that it is up to God to judge, not me.

-blaming the Church and leaving it because of sins committed by priests - wrong. this isn’t a school where you can just pull your kid out and go to any other one where they teach the same thing. the Church isn’t just protected by human tradition which any church can have, but is protected by the Holy Spirit and the direct hands of Jesus through Apostolic Succession.

even more disturbing is the fact he said he knows it’s the right church, but still chooses to leave it. IIRC, that is a sin against the Holy Spirit, the only unforgivable sin. i imagine it’s still a case of ignorance though…

even more disturbing is the fact that the teaching about a priest’s sins not invalidating the Sacraments is freely available and has been taught for thousands of years. for someone to try and claim they can interpret a teaching better than the entire 2000 year old Catholic Church is, well, .

=========

it seems that when people refuse to see simple logic like this, they have other issues, usually emotional, that keep them from seeing the truth. no matter what you say, they will just not get it. i have had more success by following Jesus’ method of creating a parable that relates to the person and our current time. put the person in the story, and ask them what is right and wrong, then apply their understanding to the Church. gonna have to brush up on apologetics for this case… God bless.

 

[jerabekk66]

Br. Rich:

He is asserting that by signing the marriage license you are giving witness to the fact, and thereby endorsing, that the marrying couple could divorce.

I don’t buy it but he’s desperately trying to find any excuse to say that all priests are corrupt.

Update on progress though. He admits that the Sacraments come from God, through Jesus and that three of them leave an indelible mark on the soul.

My next question was: when we actually receive the Sacrament, who does it come from?

My line of reasoning is that if it comes from God, the state of the soul of the priest doesn’t matter b/c God’s commands and actions can not be altered by man.

If I get there, I think that the marriage license question is null and void.

After that I have to chase the question of whether or not the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. I think he will agree to that bit he’s already said he doesn’t believe God will condemn him for his protest.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Br. Rich:

He is asserting that by signing the marriage license you are giving witness to the fact, and thereby endorsing, that the marrying couple could divorce.

I don’t buy it but he’s desperately trying to find any excuse to say that all priests are corrupt.

Update on progress though. He admits that the Sacraments come from God, through Jesus and that three of them leave an indelible mark on the soul.

My next question was: when we actually receive the Sacrament, who does it come from?

My line of reasoning is that if it comes from God, the state of the soul of the priest doesn’t matter b/c God’s commands and actions can not be altered by man.

If I get there, I think that the marriage license question is null and void.

After that I have to chase the question of whether or not the Sacraments are necessary for salvation. I think he will agree to that bit he’s already said he doesn’t believe God will condemn him for his protest.

It is Christ who is always acting in His Sacraments, thru the minister.

The question of the Sacraments being necessary for salvation is tricky. We would say that Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Communion are because the three are the Sacraments of Initiation. However that also assumes that all three were available. If an infant dies suddenly a month after being Baptized are Confirmation and Holy Communion necessary? No, because they were not available to the infant. If an adult dies at age 30 and had many opportunities to receive Confirmation and Holy Communion are they necessary? Maybe.

Is the Sacrament of Baptism itself necessary?
If anyone dies suddenly without Baptism are they not saved?
Depending on the circumstances they could be (known only to God). Because God can supply the Grace of Baptism, outside the Sacrament of Baptism, so a person could possibly obtain Salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism, but not without the Grace of Baptism, supplied in an extraordinary manner by God.

 

[JDHallKY]

It is so important for Catholics in this day and age to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the theological underpinnings of the sacramental economy. The Sacrament of Holy Orders results in an “ontological” change in the man ordained. That man’s soul is changed. An ordained priest enters eternity as a priest. No one, not even the Church, can undo that. A priest who has been disciplined and deprived of his ability to licitly administer the sacraments still has the *actual *ability to administer them.

If Christ established His Church in such a way that his ministers had to be without sin in order to dispense the sacraments, the gates of Hell would have long ago prevailed against the Church.

 

[jerabekk66]

Yes I pointed that out.

He agrees, now but tells me he wishes that Cdl Law would go to hell. He actually wants him to go there.

I pointed out that he wishes God to deny mercy to someone and that therefore God might not have mercy on him but I don’t know what he will say to that.

This is a really good and smart guy otherwise. Super intelligent. I’m almost at a loss.

 

[otjm]

Yes I pointed that out.

He agrees, now but tells me he wishes that Cdl Law would go to hell. He actually wants him to go there.

I pointed out that he wishes God to deny mercy to someone and that therefore God might not have mercy on him but I don’t know what he will say to that.

This is a really good and smart guy otherwise. Super intelligent. I’m almost at a loss.

Keep in mind that intelligent does not mean smart. There are geniuses out there who nuttier than a fruitcake. I am glad that you are dealing with him and not I; and I think the comment made somewhere up above may be all too true; it is not an issue of facts, but an issue of some emotional nature. all of the facts in the world, laid end to end in a stunning path to truth won’t matter, if the issue is not about facts. and continuing to persue facts may be missing the point.

 

[jerabekk66]

Keep in mind that intelligent does not mean smart. There are geniuses out there who nuttier than a fruitcake. I am glad that you are dealing with him and not I; and I think the comment made somewhere up above may be all too true; it is not an issue of facts, but an issue of some emotional nature. all of the facts in the world, laid end to end in a stunning path to truth won’t matter, if the issue is not about facts. and continuing to persue facts may be missing the point.

Yes otjm. There are severe emotional issues that I know of.

It’s gotten to the point where I will have to call the discussion off. He’s calling all practicing Catholics pharasees and me as judging him because I pointed out that if you don’t forgive you won’t be forgiven and that missing Mass is a mortal sin.

This is going nowhere fast. Time for prayer.

 

[jerabekk66]

Also, one other thing.

He is saying that b/c JPII brought Cdl Law to Rome to avoid prosecution, the Churches foundational principles have been violated and the Sacraments therefore are null and void.

His contention is that the gates have not prevailed over it but that since the Church has no legitimate representative on earth it has gone dormant and points to the period of the Crusades as evidence that this happens.

I’ve never heard that argument before.

Anyone else?