What happens if a priest has to hold Mass while in mortal sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EphelDuath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If the priest is able to confess to another priest before Mass, of course they are obliged to do so.

If this is impossible for whatever reason, they fall under the provision of Canon 916:

“Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.”

The requirement to celebrate Mass certainly is a ‘grave reason’ - given the obligation on the faithful to attend Mass, and the requirement that the priest celebrant must receive both Host and Chalice. So in such a case the priest can make an Act of Perfect Contrition and celebrate, and receive.
 
How is the Act of Contrition different from an Act of Perfect Contrition?
 
P10 said:
How is the Act of Contrition different from an Act of Perfect Contrition?
Click to expand...
The main difference is that you have to resolve in the Act of Perfect Contrition to confess your sins as soon as you can. For a normal Act, being in or about to go or just having gone, you usually don’t say that 😃

Perfect Contrition, of course, must be motivated primarily out of love of God, but then most Acts already say ‘O my God, I am sorry for my sins because they have offended you, who I love so much …’ or something similar.
 
wynd said:
What happens if the priest doesn’t receive communion?
Click to expand...
the priest who is the celebrant must receive communion under both forms or the sacrifice is invalid. He celebrates Mass, if he has no chance to confess, and confesses as soon as possible afterward. The sacrifice is valid and licit.
 
puzzleannie said:
the priest who is the celebrant must receive communion under both forms or the sacrifice is invalid.
Click to expand...
Puzzleannie, and others,

Are we certain of this? While it is apparent that the celebrant not receiving communion is a violation of both Divine law and canon law (a grave one at that), is it absolutely certain that the priest’s communion invalidates the sacrifice?

St. Thomas mentions the obligation of the priest communicating, and this obligation is repeatedly stated in other documents, but, is it possible that the priest’s communion while an integral portion of the Sacrifice of the Mass is not an essential one?

Can anyone direct us to some sources which say that is absolutely essential, i.e. without which no sacrifice has occured?

Thank you,
VC
 
Hi puzzleannie,

I’ve taken some time to investigate this issue further, because I have found this topic interesting.

I was wondering if you would be willing to clarify your previous statement that,
puzzleannnie:
the priest who is the celebrant must receive communion under both forms or the sacrifice is invalid.
Click to expand...
I’m not quite sure what you mean by the “sacrifice is invalid.” On the one hand you could mean that their is no sacrifice, and on the other hand you may be indicating that there is no valid liturgical action (i.e. using the word “sacrifice” as a short form for “Sacrifice of the Mass”, the liturgical act).

I assumed the former, that you meant to say that without the priest’s communion there is no sacrifice. I’ve heard this stated quite a few times by others. If I misunderstood what you meant, please let me know. In any event, the discussion about whether or not the priest must receive Holy Communion in order for the sacrifice to be valid does exist.

I think we would be hard pressed to find a clear and **authoritative **statement that the priest’s communion is essential to the sacrifice of the Mass. So, in that sense, it seems to be an open question.

However the contrary position – that the priest’s communion is not essential, however integral, to the sacrifice – seems to have much more support, and should, in my opinion win the day.

Puzzleannie, could you clarify for me whether or not you were just offering your opinion on the matter, or were you stating that it is the teaching of the Church that the celebrant must receive communion for the sacrifice to be valid? If it is your opinion I’d be very interested in your reasons for it, and if it is Church teaching I’d like to learn more about it.

Thanks!
VC
 
I think we would be hard pressed to find a clear and **authoritative **statement that the priest’s communion is essential to the sacrifice of the Mass. So, in that sense, it seems to be an open question.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that?
 
Chatter163 said:
Why do you think that?
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose my language was a bit of hyperbole. What I meant was that *I *have been hard pressed to find a clear and authoritative statement to that effect.

But, I continue looking, and would welcome it if anyone could provide them. My purpose in my post above was to solicit some further discussion as well as reasons for either position.
 
what if the priest is on a medication that doesn’t allow him to consume any alcohol?
 
raindr0ps said:
what if the priest is on a medication that doesn’t allow him to consume any alcohol?
Click to expand...

Then he would be committing a grave or possibly mortal sin if he offered Mass. What sort of priest would want to ensure his own damnation ? 🤷​

 
raindr0ps said:
what if the priest is on a medication that doesn’t allow him to consume any alcohol?
Click to expand...
raindrops,

There are a few different options in those cases. If he is able to tolerate a minute amount of the precious blood, there are provisions that would allow him to do so. There are also provisions that allow him to use mustum, which is wine with a low alcohol content.

If the priest cannot consume any of the precious blood then he shouldn’t, and is forbidden by law, to celebrate mass.

I should note, though, that this prohibition doesn’t answer the question about whether or not a valid sacrifice depends on the priest drinking the precious blood. I think it is clear that to not do so is very illicit and very grave – but it is not clear to me that it makes the mass invalid.

Any thoughts?
VC
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
The Sacrifice of the Mass is incomplete.
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate on that Br. Rich?

Some may interpret this as meaning that there would be no sacrifice or no valid mass. I don’t think “incomplete” necessarily means either, but what do you understand by it?

VC
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

Then he would be committing a grave or possibly mortal sin if he offered Mass. What sort of priest would want to ensure his own damnation ? 🤷​

Click to expand...
Sadly, quite a few who have been suspended ad divinis continue to offer the mass, knowing that they have been forbidden to do so.
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Puzzleannie, and others,
Can anyone direct us to some sources which say that is absolutely essential, i.e. without which no sacrifice has occured?
Click to expand...
I would like to see this as well. It is my understanding that when the priest speaks the words of institution, the bread and wine undergo transubstantiation. If the priest is required to commune, does it somehow undo the transubstantiation? Or am I wrong on this point of theology?

Note: As VC said, we are not discussing if this is illicit or not; everyone knows that it is. We are discussing whether this makes for an invalid Mass; that is, there is no consecration at all and the gifts remain bread and wine.
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Could you elaborate on that Br. Rich?

Some may interpret this as meaning that there would be no sacrifice or no valid mass. I don’t think “incomplete” necessarily means either, but what do you understand by it?

VC
Click to expand...
The Priests Communion under both forms is required to complete the Sacrifice. The Consecration is valid, everyone receives Holy Communion. It is my understanding that when a celebrant is unable to complete the Mass, (for whatever reason) another priest is required to at some point to pick up where the other left off and complete the Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top