L
lakotak
Guest
Should a person receive the Body and Blood from a priest that is preaching heresy?
- Status
L
Lingua
Guest
I would say a prayer to Saint Dominic.
P
promethius
Guest
The state of the priest as to whether or not they are preaching heresy has nothing to do with whether or not the sacrament is valid, so it is irrelevant.
P
promethius
Guest
Or maybe it is political correctness which enables incidents like mere laity thinking they can or should publicly question their bishop’s authority. I suspect the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith will inform you that this matter is the jurisdiction of the Bishop and as long as the Bishop is in the process of investigating and taking action then they won’t act on your accusations.
Have you considered that perhaps the bishop is requesting a copy of the homily? Your word alone is not enough to sack a priest… after all, you could be some heretic who didn’t like that the priest ministered against abortion. For all any of us here know, you ARE the one in the wrong and are making up lies about the priest in order to get him fired, and now that that didn’t happen fast enough for your liking, you’re coming here to slander your bishop. (Note: not saying this IS the case, but for all any of us know it COULD BE)
Or perhaps have you considered that this priest is ALSO part of the flock of the bishop, and that the bishop knows what is pastorily best for the priest to bring him back in line with the church?
Somewhere along the way you have gotten it into your head that you have the authority to demand your bishop to jump to your tune. I would disabuse yourself of that notion before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is forced to take the time to do so. If you want to help your bishop, merely tape one of these supposed homilies and send it to him so that he can hear what is being said and you’ll simplify an investigation for him, but by all means don’t come on here disrespecting your Bishop!
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
But doesn’t the priest have to have A) proper matter (bread and wine); B) Proper form (the ritual set forth by the Church; and C) proper intent (ie, he INTENDS to confect the Holy Sacrifice)? If he’s lacking the last, by an overt denial of the Church’s teaching on Transubstantiation, then wouldn’t that invalidate the sacrament?
P
promethius
Guest
Incorrect on the qualification. If he intends to deliver a sacrament and through it, grace, then that is the required intent for a valid Eucharist. That is why the clarification of intent from Trent is “that the minister intend to do as the church does.”
This means that while he may not believe as the church teaches or believes, if he intends to deliver the sacrament then it is valid. It does not matter if he believes the sacrament contains the Real Presense or not.
EDIT: Correction, he does not have to even believe that the sacrament will confer grace. From what I’ve just read, all he has to do is intend to deliver the sacrament.
T
The_Epigone
Guest
Promethius please don’t misunderstand, I don’t claim any authority whatsoever. I am only planning on informing all relevant authorities, to ensure something is done.
The bishop did say he was reviewing the homily. It was not a complicated homily. It said, repeatedly and clearly, transubstantiation is not real, and the Eucharist is only a symbol.
The was weeks before we saw the priest performing mass and he once again harassed those treating the Eucharist with reverence.
These are the facts. They give adequate cause to suspect that my Bishop is not doing his job. What is slanderous about outlining the facts, especially when I’m not naming any parties involved?
The bishop did say he was reviewing the homily. It was not a complicated homily. It said, repeatedly and clearly, transubstantiation is not real, and the Eucharist is only a symbol.
The was weeks before we saw the priest performing mass and he once again harassed those treating the Eucharist with reverence.
These are the facts. They give adequate cause to suspect that my Bishop is not doing his job. What is slanderous about outlining the facts, especially when I’m not naming any parties involved?
T
The_Epigone
Guest
Oh and you’re correct about the validity. It actually quite beautiful, Christ’s compassion for us is so amazing that He would make himself present even when His priest has no regard for His presence.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I see. Thank you for the clarification.
P
promethius
Guest
For the time being, you have informed the relevant authority. You don’t need to come online and publicly question your bishop or call into doubt his actions.
Did you provide evidence of this homily to the bishop? A taping of it? It could be, as I said, that you are a liar with a grudge against the priest, or that you’ve overblown the homily as heresy (for all we know, the priest was talking about the fact that the accident remains bread and wine while the essense changes, and you misinterpreted this to be heresy when it is not. You might be surprised how often self-appointed “liturgical police” are found to be in error). None of us knows that you are being honest for certain (or that, being honest, you are even right).
Without YOU presenting evidence or a multitude of witnesses to verify the homily, the Bishop must rely on evidence that is available… most likely requesting a copy of the notes from the priest or asking the priest about his orthodoxy. If the priest is as bad as you say, he may have lied and it will take time for the bishop to sort out the truth.
Another option is that the bishop is dealing with taking a sexual predator out of a parish (and thus doesn’t have time to do in depth fact checking just yet), or that immediate removal of this priest will mean cancelling masses at another parish, or that the bishop has decided (under his very valid authority) to use pastoral care to shepherd the priest back into line. Have you considered that the bishop may have a higher solution in mind than simply “sack the priest”?
The bottom line is that you DON’T have the facts to tell us the bishop isn’t doing his job, nor is it appropriate for a layperson to make such a statement so boldly. You are not the bishop, so you have no clue what his priorities are at the moment and why they are so ordered. You are, quite simply put, overstepping your place.
Again, you’re stating, as fact, that the bishop is not doing his job. That is certainly not a fact, but an opinion (and one which you base on your view as a layperson with no authority to make such a determination on this matter).
As to not naming any parties involved, it’s not exactly hard to figure out who the most likely bishop you’re referring to is…
T
The_Epigone
Guest
I’m curious how you’d even know what country I’m from, much less the specific diocese…
EDIT: btw the school you see on my profile isn’t in my home diocese.
EDIT: btw the school you see on my profile isn’t in my home diocese.
G
georgewithfaith
Guest
I want to respond to the posters who have encountered priests who tell them not to kneel. The conflict that arises when a priest ask someone NOT to kneel is inevitable for some people and I understand why. For many of us it goes back to what we were taught when we received our First Holy Communion.
I made my First Holy Communion just a few years before the changes we see today took place. So this was when one received communion kneeling, on the tongue and only from a priest. A few years later we were all standing, had the option to receive in the hand and Extraordinary ministers were introduced.
It was drilled into me that we must always kneel, receive on the tongue and that ONLY a priest could give us communion. The sister who taught me this instilled it in me. She taught us that for centuries that this was the venerable practice of the Church.
Thus, when changes take place in the church and what was once help with great regard and generally is respected by many priests is actually dismissed or derided by one priest I understand how someone could feel upset.
I made my First Holy Communion just a few years before the changes we see today took place. So this was when one received communion kneeling, on the tongue and only from a priest. A few years later we were all standing, had the option to receive in the hand and Extraordinary ministers were introduced.
It was drilled into me that we must always kneel, receive on the tongue and that ONLY a priest could give us communion. The sister who taught me this instilled it in me. She taught us that for centuries that this was the venerable practice of the Church.
Thus, when changes take place in the church and what was once help with great regard and generally is respected by many priests is actually dismissed or derided by one priest I understand how someone could feel upset.
- Status