Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Disposition of Priests [Valid Mass, Valid Holy Eucharist?]
Catholic Exchange.co, ^ | Fr. William Saunders

Posted on 07/23/2005 9:57:35 AM PDT by Salvation

by Fr. William Saunders

Other Articles by Fr. William Saunders
The Disposition of Priests
07/15/05


If an ordained priest does not believe in transubstantiation, do the communicants receive the Body and Blood of Christ?

In answering this question, one has to wonder, "How could a priest not believe in transubstantiation?" Of course, the point here is not simply the word "transubstantiation," which the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 officially used in its Creed and which the Council of Trent repeated in its Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist in 1551.

Rather, the important point is believing what the word transubstantiation signifies:

Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body that He was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now again declares that, by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of His blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly named transubstantiation. (Trent)
Succinctly, to deny the belief of transubstantiation is heresy.

However, such a disbelieving priest is not only a heretic, but also has an identity crisis. Through the sacrament of holy orders, the priest shares in the priesthood of Christ and thereby acts in the person of Christ. The identity of the priest becomes most clear when he offers the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Mass sacramentally makes present anew Christ’s ever-living, ever-present sacrifice on the Cross: As our beloved late Pope John Paul II wrote,
The Church constantly draws her life from the redeeming sacrifice;... [T]his sacrifice is made present ever anew, sacramentally perpetuated, in every community which offers it at the hands of the consecrated minister.(Ecclesia de Eucharistia, No. 12)
The faithful must not forget that without a priest, there is no Mass. The Catechism of the Catholic Church beautifully states, "The ordained minister is, as it were, an ‘icon’ of Christ the priest" (No. 1142).

So what if a priest, although validly ordained, does not believe in the Holy Eucharist? Perhaps he believes that what happens at Mass is just symbolic and he is just role-playing. While the priest offers Mass or any other sacrament, in reality Christ Himself works through the sacraments. For instance, while a priest baptizes a baby, in full reality, Christ is baptizing the baby: "[Sacraments] are efficacious because in them Christ Himself is at work: it is He who baptizes, He who acts in His sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies" (Catechism, No. 1127). Therefore, all of the sacraments operate by the power of the completed sacramental rite. The technical theological term used for this understanding is ex opere operato, meaning that when a sacrament is validly performed, using the proper matter and form, then that sacrament conveys the grace signified.

The issue of the disposition of the priest has arisen in the past. In the early 300s, the heresy of Donatism arose, which asserted that the validity of a sacrament depends upon the minister’s orthodoxy and state of grace. For the Donatists, a priest who is a heretic or in a state of mortal sin cannot validly perform a sacrament; therefore, a person baptized by such a priest would have to be re-baptized. St. Augustine (d. 430), one of the great opponents of Donatism, in his In Ioannis evangelium tractatus, forcefully distinguished the action of Christ versus the action of the minister when performing a sacrament: Christ acts by His power, while the minister acts by his ministry entrusted to him by Christ. Therefore, "...those whom Judas baptized, Christ baptized. So too, then, those whom a drunkard baptized, those whom a murderer baptized, those whom an adulterer baptized, if the Baptism was of Christ, Christ baptized" (5,18).

Nevertheless, St. Augustine also sharply chastised the minister not properly disposed to perform the sacrament:
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 clear 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. (In Ioannis evangelium tractatus, 5, 15)
Therefore, the validity and efficacy of the sacrament do not depend upon the holiness or orthodoxy of the minister; rather the validity and efficacy are independent of the subjective constitution of the minister.

Therefore, in answering the question, two important principles govern: First, the sacrament must be performed validly with proper matter and form. Second, the minister must have the intention at least of doing what the Church intends, which is demonstrated by validly performing the sacrament, i.e. appropriately saying the specified Words of Consecration over the unleavened bread and wine. Therefore, if the priest in question is a heretic and has an identity crisis, but offers Mass validly, then the people indeed receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Without this assurance, the people would always be left in a state of uncertainty as to whether they actually received a sacrament.


Fr. Saunders is pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Potomac Falls and a professor of catechetics and theology at Notre Dame Graduate School in Alexandria. If you enjoy reading Fr. Saunders' work, his new book entitled Straight Answers (400 pages) is available at the Pauline Book and Media Center of Arlington, Virginia (703/549-3806).

(This article courtesy of the
Arlington Catholic Herald.)




TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Current Events; Eastern Religions; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Islam; Judaism; Mainline Protestant; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues; Orthodox Christian; Other Christian; Other non-Christian; Prayer; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Religion & Science; Skeptics/Seekers; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; eucharist; mass; priest; staugustine; theeucharist; transubstantiation
Valid or not according to the dispostion of the priest?
1 posted on 07/23/2005 9:57:36 AM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

**Therefore, the validity and efficacy of the sacrament do not depend upon the holiness or orthodoxy of the minister; rather the validity and efficacy are independent of the subjective constitution of the minister.**

Subjective?


2 posted on 07/23/2005 9:58:39 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

**Succinctly, to deny the belief of transubstantiation is heresy.**

BTTT!


3 posted on 07/23/2005 9:59:35 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; sandyeggo; Siobhan; Lady In Blue; NYer; american colleen; Pyro7480; sinkspur; ...
Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

4 posted on 07/23/2005 10:01:22 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

How many heretical, drunk, fornicating, proud etc. ministers could dance on the point of a needle?


5 posted on 07/23/2005 10:05:41 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Great, succinct answer to a question that troublemakers often have raised.


6 posted on 07/23/2005 10:13:57 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

Indeed! But amazingly, they don't want to hear that answer, do they?


7 posted on 07/23/2005 10:17:03 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I'm not sure that my opinion aligns with that of the Church, but I think that, if I know that a priest is not a believer - or a heretic - or living out of line with the vows he has taken, then I choose NOT to take The Sacrament from him. If I don't know any of these things, then I'm taking The Sacrament in good faith.


8 posted on 07/23/2005 10:31:25 AM PDT by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

THANKS FOR THE PING

9 posted on 07/23/2005 10:47:26 AM PDT by Smartass (Si vis pacem, para bellum - Por el dedo de Dios se escribió)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Emmett McCarthy
I'm not sure that my opinion aligns with that of the Church, but I think that, if I know that a priest is not a believer - or a heretic - or living out of line with the vows he has taken, then I choose NOT to take The Sacrament from him. If I don't know any of these things, then I'm taking The Sacrament in good faith.

I'll leave the official word to the theologians, but what you say sounds like a good strategy. It is the reverse of the situation where a priest gives the Eucharist to someone who should not be receiving it. As long as they do not know or would have no reasonable way of knowing, there is no reason for the priest to refuse Communion to someone or that he has done something wrong in giving it to the undeserving.
10 posted on 07/23/2005 11:04:32 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

BTW, I like that priest's vestments in the photo. Nicer than the table cloths that our local priests wear.


11 posted on 07/23/2005 11:05:17 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die

Do you sew? Offer to make your priest some truly outstanding vestments? That;s what one of our parishioners did. The priest paid for them out of his own money and took them with him when he was transferred however.


12 posted on 07/23/2005 12:53:04 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Emmett McCarthy

The reality of the Blessed Sacrament does not depend upon your belief in its validity.


13 posted on 07/23/2005 1:41:48 PM PDT by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheGeezer

Of course, that's correct. But, I can do what's reasonable to assure that all parties involved treat it with appropriate respect.


14 posted on 07/23/2005 3:50:00 PM PDT by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All; Coleus
Synod working document says Eucharist must be celebrated with dignity
15 posted on 07/23/2005 4:15:50 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

ex opere operato. The sacraments are effectual in conferring God's grace by reason of their divine institution...from the work already done.


16 posted on 07/23/2005 4:51:52 PM PDT by markomalley (Vivat Iesus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
So long as the priest intends to do what the Church does at Mass, he does not need to intend what the Church intends.

For example, let's say a priest has gone through great personal hardship, and at the moment he doubts even that God exists.

But he feels a duty toward the congregation, and a duty to carry out his vows to the bishop.

The sacrament will be valid because the Church Herself will make up for what he lacks, so long as he does what the Church does.

Though he may not have the faith to intend the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Our Savior, the Church will supply the faith he lacks.

But someone who has doubts is not himself a heretic.

Succinctly, to deny the belief of transubstantiation is heresy.

Our author is confusing things a bit by imprecise language.

To publicly deny transubstantiation, and to persist in the denial even after pastoral correction, is heresy.

To be a heretic, one must publicly deny a doctrine of the faith, or act in some way which denies a doctrine (e.g., baptizing only in the name of Jesus, and not the Trinity), and then be obstinate in the denial after educative reproof by his superiors.

A "disbelieving priest" is only a man who has doubts about the faith. He is not a heretic until he publicly denies a dogma, such as transubstantiation.

As I understand the topic of this thread, the priest saying the Mass has made no public denials. His disbelief is private. And the question is: Would his Mass still be valid? In such a case the answer is: Yes.

On the other hand, if a priest is publicly and obstinately denying the doctrine of transubstantiation, even after correction by his bishop, then he is no longer doing what the Church does. He is doing something contrary to what the Church does.

So if this "intention" or "belief" is private ("occult", known only to himself and/or a few others), the Mass will be valid.

But if this "intention" or "belief" is creating public scandal to the point of formal excommunication, the his "mass" is not valid.

17 posted on 07/23/2005 6:56:49 PM PDT by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Unfortunately, I don't sew. But if there's some way to donate to such a cause, I'd gladly do that.


18 posted on 07/24/2005 7:50:06 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Bump! Good explaination. I've always thought this anyway; good to get confirmation.


19 posted on 07/24/2005 10:56:13 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

If the priest doesn't believe, he should retire and take up golfing!


20 posted on 07/24/2005 12:49:53 PM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal

You have stated things much more clearly than I ever could. Thank you.


21 posted on 07/24/2005 1:44:08 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
To publicly deny transubstantiation, and to persist in the denial even after pastoral correction, is heresy.

To be a heretic, one must publicly deny a doctrine of the faith, or act in some way which denies a doctrine (e.g., baptizing only in the name of Jesus, and not the Trinity), and then be obstinate in the denial after educative reproof by his superiors.

You seem to be implying that a person is only a heretic if they say it publicly. This is incorrect. Per the CCC, "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same." A person is a heretic once they knowingly choose to deny OR DOUBT any matter of defined dogma. With dogmas that have been long defined, there is no need whatsoever for any correction or reproof by their superiors, only that they be aware that the Church teaches such a thing. Anyone who does not believe in transubstantiation is a heretic.

So if this "intention" or "belief" is private ("occult", known only to himself and/or a few others), the Mass will be valid.

But if this "intention" or "belief" is creating public scandal to the point of formal excommunication, the his "mass" is not valid.

You don't seem to be implying the contrary here, but just for clarification, excommunicated persons, even if excommunicated for heresies which do not touch the sacrament in question, can still say valid masses (or whatever sacrament). For example, as far as I know the masses of the Orthodox are valid.

22 posted on 07/26/2005 3:42:52 PM PDT by Credo_in_unum_deum (Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson