The “sacerdotal priesthood” and “ex opere operato” are concepts that were constructed during the Donatist controversy in order to remove the requirement of personal holiness from the priest and yet keep the authority in the office of the church. It placed the burden of worthiness on the recipient and absolved the priest of the responsibility for personal holiness in the handling of the office.
Great point! I read about that in the following link which "explains" that according to Rome, the alchemy of transubstantiation is not "invalidated" by the priest's sinful nature or behavior, but it is "invalidated" by using the wrong ingredients, i.e. handing out non-wheat wafers or "sweet rolls."
Apparently God is a demanding chef who follows the Food Channel.
From THE AMAZING GIFT OF THE PRIESTHOOD...
Most Catholics seem to know that mortal sin on the soul of the priest does not render the Sacraments he administers invalid. But it may come as a surprise to many Catholics that the validity of the Sacraments, let us say the Mass, also does not depend essentially on the faith of the priest who offers the Mass. Thus, Masses offered by heretical priests, by schismatics, by Catholic priests who are plagued by doubts or who have false ideas about the Real Presence or transubstantiation, can be and probably usually are valid Masses. They must of course use the correct words of consecration, use wheat bread and wine made from grapes...""...A Mass can be invalid for a number of reasons (we presuppose that the priest has been validly ordained): 1) because of a defect in the matter, for example, using sweet rolls instead of bread made only from wheat flour and water; 2) because of a defect in the form, for example, changing the words “This is my body” or “This is the cup of my blood” into something else...
lol. Catch that? According to Rome, it doesn't matter if the Lord's Supper is celebrated by a non-believer, but God help them if the priest chants the wrong spell, ah, I mean uses "the wrong words" or employs pumpernickel in place of whole wheat.
LOL!!!! That bears repeating... :O)
If the priest is essentially a mouthpiece , he is speaking the words of someone else. In this case. The words of Jesus, and the power implicit in the act comes from the Holy Spirit, not from the priest. This is the way it works. If Barack Obama signs a bill, it is valid, even though he has not read it, nor does he approve of its contents. As to the mockery, recall when Chief Justice Roberts bungled the swearing in ceremony —and had to do it all over again.
Ihn any case, I do not understand all the noise about his being or not being a holy person. Many a communion rite is presided over by person of indifferent faith. That does not diminish the authority of that person who retains it until it is withdrawn by competent authority. Fact is, we seldom know whether a priest, or some protestant minister is a believer or not. Sometimes he is a Talleyrand, but we usually find that out after the fact, and we are scandalized to learn that he has committed sacrilege.