I wonder what if the priest is in a state of sin. Does the sacrament become invalid? When your access to God is dependent upon a mortal man what if that man is like many priest in rebellion with the church. Is your confirmation, communion, confession, marriage, etc. all invalid?
Getting the popcorn out.
I’ve asked that question and gotten an answer but will not taint the waters by giving it out yet.
I’m interested in the Catholic response, especially in light of the fact that they (are supposed to) deny communion to people living in mortal sin, or at least those people are told they can’t take communion.
I wonder what if the priest is in a state of sin. Does the sacrament become invalid? When your access to God is dependent upon a mortal man what if that man is like many priest in rebellion with the church. Is your confirmation, communion, confession, marriage, etc. all invalid?
In Catholic theology if the validly ordained priest using valid form and matter but was operating as one guilty of mortal sin, then that would mean the Mass is illicit , meaning not according to the law, yet it is held that the consecration of the Eucharist is valid . More here despite the propaganda: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/invalid-masses
However, the NT church had no Catholic priests (a separate class of sacerdotal believers for which the distinctive Greek word "hiereus" is used, offering the "true body" of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, and dispensing it as the "medicine of immortality" under the appearance of non-existent bread, until said non-existent bread manifests decay...), nor was conducting the Lords supper a unique function for NT pastors, nor was the Lord's supper described as spiritual food.
DE DEFECTIBUS, Papal Bull decreed by Pope Saint Pius V in ratifying the Council of Trent states,
The intention of consecrating is required. Therefore there is no consecration in the following cases: when a priest does not intend to consecrate but only to make a pretense;.. (http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm)
This is understood quite loosely lest it be scandalous (one would have to know that a priest really believes in transubstantiation for it to be efficacious), so that just having general intention to baptize or celebrate the Eucharist is said to suffice, even if the priest does not believe in transubstantiation.
However, the The Catholic Encyclopedia states on>intention:
The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real [virtual at least] internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. (www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm)