Catholic Caucus: Regarding Sinful priests, and Validity of Mass/Sacraments

Was good to see you on EWTN last night for the Holy Mass. Please give my best to Fr. Levis who I understand will be coming to OLV in October for our Novena. Looking forward to seeing him very much.

How do we know the sacraments are valid anymore? I know the answer and you gave the answer last night during your homily. The Sacraments work ex opere operato, independent of the sinful state of the ordained minister, which brings me to the problem.

I understand the ex opere operato teaching of the Church clearly, I think. However, if I recall Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma correctly, there is another very important condition that no one discusses. Let's talk about valid Masses.

Regardless of how illicit the Mass may be, if the ordained minister uses the correct form of the Sacred Species, unleavened bread and wine, says literally the words of Consecration, and has the intent of consecration in terms of what the Church intends, that Mass is VALID.

However, how do we know that the ordained priest in question has met that very important condition, per Ott, regarding intent? He may have lost the faith, and just be going through the motions re the form of the Sacred Species and mouthing the words of Consecration literally with absolutely no intent whatsoever to do what the Church intends. If my reading of Ott is correct, then that Mass is NOT valid. Similarly, if the intent is not there on the part of the priest to absolve the penitent in Confession, it seems to me that his/her sins are not forgiven. It is the "intent" question that troubles me, not the "ex opere operato", which applies to the sinful nature of the confessor.

As a rule of thumb, if the priest is orthodox, I don't think the above questions come into play regarding his intent as I would think that there would be a direct correlation with orthodoxy and intent. There would have to be.

This brings me to another question. What if a heterodox bishop ordained someone without the intent of the Church to do so? Is that priest ordained? Ott would seem to say otherwise, per my reading. Moreover, if that priest, however a good man he is, is not ordained, how can his sacraments be considered valid? This has nothing to do with the sinful state of heterodox priests at this point, but rather on the surface orthodox priests who may not have been validly ordained.

It would seem to me in either instance, that if invalidity were the case, the graces attained would be actual, not sanctifying, albeit some grace would be evident due to the presumption of validity on the part of the priest and those he's ministering to in the latter case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The official doctrine of the Church from Peter Lombard to Saint Thomas Aquinas to Trent to the Catechism is that a VALID sacrament, especially the Holy Mass, requires VALID matter, form and intention. The INTENTION must be that the sacred minister INTENDS to DO what the Church DOES. It is NOT required for validity that the minister intends what the Church INTENDS. Hence, a pagan can validly baptize even if he or she does not believe in baptism but knows the recipient or the parents (in case of an infant) does believe in it. There would be a lack of intending what the Church intends but there would at least be an intention to DO what the Church DOES.

Therefore, a heretical (heterodox) priest can still validly consecrate as long as he INTENDS to DO what the Church DOES. For liceity it is necessary that he INTENDS what the Church INTENDS. By using valid matter and form, it is PRESUMED that the sacred minister intends to DO what the Church DOES, otherwise, he would use invalid matter and/or form.

Liceity is licitness. Being "legal" is subordinate to being "valid" hence, a valid Mass requires that the Priest intends to DO what the Church DOES even if he does not INTEND what the Church INTENDS. Liceity implies validity but of course you can have a valid but illicit Sacrament. Therefore, to not INTEND what the Church INTENDS merely makes the Mass illicit FOR THE PRIEST (not for the faithful who attend). AS LONG AS he intends to DO what the Church DOES, then while illicit, it remains a VALID Mass. This is how EX OPERE OPERATO comes into play.

I’m going to give you my understanding, but with the express caveat that I don’t know what I’m talking about. ;-)

By doing what the Church does, they don’t mean that the Church is the one actually doing the Consecration, but rather that the Priest is trying to do whatever it is that the Church intends that its priests do. Take, for example, baptizing a person. A heretic can baptize. If he uses the proper form, and intends to do what the Church does, even if the heretic views it as nothing, the baptism is valid. What the Church does is provide the Sacraments, and the Grace, as all Grace flows into the world through it. Here, the Church provides the Mass, even though the actual ceremony is celebrated by the priest, acting in persona Christi. The priest doesn’t have to understand what the Church does, believe it, or anything of that nature. It only has to, overtly, be his intent to provide that thing to the faithful.

The Church teaches that as long as the priest puts no overt obstacle in the path of "doing what the Church does," the Sacrament is to be considered valid. Something overt would be, for example, a priest who is teaching a group of seminarians how to celebrate the Mass would overtly indicate that the external motions, though looking like a Mass, are not a true Mass, but merely for teaching purposes.

patent +AMDG

Found this which is a good explanation....

WHEN IS A SACRAMENT VALID?

                              TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Internet Site   
          E-mail List: traditio@traditio.com, Web Page: http://www.traditio.com
            Copyright 1999 CSM.  Reproduction prohibited without authorization.
 

	Catholic sacramental theology teaches that the validity of a Sacrament 
depends essentially on three things:  the form, the matter, and the intention of 
the minister of the Sacrament.

	The form is the operative words, usually from Christ Himself, as handed 
down to us by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (e.g., the form of Baptism, 
the form of the Consecration of the Holy Eucharist).  The matter is the 
operative material, again, as handed down to us by Sacred Scripture or Sacred 
Tradition (e.g., the fermented juice of grapes and wheaten bread in the case of 
the Holy Eucharist).

	The internal intention (intentio interna) of the minister of the Sacrament 
must be, as defined by the dogmatic Council of Trent "doing what the Church 
does."  It does not require even orthodox belief.  The minister of a Sacrament 
may be a heretic or an excommunicate, and the Sacrament is still valid, as long 
as this minimal intention is present, and he does not overtly exclude from 
happening what the Church intends.  An example would be the case of an athiest 
in an emergency baptizing a newborn infant.  Even though the athiest personally 
does not believe in the Sacrament, as long as he intends to do what the Church 
does in this instance, perhaps out of his concern for the infant, the Sacrament 
is valid.

	There is much nonsense being spouted about today by "lay theologians," who 
are ignorant of the Church's definition of intent.  They try to say that if the 
priest doesn't personally believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, the 
Consecration is invalid.  On the contrary, the Church teaches that as long as 
the priest puts no overt obstacle in the path of "doing what the Church does," 
the Sacrament is to be considered valid.  A counter-example:  a priest, teaching 
a group of seminarians how to celebrate Mass, might overtly indicate that the 
external motions, though looking like a Mass, are intended not to be a true 
Mass.

	Another ploy of "lay theologians" is to question priests' orders.  They 
like to call it a "pedigree."  Such terminology exhibits the mind of a 
veterinarian, not a theologian.  Catholic moral theology has always taught that 
"orders are orders."  The Church has consistently recognized orders conferred by 
heretics, by schismatics, by excommunicates, e.g., by the Eastern Orthodox and 
the Old Catholics, both of whom are held to have valid orders (cf., inter alia, 
Udalricus Beste, Introductio in Codicem, quam in Usum et Utilitatem Scholae et 
Cleri ad Promptam et Expeditamque Canonum Interpretationum.)

	Why so?  Because the Sacraments operate "ex opere operato," that is, from 
the act itself, through the power of Christ, not "ex opere operatis," that is, 
from the disposition of the minister.  The minister can be unworthy (as all 
are), in mortal sin, in heresy, in schism, in apostasy -- Catholic moral 
theology still teaches that the Sacrament as valid.

	This very early teaching of the Church was articulated, but not invented, 
by St. Augustine, who held that the orthodoxy and validity of apostolic 
succession were not considered identical.  Bishops could be heretics, yet could 
exercise their office as stewards of the Sacraments in a valid manner.  This 
doctrine has been held to this day by the Roman Catholic Church.  Provided that 
the intention when ordaining their successors was the same as those 
traditionally held by the Church, sacred powers could be passed on and the 
sacraments administered in a manner that the Church recognizes as valid.

	The Church's wisdom and understanding of the Sacraments instituted by 
Christ have led her to presume throughout the centuries the validity of the 
Sacraments except in that unusual case when an objective, overt reality proves 
the contrary with a moral certainty.  Otherwise, we would find ourselves in the 
position of scrupulously (i.e., sinfully) fidgeting over the minute intent and 
"pedigree" of every priest.  "Did he have the right intention?"  "Was he 
properly ordained?"  "Was Holy Communion really distributed?"  "Were my sins 
really forgiven in Confession?"

	If Holy Mother Church's bimillennial wisdom does not worry, if St. 
Augustine does not worry, we need not worry.

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.