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

Fr. Trigilio

[patent]

What if a priest has no belief whatsoever in the Real Presence?

No problem, whether through ignorance or heresy.

What if this priest believes all religions are the same and believes the Real Presence is a silly superstition?

Ditto. Imagine the insanity that would ensue if you had to query your priest's faith before reception to make sure you attended a valid Mass. Father, do you still believe . . . And what if he lied to you? You could never have faith about any Sacrament, ever. God wants us to receive them, he doesn't put bureaucratic obstacles in the way. Read up on the Donatist heresies, and it will help explain why this is.

What if this priest uses valid matter and form, and distributes communion simply because he sees no harm done in pretending?

Precisely the same situation as if an atheist baptizes to salve the fears of a family who believes. He does intend to do as the Church does, though he believes the Church to do nothing. I know there are some good quote from Aquinas directly on these points in this post. I don’t have time to dig them up right now though, so I apologize.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[Polycarp]

Patent, Thanks for fielding Bud's question.

[patent]

Therefore, to not INTEND what the Church INTENDS merely makes the Mass illicit FOR THE PRIEST (not for the faithful who attend)

If I understand this correctly, this passage should refer to not to licity but validity.

In which case, how can the sacrament be validly received by the worshippers if it is invalidly confected (that is, not confected at all?)

This is the difference between placing overt obstacles and placing secret obstacles. If the priest interiorly does not intend to do what the Church does, the action is illicit for him. The congregation has no way of knowing this though, and so long as valid form and matter are used, and no overt obstacle is placed, the Sacrament is still valid. On the other hand, if in some fashion the priest makes it plain to them that he does not intend what the Church intends, then it is not valid or licit for them either.

patent  +AMDG

[RobbyS]

Let us not forget to point out that the Eucharist is historically known as THE Sacrament and the BLESSED Sacrament.

[sitetest]

Dear Polycarp,

"Mea culpa, everyone, for my negativity and ranting lately."

I wouldn't worry about it too much. You've earned a lot of Forgiveness Coupons.


sitetest

[NYer]

Thanks, patent

I was just having some fun with the posters to this thread. It brought back memories from elementary school (pre Vatican II) when we abstained on Fridays. The kids in my class used to take full advantage of the pastor, when he would drop in for a religion class.

"But, Fadah (heave Brookly accent), what if we are invited to someone's house for dinner and they serve us something that looks like fish but is really meat ... and we ate it ... is that a sin?"

You know what? I actually miss those days.

[Dajjal]

Anti-Donatist bump

[patent]

"But, Fadah (heave Brookly accent), what if we are invited to someone's house for dinner and they serve us something that looks like fish but is really meat ... and we ate it ... is that a sin?"

LOL. You gotta love kids like that, until your the teacher.

patent