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.

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

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

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.

"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

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.