"Please tell me where it says that any Catholic is required to take a sacrament from a certain priest or that they can't be repulsed by a priest's actions. the sacrament may be valid, but it is not mandatory to recieve the sacrament from that priest."
That isn't what Smedleybutler initially responded to from goldenstategirl. Here is what she originally said:
"#2 - I've have heard that the Sacraments are valid even when the priest is not the most holy person. Personally, I have a difficult time believing this. A corrupt priest would be a dirty container for the Spirit. How could the Holy Spirit act or reside there? I think a priest/Saint's abilities are directly related to their own purity. I will only go to Mass and take Sacraments from a priest I respect and know to be a good person, but that's just me."[Emphasis added]
Smedleybutler replied:
"Your position is known as the Donatist heresy..."
Smedleybutler is right to say that if one doesn't accept that the sacrament is valid, whether or not the minister of the sacrament is worthy or unworthy, that one has wandered off into Donatism.
If she had initially said, "I know that the sacrament is valid, even if the priest is a scumbag, but personally, I avoid taking Communion from a scumbag priest," then she would not be edging into Donatism.
But that isn't what she said.
And after Smedleybutler politely pointed out her error, she came back with:
"'Your position is known as the Donatist heresy'
"What complete and utter BS. Anyone who refuses to associate with a hypocrite is a heretic? Why even bother posting here anymore? It seems there is an Inquisition live and well here which seeks out anyone who refuses to blind themselves and fall in line. Disgusting."
After that, Smedleybutler seemed to be more annoyed. I wonder why.
Sorry, Smedleybutler's right on this one. Goldenstategirl's initial post at #15 evinces Donatism. Smedleybutler pointed it out in a gracious, polite manner.
sitetest