Are the Sacraments Valid if the priest is a notorious sinner?

[Monk Brendan]

If a Catholic priest is found to be a notorious sinner, say a pedophile, when he stands before the Altar, is the Celebration of the Mass valid? Is the Eucharist validly accomplished?

I ask this, because some Protestants and other Evangelical Christians seems to think that if the priest is a sinner, then there is no possibility of the Eucharist.

I would like your thoughts.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This was the Donatist position - that a sinner administered an invalid sacrament.

I would think it is more the believer that makes a sacrament valid or invalid rather than who administers them. If an unrepentant atheist received the sacraments, it would be ineffectual.

 

[Monk Brendan]

If an unrepentant atheist received the sacraments, it would be ineffectual.

1 Cor 10:27-29 says, "
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (KJV)

So, an unrepentant sinner would actually be eating and drinking condemnation upon himself. The Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is NEVER ineffectual. It will work for good, for the believer, that knows what he/she is receiving, but the people that receive it, either unbeliever or one who thinks that the Eucharist is merely a symbol without understanding that this is the Body and Blood of Christ eat and drink actual harm upon themselves.

 

[seeking.IAM]

The sacrament is valid. We are all sinners, priests included. That said, I'd be looking for a new church.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

1 Cor 10:27-29 says, "
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (KJV)

So, an unrepentant sinner would actually be eating and drinking condemnation upon himself. The Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is NEVER ineffectual. It will work for good, for the believer, that knows what he/she is receiving, but the people that receive it, either unbeliever or one who thinks that the Eucharist is merely a symbol without understanding that this is the Body and Blood of Christ eat and drink actual harm upon themselves.

As a reformed Protestant, obviously in your view I would be condemning myself, but luckily our sacraments would not be considered valid at all, in your opinion.

 

[Albion]

1 Cor 10:27-29 says, "
............................................................................................
So, an unrepentant sinner would actually be eating and drinking condemnation upon himself. The Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is NEVER ineffectual. It will work for good, for the believer, that knows what he/she is receiving, but the people that receive it, either unbeliever or one who thinks that the Eucharist is merely a symbol without understanding that this is the Body and Blood of Christ eat and drink actual harm upon themselves.

I really think, though, that the condemnation results from that person's act or intention being sacrilegious or disrespectful or otherwise inappropriate, not that the elements themselves will wreak vengeance upon the one wrongfully receiving them.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I really think, though, that the condemnation results from that person's act or intention being sacrilegious or disrespectful or otherwise inappropriate, not that the elements themselves will wreak vengeance upon the one wrongfully receiving them.

I agree that intention, etc. does cause problems, but look at 1 Cor 11:30, where Paul says, "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." (KJV)

This sounds like actual harm. No, I do not believe that the elements are carcinogens, or carry some bacterial load. I do believe that the spiritual effects of receiving the Eucharist in an unworthy state will lead to spiritual, mental and physical sickness.

 

[Albion]

I agree that intention, etc. does cause problems, but look at 1 Cor 11:30, where Paul says, "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." (KJV)

This sounds like actual harm.

Yes, there is room for saying that, but harm can come from other than what you describe next...

No, I do not believe that the elements are carcinogens, or carry some bacterial load.

Physical harm can come as a consequence of a spiritual or mental misstep. It appears that we are in agreement there.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Physical harm can come as a consequence of a spiritual or mental misstep. It appears that we are in agreement there.

That's what I was saying! Agreed!

 

[Monk Brendan]

The sacrament is valid. We are all sinners, priests included. That said, I'd be looking for a new church.

I'm not planning of leaving the Melkite Catholic Church. This was a hypothetical question, designed to stimulate conversation.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I'm not planning of leaving the Melkite Catholic Church. This was a hypothetical question, designed to stimulate conversation.

I was referencing little "c" church, not big "C" church. Better said, the sacrament from such a Priest would not be invalid but I would worship elsewhere if I knew the Priest was a pedophile. There are some things I cannot abide.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I was referencing little "c" church, not big "C" church. Better said, the sacrament from such a Priest would not be invalid but I would worship elsewhere if I knew the Priest was a pedophile. There are some things I cannot abide.

Oh, I know that. What I would do is call the bishop immediately, and right after that, I would call the police. There is no room for pedophilia in ANY church

 

[tz620q]

If a Catholic priest is found to be a notorious sinner, say a pedophile, when he stands before the Altar, is the Celebration of the Mass valid? Is the Eucharist validly accomplished?

I ask this, because some Protestants and other Evangelical Christians seems to think that if the priest is a sinner, then there is no possibility of the Eucharist.

I would like your thoughts.

From a theology viewpoint, the Sacrament of Ordination is seen as putting a permanent mark on the individual, just like Baptism. So even if we sin after Baptism, it does not cancel the effects of Baptism. This permanent mark on the priest is what allows them to consecrate a valid Eucharist, through asking God to come down into the bread and wine. Their personal sinfulness does not stop God from hearing them and providing for us what we desire. I've always thought that it was disingenuous to say that all humans sin and all of us are totally depraved and can not come to God on our own and at the same time expect a human to be perfect to perform a valid sacrament.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If a Catholic priest is found to be a notorious sinner, say a pedophile, when he stands before the Altar, is the Celebration of the Mass valid? Is the Eucharist validly accomplished?

I ask this, because some Protestants and other Evangelical Christians seems to think that if the priest is a sinner, then there is no possibility of the Eucharist.

I would like your thoughts.

To say that the efficacy of the Sacraments relied on the moral power of the officiator is heresy, specifically the heresy of Novatian and Donatus.

"They condemn the Donatists, and such like, who denied it to be lawful to use the ministry of evil men in the Church, and who thought the ministry of evil men to be unprofitable and of none effect." - From Article VIII of the Augsburg Confession

"The Novatians also are condemned, who would not absolve such as had fallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance." - From Article XII of the Augsburg Confession

-CryptoLutheran

 

[St. Paul]

If a Catholic priest is found to be a notorious sinner, say a pedophile, when he stands before the Altar, is the Celebration of the Mass valid? Is the Eucharist validly accomplished?

I ask this, because some Protestants and other Evangelical Christians seems to think that if the priest is a sinner, then there is no possibility of the Eucharist.

I would like your thoughts.

I believe the catholic belief is it doesn't matter whether the priest is a sinner since we are including Mary. The only thing that matters is if he gets the words right EXACTLY during the mass. One mistake and the mass is technically null.

 

[tz620q]

I believe the catholic belief is it doesn't matter whether the priest is a sinner since we are including Mary. The only thing that matters is if he gets the words right EXACTLY during the mass. One mistake and the mass is technically null.

The consecration of the Eucharist has nothing to do with Mary. That is done through the power of God and God alone can do it. The only part of the Eucharistic procedure that refers to her is part of the Thanksgiving before consecration where the Priest will say something like
"Remember all of us gathered here before you. You know how firmly we believe in you and dedicate ourselves to you. We offer you this sacrifice of praise for ourselves and those who are dear to us. We pray to you, our living and true God, for our well-being and redemption.

In union with the whole Church we honor Mary, the ever-virgin mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God. We honor Joseph, her husband, the apostles and martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, (James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude; we honor Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian) and all the saints. May their merits and prayers grant us your constant help and protection.
(Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)"

Also, I have seen many priests stumble in the words of consecration, it isn't a magic formula. The intent is what is important. We think the best prayer to consecrate with is the words used by Jesus at the last Supper. But if you go back in time and into other languages now, the words are not necessarily a one for one translation.

 

[Gnarwhal]

If a Catholic priest is found to be a notorious sinner, say a pedophile, when he stands before the Altar, is the Celebration of the Mass valid? Is the Eucharist validly accomplished?

I ask this, because some Protestants and other Evangelical Christians seems to think that if the priest is a sinner, then there is no possibility of the Eucharist.

I would like your thoughts.

St. Augustine made the most cogent argument against the Donatist view, in my opinion anyway. He essentially said that the validity of the Eucharist comes from Christ, not the priest, as the priest is acting In persona Christi. (In Ioannis evangelium tractatus)

"...those whom Judas baptized, Christ baptized. So too, then, those whom a drunkard baptized, those whom a murderer baptized, those whom an adulterer baptized, if the Baptism was of Christ, Christ baptized" (5,18)​

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

EX OPERE OPERATO