Lil Red Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 i can never spell that right! question, if the priest does not believe in transubstantiation, yet says the correct phrasing, is the consecration still valid?
HomeTeamFamily Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 i belive so because i know that alot of the eucharistic miracles, where the bread and wine physically change into human flesh and blood, are cases where the priest doesnt believe or has trouble believing
HomeTeamFamily Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 please confirm that with someone know knows more tahn me though!! lol
Benedict Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 Form, matter, intent. The priest need only intend to do what the Church does in order to validly consecrate.
thessalonian Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 Yes. The sacraments do not depend on the holiness or theology of the priest. He only has to intend to do what the Church and Christ intended. A priest in a state of mortal sin also validly consecrates though it is a sacralidge for him. Once again though the sacrement for the people depends on God and not on the holiness of the priest.
Neal4Christ Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 What they said. My priest talked about it the other night when we were going over the sacraments.
Benedict Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 [quote name='thessalonian' date='Jan 9 2005, 01:25 PM'] Yes. The sacraments do not depend on the holiness or theology of the priest. He only has to intend to do what the Church and Christ intended. A priest in a state of mortal sin also validly consecrates though it is a sacralidge for him. Once again though the sacrement for the people depends on God and not on the holiness of the priest. [/quote] The belief that the sacraments depend on the personal holiness of the minister (priest) is the heresy of Donatism, started by Donatus.
thessalonian Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 It should be noted that if the words of consecration are changed that can invalidate the sacrament. The words must be those authorized by the Church.
Neal4Christ Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 [quote][b]This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation that the sacraments act [i]ex opere operato[/i] (literally: "by the very fact of the action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God." From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the dispostion of the one who receives them. CCC, #1128[/b][/quote]
Neal4Christ Posted January 9, 2005 Posted January 9, 2005 (edited) oops...double post. Edited January 9, 2005 by Neal4Christ
Benedict Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 [quote]Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the dispostion of the one who receives them[/quote] Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:27
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now