50% of priests don't believe in True Presence?!

[Ash Wednesday]

[url="http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=436312005"]http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=436312005[/url]

This is a very good article -- the writer mentions that 50% of priests worldwide don't believe in transubstantiation.

This is [b]really[/b] disturbing to hear about.

If a priest doesn't believe in transubstantiation, does this make their consecration and mass invalid?!

If that is so, it makes me really sick to my stomach.

[Paphnutius]

I do not believe that the transubstansiation is contingent upon the priest's belief or condition. At ordination they recieve an indullable (sp?) mark on their soul that allows them to act in persona Christi. It is not the priest that is consecrating, it is Christ and the Holy Spirit that are consecrating through the priest. That is the beauty of the sacrament. Although the priest is sinful, as all humans are, Christ is still able to work through them to bring the reality of Himself to us. So no I do not think that the state of the priest can inhibit transubstantiation. I am sure if I am wrong someone will correct me.

[ardillacid]

I think as long as the priest says the right words, it does not matter if he believes or not.








Ardillacid who would kill a chipmunk for a taco

[ardillacid]

dang you beat me. nice paphnutius. (indelible i think)

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Indelible.

I believe it's by God acting through the words.

[Ash Wednesday]

Thanks. I was going to say how horribly unfair that would be to the faithful.

[Aloysius]

He must intend to do what the Church does in consecration. he must intend to make it the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. him not believing makes it suspect. if he doesn't believe, but puts his trust in the Church and intends to do what the Church says a priest does when he says the words of consecration, it is valid. if he intends to show a mere symbol to the consecration, he is not excercising the indullable mark of his soul.

I imagine the poll was worded funnily though, they usually are. There was this number around about American Catholics believing in transubstantiation, and it came out that the poll question just confused them. I imagine these priests are just poorly educated on the precise thing that they are to believe, but most likely they do intend to consecrate as the Church defines it even if they don't believe or know exactly what it is they're doing.

just to be safe, there's nothing wrong with discussing transubstantiation with your priest.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Apr 24 2005, 12:18 AM'] He must intend to do what the Church does in consecration. he must intend to make it the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. him not believing makes it suspect. if he doesn't believe, but puts his trust in the Church and intends to do what the Church says a priest does when he says the words of consecration, it is valid. if he intends to show a mere symbol to the consecration, he is not excercising the indullable mark of his soul.

I imagine the poll was worded funnily though, they usually are. There was this number around about American Catholics believing in transubstantiation, and it came out that the poll question just confused them. I imagine these priests are just poorly educated on the precise thing that they are to believe, but most likely they do intend to consecrate as the Church defines it even if they don't believe or know exactly what it is they're doing.

just to be safe, there's nothing wrong with discussing transubstantiation with your priest. [/quote]
Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano

I was taught that it was the words and did not require disposition...we'll see what Cam says.

[Ash Wednesday]

Yeah, well if some priests can even be as big of flunkies as me on the "World's Hardest Catholic Quiz" then it's possible that it's the details that become confusing.

[MC Just]

Nice Article. Time for some Spring Cleaning. Vive Il Papa Benedict XVI.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote][b]The Old Mass, which has fought its way back into liturgical currency on an extraordinary scale, largely at the behest of young people,[/b] would be the ideal instrument of Pope Benedict’s re-evangelisation of the Church and the world. In tandem with a reform of the modern Mass, already tentatively under way, the foundations could be laid for a return to dignified worship and reassertion of doctrine.[/quote]

The IRONY. Young people? Want the older mass? Don't crusty old fluffy air extractions want that stuff? And the young want, as Arinze put it, "banalized music"? :haha:

I think some of these young people they're talking about are phatmassers.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Apr 24 2005, 12:19 AM'] Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano

I was taught that it was the words and did not require disposition...we'll see what Cam says. [/quote]
isn't the exact quote of that guy
"Lord, I believe, help my unbelief"

the priest does not have to believe or understand what he is doing, all he has to do is INTEND to do what the Church says a consecration does. He doesn't even have to know what the Church says a consecration does if he is validly ordained, but he must have the intention of doing it. if the priest does not have the intention, it is invalid. if he intends to hold bread and wine and say those words as a symbolic gesture to remind people what Jesus did at the last supper, it is invalid. if he intends to do what Jesus did at the last supper, it is valid. slight distinction, meaning that an unbelieving priest is only a bit suspect, not definitely an invalid consecrater. if he intends to do what the Church ordained him to do, it is valid, because whether or not he understands it the Church ordained him to make bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Apr 24 2005, 12:36 AM']
The IRONY. Young people? Want the older mass? Don't crusty old fluffy air extractions want that stuff? And the young want, as Arinze put it, "banalized music"? :haha:

I think some of these young people they're talking about are phatmassers. [/quote]
WOOOOOHOOOO!!! give it to me ALL in Latin, I'll understand it all eventually give me time! give me the pomp give me the circumstance, I wanna see us pulling out ALLL the stops for Almighty God. I want the visible to reflect the invisible heaven that is truly present there, I want a sacred language like the ancient Jews had and Catholics had for 1000 years at least... I want something that strikes me with so much awe that I fall to my knees! I want to waste all my hard earned money on gas to go alll the way to Pittsburgh where the Latin Indult Mass at St. Boniface is held... I want confessions offered 30 minutes before mass (and then all the way up to the Sanctus during Mass.. why not combine two sacraments we do it with marriage!)

I'm 17 years old... that qualifies me as young right?

[M.A.N.]

Going on with what Aloysius stated.

Every Catholic, according to the Church, have a right to recieve any sacraments regardless of the priest sinful state. Same is true when our Church had sinful pontiffs back in the day, but the Truth they spoke was still authentic.

This is because, let's say Scott Peterson said 2 + 2 = 4, is still correct regardless of his sinful state; this is same for the priest who have lost some their faith, but they can still preform the sacrament because we have right to receive it and Truth is still told through a priest when he is in the right state of mind regardless of sins on his heart.

I know I summed up previous replies a little, just had to add my 2 cents.

P.S. I just want to thank you guys ("guys" means both) for having awesome anwers on such difficult and somewhat abstract questions. I don't know where my faith would be without you.

Edited April 24, 2005 by M.A.N.

[Ash Wednesday]

It's interesting because I remember as a young child before some of you were born, at our parish we had the Novus Ordo and we actually had patens put under our hands and mouth and it was much more formal. It's not like my state of Washington is exactly "conservative" either. No girl altar servers, either. When a parish over in Seattle had girl altar servers, that was like, soooooo "different."

Over the last 25 years it's technically been under the same label of "Novus Ordo" but moved to Lifeteen (which, I've been outspokenly not keen on) for a while with the people gathering around the altar and "the mass never ends, it must be lived" hands-holding fest -- but our priest is a faithful priest, and when they wrote that letter telling people to do away with that, he did. But I think about that mass, and the masses we had when I was a child (I'm 28) -- it's been recently that I've realized surprisingly how much things have changed. Whereas before my friends and I always wore skirts and dresses to mass, I mean, that's what you DID. It's just what was done... now people wear revealing hip huggers and last week someone was wearing those sweats with words (the university name) across the butt and he was giving the prayers of the faithful. (This was on-campus)

I hope for some tidying up, too.

[M.A.N.]

Interesting Ash Wed,

I remeber when I was a kid (i'm 20) I had to wear dress clothes appropriately because I was meeting Jesus face to face in the mass. Now, the majority of teenagers go to Lifeteen for "entertainment" rather than spiritual fulfillment, healing, understanding, receiving the Sacrament, etc...

I believe this is a bigger issue social issue than within the church. Children are treated as numbers, not as humans in our culture. Animals have more rights than innocent children. With abortion on demand, infanticide on the horizon, we are loosing more and more respect for the youth.

My point is, this lack of care for our youth has branched into our own church. We can blame to some degree conscience minded adolescents who know how to respect the Mass, however I believe the authority over the youth (their parents and society) should also be held responsible.

This is just my theory on it.

[M.A.N.]

sorry, didn't know how to delete an accidental post.

Edited April 24, 2005 by M.A.N.

[return2truth]

Somewhere in the Liturgical chapters of the Catechism, I remember reading that neither the faith of the priest nor recipient was required for the sacrements to have their power. In particular the Cathechism paragraph 1375 has this to say about the transubstansiation...

[i]It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered. [/i]

Edited April 24, 2005 by return2truth

[Myles Domini]

Return to truth is right: Valid form and valid matter are the only requirements. [i]Ex opere operato[/i].

[Aloysius]

I think there's something with intent.

otherwise then, if a priest is at dinner eating bread and wine and just happens to be reading the scriptures out loud (hey it could happen...) it would be consecrated? I'll have to look it up, but I swear he has to intend to consecrate. regardless of his belief or understanding, there still has to be intent