Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on January 06, 2013, 11:51:21 AM
-
I would like to ask this question that is important to me.
If a g a y priest falls into sin and commits an act of sodomy , is he then absolved of this sin when they say at t he altar during Mass, wash away my iniquity and cleanse me from my sins.
Or does he have to confess his sin before they officiate at Mass?
Sorry, I have just always wondered about this.
-
Any priest conscious of committing grave sin must himself confess his sins to another priest and be absolved in the sacrament of penance before he offers Mass and receives Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament again. The sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation for all those who have fallen into grave sin after baptism. If he knowingly and willingly does not, he would compound his first sin with the added sin of sacrilege.
-
He also has to sincerely and honestly repent of his sin.
-
Any priest conscious of committing grave sin must himself confess his sins to another priest and be absolved in the sacrament of penance before he offers Mass and receives Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament again. The sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation for all those who have fallen into grave sin after baptism. If he knowingly and willingly does not, he would compound his first sin with the added sin of sacrilege.
Where did you get this from? Priests can validly say mass and administer the sacraments in a state of mortal sin. Teaching of the church! Shows the level of ignorence of some trad Catholics.
-
ROME, 8 FEB. 2005 (ZENIT)
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.
Q: If a priest is in the state of mortal sin, is his Mass and/or consecration of the Eucharist viable? I understand someone would not know if a priest is in this state, but Our Lord would know. — A.A., Springfield, Massachusetts
A: When receiving or celebrating the sacraments, the priest is subject to the same requirements of sanctity and state of grace as every other Catholic; that is, the state of grace is required for fruitful reception of all sacraments except those that actually forgive sins.
Therefore a priest who is in a state of mortal sin should seek to confess as soon as possible and refrain from celebrating the sacraments until he has done so.
Normally, to celebrate Mass or receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin would be to commit a sacrilege. Yet, the sacrament would be valid; that is, there would be a true consecration and a true sacrifice.
The reason is: Christ is the principal actor of the sacraments, so they are efficacious even when performed by an unworthy minister.
As St. Thomas Aquinas says: Christ may act even through a minister who is spiritually dead.
However, a priest who has fallen into mortal sin, but who is unable to make his confession despite his desire to do so, may celebrate Mass for the benefit of the faithful without adding a further sin of sacrilege.
Thus, as Canon 916 of the Code of Canon Law states: "A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible (see also Canon 1335)."
Note that the code requires a grave reason in order to avail of this exception.
One such grave reason is based on the principle of the good of souls. If a priest is required to celebrate Mass or a soul requests the sacrament of reconciliation, the anointing of the sick, or indeed any other sacrament from this priest that would have to be performed before he can avail of confession, then he may, and usually must, administer the sacrament.
A second grave reason stems from the danger of infamy by publicly revealing the state of one's soul.
This can occur in the case of a priest in isolated circuмstances when there is no one else to perform the usual celebrations. There is no need for him to do anything that might lead people to suspect his lack of a state of grace.
Even in the case that the priest, or any other person, has secretly committed a grave crime, which would normally lead to his or her being automatically forbidden to receive the sacraments, Church law (in Canon 1352) foresees the possibility of the penalty being suspended to avoid infamy or scandal, to wit:
"§1. If a penalty prohibits the reception of the sacraments or sacramentals, the prohibition is suspended as long as the offender is in danger of death.
"§2. The obligation to observe an undeclared 'latae sententiae' penalty which is not notorious in the place where the offender is present, is suspended totally or partially whenever the offender cannot observe it without danger of grave scandal or infamy."
-
Any priest conscious of committing grave sin must himself confess his sins to another priest and be absolved in the sacrament of penance before he offers Mass and receives Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament again. The sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation for all those who have fallen into grave sin after baptism. If he knowingly and willingly does not, he would compound his first sin with the added sin of sacrilege.
Where did you get this from? Priests can validly say mass and administer the sacraments in a state of mortal sin. Teaching of the church! Shows the level of ignorence of some trad Catholics.
Nowhere does the above quoted post say that a Mass celebrated by a priest in mortal sin is invalid. The post says that it is sacrilege. It is, unless there is some overwhelming reason such as the need of the faithful for the Mass and the moral unavailability of a priest with jurisdiction to hear confessions.. A priest who is guilty of mortal sin has to confess and be absolved of that sin like every other Catholic. It doesn't matter what the mortal sin is.
-
However, a priest who has fallen into mortal sin, but who is unable to make his confession despite his desire to do so, may celebrate Mass for the benefit of the faithful without adding a further sin of sacrilege.
Thus, as Canon 916 of the Code of Canon Law states: "A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible (see also Canon 1335)."
You got it! We will have to ask Hobbles to research this.
-
ROME, 8 FEB. 2005 (ZENIT)
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.
Q: If a priest is in the state of mortal sin, is his Mass and/or consecration of the Eucharist viable? I understand someone would not know if a priest is in this state, but Our Lord would know. — A.A., Springfield, Massachusetts
A: When receiving or celebrating the sacraments, the priest is subject to the same requirements of sanctity and state of grace as every other Catholic; that is, the state of grace is required for fruitful reception of all sacraments except those that actually forgive sins.
Therefore a priest who is in a state of mortal sin should seek to confess as soon as possible and refrain from celebrating the sacraments until he has done so.
Normally, to celebrate Mass or receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin would be to commit a sacrilege. Yet, the sacrament would be valid; that is, there would be a true consecration and a true sacrifice.
The reason is: Christ is the principal actor of the sacraments, so they are efficacious even when performed by an unworthy minister.
As St. Thomas Aquinas says: Christ may act even through a minister who is spiritually dead.
However, a priest who has fallen into mortal sin, but who is unable to make his confession despite his desire to do so, may celebrate Mass for the benefit of the faithful without adding a further sin of sacrilege.
Thus, as Canon 916 of the Code of Canon Law states: "A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible (see also Canon 1335)."
Note that the code requires a grave reason in order to avail of this exception.
One such grave reason is based on the principle of the good of souls. If a priest is required to celebrate Mass or a soul requests the sacrament of reconciliation, the anointing of the sick, or indeed any other sacrament from this priest that would have to be performed before he can avail of confession, then he may, and usually must, administer the sacrament.
A second grave reason stems from the danger of infamy by publicly revealing the state of one's soul.
This can occur in the case of a priest in isolated circuмstances when there is no one else to perform the usual celebrations. There is no need for him to do anything that might lead people to suspect his lack of a state of grace.
Even in the case that the priest, or any other person, has secretly committed a grave crime, which would normally lead to his or her being automatically forbidden to receive the sacraments, Church law (in Canon 1352) foresees the possibility of the penalty being suspended to avoid infamy or scandal, to wit:
"§1. If a penalty prohibits the reception of the sacraments or sacramentals, the prohibition is suspended as long as the offender is in danger of death.
"§2. The obligation to observe an undeclared 'latae sententiae' penalty which is not notorious in the place where the offender is present, is suspended totally or partially whenever the offender cannot observe it without danger of grave scandal or infamy."
Perfectly expressed.
-
Agreed. The priest commits a sacrilege, but the sacrament is valid. Remember further, the priest is bound to communicate at each Mass he offers. Knowing this obligation, the priest who is about to say Mass cannot ordinarily depend merely on perfect contrition, but must have recourse to the sacrament of penance. The following is relevant,
And therefore it is manifest that whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally.
On the contrary, We read in the acts of the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo (Can. v), and again (De Consecr., dist. 2): "It must be strictly observed that as often as the priest sacrifices the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the altar, he must himself be a partaker of Christ's body and blood."
And lest so great a sacrament be received unworthily and hence unto death and condemnation, this holy council ordains and declares that sacramental confession, when a confessor can be had, must necessarily be made beforehand by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, however contrite they may consider themselves. Moreover, if anyone shall presume to teach, preach or obstinately assert, or in public disputation defend the contrary, he shall be eo ipso excommunicated.
-
If a gαy priest: Was he gαy before ordination? If so, he was not in the state of grace and did not receive the sacrament of ordination. A gαy priest is no priest to begin with.
-
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are not even supposed to be admitted to any Catholic seminary, let alone be priests.
The early Church Fathers made this absolutely clear. St. Peter Damien made it crystal clear, and he is a Doctor of the Church.
If it was true then it is true now.
Think about what kind of advice souls will be getting in the Confessional if the Church Fathers and a Doctor of the Church are too hard to research.
-
Welcome to the real world of New Order! ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are just the ones that the seminaries desire and have for at least 50 decades. Watch the restructuring of New Order and surprises to come! When annoyomous people start a post as this, they just are playing tricks in my mind like the rooster that laid an egg on the roof and which way did the egg go!
-
If a gαy priest: Was he gαy before ordination? If so, he was not in the state of grace and did not receive the sacrament of ordination. A gαy priest is no priest to begin with.
This is Donatism: a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ does indeed receive the Sacrament of Ordination validly as long as he is a biological male and baptized. However, such a person receives the Sacrament sacrilegiously.
Don't confuse the Sacraments that impress an indelible character (Baptism, Confirmation, Sacred Orders), with those that don't (such as Penance, Holy Communion, Extreme Unction and Holy Matrimony).
Please study your catechism before you post.
-
Well, ordained 'gαy' priests and bishops have all been called out since the abuse scandal. How did they even get that far?
Plus priests with gαy tendancy were ordained pre V2. You should know that. That isn't in the Catechism, its a known fact.
-
Well, ordained 'gαy' priests have all been called out since the abuse scandal. How did they even get that far?
Plus priests with gαy tendancy were ordained pre V2. You should know that. That isn't in the Catechism, its a known fact.
Yes, the deviant clerics caused the abuse scandals of today, as they have in ages past.
However, they were validly ordained.
How they got that far was because of the Vatican's "boys'-club" polity, whereby they discard the lives of millions of abuse victims for the sake of what is known in Rome as the bella figura of the hierarchy, even though the bishops as a whole have lost all credibility on account of their complicity and outright active endeavors to hide the crimes of the pervert clerics and bully the victims into either submission or scandalize them to the point of a complete lapse from the Church.
But the problem is even deeper.
It is because the Seminarians of ages past did not get good spiritual direction in some cases (mostly because of the laxity of confessors due to certain sins related to the 6th and 9th Commandments). In fact, as Fr. Arintero wrote in the preface to his book The Mystical Evolution, the biggest problem of the Church (this was in the late 19th, early 20th centuries) was that few souls got the spiritual direction they needed. Few souls will ever attain to their calling in the interior life (that is, attain to the innermost mansions of the Interior Castle) because of incompetent spiritual directors who do not have the experience and wisdom to guide them beyond the purgative and illuminative ways. Add to this the infiltration of the modernists after the rape of Europe during the World Wars and you have the recipe for ecclesiastical disaster.
Basically, this is what happened:
Dishonesty and deviancy in individual cases
+ poor spiritual direction
+ lax government of discipline in Seminaries and Religious houses
+ the infiltration of modernism
+ the devastating spiritual retardation consequent upon the aforementioned factors in the interior life of these clerics
+ the nefarious influence of the post-Great War world that was heading more and more to the "errors of Russia" of which Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima warned us
+ a man-centered and subjectivist mindset that ultimately leads to moral and spiritual degradation and even most base vices in the private lives of clerics
+ the growing modernist pestilence amongst the upper hierarchs at Rome and the hierarchy's negligence thereat
________________________________
the present-day scandals and the crisis in the Church.
This was the case in the "good ol' days" and it is still the case now.
Deviants and perverts should never have been allowed to even consider the Seminary or Religious life as a viable option.
Also, the Priests need more formation in psychology in order to deal with penitents with mental disorders, and most forms of sɛҳuąƖ deviance (especially those originating with self-abuse) either are caused by mental disorders or are a concomitant therewith (such as psychological trauma linked to early sɛҳuąƖ abuse, drug addiction, &c.).
-
The docuмentary "Deliver Us From Evil" is very good, though it should only be viewed by prudent, mature adults.
Some heretical views are expressed but it does a good job of exposing the hypocrisy of an organization that recently beatified whom it hails as "the Pope of the Youth," and yet was the same man who enabled the massive and organized conspiracy to cover up and protect clerical sex criminals (i.e., John Paul II): only to be succeeded by the man who was directly and actively involved in this massive conspiracy as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (i.e., Benedict XVI).
So there you have it...
-
You can not receive a sacrament, any sacrament, unless you are in the state of grace! Than is why Holy Mother Church has penance before Holy Eucharist and those to marry have penance before they marry. And for those who are to be ordained the same thing goes! No difference.
-
Oh, by the way, who should study their catechism! ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a mortal sin!
-
You can not receive a sacrament, any sacrament, unless you are in the state of grace! Than is why Holy Mother Church has penance before Holy Eucharist and those to marry have penance before they marry. And for those who are to be ordained the same thing goes! No difference.
What an ignoramus!
It is the teaching of the Church that any baptized Catholic male receives validly the Sacrament of Sacred Orders, no matter what his dispositions may be.
It is a matter whether such a man receives the Sacrament worthily or not.
Even little boys can receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders validly, and one of the Medieval abuses that Holy Church had to correct was the custom of ordaining children so that families would have their Priest when the boy grew up.
-
Oh, by the way, who should study their catechism! ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a mortal sin!
You should!
Stupidity can also be an occasion of mortal sin.
As this forum has demonstrated, idiocy can lead to heretical and schismatical errors.
Thanks be to God that people like you are too dense to be culpable of such sins, but you are leading others to heresy and error.
Does this not bother you?
If you go on like this, you will join the sodomites in the depths of hell.
-
Ok Matthew, these ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs on this thread are on ignore!
-
Ok Matthew, these ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs on this thread are on ignore!
These Donatist, puerile bastards are getting out of control! Yes, bastards: they are unworthy to be children of the Church if they keep harping on their pet theories and leading others astray.
You need to check with a good Priest and let him set you straight on this topic, which has nothing to do with deviants anymore but with your obscene ignorance of sacramental theology and your consequent childish behavior.
-
If a gαy priest: Was he gαy before ordination? If so, he was not in the state of grace and did not receive the sacrament of ordination. A gαy priest is no priest to begin with.
A priest ordained while actively engaged in sɛҳuąƖ sins would be committing a sacrilege, but I am not at all convinced that the ordination wouldn't be valid. A ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖly attracted priest who was celibate and orthodox would not commit a sacrilege.
-
You can not receive a sacrament, any sacrament, unless you are in the state of grace!
So you are saying that you must be in the state of grace to receive Baptism? :facepalm:
-
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a mortal sin!
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is not a sin, but unchastity in the practice of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a sin. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a psychological and emotional disease.
-
Oh, by the way, the word gαy should not be used as a substitute for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
Neither should the word gαy be used as a substitute for sodomist, nor ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ for sodomist.
If you learn to use your words correctly you will also clear up some of your muddled thinking.
I suggest you have a look at the website http://couragerc.net/
-
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a mortal sin!
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is not a sin, but unchastity in the practice of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a sin. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a psychological and emotional disease.
The act of Sodom is of The Four Sins Crying Out for God's Vengeance.
The state of being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is an impediment to being admitted to the seminary.
People easily confuse being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ with the act of Sodom.
-
Nadir: WE understand Baptism and Penance are sacraments of the dead, and to take on any other sacrament takes grace. A ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ can lust and be in mortal sin without the action.
-
Nadir: WE understand Baptism and Penance are sacraments of the dead, and to take on any other sacrament takes grace. A ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ can lust and be in mortal sin without the action.
-
It's a tangential remark, but it bears some relevance to the present discussion:
A Post from the Past:
[/color][/b][/u][/size]
One can have a same-sex attraction and be Catholic at the same time.
No, no, no.
"Same-sex attraction" is an erroneous concept that obfuscates terrible and unnatural temptations that some individuals face due to situational factors (psychological trauma, neuro-chemical malfunction of some sort, &c.) or individual choices to which culpability may be imputed (for example, the vice of self-abuse: for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is nothing more than a extended form of self-abuse, combined with sociopathically egocentric proclivities), that has been implemented systematically in our anti-Christian society in order to "re-define" the true notion of the marital act: a privilege exclusively granted to a man and his wife, bound to one another in sacred vows of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, for the propagation of the human race and the increase of Holy Mother Church.
It is unseemly for Catholics to seriously use terms such as "same sex attraction" or "LGTB Community" when they are supposed to know that such constructs are anti-Christian concoctions, attacking the sanctity of the home and family.
I am not implying that any culpability should be imputed to anyone here for using such lexicon, because everyone of us has to unlearn the garbage that was fed to us by the world: this process is commonly known as conversion, and it is a life-long process and not all attain to it the same way and in the same manner. However, all earnest Catholics eventually acknowledge the deceit of this age and eschew it.
For purposes of clarification, allow me to tweak with your statement in order to demonstrate how one should express himself regarding this matter:
One can have a same-sex attraction may be afflicted with horrible temptations against the 6th and 9th Commandments, even tempted to unnatural or contra-natural iniquity, and be Catholic at the same time if he earnestly strives to conquer these temptation, and, moreover, detaches himself from the world and gives himself over to prayer, so that he may not fall into any heretical errors regarding the above-mentioned Commandments.
A Catholic may be a horrible sinner against purity yet maintain the infused virtue of faith, although exceedingly vitiated. However, as all authors of the spiritual life attest, sins against purity always lead to a loss of faith eventually in those who remain obstinate therein. In the present day, the special danger regarding unnatural sins against purity is that the anti-Christian agenda has made things so that those who do not strive to overcome temptations to such vices do in fact end up committing horrible errors against the faith.
It is of great perfection to be so self-detached that one does not identify himself with his crosses: to accept them in filial self-abandonment to Divine Providence and use all means necessary to conquer any temptations, whilst offering to God through the Blessed Virgin Mary the anxiety and shame concomitant with such base temptations as a sacrifice of reparation: and to do so in silence and discretion. To go on and on about one's temptations so as to gain sympathy from others betrays a self-detachment that ultimately brought about such temptations in the first place.
It is an obscene and damning error that the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs commit when they not only commit their horrible deeds whilst publishing it, but go so far as to avail themselves of such iniquities to constitute (or, rather, deform) their very identity. How foolish is this! Can there be anything more satanic than this?
I thought [...] we should use the term "Same Sex Attraction" instead of terms like "gαy."
Note that I did not use that word because it is inaccurate: "gαy" is an adjective synonymous to such other adjectives as joyous or gleeful. It had been initially transmogrified as an obscene euphemism by those who are not only given over to the vice of sodomy or (in the case of women) to the Sapphic vice, but seek to "normalize" it and make it "acceptable" to the populace.
Now liberal elitists are campaigning against the usage of the word, because it supposedly constitutes a "hate crime" to use it as an attack upon those who are (or perceived to be) given over to the above-mentioned vices.
I think I answered my own question now:
Can there be anything more satanic than this?
Yes: a society that has criminalized the hatred of sin and the detestation of one's conscience of that which all sane and rational creatures recognize as unnatural: that is completely satanic, and more so than whatever unnatural sin against purity that any individual sinner can perpetrate, as it is a complete rejection of the Kingship of Christ and the rule of right reason by society as a whole.
-
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a mortal sin!
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is not a sin, but unchastity in the practice of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a sin. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a psychological and emotional disease.
The act of Sodom is of The Four Sins Crying Out for God's Vengeance.
The state of being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is an impediment to being admitted to the seminary.
People easily confuse being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ with the act of Sodom.
The act of Sodom is of The Four Sins Crying Out for God's Vengeance.
Of course!
The state of being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is an impediment to being admitted to the seminary.
This is as it should be but isn't, tragically!
People easily confuse being ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ with the act of Sodom.
That's was I intimated in the previous post
Neither should the word gαy be used as a substitute for sodomist, nor ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ for sodomist.
-
Thanks, Nadir, I was attempting to re-state what you said because of common mis-understandings. Also, people tend to underestimate the severity of the problem of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ men being admitted to seminaries in the first place, while normal young men are routinely refused enrollment.