A priest pretending to be Catholic, leading others astray

If we can take him at his word, of which there is obviously some doubt, he was ordained a Jesuit priest. Once a priest, always a priest. If he has been dismissed from the clerical state (a reasonable guess), he no longer holds any office in the Catholic Church, and is forbidden from exercising such priestly office, with the possible exception of granting deathbed confessions in extreme circumstances. What he’s forbidden to do obviously is beside the point in his case, since he doesn’t care. We’re concerned with what he actually has the ability to do. Dismissal from the clerical state does not remove the indelible mark on his soul that gives him the ability to confect the Eucharist. So if he (the “archbishop”) was the celebrant, it seems likely the Eucharist was vaild.

This is important to keep in mind in case one has the urge to do something to the host to demonstrate his disagreement and disbelief in the priest and the mass. You obviously weren’t suggesting anything like that, but I’m sure it’s crossed at least a few minds.

No it was not the Archbishop/former Jesuit priest that did the Ceremony.
And is that really true? I would doubt the Eucharist was valid, when the whole thing is invalid beyond comprehension.
I do not believe Christ is even present at such events

  • homosexual priest, telling everyone this is a Catholic mass, all can receive, in a restaurant, to a couple where the groom is not annulled, where the priest has told the parents it is recongnized in the Church as a valid mass.
    No no no.

And secondly, yikes to the part I bolded! Those ideas, I know happen, but that is unthinkable and frightening to me.:frowning:

Peace of Christ.

Here Here!!!:clapping::clapping:

It was also a profane act…there is nothing to admire about this bunch…run don’t walk away as fast as you can

Perhaps you should talk to the couple about it, too. They are currently living a life in adultery, and they should be stopped. You were enough of a friend to be invited, so you should be enough of a friend to confront them about their sin. And if you have gone to Mass since then, you have probably already confessed. Remember,
"I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and to you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God."If that doesn’t count, why would the Church have the Confiteor every mass? So stop beating yourself up about it and fix it already. It seems pretty obvious that no one else has. Have the couple speak to the Bishop about it and see what they can do to fix it. After that, it’s in their hands, and you will have cleaned yours of it.

Please learn more about the Catholic Faith and you will understand why your comments are completely wrong and go against the Truth of Christ, and what ALL Catholics are to live accordingly.

~Liza

It is one thing to be talking about a Lutheran or Episcopal wedding and not judge that they have female or openly partnered homosexual ministers, or that they call their remembrance of the Last Supper a Mass, when they do, because they are a different denomination. They don’t claim to be Roman Catholic. They don’t claim to have Roman Catholic sacraments. We can and should tolerate that. We can be happy for their newlywed couples. Those are marriages the Church recognizes. Tolerating different religions, though, is not what this thread is about.

This group wants to have its cake and eat it, too: they want their expression of their faith to be respected, to “celebrate their union and obviously their fiath in their own way”, but show total disrespect for our faith as it is taught by the Holy Father.

Their stance is not that they have their ways and we have ours. Their stance is that they can simultaneously hold that the Church is in error and that they are in full communion with her at the same time. They know better. It is not we who will not tolerate them as they are. It is they who cannot tolerate us as we are.

Embracing religious diversity does not mean embracing it when people spread lies about your faith. It is that lie–that they are in full communion with the Catholic Church and validly celebrate her Sacraments, when they are not, do not, and know it–that is at issue here.

It is also a tall order to ask that a Catholic “be happy” to see a married man take a second wife when the presumption under Catholic canon law is that he’s already married. What kind of nonsense is that?

Theoretically, it is possible. If someone was validly ordained a priest, even if they leave the Church, they will always be a priest and will always have that power to consecrate the Eucharist.

Practically speaking, it depends (as benedictgal said) on matter, form, and intent. If he was using invalid matter (for example, something other than grape wine and the right kind of bread), it would be invalid. If he didn’t use the right words of consecration (for example, if he said “This is Christ’s Body” instead of “This is my body”), the form is lacking and it is invalid. Intent is a little harder for me to pin down, but, as benedictgal said, he must intend to do what the Church intends.

Like Jim Jones?

they just can’t say they are Roman Catholic. if they did they can be reported to the RC diocese. thats like setting up a hamburger stand and calling yourself McDonalds. and no catholic church that will marry gays is in commuion with rome. it is forbidden. if rome found out they would be put out of commuion. I don’t even think you can be a gay clergy under rome.

Dear Sara Ayling
Thank you for the comments

**

Perhaps you should talk to the couple about it, too. They are currently living a life in adultery, and they should be stopped. You were enough of a friend to be invited, so you should be enough of a friend to confront them about their sin

. And if you have gone to Mass since then, you have probably already confessed. Remember,
"I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and to you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God."If that doesn’t count, why would the Church have the Confiteor every mass? So stop beating yourself up about it and fix it already. It seems pretty obvious that no one else has. **Have the couple speak to the Bishop about it and see what they can do to fix it. **After that, it’s in their hands, and you will have cleaned yours of it. **

I agree for sure, but I need to add that the couple could case less.
They know it is wrong to not be annulled, they dont even understand it, like many Catholics. And they will not seek the Bishop, nor a priest, they dont practice the faith, they got the “phony catholic priest” to satisfy their parents.

And I am not a friend, I was a filler, they had extra invitations.
I am an in-law, they are the family of my sister in law…

Joe5859

**

Theoretically, it is possible. If someone was validly ordained a priest, even if they leave the Church, they will always be a priest and will always have that power to consecrate the Eucharist.

**

Joe, yes, I agree, but the priest that performed this thing was not the former Jesuit, this guy was never a Catholic, only Anglican.

peace

With groups such as this its really a mess as to who has valid orders and who does not. Even if the individual priest was never a Roman Catholic priest all he needs to do is be ordained by someone who is a validly ordained bishop. There’s a few Old Catholic Church bishops floating around ordaining people so who knows.
However, even if the Eucharist was valid it was illicit and the marriage is invalid. As Catholics we should avoid attending things like this. You might want to bring up to your friend that you don’t appreciate being misled as to what kind of marriage celebration this would be.

Obviously the priest needs the proper form, matter, and intent, as usual. Based on their website, where they discuss among other things their Latin masses, I would guess other than their “inclusive” approach, they probably hew pretty close to the line liturgically, in order to hide their other shortcomings.

[quote=emseguin]No it was not the Archbishop/former Jesuit priest that did the Ceremony.
[/quote]

In that case the validity of the Eucharist is in much greater doubt, since we don’t know the validity of his ordination. There are some churches that have maintained apostolic succession and valid orders, and it’s likely bishops from one or more of those churches were somehow involved. However, they are such a mishmash of practices that it’s difficult to judge validity without careful study of each church and its history.

[quote=emseguin]And is that really true? I would doubt the Eucharist was valid, when the whole thing is invalid beyond comprehension.
I do not believe Christ is even present at such events
[/quote]

As mentioned above, the only 3 things an actual priest requires for the validity of the Eucharist are proper form, matter, and intent. It’s important to understand the difference between validity and licity. It is usually accepted that the Eucharist can be validly, but illicitly, confected outside a mass. With that in mind, it should be clear that adding components of the mass to that bare-bones consecration, whether those components are licit or not, won’t invalidate it. It may not be a real mass, but that’s different from saying the Eucharist is invalid.

[quote=emseguin]- homosexual priest
[/quote]

There have been innumerable homosexual priests in history, thankfuly most have not been practicing, and far fewer have been open about it. But to suggest that sins of the priest invalidate the sacraments he celebrates is to embrace the heresy of Donatism.

[quote=emseguin]telling everyone this is a Catholic mass
[/quote]

“Catholic” is a slippery term. By itself it means “worldly,” and many other denominations recite the Nicene Creed, stating their belief in one, holy, catholic, apostolic church. Orthodox consider themselves Catholic, although they won’t ask for the Catholic Church when they visit a town, just as a Catholic who considers himself orthodox won’t look for the Orthodox Church. They are using a Catholic liturgy. And to some extent all sacraments are part of the Church. So as deceptive as it seems, there are grounds for the celebrant to make that claim. The key question is whether they are in union with Rome. Answer: no!

[quote=emseguin]all can receive
[/quote]

This is an unfortunate claim, as it misleads the faithful, on an issue we’re all familiar with. Canon law and current discipline on this matter are merely supplemental to dogmatic teaching, so we can’t excuse it as simply a different discipline. Depending on how it was presented, it’s quite possibly heretical. But again, a heretical statement or practice separate from the consecration doesn’t invalidate the Eucharist.

[quote=emseguin]in a restaurant
[/quote]

A restaurant is not the most appropriate place to celebrate a mass, but for good reason a mass can be licitly be celebrated almost anywhere (often this requires the permission of the bishop). Without a good reason, or without permission, it becomes illicit. But not invalid.

[quote=emseguin]to a couple where the groom is not annulled
[/quote]

Who attends the mass, or who it is celebrated for, does not affect its validity. As for the Sacrament of Matrimony you witnessed, that is almost certainly invalid.

[quote=emseguin]where the priest has told the parents it is recongnized in the Church as a valid mass.
[/quote]

As they say on Mythbusters, plausible (but somewhat doubtful).

where the priest has told the parents it is recongnized in the Church as a valid mass.

That’s why it should be brought to the local Bishop’s (real Bishop) attention pronto.

It’s one thing to steal the name, it’s another to falsely represent yourself as authentic clergy of something you aren’t part of.

So who is wearing the Franciscan-looking habit in the first link above, with Orders of Friars
“A.” ?(not sure what the “A” stands for; I know that OFM is Order of Friars Minor)

Is this impersonating a priest in an Order? What a sham!

I was revolted by the first link, btw. Just revolted.

And for all those (including the phony “priest” in question) who believe that The Beloved Disciple is some euphemistic way, scripturally, to refer to homosexual love, such people know zilch, zilch about scriptural language and ancient practices.

I want to say to them: Get a scriptural education, not to mention an education in cultural anthropology, you morons. “The disciple whom Jesus loved” does not mean a man Jesus had sexual activity with. Perhaps I am even more offended by such intellectual dishonesty in the cause of hedonistic indulgence than I am by the putrid “inclusive” website itself.

Start your own blankety-blank “religious” organization; stop co-opting the RCC for your immoral purposes.

And stop re-interpreting the NT to suit your nefarious purposes.

I agree 100%, first of all he made up his own order, and as much as you would like to you cannot be a part of the Franciscan Community just because you call yourself Franciscan. Not to mention that St Francis would have no part of such behavior. The good thing about getting old like me is that before too long I won’t have to worry about where humanity is taking itself. What a relief:thumbsup:

Dear elizabeth502

Yes, I agree with your comments!

**

So who is wearing the Franciscan-looking habit in the first link above, with Orders of Friars
“A.” ?(not sure what the “A” stands for; I know that OFM is Order of Friars Minor)

Is this impersonating a priest in an Order? What a sham!

**

the priest in the franciscan habit - he was a former Jesuit priest (not sure why in that habit - i supose he wears that now)
I thought the picture was from forever ago because there is a communion rail in the background. but must be from the present time, as why would he have a picture of himself before this “order”

They are"franciscan", and yes, i do not think St. Francis would approve either.

And Mike Dye, ha haha, I can only imagine where this world is going.

Peace of Christ,

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.