Transubstantiation

How to keep this short…hmmmm…

There is a parish in St. Louis that has somewhat recently gone through some problems with obedience to our Bishop. Long story short…the lay people own the building and they have brought in a priest who has been excommunicated from the Church after several warnings. The church is no longer a part of the Diocese. The “priest” again, has been excommunicated and sence this is a known fact, everyone who stayed in that church is excomunicated as well (by their own free will). So…my question…does Transubstantiation occurr with an excomuncicated priest?

I ask this because I thought “once a priest, always a priest”?

Interesting situation! I’m sure there are folks more learned on this subject than I, but I’ll give you my two cents anyway. :smiley:

Though priests can be “laicized”, that doesn’t seem to be the case with this situation.

What I THINK is this: the priest, though excommunicated, was ordained validly (I assume) and therefore is still able to confect the Eucharist. Now here’s where it gets squirrelly…I’m not sure that everyone who attends that parish has also been excommunicated…I mean, that’s a pretty big deal, and it’s basically used as a last resort, except for situations like abortion, where the act itself causes one to be excommunicated. I’m sure someone who is up on all of the SSPX stuff will know better than I.
However, regardless of whether or not the laity in this case have been excommunicated, given that they are aware of this priest’s status, I would think they would have to refrain from receiving the Eucharist. But I don’t know for sure…

Thank you for your reply. :slight_smile:

As far as the laity, they were warned. And they were given a valid Catholic parish for their community (Polish). The obedient parishoners went to their new parish. Some of the others completely rejected the Bishops direction and stayed where they were. So, by definetion of a schismatic, they have incurred excommunication upon themselves.

But what I don’t understand is wether or not Transubstantiation ocurrs. Is Christ on the Altar?? I don’t think He is. But I would like some verification. I probably need to ask a local priest who is aware of the whole situation.

Peace

Good thinking! :smiley: All you get from me is what my own logic tells me, but that doesn’t neccesarily follow what HMC teaches! Cool pic by the way:thumbsup:

Thank you. I love the pic too! I found it on the internet and would love to find out who painted it (or photoshopped it). I don’t remember where it came from.

Yes, Christ would be present on the altar. The requirement for the Confection of the Eucharit are

  1. A Validly Ordained Priest
  2. Valid Matter ( wheat bread, wine from grapes)
  3. Intent to confect the Sacrament

If all three are present, the Eucharist is present.

The situation you describe is actually similar to that of other seperated Churches, such as the Polish National or the Orthodox.

The Eucharist is present on their altars, and under certain grave circumstances, we may even recieve the Eucharist at those Churches.

The situation at that Church in St. Louis is that the Eucharist is Valid ( Christ is present), but highly Illicit (done in a way contrary to the Church). In other words, Christ is Present, but He’s NOT happy about it ;).

Short answer: Yes, all other things being equal. (cf. the validity of the sacraments among the Orthodox)

But an excommunicate priest does not *licitly *celebrate the sacraments except in the case where there is the danger of death, so I would not partake unless there were no other choice.
(Which is not the case you describe)

tee

Yes, But I would guess that because of the disobedience, rejection of Church authority, the state of peoples souls, not much grace or benefit is received from Holy Communion. However a person not knowing the situation and in a state of Grace could receive Holy Communion there and all the Sacramental Grace normally available.

That’s a good way of putting it!

Thank you for the replies.

After making 14 phone calls to see if it was ok for me to go, I attended a funeral at this church for the sake of my friend and to “bury the dead”. I did not go to communion. I sat at the back of church cringing at the fact that I was there. But had I known that Christ was on the Altar I would have been more reverent. I just prayed for my friends fathers’ soul and the priest and everyone in that church the whole time I was there. With my blessed rosary in hand!

Peace!

What happened to Form? Maybe I missed something.

The main reason I bring this up is it’s not clear to me what kind of community and what kind of excommunicated priest are involved in the OP’s case. If it’s right-wing extremists, the Form is most likely present. But if it’s left-wing extremists, the Form could well be lacking.

Form (here meaning a valid (approved) Institution Narrative) is required: even with (1) (2) and (3), if some priest stands there and says “Jesus! Appear!” there is NO Eucharist confected, and Christ is NOT present.

I am the OP. I am a little confused about what you are asking. The “X-priest” said the mass in the normal form. But he has been forbidden to say Mass by the Bishop and has been excomunicated. He is staying at this church with these parishoners outside of Church approval. Outside of the Diocese. And has rejected the authority of the Bishop. This man is being supported financially by the parishoners.

There could be any number of reason for the suspension and excommunication. Perhaps, e.g., it was simply for reasons of discipline. Or, e.g. it could have been for reasons of serious liturgical abuse. The latter could call the validity of the Sacrament into question if the 4 elements were lacking.

Anyway, based on your last comment it appears that in this case the Mass is otherwise “normal,” so the requirement of Form would seem to be satisfied. Which means

[quote=Brendan]The situation at that Church in St. Louis is that the Eucharist is Valid ( Christ is present), but highly Illicit (done in a way contrary to the Church). In other words, Christ is Present, but He’s NOT happy about it .
[/quote]

Just to add info about many of the parishioners there…they were lied to repeatedly (by the elders and the media) about the situation with the ArchBishop, and many of them might not be culpable to understanding the whole situation. Even though the Eucharist was illicit, let’s hope that those graces will still be given to those who aren’t very culpable.

THe whole situation is just so sad.

What I THINK is this: the priest, though excommunicated, was ordained validly (I assume) and therefore is still able to confect the Eucharist.

But if he presumes to celebrate the Eucharist–or receive–while under such a censure, while the Sacraments he ministers are valid and grace-filled for those who approach them with the proper spiritual dispositions, he himself celebrates them unto his own damnation, if he repents not.

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.