http://catholicexchange.com/2007/10/18/81129/ Catholic News, Catholic Articles, Catholic Apologetics, Catholic Content, Catholic Information Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:46:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2 http://catholicexchange.com/2007/10/18/81129/comment-page-1/#comment-45477 Can a Bishop Forbid a Priest to Say Mass? | Catholic Exchange Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:21:16 +0000 #comment-45477 [...] valid Mass — but he is not permitted by Church authorities to do so. Similarly, we saw in the October 18, 2007 column that if a priest who has been suspended, and thereby prohibited from celebrating Mass, were to do [...] [...] valid Mass — but he is not permitted by Church authorities to do so. Similarly, we saw in the October 18, 2007 column that if a priest who has been suspended, and thereby prohibited from celebrating Mass, were to do [...]

]]> http://catholicexchange.com/2007/10/18/81129/comment-page-1/#comment-43909 Can a Priest Ever Return to the Lay State? | Catholic Exchange Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:04:19 +0000 #comment-43909 [...] When this occurs, and a priest is released from the clerical state, he is still technically a priest, but as canon 292 notes, he may no longer exercise the power of orders. Since this is what the priest is requesting anyway, there is usually little fear that he will violate this restriction. But in theory, if a laicized priest were to say Mass, it would be a valid Mass, since he never loses the ability to celebrate the Eucharist. It would, however, be illicit. (The difference between an invalid act, and an act that is valid but illicit, was discussed in greater detail back in the October 18, 2007 column.) [...] [...] When this occurs, and a priest is released from the clerical state, he is still technically a priest, but as canon 292 notes, he may no longer exercise the power of orders. Since this is what the priest is requesting anyway, there is usually little fear that he will violate this restriction. But in theory, if a laicized priest were to say Mass, it would be a valid Mass, since he never loses the ability to celebrate the Eucharist. It would, however, be illicit. (The difference between an invalid act, and an act that is valid but illicit, was discussed in greater detail back in the October 18, 2007 column.) [...]

]]>