How do we determine if an ordination is valid?
Posted by Dave Keller on August 14th, 2006
I am opening this question up for discussion for both of our faiths. It would be interesting to see if there is any commonality of thought here. My initial contribution will be to quote Mormon scholar Daniel Peterson analyzing if a repented Book of Mormon apostate, Alma, could claim to have the priesthood by virtue of an ordination of another apostate. Dr. Peterson curiously cites Catholic thought to bolster his argument!
We have to assume Alma and his one-time colleagues were ordained validly by Noah (Mosiah 11:5), who was also ordained validly by his father, Zeniff. The fact that Noah was not righteous after he was ordained and that Alma himself was part of Noah’s priestly group during his early ministry has nothing to do with Alma’s priesthood authority. Until superior priesthood authority withdraws permission to exercise priestly functions, a legitimately ordained holder of the priesthood continues to hold valid priesthood—however unrighteous he may be, however dead to spiritual promptings, and however unlikely it may be that he will ever actually exercise his priesthood.4
4. The ancient Christian church faced this problem in the form of the Donatist schism, which was formally declared heretical in AD 405. The Donatists held that unrighteousness in a bishop or priest invalidated any and all ordinances that he might have perfomied. However, the Synod of Aries determined in AD 314. that the validity of baptisms and ordinations and the like did not depend upon the worthiness or merit of the officiator. (On the Donatists, and the related Novatianist and Meletian movements, see Christie-Murray 96—97.) Granted, the Christian church at this period was essentially apostate, but Latter-day Saints take basically the same position, and for good reason. If serious sin, as such, invalidated priesthood ordinances, we could never know whose marriage was legal, or who was really a member of the Church. Did the man who ordained you to the priesthood have a secret, unrepented sin? If he did, your ordination is invalid. Your mission was illegitimate, any converts you baptized are actually non-members, and you are living in adultery since you should never have been admitted to the temple. Any of your converts who served missions and baptized are similarly fraudulent, and the consequences ripple onward and outward in utterly unforeseeable ways. How could we ever be sure of anything?
—The Priesthood in Mosiah in The Book of Mormon: Mosiah, Salvation Only through Christ by Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr. eds. p. 197
August 18th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Dave, I have thought about this issue before. We do believe that a priest’s ability to administer the Sacraments is not affected by his personal righteousness, as a physician who’s a jerk can still cure ailments. St. Augustine said, “Paul baptizes, Christ baptizes; Peter baptizes, Christ baptizes; Judas baptizes, Christ baptizes.” This is my understanding: it is possible for a priest to perform sacraments illicitly, that is, against the law of the Church, such as if a priest celebrates Mass when he has been forbidden to do so by a bishop who has authority over him. However, the Mass is still a Mass. The priest is committing a grave sin by disobeying, and anyone who has knowledge of this situation yet still participates in the Mass is also disobeying and therefore sinning. Yet it’s still a valid Mass, and the Sacrament given is still the Body and Blood of the Lord.
I had always understood Mormon belief to be that unrighteouness makes priesthood holders unable to function as such. Is this defined by the church, or is it up for debate?
August 24th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Mormons aren’t Donatists and do not believ that the unrighteousness of a priesthood bearer makes the ordinances invalid, though if unrighteousness comes to the attention of the authorities that person’s priesthood will be put on hold or even stripped.
August 24th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
See here–
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3294
–for discussion.
August 25th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
How about this. First Augustine in his recollections corrects himself on baptism by writing there is nothing as effective as the words of Cyprian thrown in the teeth of donatists. Cyprian says how can anyone absolve sins whose sins are not absolved.
Secondly let us look at the Church when she decides a sacrament is not lawful, valid (Christ’s words on marriage and divorce in Matthew)
The Church decides in a very roundabout way that a Marriage is not lawful when and I ask the Church to deny this what She means. When there was no intention of marriage being sucessful in the minds of either of the partners. I add if the intention was not there and the sacrament was not sanctified by grace, without the sacrament of penance before hand, then it is not a marriage. So now let us apply this to the Sacrament of Holy Orders (remember that there is not a hierarch, or priest who is going to admit to this.
If a young man has been led into Homosexuality for any reason, usually by mentoring of some kind, and enters the seminary still practicing his sex lust; practices all this sin through his seminary life and is ordained possibly with the knowledge of his sin by his superiors, is he in a state of sin or grace? Therefore I suggest he is not in grace and cannot receive God’s blessing. No matter what the great unwashed think, claim or demand. Read psalm 5 in the older versions of the LXX verses 4,5 and 6; read psalm 50 the Miserere Davids plea not to be removed from God’s sight or lose his Holy Spirit. Read God’s conversation with Samuel over His regret for Saul; Read Baruch on the Eyes of God seeing only beauty and cannot see sin as it is ugly. read genesis of the regret of God over the sins of Adam etc. Find what the scriptural meaning of regret is. Now are the sacraments above valid? I think so, because those in grace, worthy of peace (read Matthew on peace and worthiness when Christ despatched the Apostles) with a full belief in the teachings on the Eucharist will receive Christ. God is not mocked and will do as he pleases provided we keep all his commandments, directives etc. That is if we truly believe in the Word of God and live as the word dictates.
August 31st, 2006 at 9:59 am
Not sure how well it relates to performance of priesthood ordinances per se, but see John 11:49-51 (emphasis on verse 51).
It seems clear that, to some extent, divine authority remained with the appointed person, regardless of standing before God. Note also Paul’s deference to the High Priest when beaten by one of his captors.
The Old Testament is, of course, littered with examples of “fallen prophets” who nonetheless retained the gift of prophecy and authority to speak for God.
September 4th, 2006 at 5:34 am
I have enjoyed the ideas expressed above. I think it is important for both earthly followers and God to be able to recognize whether an administration of a sacrament is valid. Unrighteous behaviour by a member of the priesthood can undermine trust and confidence that someone is truly acting in God’s name. In principle when one behaves unrighteously, D&C 121:37 gives an “Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” That is an “Amen” in the sense of “the heavens withdraw themselves” and not an “Amen” in the sense of “Can I get an Amen?” call for support.
However in practice, orderly procedures should be followed to remove an unrighteous authority. The more orderly they are followed, hopefully a church can avoid splintering on one hand and being imposed upon by unrighteous leaders on the other. We see these tensions play out in the Old Testament. Some times those disagreeing with a prophet figure or dealt with very harshly by divine intervention. I think of some of the complainers and apostates in Moses’ time. Sometimes the superior authority was the problem. I think of the prophet/king David as the ranking priesthood authority of his time after Samuel’s death. So when court prophet Nathan approaches David about his wrongdoing, he cleverly gets David to pass judgment on himself.
There could have been a problem with Alma’s manuevering against his religous superior, but essentially King Noah’s failure to perform his kingly/priestly duties was effectively a way of resigning the post to a more righteous priest. Perhaps what is more telling is when Alma’s people reunite with King Mosiah’s people. Mosiah would have been the ranking authority but he defers to Alma and accepts Alma’s reforms.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Though God’s grace is not limited to the sacraments, the valid administration of any sacrament, whether that be baptism, confirmation, holy orders, etc., requires several proper elements; form, minister, matter, recipient and intention.
Form: The participants must us the proper words and actions. They may not simply make up their own.
Minister: The minister of the sacrament must be someone who is properly empowered and authorized to administer it. For example, a lay person may not administer the sacrament of confession.
Matter: In those sacraments that require specific matter (like water in baptism), the sacrament is invalid if the proper matter is omitted. You can’t baptize with engine oil.
Recipient: The recipient or participant in the sacrament must be a proper recipient. This has two levels. On an obvious level, you can’t marry a horse. On an internal, unknown level, the recipient must not have obstacles in his life that reject the grace being offered. This latter issue may or may not invalidate a sacrament, depending on the specifics.
Intention: The minister must actually intend to bring about the proper sacramental reality. If his intention or understanding are culpably deficient, then the sacrament may be invalid. For example, if a minister performing a baptism actually does not believe in the baptism and intends something different, like a mockery, then a valid baptism does not occur. The recipient may still have received the grace of baptism, since God’s grace is not limited to the sacraments or by faulty ministers, but the formal sacrament, itself, didn’t happen.
If the above criteria are apparently met, then the sacrament is assumed valid.
Note that none of this touches upon the piety or impeccability of the minister. A minister may be in a seriously fallen state, and the sacrament can still be valid.