According to Protestants who believe in the Real Presence, what makes for a valid Eucharist?

[GKMotley]

I like where I am.

 

[GKMotley]

Depends on who you ask. Let’s ask the Orthodox.

 

[rightness]

I think you think we’re making claims we’re not making.

I and (I think) @GKMotley, are in complete agreement with the Catholic Church as to what is required for a valid Eucharist.

The questions come in elsewhere, specifically with validity of Holy Orders.

Ah I understand what you’re saying after thinking about it while doing something else, in that the belief in Transubstantiation is not what’s necessary for the Sacrament, but the fact that it has to be done in union with the Catholic Church. I actually had to go back and look something up that I remembered, and here is what I saw from Taylor Marshall’s EWTN Journey Home episode on this very matter:

(At 44 minutes)

Let me know if I finally understand what you’re saying.

 

[ltwin]

Protestants don’t believe they are receiving the Real Presence.

Some Protestants, like Lutherans, definitely do believe they are receiving the Real Presence.

 

[GKMotley]

No, but that was a good guess.What the speaker is saying is certainly what the RCC would say is correct (though he was factually incorrect about all Anglican priests being ordained absolutely if they become RC priests. The author of the two books I suggested was ordained a RC priest sub conditione, and so was Graham Leonard, of whom several folks around here have heard. That an Anglican priest might (as the gentleman was saying) possess valid orders, through the Old Catholics or some other episcopal lines which Rome recognizes as valid, but that for such a one to confect the sacrament while not in communion with Rome and the Magistertium would constitute sacrilege, as I think I heard, seems to stretch illicit (if that is what he means) more than a little, and would be somewhat offensive to the Orthodox, as well as the PNCC and Anglicans.

And that point is not what was being discussed amongst us. A valid sacramental intent is an intent to do whatever the Church does in the sacramental action. An atheist need not understand at all what baptism means. But an intent to do whatever that is constitutes a valid sacramental intent. And Anglicans agree with that(some of them). What Anglicans wouldn’t agree with is that Leo XIII’s Apostolic Letter has any effect on their orders. That’s what RCs must affirm. Anglicans may have a different idea on the matter (or form or intent).

Remember the books. Books are your friend.

 

[dochawk]

@dochawk can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the use of unleavened bread in the Latin Rite is a matter of discipline, not doctrine, and that Eastern Rite churches use leavened bread.

Contrary to the more-Catholic-than-the-Pope crowd here, that is correct. [Yes, I’ve seen more than one of them post here that the EC are wrong and disobedient for using unleavened]./

The Latin Church switched to unleavened in, iirc, late in the first millennium (or was it the early 11th century?). It came more from getting closer to perfection with the circular host than over the ingredients, as I understand (but this one I’ve only picked up on the periphery).

The East has never used unleavened, afaik, in any church other than the Romanians, which (due to Romanian culture?) mimics Rome.

This didn’t stop that cardinal from including it in that ill-advised excommunication, though . . .

 

[lilypadrees]

The Protestants I know will tell you differently.

 

[jschwartz]

What makes for a valid Eucharist is an interesting question.

I’d say that the priest needs to be validly ordained by bishops in apostolic succession. And the priest needs to believe in Real Presence, and the one receiving needs to believe in the same. There is a question whether the words of Institution are enough. Interestingly, the Catholic Church accepts the Anaphora of the Assyrian Church (Addai and Mari) as valid, even though the words of Institution are absent.

 

[Angannas]

Another possibility is that the finding of invalidity was correct at the time it was made, but since the investigation Old Catholic bishops have been involved in many Anglican episcopal and presbyterial ordinations and the ordinals are different to those used in the reign of Edward, meaning that many Anglican ordinations are now valid

 

[JonNC]

lilypadrees:

Protestants don’t believe they are receiving the Real Presence.

Some Protestants, like Lutherans, definitely do believe they are receiving the Real Presence.

This is why using the term “Protestant “ regarding practice and doctrine is folly.

The Protestants I know will tell you differently.

From the Augsburg Confession:

Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper.

1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

 

[GKMotley]

I excluded a possible logical position there, yes.

I had a friend who was the most knowledgeable RC layman on the sad subject of Apostolicae Curae I have ever met. This was roughly his position.

Presbyterial ordinations would be one offs. Not an issue. And assuming (per Ott, p. 454) that such joint episcopal consecrations did confer valid/illicit orders, these would continue to be propagated, through the succeeding 90 years or so, as the Anglican bishops did their thing. Assuming that thing included all necessary valid sacramental factors.

 

[GKMotley]

Minister, form, matter, intent. All valid. Valid sacrament.

For some sacraments, subject/recipient also must be valid.

 

[MiserereMei]

Whatever the case, it is sad, for either the Anglican communion believes it has valid orders and Eucharist, but it in fact does not, OR the Anglican communion does have valid orders and Eucharist, but the Catholic Church does not properly regard them on the level of a true church, like it does for the various Eastern communions.

What is said of Anglican orders here can be applied to the mainline Lutherans as well, as, for the most part, where we have lost them, we get our orders from the Anglicans and Old Catholics.

 

[GKMotley]

It is possible you don’t know all flavors of protestants. Some will tell you surprising things.Some will cite Trent Session XIII, Canon 1.

Some you call protestants will tell you otherwise. Motley, them …ah…protestants.

 

[lilypadrees]

JonNC - “This is why using the term “Protestant “ regarding practice and doctrine is folly.”

That is something you will need to take that up with every denomination that proudly proclaims itself Protestant rather than Catholic. Not just the Lutheran and Anglican/Episcopalians.

I am speaking of the denominations that many here get miffed at when I call them Protestant because that’s what they (the members of those denominations where I live) personally told me they are. Denominations like the various Baptist churches, Methodists, Church Of Christ, Presbyterians, Assembly/Assemblies Of God, Pentecostals, etc.

 

[JulianN]

It depends on the Protestants you know. I have many Lutheran and Episcopalian friends who absolutely believe in the real presence.

 

[GKMotley]

And likely even more that you don’t know. Right down to transubstantiation.

 

[JulianN]

Oh I am sure that’s true. I’d also venture to say that many of the Catholics I know actually don’t believe in the real presence.

 

[GKMotley]

I have heard sad tales.

 

[JonNC]

That is something you will need to take that up with every denomination that proudly proclaims itself Protestant rather than Catholic. Not just the Lutheran and Anglican/Episcopalians.

As an analogy, someone from South America, for example, can proudly say they are South American, but that doesn’t mean Colombians are the same as Peruvians are the same as Brazilians. And if someone from outside South America makes a broad statement, such as “people in South America all speak Spanish”, it would be inaccurate.

I am speaking of the denominations that many here get miffed at when I call them Protestant because that’s what they (the members of those denominations where I live) personally told me they are. Denominations like the various Baptist churches, Methodists, Church Of Christ, Presbyterians, Assembly/Assemblies Of God, Pentecostals, etc.

Then speak of those communions.