Can Someone Explain Protestant Churches who have the Holy Eucharist?

[1ke]

Ok so you are saying that Episcopial churches do not have apostolic succession because they essentially broke from Rome…even though it is derived from the Anglican Church, which is derived from the bishops in England who were in the Catholic Church prior to the break, right? So apostolic succession died when they broke even though there was still a laying on of hands?

In the case of the Anglican Communion it is much more complex than that. It has to do with major changes that occured after the break with Rome. Yes, initially they did have valid bishops and valid Holy Orders even after they broke from Rome. That changed.

Pope Leo XIII pronounced their orders invalid. See here:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

I guess I just don’t understand this whole thing. I am a cradle Catholic and never once heard that there were Protestants who provided the Eucharist (I know you are saying it’s not valid Holy Euharist)

Well, you live and learn new things every day. The word Eucharist has ancient roots. Holy Communion, Communion, Eucharist, Lord’s Supper. We and others call it by many names. I really don’t get why this is so puzzling to you.

but don’t see how they DON’T have apostolic succession when there was a clear laying on of hands?

Valid sacraments require both valid form and valid matter. The Anglicans changed ordination in significant ways rendering it void.

 

[1ke]

Good point, I have always been aware of this…but Episcopials seem to think it is the real presence.

Lutherans and Methodists too have varying degrees of belief in the Real Presence along with some in the Anglican Communion although none have Holy Orders.

 

[jinc1019]

In the case of the Anglican Communion it is much more complex than that. It has to do with major changes that occured after the break with Rome. Yes, initially they did have valid bishops and valid Holy Orders even after they broke from Rome. That changed.

Pope Leo XIII pronounced their orders invalid. See here:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

Well, you live and learn new things every day. The word Eucharist has ancient roots. Holy Communion, Communion, Eucharist, Lord’s Supper. We and others call it by many names. I really don’t get why this is so puzzling to you.

Valid sacraments require both valid form and valid matter. The Anglicans changed ordination in significant ways rendering it void.

Fair enough. It’s not that it is incredibly puzzling as much as it is surprising to me. Thanks for the helpful link.

 

[hn160]

No protestant church gives valid communion. You are not to accept protestant communion either.

Episcopalians have a “holy Eucharist” but it is not holy, nor a Eucharist.

The Only churches that Rome gives valid communion, confession, etc, is the Orthodox Churches. (Other than themselves )

It is all in the eye of the beholder. The Lutheran Church believes it’s Holy Eucharist is valid and that is all that counts, not what the Roman Catholics and the R.C.C. Thinks.

 

[Lochias]

It is all in the eye of the beholder. The Lutheran Church believes it’s Holy Eucharist is valid and that is all that counts, not what the Roman Catholics and the R.C.C. Thinks.

If I say that I am Grontar, Master of All Space and Time, and demand half of your paycheck every month as tribute to my awesomeness, what’s to stop me? If that’s all that counts, and I don’t recognize the legitimacy of established authority telling me I can’t do that, how is that view any different from yours?

 

[liturgyluver]

In the case of the Anglican Communion it is much more complex than that. It has to do with major changes that occured after the break with Rome. Yes, initially they did have valid bishops and valid Holy Orders even after they broke from Rome. That changed.

Pope Leo XIII pronounced their orders invalid. See here:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

Valid sacraments require both valid form and valid matter. The Anglicans changed ordination in significant ways rendering it void.

I wouldn’t agree that they changed it in significant ways. Between 1550 and 1662 no explict mention was made at the point of the laying on of hands of the particular grade of Ministry, though the rite itself was described as “The form for ordering of priests” After 1662 the words “for the office and work of a priest” were added during the laying on of hands.

What’s interesting is to compare the form used for consecrating Bishops where in the Catholic rite they simply say “Receive the Holy Ghost” during the laying on of hands, wheras the corresponding Anglican one (again between 1550 and 1662) was “take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by imposition of hands; for God hath not given us the spirt of fear but of power, and love and soberness” which are a quotation from St Paul’s charge to St Timothy.

Finally “Receive authority to offer sacrifies to God, and to celebrate mass as well for the quick as the dead” (which was added to the Roman Rite in the 11 th century) was changed to “Take thou authority to preach the word of God, and to minister the Holy sacraments” So I think the changes were minor but Pope Leo’s bull was about a Catholic interpretation of the intent during the period 1550 to 1662, and how this defective use broke the apostolic succession, even though the rite used today is not defective (as far as content).

 

[BrianH]

There are traditional or continuing Anglicans that have
valid Old Catholic lines in their apostolic succession though. To further complicate things…

 

[masuwerte]

There are traditional or continuing Anglicans that have
valid Old Catholic lines in their apostolic succession though. To further complicate things…

This isn’t limited to traditional or continuing Anglicans, but would include almost all of the clergy of the Episcopal Church.

 

[GKC]

This isn’t limited to traditional or continuing Anglicans, but would include almost all of the clergy of the Episcopal Church.

But, to further complicate things, one must (sadly) consider those Episcopal clergy who are not valid subjects to receive the sacrament of orders.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus

 

[gcnuss]

If I say that I am Grontar, Master of All Space and Time, and demand half of your paycheck every month as tribute to my awesomeness, what’s to stop me? If that’s all that counts, and I don’t recognize the legitimacy of established authority telling me I can’t do that, how is that view any different from yours?

Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum. As sinful human beings we demand nothing from Christ – we accept the wonderful gift of his body and blood and the grace that comes through receiving him. From the perspective of Lutheran theology, Holy Communion is a gift given by our Lord to those who follow him. We believe that the words “this is my body, given for you” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood, shed for you” apply to all who come to him in faith.

Finally, and I am probably repeating what you have heard before, we do not believe that the Catholic Church has authority over our relationship with Christ, particularly when it comes to whether or not he comes to us in Holy Communion.

God’s blessings to you as you continue on your journey in faith.

 

[GKC]

I wouldn’t agree that they changed it in significant ways. Between 1550 and 1662 no explict mention was made at the point of the laying on of hands of the particular grade of Ministry, though the rite itself was described as “The form for ordering of priests” After 1662 the words “for the office and work of a priest” were added during the laying on of hands.

What’s interesting is to compare the form used for consecrating Bishops where in the Catholic rite they simply say “Receive the Holy Ghost” during the laying on of hands, wheras the corresponding Anglican one (again between 1550 and 1662) was “take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by imposition of hands; for God hath not given us the spirt of fear but of power, and love and soberness” which are a quotation from St Paul’s charge to St Timothy.

Finally “Receive authority to offer sacrifies to God, and to celebrate mass as well for the quick as the dead” (which was added to the Roman Rite in the 11 th century) was changed to “Take thou authority to preach the word of God, and to minister the Holy sacraments” So I think the changes were minor but Pope Leo’s bull was about a Catholic interpretation of the intent during the period 1550 to 1662, and how this defective use broke the apostolic succession, even though the rite used today is not defective (as far as content).

The form in the original Edwardine Ordinal, which was considered invalid for valid transmission of orders, did not mention the authority of the ordinand to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice. But that alone was not sufficient to judge Anglican orders invalid, since there are a number of Rites which the RCC recognizes as valid, which to not mention that, either. The problem lay in intertwining the form, written in that fashion, by whom it was, when it was, with the sacramental intent of the celebrant. To have excised the reference to sacrificing, in the Ordinal, was taken as a positive rejection of the concept of the sacrifice. And the intent of anyone who used such a form was judged to be invalid, not * facere quod facit ecclesia*. Hence a form that was not itself unknown, and judged valid, was here judged invalid, by the context in which it was constructed. And the sacramental intent of those who used it was judged invalid, determinatio ex adiunctus. These two together were taken to justify the judgment. As is known, for reasons unrelated to this discussion, the form was changed in the 1662 Book and is unexceptional, now.

Thus the theological parts of the Apostolicae Curae story, which also includes history, politics and personalities. A long and sad tale.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

No protestant church gives valid communion. You are not to accept protestant communion either.

Episcopalians have a “holy Eucharist” but it is not holy, nor a Eucharist.

The Only churches that Rome gives valid communion, confession, etc, is the Orthodox Churches. (Other than themselves )

JD,
Just because the Catholic Church delcares Anglican Orders invalid does not make them invalid. God answers the Eucharistic Prayers offered through the Liturgy (which is almost identicle to that of the CC) by our Priests.

Of course, being Catholic, you must disagree with me; and I would be disappointed if you didn’t.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

liturgyluver,
Catholics are not allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist in Anglican Churches, but Anglicans would not deny them this right. You’d be surprised how many Catholics in Communion with Rome partake of the Eucharist in Anglican Churches.

Peace,
Anna

 

[JonNC]

There are traditional or continuing Anglicans that have
valid Old Catholic lines in their apostolic succession though. To further complicate things…

And to further complicate, the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church,** need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper **

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=KathleenGee;8997733]Protestant churches, based on Martin Luther’s denial of apostolic succession, do not believe as well.

Hi Kathleeen,
I am not aware that Luther denied AS, but even if he did, it is irrelevent to Lutherans, and quite moreso to those who are not Lutheran. As for Lutherans, here is what the confessions say about AS:

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that** it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. **

Jon

 

[1ke]

JD,
Just because the Catholic Church delcares Anglican Orders invalid does not make them invalid.

Well, actually it does.

But, of course, you reject that reality.

 

[JonNC]

Protestants don’t have Holy Communion. They have wafers or whatever they want to call it.

This is as condescending and harsh as some non-Catholics that view the Catholic Eucharist as “cracker worship”. Compare what you have said here to what Cardinal Ratzinger said in the quote I posted previously.

One need not agree with the Lutheran view that our sacraments and ordinations are valid to recognize that we take seriously the Lord’s call that we each and drink His true body and blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Jon

 

[Anna_Scott]

This is as condescending and harsh as some non-Catholics that view the Catholic Eucharist as “cracker worship”. Compare what you have said here to what Cardinal Ratzinger said in the quote I posted previously.

One need not agree with the Lutheran view that our sacraments and ordinations are valid to recognize that we take seriously the Lord’s call that we each and drink His true body and blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Jon

Well said.

A bit of respect would be appreciated.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well, actually it does.

But, of course, you reject that reality.

As a Catholic, you pretty much have to say that.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Lochias]

Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum. As sinful human beings we demand nothing from Christ – we accept the wonderful gift of his body and blood and the grace that comes through receiving him. From the perspective of Lutheran theology, Holy Communion is a gift given by our Lord to those who follow him. We believe that the words “this is my body, given for you” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood, shed for you” apply to all who come to him in faith.

Finally, and I am probably repeating what you have heard before, we do not believe that the Catholic Church has authority over our relationship with Christ, particularly when it comes to whether or not he comes to us in Holy Communion.

God’s blessings to you as you continue on your journey in faith.

But you are demanding something from Christ…the authority to change the rules He set down. You said that what your church believes is all that matters; I could almost hear a light-hearted “nyah nyah!” after that sentence. How is that any different from what I believe being all that matters? Your church was started by a sinful human being…who or what gave him the authority to demand changes to Christ’s rules?

Grontar demands a flat-screen TV to go with half of your paycheck!

And, thank you, I will take all the blessings I can get. I will pray for you as well.