Definitely NOT the Body and Blood?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Racer X:

Does the Church teach that the Real Presence is found only in those liturgies with a valid priesthood and nowhere else with certainty?

Or, is it just that Catholic/Orthodox churches are the only places where we have something like a guarantee and those celebrations outside we cannot say with faith that it truly is the Body and Blood?

That is, does the Church teach that it is definitely not the Body and Blood outside of the visible Church, or do we just say that we cannot say one or way the other? That we just know with certainty that ours is the true Sacrament but cannot say anything certain about the outsiders?

I would have hard time with the stronger form of the claim. I can say with certainty that I receive our Lord’s Flesh in the Eucharist because of the unbroken Tradition and Apostolic succession. But I do not see with what basis I can make any assertion about what God may do outside of that succession and Tradition.

Seems to me that if God wants to honor another believing community with His Precious Body and Blood, that is His business. It is just not part of our revelation that He is in fact doing so.

It is part of our Revelation that the Lord graces us with His Presence in our Sacrament. Is it also Revelation that He does so nowhere else?

The Assyrians, Armenians, & Copts - none of whom are “Orthodox” or “Catholic” in the popular sense in which those words are used - all (AFAIK) have “valid orders” (to use Roman terminology).​

So do Catholic priests in those bodies which theoretically do not valid orders. If:

• there any High Anglicans who were formerly priests in the CC, and
• if such priests use a liturgical text (such as a translation of the Roman Missal) , and
• if they intend to do what the Church does, or at least do not positively exclude by a contrary intention the doing of what the Church intends to do:

then they are presumably offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

The SSPX & the Polish National Catholic Church, and probably a number of other groups, also have orders which would be valid from Rome’s POV. It has been possible since 1993 (or 1995 ?) for members of the PNCC to receive the Eucharist from RC clergy - whether there is a reciprocal arrangement, I don’t know. ##

 

[Kay_Cee]

ByzCath:

The Catechism must be taken as a whole.

See paragraph 1128 (bold emphasis added).

1128 This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.” **From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the **Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

The priest still must intend to do what the Church does.

This is one reason why I doubt the validity of the sacraments from some of these priests who have separated themselves from the Church by their own choice.

Wait a minute!

Are you telling me I might not actually be baptized?
I might not actually be confirmed?
I may have gone up to receive Communion and gotten only bread?
I may have confessed sins but they are not forgiven?

Everything depends on the intent of the priest?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Kay Cee:

Wait a minute!

Are you telling me I might not actually be baptized?
I might not actually be confirmed?
I may have gone up to receive Communion and gotten only bread?
I may have confessed sins but they are not forgiven?

Everything depends on the intent of the priest?

Any vaild priest acting in the Catholic Church does as the Church intends.

My question goes for those who have separated themselves from the Church, do they truly do as the Church intends.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

## The Assyrians, Armenians, & Copts - none of whom are “Orthodox” or “Catholic” in the popular sense in which those words are used - all (AFAIK) have “valid orders” (to use Roman terminology).

These groups you list are know as the Oriental Orthodox, the other group that you list as “Orthodox” is also known as the Eastern Orthodox.

So do Catholic priests in those bodies which theoretically do not valid orders. If:

• there any High Anglicans who were formerly priests in the CC, and
• if such priests use a liturgical text (such as a translation of the Roman Missal) , and
• if they intend to do what the Church does, or at least do not positively exclude by a contrary intention the doing of what the Church intends to do:

then they are presumably offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

I would say no, as tehy do not use the correct Eucharistic Sacrifice and those Churches do not have the same view as the Catholic/Orthodox Churches as far as what the Eucharist is. They do not believe the same as we do.

The SSPX & the Polish National Catholic Church, and probably a number of other groups, also have orders which would be valid from Rome’s POV. It has been possible since 1993 (or 1995 ?) for members of the PNCC to receive the Eucharist from RC clergy - whether there is a reciprocal arrangement, I don’t know. ##

Yes becuase their bishops have a valid succession.

I am unsure about the Anglican Church but the more they move away the more chance that they will lose it if they have not already.

 

[Kay_Cee]

ByzCath:

Any vaild priest acting in the Catholic Church does as the Church intends.

My question goes for those who have separated themselves from the Church, do they truly do as the Church intends.

Then consider this hypothetical situation:

Suppose there is a priest, validly ordained, who later convinces himself that the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of our Lord. He convinces himself that it is just a symbol. However, he is still performing Mass, still saying the words of consecration. His *intent *is that consecration turns the elements into a symbol. No one in the congregation is aware of his change of heart.

Does transubstantiation take place? Under your definition, the answer seems to be no.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Kay Cee:

Then consider this hypothetical situation:

Suppose there is a priest, validly ordained, who later convinces himself that the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of our Lord. He convinces himself that it is just a symbol. However, he is still performing Mass, still saying the words of consecration. His *intent *is that consecration turns the elements into a symbol. No one in the congregation is aware of his change of heart.

Does transubstantiation take place? Under your definition, the answer seems to be no.

Its not my definition, it comes from the Catechism.

I would say that if the priest is still a Catholic Priest then the intent is still there to do as the Church does.

If he starts to teach contrary to the Church, then the Church will act to remove him.

 

[Kay_Cee]

ByzCath:

Its not my definition, it comes from the Catechism.

Okay, let’s say it’s by your interpretation of the Catechism.

I would say that if the priest is still a Catholic Priest then the intent is still there to do as the Church does.

If he starts to teach contrary to the Church, then the Church will act to remove him.

Now you’ve qualified it to mean what he is publicly teaching. However, before you said it was contingent upon his intent. I think my problem arises with the fact that people can have private intentions that are not publicly expressed.

You claim that if the priest is still a Catholic priest, the intent must (automatically?) be the intent of the church. This is what I’m not getting. Say our heretic priest performs a thousand Masses while he is, privately, a heretic. Then he formally denounces the Church and leaves. His intent about the Church has changed, but not his heretical intent about the Eucharist, which is what is under discussion here.

Now, if you’re saying that, even if our priest is privately a heretic, transubstantiation does occur, I agree. Otherwise, Catholics could never be sure if they’re baptized, forgiven, receive the Eucharist. However, under your original interpretation of the Catechism, it would seem not to be the case.

 

[palmas85]

ByzCath:

Its not my definition, it comes from the Catechism.

I would say that if the priest is still a Catholic Priest then the intent is still there to do as the Church does.

If he starts to teach contrary to the Church, then the Church will act to remove him.

It would seem to me that if the Priest no longer believed in the theology of the Church then the Intent is not there in his case and the consecration would not take place.

I remember from years ago one of the reasons set forth for saying the consecratory prayers aloud was to ensure that the Priest validy consecrated the host. The argument was that an invalid consecration would invalidate the entire Mass. I am not sure if that particular debate was ever settled. While it is certainly true that a Priest once receiving Holy Orders is stamped so to speak with a special mark, he can STILL act contrary to Church teaching and through his disbelief cause all types of damage in sacramental areas
I

 

[oat_soda]

i remember asking the question if a priest could go down the bread isle in wal-mart or whatever and concecrate all of the bread. i was told that he couldn’t because he wasn’t doing it in accordance with the intention of the church.

but sspx, polish national church, some old catholics, …etc., do have valid sacraments yet they are separated from the church. so maybe then it takes both valid orders and valid circumstances for transubstantiation to take place. valid circumstances are simply doing what Jesus intended the church to do regaurdless if they are in full visible communion with the catholic church.

there is no transubstantiation if a priest who has valid orders does not practice what the church intends. for instance, by either a)altering enough of the words of concecration to change their meaning or b) not carry out the mass with the intent of the catholic church. for instance, a catholic priest in the episcopalian church (which rejects the fullness of the true presence), would not confer the sacrament.

is this right?