G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
A Catholic priest converts to Anglicanism. Are his sacraments (mainly the confession and the Eucharist) valid but illicit when administered within the Anglican communion or are they simply invalid?
- Status
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
Invalidity is more serious than illiceity. Invalidity means that despite the external actions, the internal or juridic reality was not achieved. An action can be illicit, that is, against the law, but still be valid.
In celebrating the Eucharist within the Anglican communion according to its theology and formulary, he would be manifesting an implicit intention to not celebrate the Eucharist of the Catholic Church. Because of this deficient intention, the Eucharist would be considered invalid.
To validly confer absolution apart from danger of death, a priest requires a faculty from the law or by delegation from a competent Church authority. The priest would have lost his faculties when he left the Catholic priesthood.
P
Pious_Mat
Guest
Well explained, Deacon Cameron. The rite being performed properly is essential to consecration taking place. Even within the Church, if the priest makes serious deviations from the eucharistic liturgy, transubstantiation may not take place, so long as he manifesting an explicit intention not to so. (at least I have always been told so). I wouldn’t worry about this, though.
But also not that if an ex-priest celebrates any sacraments properly, it would be valid, but illicit except in case of emergency. Also note that a priest is always a priest, even in he is no longer active or licit.
But also not that if an ex-priest celebrates any sacraments properly, it would be valid, but illicit except in case of emergency. Also note that a priest is always a priest, even in he is no longer active or licit.
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
Thanks you!
My question was more directed at so called Anglo-Catholicism. As far as I know, they are like Catholics in their believes and practices however their orders are naturally invalid. If I’m correct in this and a Catholic priests converts to Anglo-Catholicism, won’t transubstantiation take place during his service?
If it would take place, that would be very worrying. These people would not have access to the sacraments of penance and by receiving the Holy Eucharist they would be drinking judgement on themselves.
Can you please comment on this?
In Christ,
~G
My question was more directed at so called Anglo-Catholicism. As far as I know, they are like Catholics in their believes and practices however their orders are naturally invalid. If I’m correct in this and a Catholic priests converts to Anglo-Catholicism, won’t transubstantiation take place during his service?
If it would take place, that would be very worrying. These people would not have access to the sacraments of penance and by receiving the Holy Eucharist they would be drinking judgement on themselves.
Can you please comment on this?
In Christ,
~G
K
Karl_M
Guest
As far as I know, the only Sacrament that would be both valid and licit would be to hear a confession (if possible) and issue an absolution to someone who was in immediate danger of death (say he drove up on a car accident or someone had a heart attack right in front of him, something like that) and there was not a Catholic priest present.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
The Eucharist would not be valid because the form would be wrong. The Anglican Mass, even by the Anglo-Catholic type groups, is not a valid Mass. The form of it and the prayers used are not the same as the Roman Missal.
Baptism would also be valid and licit but then it doesn’t require a priest to perform it in all cases.
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
C
Chatter163
Guest
This could be argued, the way the question was posed.
First off, some Anglo-Catholics use the Roman Missal and Order of Mass in their entirety. This is especially true in England. Even in this country, many parishes of the Episcopal Church use a rite that is nearly identical to the Roman Missal–especially the fourth eucharistic prayer, which also appears in the current Book of Common Prayer (though with the ICEL wording cleaned up a bit). The priest is pronouncing the same words of consecration and following an Order of Mass that matches in virtually every regard.
I am no proponent of Anglican Orders, but when a laicized RC priest is received into the Anglican Communion, continues to hold Catholic beliefs–which may not be required by Anglicanism, but are certainly permitted, and in many places even encouraged–uses Catholic forms and with Catholic intent, what other conclusion may be drawn? It would not be because of the Anglican forms that any possibility of validity would exist, but because a validly ordained priest would have proper intent and use the proper Catholic form. Maybe?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Nope. Even if they are using the exact texts, which I doubt, it still is not a Catholic Mass. The intention of the priest and the congregation are not to do as the Church does because they are not part of the Church. Their understanding of the Eucharist is not Catholic otherwise they would be Catholics.
First off, some Anglo-Catholics use the Roman Missal and Order of Mass in their entirety. This is especially true in England. Even in this country, many parishes of the Episcopal Church use a rite that is nearly identical to the Roman Missal–especially the fourth eucharistic prayer, which also appears in the current Book of Common Prayer (though with the ICEL wording cleaned up a bit). The priest is pronouncing the same words of consecration and following an Order of Mass that matches in virtually every regard.
I am no proponent of Anglican Orders, but when a laicized RC priest is received into the Anglican Communion, continues to hold Catholic beliefs–which may not be required by Anglicanism, but are certainly permitted, and in many places even encouraged–uses Catholic forms and with Catholic intent, what other conclusion may be drawn? It would not be because of the Anglican forms that any possibility of validity would exist, but because a validly ordained priest would have proper intent and use the proper Catholic form. Maybe?
C
Chatter163
Guest
There are several unfounded assumptions made here.
First, there is no reason to doubt that in some cases, exact texts are used. A small amount of internet research will bear out what I have said. The fact that a number of High Anglicans (“Anglo-Catholics”) in the Church of England use the Roman Missal is a well known and established fact. They used the Latin Missal before Vatican II and they use the Roman Missal now.
Second, I do not know why the congregation’s intention is mentioned. Their intention, whether they are Catholic or not, is completely immaterial. It is odd to see this mentioned.
Third, the statement that the priest’s intention is not to do as the Church does because he is not part of the Church makes no sense. Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic clergy are not part of the Catholic Church, yet their Masses are valid (though not licit) because the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of their orders. If a laicized priest were to celebrate the Eucharist, intending to do as the Church does, his celebration would be valid (though, again, illicit). This is the situation that would apply to a formerly RC priest turned Anglican priest. His orders would not be in doubt.
A
AveVerumCorpus
Guest
At my Anglo-Catholic parish, we use the 1962 Missale Romanum when celebrating the TLM. And when one of our priests, who was ordained by an Old Catholic bishop, celebrates that mass, it is my understanding that the sacrament is valid.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
I am assuming, Deacon or Bro correct me if I am wrong, that the Eucharist would be invalid because he explicitly rejects the intent, which cannot exist outside the ecclesial structure of the Church. However Baptisms, Marriages for non-Catholic couples, and confessions would be valid.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
I haven’t entered into this discussion because Deacon explained it. Confession would not be valid because valid Absolution requires jurisdiction which an inactive Catholic priest would not have, Catholic Marriages would not be valid unless the Catholic Bishop specifically gives his permission for this inactive Catholic priest to witness the Marriage for the Catholic Church. (which he can also give a layperson) Baptisms would be valid but illicit if they were not required by emergency conditions. The Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick, if the proper Form, Matter, and Intent seemed to be present, would be doubtful at best. That is until a proper and complete investigation was conducted by the Catholic Bishop in each instance.
N
NetNuncio
Guest
The so-called Anglican Eucharist would be invalid on two planes. First, as the deacon said, the intent to do what the Catholic Church requires is, most likely, not there.
The more physically obvious deficit is a lack of form. The proper form of ritual is not being used, thus rendering the sacrament invalid.
The more physically obvious deficit is a lack of form. The proper form of ritual is not being used, thus rendering the sacrament invalid.
A
AJV
Guest
I think that depends on what ‘type’ of Anglican? Some certainly do hold a belief as evidenced by such practices as Benediction, Elevation, genuflection, reservation…
For the Eucharist? I’m a bit puzzled here, since despite all other differences, the BCP has “This is my Body” and “This is My Blood”, which, if said by a priest with proper intention, would be sufficient, no?
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
The closest we can get to an answer is, Maybe or Possibly. It would be something the local Catholic Bishop would need to determine.I think that depends on what ‘type’ of Anglican? Some certainly do hold a belief as evidenced by such practices as Benediction, Elevation, genuflection, reservation…
For the Eucharist? I’m a bit puzzled here, since despite all other differences, the BCP has “This is my Body” and “This is My Blood”, which, if said by a priest with proper intention, would be sufficient, no?
A
AJV
Guest
I do see the point for the Eucharist with respect to intention. I don’t see it with respect to form (unless they are doing some wonky style of service like one I saw on Youtube where it was something like “Send… Spirit …Body… Blood…Take… eat… me” Though I don;t think that is very common)
P
puzzleannie
Guest
I should have said, if this priest heard the confession of a Catholic in an emergency, danger of death situation, it would be valid.
If he witnessed a marriage between two non-Catholics it would be valid assuming he has legal authority to do so and is recognized as a minister of the new faith, since marriages between non-Catholics are considered valid. I did not mean that in general sacraments he confers on Catholics would be valid
A
AHapka
Guest
We must consider the possibility that some of these people might not be in a state of mortal sin, and therefore eligible to receive Holy Communion. I’m not going to speculate on the number or odds, but perhaps some people are not members of the Catholic church out of ignorance, and don’t know that it’s the one true church?
For the rest of them, I don’t know that it would be a serious sin. Mortal sin requires knowledge, and I don’t think that they would know that they are receiving the true Body and Blood.
Just my opinion, though.
Andy
- Status