Former Catholic Priests and Consecration

[malphono]

The Orthodox theology on the Sacraments is different from the Catholic. They do not have a legalistic concept of validity as the Catholic Church has. The Catholic pronouncement on validity of their Sacraments has no bearing or effect on what they think about their Sacrament.

There’s no question that Sacramental theology differs, but the requirements are pretty much the same. Let’s look at it this way:

Ask an Orthodox bishop or priest what happens:

if some priest who wants to be “relevant” (and oh, how I still hate that word) decides to use brioche (or sweet Easter bread), rather than the prosphora the Church prescribes. or
if some priest decides to invent his own Anaphora, rather than one of the Anaphora prescribed by the Church, or
if some priest’s intent is for the service to be a touchy-feely “remembrance meal” rather than making the Real Presence manifest on the altar.

The short answer is that, in any one of the hypothetical examples, nothing would happen. The requirements of Orthodoxy would not have been met. There would have been no sacrifice, and there would have been no Eucharist.

 

[malphono]

Okay, so I understand now that in order for their consecration to be valid; three parts; form, intent and matter. However, would we be allowed to receive their Eucharist since it is the REAL Body and Blood of Jesus?

Only in extremis, i.e., in an emergency situation like, as OraLabora mentioned earlier, a war or sinking ship, etc. Certainly not just because it’s a “feel good” moment or “my friends are doing it” or “I know the priest” etc etc.

 

[johnnykins]

Again, how can you have the same intent as the Church if you are no longer with it?

Easily - if the Church intends on goodness certainly non-Church members can have that same intent. You confuse intention with membership which is silly.

I know many many non-Christians who intend many of the same things as the Church…you mean you don’t know any? How weird and limited…

If the intent of a valid priest is to confect a valid sacrament with valid elements…his membership is not what counts…

 

[ConstantineTG]

There’s no question that Sacramental theology differs, but the requirements are pretty much the same. Let’s look at it this way:

Ask an Orthodox bishop or priest what happens:

if some priest who wants to be “relevant” (and oh, how I still hate that word) decides to use brioche (or sweet Easter bread), rather than the prosphora the Church prescribes. or
if some priest decides to invent his own Anaphora, rather than one of the Anaphora prescribed by the Church, or
if some priest’s intent is for the service to be a touchy-feely “remembrance meal” rather than making the Real Presence manifest on the altar.

The short answer is that, in any one of the hypothetical examples, nothing would happen. The requirements of Orthodoxy would not have been met. There would have been no sacrifice, and there would have been no Eucharist.

But the Orthodox wouldn’t recognize any Sacrament outside of Orthodoxy. So even if a bishop would leave the Orthodox Church he cannot just go around ordaining priests and bishops like what happened with some heretical bishops that left the Catholic Church (such as the Old Catholics). It may be viewed legalistic as well, but the simple explanation is if a bishop or priest leaves the Orthodox Church, then his orthodoxy is suspect and thus their ability to confect a Sacrament is suspicious at best. Sacraments come from God through the Church, so anyone outside the Church shouldn’t have access to it.

Which is why I am wondering why the Catholic Church would accept Sacraments (besides Baptism) performed by those who are not Catholics anymore.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Church does allow, I think, for a laicized priest to celebrate the Eucharist in an emergency (say a war situation, a sinking ship, in a hostage crisis or something like that). So if he does in that situation then he is having the same intent as the Church I would think. Such a priest though can be in good standing with the Church (i.e. still be a practicing Catholic).

Why would a priest celebrate Mass on a sinking ship?

The only provision is for confession. I have not found anything that says laicized priests can perform Mass and Consecrate bread and wine in times of emergency.

 

[malphono]

But the Orthodox wouldn’t recognize any Sacrament outside of Orthodoxy. So even if a bishop would leave the Orthodox Church he cannot just go around ordaining priests and bishops like what happened with some heretical bishops that left the Catholic Church (such as the Old Catholics). It may be viewed legalistic as well, but the simple explanation is if a bishop or priest leaves the Orthodox Church, then his orthodoxy is suspect and thus their ability to confect a Sacrament is suspicious at best. Sacraments come from God through the Church, so anyone outside the Church shouldn’t have access to it.

Which is why I am wondering why the Catholic Church would accept Sacraments (besides Baptism) performed by those who are not Catholics anymore.

Yes, I know, but the point was a general one, not specific to a bishop or priest who has left the Church. It really applies equally to those in the Church.

Let’s add another hypothetical situation:

Let’s say an Orthodox priest “leaves” the Church and wanders around as a vagante (and this can happen). Now, let’s say after a period of time he sees his error and ultimately approaches an Orthodox bishop and seeks to be reconciled. Let’s further say that his petition is accepted. Would he be ordained again?