1
1ke
Guest
No.
All Churches with valid apostolic succession and holy orders, for example the Orthodox Churches and others, have valid sacraments.
- Status
All Churches with valid apostolic succession and holy orders, for example the Orthodox Churches and others, have valid sacraments.
1
1ke
Guest
Apostolic succession is one of the four marks of the Church.
Catholic, Orthodox, and a few others would be Churches. Lacking apostolic succession, they would properly be referred to as ecclesial communions— such as Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc.
See this section of the Catechism:
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
And this document, especially #5:
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...ith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
1
1ke
Guest
Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by this, because God is omnipresent.
A
annad347
Guest
I know God is everywhere… you explained how that’s not what was necessary for the Eucharist to be valid, I understand that part… but…
This question about the Eucharist has been asked many times.
One point about The Eucharist being valid in a Catholic church and not other churches is that the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ. That God is present to make that happen (Sorry. Cant remember the proper terminology). Meaning that God isn’t present in other churches for the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Christ when the Eucharist is blessed. [that was not your point]
The other point (which is a new point for me) is the one you made stating valid confection is necessary for Christ’s sacramental present in the Eucharist… which is only valid in churches that have the four marks of the Church, which is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, correct?
so if a church has the four marks of the Church, why is the Eucharist not valid in those churches?
Lutheran’s believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, they recite the creed every week, why would they do that if they didn’t believe it… so if they believe it why wouldn’t their Eucharist be valid?
again I might not be using the right terminology…blessing, becoming, transubstantiation… I’m sorry about that but I hope you understand my question.
Only the various churches of the east have valid apostolic succession, thus valid 7 sacraments:
The Eastern Orthodox, The Oriental Orthodox and The Assyrian Church of the East.
Take a look at what the CCC says:
1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris , and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."238
1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240
Hey brother, I believe your mistaken, here take a look:
Last edited:
Lutherans may profess their belief that they are the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, and from their perspective I’m sure they believe that they are.
But from the RCC’s perspective, Martin Luther and his line of successors (Lutherans) separated themselves from the true faith (Catholicism), fell into schism/heresy and therefore lost true apostolic succession and, as such lost the the ability to confer a valid Eucharist.
All that being said, this is looking at things from the RCC’s perspective, conversely Lutherans may feel as though that RC’s don’t have valid Eucharist.
For the Catholic perspective on this matter, I suggest carefully reading the quote I provided from the CCC on my previous post.
Peace be with you
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Thank you. It states “after 1996 have begun to ordain woman as priests,” so I see why.NHeath:
Only the various churches of the east have valid apostolic succession, thus valid 7 sacraments:
The Eastern Orthodox, The Oriental Orthodox and The Assyrian Church of the East.
Take a look at what the CCC says:
1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris , and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."238
1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240
Hey brother, I believe your mistaken, here take a look:
…
1
1ke
Guest
I wouldn’t say that God isn’t present in other Churches. He is. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
However, because their clergy lack apostolic succession, and therefore holy orders, they can effect no change in the bread and wine. “The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.” (CCC1375, quoting St John Crysostom.)
Yes, see above.
Only true particular Churches have the four marks. See again the Catechism.
They may recite the creed and they may believe in it, but they do not have all four marks of the Church. What they “believe” isn’t really the point. It is whether or not they HAVE the four marks.
They lack valid apostolic succession, valid holy orders, and therefore valid sacraments-- except baptism and marriage.
Yes, which really puts the Old Catholics in a totally different situation.
However the Polish National Catholic Church finds itself in a situation quite similar to the various churches of the east, as it completely cut ties with the Old Catholics when they began ordaining women.
Really they’re quite the odd little blip on the radar.
Also, I believe that true Sedevacantists have been declared to have fallen into heresy, but I could be mistaken, perhaps it is only groups within Sedevacantistism, such as those associated with “Pope Michael” and Francis Schuckardt, if Sedevacantists have became heretical, they would cease to have true apostolic succession and therefore a valid Eucharist.
D
Dovekin
Guest
What the article says about Old Catholic Churches:
This article alone says they have apostolic succession and a true Eucharist. If you have a source that says they have women as bishops, then the situation may be less clear.
Yes this article states that the Old Catholics maintain some form of apostolic succession, but I believe that it is iffy saying they possess a true Eucharist.
Let me put it another way, would you say that a Eucharist is valid from a female OC priest?
After further study on the matter I believe that the article is mistaken, I believe the Old Catholics do not possess apostolic succession on the basis that they have fallen into heresy by ordaining women priests.
Take a look:
Here is a quote from the link:
“The idea that the Church has the authority to ordain women to the priesthood is material heresy. Any Catholic who knows that the Church infallibly teaches that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood, and who freely chooses to obstinately deny or obstinately doubt this infallible teaching, has committed the sin of formal heresy.
I maintain that the teaching of Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (n. 4) against the ordination of women priests is infallible under Papal Infallibility. It meets all of the criteria for Papal Infallibility as taught by Vatican I and reiterated by Vatican II.”
I think this is pretty solid evidence that by the act of ordaining women to the priesthood, the Old Catholic Bishops have committed an act of heresy and therefore have forfeited apostolic succession and in turn valid Eucharist.
Take a look:
Here is a quote from the link:
“The idea that the Church has the authority to ordain women to the priesthood is material heresy. Any Catholic who knows that the Church infallibly teaches that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood, and who freely chooses to obstinately deny or obstinately doubt this infallible teaching, has committed the sin of formal heresy.
I maintain that the teaching of Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (n. 4) against the ordination of women priests is infallible under Papal Infallibility. It meets all of the criteria for Papal Infallibility as taught by Vatican I and reiterated by Vatican II.”
I think this is pretty solid evidence that by the act of ordaining women to the priesthood, the Old Catholic Bishops have committed an act of heresy and therefore have forfeited apostolic succession and in turn valid Eucharist.
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
I would take the opposite approach, and say that those quotes come from someone with a defective understanding of heresy and infallibility. If you want use a very strict definition of heresy, it probably applies to the writer you quote before it would apply to Old Catholics.
- Even if we grant the first part, that supporting the ordination of women is material heresy, the second part is a non sequitur. Formal heresy has to do with obstinately persisting in a position when corrected by a superior. As Old Catholics only have themselves as their superiors, “formal heresy” is meaningless when applied to them. (their rejection of papal authority over them is a separate issue which should be settled first, but why proceed from there?)
- It is almost irrelevant what the writer thinks about OS being an act of papal infallibility. The CDF has said that it was not, but the teaching is infallible under the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. This is irrelevant to evaluating the infallibility of the teaching, but it is a sign of something amiss in your source.
- Finally, formal heresy does not lead to a forfeiture of Apostolic Succession or of the validity of the Eucharist. Read St Augustine’s writings against the Donatists to understand how ex opere operato works.
You make good points, and admittedly the source I quoted isn’t from a canon lawyer or the CCC and although I believe he makes a very strong argument, I digress, a very strong argument doesn’t mean that he is 100% correct.
Nonetheless it seems we aren’t in opposition on female ordination as a heresy, whether the act of that heresy nullifies apostolic succession seems up for debate.
Valid apostolic succession requires a validly ordained bishop, which admittedly Old Catholics can and do trace their lineage back to.
However, it also requires that all others in the line of succession since, were validly ordained priests (and subsequently bishops) by one who was themselves validly ordained.
Any break at any point in the line nullifies all that comes afterwards.
Also required for validity is the intention which conforms with the intention of the Church (and ultimately Christ), in other words the group needs to have the same understanding of the priesthood that the Church does.
The fact that the Old Catholics ordain women certainly brings into question whether they have the same understanding of the priesthood that the Church does, hence the question of validity, now if they were to accept women bishops we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, but the question remains, that by ordaining women as priests, have they lost true apostolic succession?
Seeing that there’s a grand total of roughly 100,000 Old Catholic’s in the world, there’s probably no great hurry on the part of Rome to make an official proclamation of whether the Old Catholics hold valid apostolic succession and thus a true Eucharist.
But I don’t think it is out of line to call into question, by their actions of ordaining women priests, the validity of their Eucharist.
Nonetheless it seems we aren’t in opposition on female ordination as a heresy, whether the act of that heresy nullifies apostolic succession seems up for debate.
Valid apostolic succession requires a validly ordained bishop, which admittedly Old Catholics can and do trace their lineage back to.
However, it also requires that all others in the line of succession since, were validly ordained priests (and subsequently bishops) by one who was themselves validly ordained.
Any break at any point in the line nullifies all that comes afterwards.
Also required for validity is the intention which conforms with the intention of the Church (and ultimately Christ), in other words the group needs to have the same understanding of the priesthood that the Church does.
The fact that the Old Catholics ordain women certainly brings into question whether they have the same understanding of the priesthood that the Church does, hence the question of validity, now if they were to accept women bishops we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, but the question remains, that by ordaining women as priests, have they lost true apostolic succession?
Seeing that there’s a grand total of roughly 100,000 Old Catholic’s in the world, there’s probably no great hurry on the part of Rome to make an official proclamation of whether the Old Catholics hold valid apostolic succession and thus a true Eucharist.
But I don’t think it is out of line to call into question, by their actions of ordaining women priests, the validity of their Eucharist.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hmm…
That doesn’t stand to reason, it seems. The fact that a non-Catholic bishop ordains a woman doesn’t imply that this bishop is now unable to minister in his own church because he’s a material heretic according to the Catholic Church… does it? And moreover, since he’s not in the Catholic Church, the punishments of heresy shouldn’t apply, so he’s not prohibited from validly ordaining other priests, or participating in the ordination of bishops.
So… I’m not seeing it. I’m with @Dovekin on this one.
Umm… no, it isn’t. Not for non-Catholics…
An “Old Catholic” bishop who is validly ordained a priest and validly ordained a bishop retains that status. Even if he invalidly ordains a woman as a priest. Now… if he ordains a woman as a bishop, she wouldn’t be able to ordain others as priests or be part of a valid ordination of a bishop. That’s a different question, though.
No it doesn’t mean that he is unable to minister “in his own church” because the RCC views him as a heretic, but it does call into question how the RCC views his status as a valid minister.Hmm…
That doesn’t stand to reason, it seems. The fact that a non-Catholic bishop ordains a woman doesn’t imply that this bishop is now unable to minister in his own church because he’s a material heretic according to the Catholic Church… does it?
The RCC’s opinion pertains to the OP’s question.
Yes, but the OP is asking for the Catholic perspective.
Not in the eyes of the RCC, as I’ve previously noted:
The intent has to be the same as the intention of the (RC) Church, otherwise there is a break.
I’m arguing that when the Old Catholic Bishop(s) started ordaining women to the priesthood, they then changed their understanding of the priesthood itself and caused a break.
A
annad347
Guest
I said that wasn’t your point…
but the answer to that question is no, other churches also believe the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ.
If believing in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church makes a church a church then what they do in that church is valid. The Catholic church might deny its validity but that doesn’t mean it isn’t valid, or that they don’t believe in the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration and only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining or that validity is wrong in the eyes of God… you know what I mean?
Last edited:
Yes, but the OP is asking what the RCC’s opinion on the matter is.
In other words the OP wants to know: What churches does the Roman Catholic Church recognize as having a valid Eucharist?
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
Well actually it does.
But i think we are now at the point where we agree to disagree.
- Status