Is Christ present in the Eucharist in other Christian denominations?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Ok, here it is broken down plain and simple:

According to Catholic belief, you have to have three things in order to have a valid consecration of the Eucharist:

1. Apostolic Succession. The bread and wine can ONLY be turned into the Body and Blood of Christ by a priest or bishop that has valid apostolic succession. This rules out virtually all Protestant churches by default.
2. Valid form and matter. The bread and wine must ACTUALLY be bread and wine. You cannot substitute grape juice, or a cracker, or something like that. The bread MUST contain at least a little wheat. It does not, however, have to be unleavened. The actual words of consecration that Christ used MUST also be used (with the ONE exception of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari used in the Assyrian Church of the East, which has no distinct consecration but garners an exception because the theology is still valid and it dates to the earliest days of Christianity).
3. Valid intent. The priest or bishop must be INTENDING to confect the Eucharist. If he is giving a demonstration of a Mass for a workshop or a class, for example, he is not intending the sacrament to be celebrated. This might also rule out a priest that later left the church for another denomination, but no longer believes in the Real Presence.

According to current Catholic teaching, besides Catholicism, the following denominations have a TRUE Eucharist where transubstantiation takes place:

1. The Orthodox Churches. This includes both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.
2. The Assyrian Church of the East
3. The Polish National Catholic Church

Male priests of the Old Catholic Church maintain valid apostolic succession and are able to confect the Eucharist. Female priests in the Old Catholic Church cannot, at least according to the Catholic view. The SSPX also preserves a true Eucharist, although they are simply in an irregular status with the church, and have not officially broken away.

Notably, the Anglican, Episcopalian, and Lutheran denominations do NOT have a valid Eucharist because they do NOT retain Apostolic Succession.

I think the SSPV may also have a valid Eucharist, but I am not certain on this point.

Great post!

I believe the Ancient Church of the East, which split off from the Assyrian Church of the East in the twentieth century over some calendar issue, also has valid Sacraments.

Also, some Anglicans most likely have a valid Eucharist, as for less than a century now they’ve often had Old Catholic bishops, PNCC bishops, or Orthodox bishops co-consecrate their bishops (and the ordination rite is almost certainly valid today).

So apostolic succession probably partially exists in the more traditional, “anglo-Catholic” circles of the Anglican Communion.

This is one of the reasons I left the Catholic Church. I’ve never seen a logical, rational argument that made a case that the real presence could not take place outside the Catholic Church or that God would have a reason for not allowing such to take place. Simply my own opinion, I don’t seek is change anyone’s mind.

Friend, you didn’t do your research. The Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of the Sacraments in all of the following non-Catholic groups:

Eastern Orthodox
Oriental Orthodox
Assyrian Church of the East
Ancient Church of the East
Polish National Catholic Church
Old Catholic Church

plus other schismatic groups like the SSPX

That’s debatable, particularly with regards to the Oriental Orthodox (Monophysites)

They are Miaphysites, not Monophysites, and their Christology is perfectly orthodox.

and the Syrian Orthodox (Nestorians).

Nope, they’re Miaphysites too (Oriental Orthodox).

So sometimes they are referred to as heretics (primarily for denying the dual-procession of the Holy Ghost,

The filioque controversy has essentially been resolved, at least from the Catholic POV. There was a recent thread on this; I recommend you find it and thoroughly read Marduk’s responses. The eastern Orthodox are not heretics.

I’ll find that thread for you if you want.

though they also deny several other dogmas defined after the schism) but are mostly referred to as schismatics and have been treated as such historically.

They claim they deny certain dogmas - purgatory, the Immaculate Conception - but to be frank, I don’t believe that they deny what is universally binding about these teachings. They pray for the dead, for instance, and they do regard our Blessed Mother as totally sinless and pure - the “All-Holy Theotokos.”

Anyway, I just have to point out that the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox are not heretics.

 

[Poor_Soul]

What does the Catholic Church teach about the Eucharist in other Christian denominations who believe that he is really and truly present in the Eucharist? For example, is Jesus really present in the Orthodox, Anglican, or Lutheran Eucharist?

It seems unfair that He wouldn’t be just because they disagree on small things like the duration of his presence.

The Orthodox have valid sacraments and that’s because they have valid holy orders. The Protestant denominations do not have this since they changed the ordination rite which is not a small thing since it cut them off from Apostolic succession.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I want to address this, too:

It seems unfair that He wouldn’t be just because they disagree on small things like the duration of his presence.

I agree, but that’s not why Lutherans do not have a valid Eucharist. It’s because Lutheran denominations don’t have valid priests to offer the Mass.

I don’t think this issue is as divisive as it might seem. Really, every group that actually believes in the Real Presence except two - Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans - does have a valid Eucharist. And as I pointed out above, it’s not unlikely that some Anglicans do too.

So very few Christians who believe in the Real Presence lack it in their liturgical celebrations. Not surprising, since the whole Sacramental economy kind of stands or falls together: you’re not likely to find a community that doesn’t either accept or reject *all *of it: apostolic succession, Holy Orders, the Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Jesus Christ IS NOT substantially present in the Communion services of any Protestant churches.

What part of NO ordained priesthood do people NOT understand?

 

[Aramis]

Really, the Old Catholics? WOW I didn’t know that. Do they accept openly gay priests? I imagine they don’t have women priests. Of course a woman priest would not give valid sacraments.

SOME Old Catholics, not all, are valid.

Female OC priests (there are some) are invalid, as are female OC bishops and everyone ordained by them.

Their female deacons are questionable at best; probably invalid.

A number of OC jurisdictions have fallen to various other heresies. Several dabble in Gnosticism. Several hold to consubstatiation instead of transubstantiation. At least one dabbles in universalism. Many hold to conciliarism.

One group that’s scattered way far is the Polish Mariavites. Female bishops, priests, deacons.

 

[jnewaz]

In order for the Bread and Wine of Communion to become (and become is truly the key word here) the Body and Blood of Christ, the celebrant must have received Holy Orders from a Bishop, who himself recieved the same sacrament from the Bishop before him, so on and so on up until the original Apostles themselves.

By this criteria, there do exist a number of denominations that have valid sacraments, the Orthodox being one of them. Though these sacraments are “valid”, they are “illicit” unless the Church and celebrant are in communion with the Pope, who is the point of unity for all the Church.

Simply adhering to the belief of the Real Presence does not give a minister the “ability” to consecrate the Bread and Wine. We look at this “ability” as a real and distinct power, a gift granted by the Holy Spirit and passed on through the imposition of hands for over two thousand years.

You mentioned that it isn’t “fair” for us to reject the communion of non-Catholic Churches. I would argue that if we accepted their communion as the Real Body and Blood of Christ, we would be undermining our own Church. A church which has preserved its Apostolic succession at the cost of many sacrifices and lives.

The gift of the Eucharist is a precious thing, a treasure that has been given to the Church and her servants, a treasure we must guard at all costs.

Be proud that the Roman Catholic Church, and the Churches in communion with Her, have preserved this treasure for generations beyond count. Focus your energy on finding out how to direct those who do not have this treasure, back to Rome, back to the Church, back to the Table of the Lord. It is not your job to bring the Lord’s Table to others, but to bring others to the Lord’s Table.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Of course a woman priest would not give valid sacraments.

They can still validly baptize

 

[jnewaz]

They can still validly baptize

No. All Catholics can validly baptize. Women priests cannot validly baptize. Because there is no such thing as a woman priest. Now should the person baptizing be a woman, claiming to be a priest, then I would not only doubt her validity as a priest, but I would doubt the validity of the Baptism. After all, if she has disagreed with the Church on such a fundamental issue, how can we be certain that she understands the theology behind baptism?

Of course, I realize you’re kind of making a joke. But I still think its important to give away no ground on the issue. Our Popes haven’t, and we should follow that example.

P.S (EDIT) Allow me to clarify that I understand even non-catholics can validly baptize. I would however, urge everyone to be baptized in a Catholic setting, since I’m a Roman Catholic. And in that regard, I would find a baptism by a woman priest questionable. Since anyone professing to be a “Roman Catholic Woman Priest” is basically Catholic solely and only by self profession.

 

[Aramis]

No. All Catholics can validly baptize. Women priests cannot validly baptize. Because there is no such thing as a woman priest. Now should the person baptizing be a woman, claiming to be a priest, then I would not only doubt her validity as a priest, but I would doubt the validity of the Baptism. After all, if she has disagreed with the Church on such a fundamental issue, how can we be certain that she understands the theology behind baptism?

Of course, I realize you’re kind of making a joke. But I still think its important to give away no ground on the issue. Our Popes haven’t, and we should follow that example.

P.S (EDIT) Allow me to clarify that I understand even non-catholics can validly baptize. I would however, urge everyone to be baptized in a Catholic setting, since I’m a Roman Catholic. And in that regard, I would find a baptism by a woman priest questionable. Since anyone professing to be a “Roman Catholic Woman Priest” is basically Catholic solely and only by self profession.

Actually, there is NO requirement for Validity that the person performing a baptism even be baptized. An agnostic or pagan can validly baptise, IF

1. They perform the ceremony correctly with the immersions or pours and the threefold invocation of the “I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (or Holy Ghost).
2. They intend to baptize the person into the Christian Faith
3. the person being baptized intends to be baptized into the christian faith
4. Neither the person being baptized nor the person performing the baptism is a manifest heretic about the nature of the Trinity.*
5. The baptism is done with water

It’s the only sacrament that doesn’t need a valid minister.

• Heresy against the Trinity precludes proper intent to baptize into the Trinitarian Faith.

A non-practicing mormon or Gnostic could, in theory, intend to baptize someone into a proper Trinitarian Christian faith, but they’d have to document it as such for it to not be questionable. Such as a person who is gravely injured asking a stranger to baptize them, and then being rescued. (Yes, such things HAVE happened.)

 

[jnewaz]

Actually, there is NO requirement for Validity that the person performing a baptism even be baptized. An agnostic or pagan can validly baptise, IF

1. They perform the ceremony correctly with the immersions or pours and the threefold invocation of the “I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (or Holy Ghost).
2. They intend to baptize the person into the Christian Faith
3. the person being baptized intends to be baptized into the christian faith
4. Neither the person being baptized nor the person performing the baptism is a manifest heretic about the nature of the Trinity.*
5. The baptism is done with water

It’s the only sacrament that doesn’t need a valid minister.

• Heresy against the Trinity precludes proper intent to baptize into the Trinitarian Faith.

A non-practicing mormon or Gnostic could, in theory, intend to baptize someone into a proper Trinitarian Christian faith, but they’d have to document it as such for it to not be questionable. Such as a person who is gravely injured asking a stranger to baptize them, and then being rescued. (Yes, such things HAVE happened.)

Manifest heretic would exclude some but your right I stand corrected.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No. All Catholics can validly baptize. Women priests cannot validly baptize. Because there is no such thing as a woman priest. Now should the person baptizing be a woman, claiming to be a priest, then I would not only doubt her validity as a priest, but I would doubt the validity of the Baptism. After all, if she has disagreed with the Church on such a fundamental issue, how can we be certain that she understands the theology behind baptism?

Of course, I realize you’re kind of making a joke. But I still think its important to give away no ground on the issue. Our Popes haven’t, and we should follow that example.

P.S (EDIT) Allow me to clarify that I understand even non-catholics can validly baptize. I would however, urge everyone to be baptized in a Catholic setting, since I’m a Roman Catholic. And in that regard, I would find a baptism by a woman priest questionable. Since anyone professing to be a “Roman Catholic Woman Priest” is basically Catholic solely and only by self profession.

I’m not making a joke. The Church does indeed teach that anyone, even heretics, schismatics and atheists, can validly baptize. If we accept Protestant baptisms done by probably women ministers as valid, why not these so-called “priests”? Their false claim to the priesthood has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the baptism.

 

[jnewaz]

I’m not making a joke. The Church does indeed teach that anyone, even heretics, schismatics and atheists, can validly baptize. If we accept Protestant baptisms done by probably women ministers as valid, why not these so-called “priests”? Their false claim to the priesthood has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the baptism.

In a post above you I said I stand corrected.

I’ve changed my mind, and accept that my church teaches that even the least catholic among us can baptize. However, there was a stipulation against manifest heretics.

Some womenpriests believe god is a feminine deity. In my mind that is a heresy against the Trinity that would void a trinitarian baptism (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Some religions, mormons, jehovah witnesses, etc. are manifest heretics against the Trinity. In the first case, believing in three seperate gods, in the second case, believing in only one and denying the divinity of the other two persons.

That’s manifest heresy.

Im ready to be corrected again. But all Im saying is, I would not be so quick to welcome everyone and their mother to baptize a new Catholic. Especially since the Roman Catholic Church, as the largest church on earth, has valid licit ministers willing (in fact, more than willing) to baptize the new faithful all over the world.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In a post above you I said I stand corrected.

I’ve changed my mind, and accept that my church teaches that even the least catholic among us can baptize. However, there was a stipulation against manifest heretics.

Some womenpriests believe god is a feminine deity. In my mind that is a heresy against the Trinity that would void a trinitarian baptism (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Some religions, mormons, jehovah witnesses, etc. are manifest heretics against the Trinity. In the first case, believing in three seperate gods, in the second case, believing in only one and denying the divinity of the other two persons.

That’s manifest heresy.

Im ready to be corrected again. But all Im saying is, I would not be so quick to welcome everyone and their mother to baptize a new Catholic. Especially since the Roman Catholic Church, as the largest church on earth, has valid licit ministers willing (in fact, more than willing) to baptize the new faithful all over the world.

I said they can validly baptize. Whether they actually do is another question. I don’t think I have to go through all the scenarios of whether if they do this or that or other preconditions and whathaveyou. The post I replied to stated that they cannot confer valid sacraments, I replied that they can baptize validly. I think that is all there is to that.

 

[RobbyS]

I’ve heard Catholics say the same… That our Eucharist is just symbolic. Or that He is just Spiritually present. That these Catholics are so poorly instructed does not change the fact that Jesus is the Eucharist and the Eucharist is Jesus.

As for the Lutherans, they are “taught” that their Eucharist is the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of our Lord. Since the truth of that has no impact on me, I’ll wait till I meet Jesus and ask Him about it… Then I’ll know.

God bless

Are they so taught? It depends. Since the middle of the 16th Century many Lutherans have been close to Calvin’s view. Which, IMHO, bears closer looking at. For Calvin seems not to have looked at the Real Presence as “symbolic” --that is in the mind of the believer–but real in the sense of Christ’s power acting “from heaven.” On the other hand.many Lutherans accept something more like Zwingli’s
symbolic presence.

 

[Aramis]

In a post above you I said I stand corrected.

I’ve changed my mind, and accept that my church teaches that even the least catholic among us can baptize. However, there was a stipulation against manifest heretics.

Some womenpriests believe god is a feminine deity. In my mind that is a heresy against the Trinity that would void a trinitarian baptism (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Some religions, mormons, jehovah witnesses, etc. are manifest heretics against the Trinity. In the first case, believing in three seperate gods, in the second case, believing in only one and denying the divinity of the other two persons.

That’s manifest heresy.

Im ready to be corrected again. But all Im saying is, I would not be so quick to welcome everyone and their mother to baptize a new Catholic. Especially since the Roman Catholic Church, as the largest church on earth, has valid licit ministers willing (in fact, more than willing) to baptize the new faithful all over the world.

Normal Mormon and JW baptisms are invalid. Defect of intent, and of understanding of the Trinity.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’ve changed my mind, and accept that my church teaches that even the least catholic among us can baptize.

And not just Catholics, either - even total non-Christians can baptize validly (again, as long as they intend to convey a baptism, use water, and invoke each member of the Holy Trinity).

However, there was a stipulation against manifest heretics.

Manifest heretics on the Trinity. And baptism by them wouldn’t be invalid because of the person trying to baptize, but because baptism must be Trinitarian and a manifest heretic on the matter will probably screw that up.

Some womenpriests believe god is a feminine deity. In my mind that is a heresy against the Trinity that would void a trinitarian baptism (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Properly speaking, God is Spirit and thus is not actually male or female. I don’t think any “woman priest” thinks that God literally has a female body.

If a “woman priest” refuses to use masculine language about God, then yes, that baptism is probably invalid, but only because formulas themselves such as, “in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier” are invalid. Why? Because they don’t actually invoke the members of the Holy Trinity specifically, each of whom performs all those actions - creating, redeeming, sanctifying.

See what I mean? Such baptisms would be invalid not directly because the “womanpriest” refuses to use masculine names for the Divine Persons, but rather the fact that she’s refusing to do so will, in a de facto sense, most likely lead her to invoke each Divine Person inaccurately.

A baptismal formula such as “in the name of the Origin Without Origin, the One Eternally Begotten by the Origin Without Origin, and the One Who Proceeds Eternally from the Origin Without Origin” would probably actually be valid, though of course highly illicit.

Some religions, mormons, jehovah witnesses, etc. are manifest heretics against the Trinity. In the first case, believing in three seperate gods, in the second case, believing in only one and denying the divinity of the other two persons.

That’s manifest heresy.

Yes. Mormon and JW baptisms are, unfortunately, invalid.

I’m ready to be corrected again. But all Im saying is, I would not be so quick to welcome everyone and their mother to baptize a new Catholic. Especially since the Roman Catholic Church, as the largest church on earth, has valid licit ministers willing (in fact, more than willing) to baptize the new faithful all over the world.

Oh, I agree. For Catholics, illicit baptizing is a serious offense. But for non-Catholics, we have to acknowledge that any human being can confer the Sacrament, and because of its nature, the vast majority of Christian baptisms - excluding groups like Mormons, JWs, and “Oneness Pentecostals” - are indeed valid.