Is the consecration valid???

[Adrienne5678]

I am 100% Roman Catholic. That will never change. I’m just wondering if another Christian religion gives the Eucharist, is it actually the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ? Like it is in our religion? What does the Catholic Church say about this?
Facts not opinions please. No offense

Blessings,
Adi

 

[stuart12]

I am 100% Roman Catholic. That will never change. I’m just wondering if another Christian religion gives the Eucharist, is it actually the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ? Like it is in our religion? What does the Catholic Church say about this?
Facts not opinions please. No offense

Blessings,
Adi

Only those with valid holy orders can confect the Eucharist. That would be the Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics, and Anglicans who have received orders from these.

 

[Spirithound]

Only those with valid holy orders can confect the Eucharist. That would be the Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics, and Anglicans who have received orders from these.

And say a valid Eucharistic Prayer over the proper materials with the proper intent.

 

[Monica4316]

Only those with valid holy orders can confect the Eucharist. That would be the Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics, and Anglicans who have received orders from these.

I read that only the Eastern Orthodox have the Eucharist… not Anglicans…

 

[ljubim]

Valid apostolic succession/ordination + valid eucharistic prayer = Valid consecration.

Anglicans DO NOT have a valid consecration. Orthodox and various schismatics do, but not protestants.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Valid apostolic succession/ordination + valid eucharistic prayer = Valid consecration.

Anglicans DO NOT have a valid consecration. Orthodox and various schismatics do, but not protestants.

Something I, as a Lutheran, do not, and will not accept.

 

[WetCatechumen]

I read that only the Eastern Orthodox have the Eucharist… not Anglicans…

Holy Orders are preserved when the intent of Holy Orders is preserved. The Anglican communion had a wholesale departure from the intention of the presbytery in the 17th Century, so all of those who were ordained, while they were ordained to Christian ministry, they were not ordained to the sacerdotal ministry that Catholic priests hold.

Later on, the ordination rites changed back, so the intent of having a priest who confers a sacrificial sacrament was present, but bishops who were not ordained as actual bishops cannot ordain actual bishops. However, in the 1930’s, some Anglican bishops, hoping to correct the perceived defect, invited Old Catholic bishops, a post-Vatican I schismatic group, to join in their episcopal ordinations. Hence, there are some Anglican priests and bishops who can legitimately claim succession.

There are also two other Christian churches that have preserved the intent of Holy Orders since their schism from the Catholic Church. These are the Oriental Orthodox Communion, which schismed after the Council of Chalcedon (451) and the Assyrian Church of the East, which schismed after the Council of Ephesus (431).

Finally, there are various small groups of schismatics who have preserved Holy Orders, like the Society of St. Pius X (technically not schismatic, but I would say that full communion is not achieved), the Old Catholics, and a couple others.

There is also disagreement among these groups as to validity. Anglo-Catholics will insist that their Holy Orders are valid, while the Catholics disagree. The Orthodox Church maintains that all sacraments outside of Orthodoxy are defective, and refuses to comment on validity, but some Orthodox do recognize the validity of Catholic sacraments.

It’s a complicated issue. The word validity, while useful, has legalistic and therefore negative connotations. In the Catholic view, whether or not a church has a true Eucharist, that is, whether or not Christ is truly physically present in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, is based upon whether or not the intent to have a true Eucharist has been preserved since the church was founded by the apostles.

The Protestant denominations, by embracing consubstantiation or symbolism and denying the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, have lost the intent of a real Eucharist. This resulted in the loss of a real priesthood. Once lost, you cannot bring priesthood back from nowhere.

So, if you find yourself at a schismatic church, do not hesitate to adore Christ present in the Eucharist. At a Protestant church, there is only bread and wine (or sometimes grape juice).

 

[benedictgal]

Something I, as a Lutheran, do not, and will not accept.

But, with all due respect, your Protestant ecclesial community does not have the Holy Eucharist. The ministers are not validly ordained. Thus, no validly ordained priest, no Holy Eucharist.

 

[MarkThompson]

But, with all due respect, your Protestant ecclesial community does not have the Holy Eucharist. The ministers are not validly ordained. Thus, no validly ordained priest, no Holy Eucharist.

There’s also no need for someone to pop up on Catholic threads to point out that he’s Lutheran and disagrees with certain Catholic teachings. Duh, if you agreed with them all you would be Catholic.

 

[roadsend]

Only those with valid holy orders can confect the Eucharist. That would be the Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics, and Anglicans who have received orders from these.

As Stuart points out, there are a number of Anglican padres, who were ordained by Orthodox or Catholic bishops.
Their consecrations would be valid assuming the matter and form were so.

 

[benedictgal]

As Stuart points out, there are a number of Anglican padres, who were ordained by Orthodox or Catholic bishops.
Their consecrations would be valid assuming the matter and form were so.

However, it may still be invalid because they do not intend to “consecrate” as the Church intends. it’s invalid at worst, ilicit, at best. But, I would not encourage a Catholic to assist at these services, let alone receive “Communion” at them.

 

[roadsend]

However, it may still be invalid because they do not intend to “consecrate” as the Church intends. it’s invalid at worst, ilicit, at best. But, I would not encourage a Catholic to assist at these services, let alone receive “Communion” at them.

Yup.
I am well acquainted with one of these Anglican padres. He is an ex-Jesuit, and was ordained in Rome.
I have no doubt that his Masses are valid, since the reason he converted was to marry.

 

[benedictgal]

Yup.
I am well acquainted with one of these Anglican padres. He is an ex-Jesuit, and was ordained in Rome.
I have no doubt that his Masses are valid, since the reason he converted was to marry.

But remember, the intent has to be there. As I said, it’s invalid at worst, ilicit at best. Still, I would not use this particular “service” to fulfill my Sunday obligation.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yup.
I am well acquainted with one of these Anglican padres. He is an ex-Jesuit, and was ordained in Rome.
I have no doubt that his Masses are valid, since the reason he converted was to marry.

Since he was ordained as a Catholic priest, there’s no question that his ordination was a valid one. However, as to whether or not the bread that he “consecrates” at a non-Catholic (be it Anglican or anything else) service is actually the Body of Christ or not would be “doubtful.” It might be, it might not be. How someone can reject the Church but still “intend to do as the Church does” contradicts itself. He can’t both be under the false impression that Anglican orders are valid (and somehow he would have to do so in order to be accepted into that community) and still believe in the necessity of the ordained priesthood for the Eucharist to be consecrated. There are too many ideas here that just can’t be reconciled to each other.

 

[FrDavid96]

I am 100% Roman Catholic. That will never change. I’m just wondering if another Christian religion gives the Eucharist, is it actually the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ? Like it is in our religion? What does the Catholic Church say about this?
Facts not opinions please. No offense

Blessings,
Adi

As you can see already, this can get complicated. In general the only non-Catholic communities which have valid ordinations are the Orthodox, the Polish National Catholics, and the Society of St Pius X (SSPX). There are no-doubt some smaller schismatic groups, but suffice to say that those are the most well-known. Any and all Christian ecclesial communities that came out of the Protestant Reformation (including all Anglicans) do not have valid ordinations. The Old Catholics no longer have valid ordinations, although they did in the past and so this can get very tricky.

If the bread isn’t consecrated by a validly ordained priest, then it remains just bread and nothing more. It’s not the Body of Christ. It isn’t Communion. That’s why your question isn’t so much about whether or not the Eucharist is consecrated, but more about whether or not the priest’s ordination was a valid one.

When a priest from one of the 3 groups in my first paragraph celebrates a Mass (Liturgy in the East), the bread does become the Body of Christ.

When a priest who was ordained as a Catholic, but then left the Church; OR a priest who was ordained by a bishop of a different community, who somehow was validly ordained celebrates a “Mass” the bread might or might not become the Eucharist. This is one of those issues that would have to be determined on an indivual basis. It’s possible, but it’s certainly not a given (in either direction). No one can really determine whether or not an individual who makes some reasonable claim to be validly ordained actually was ordained, except for the Holy See itself. When such a question arises, they take it very seriously and investigate it carefully. This would happen if, for example, a minister of such a community were to convert and seek to become a Catholic priest. In such a situation though, he would have to show some unusual and extraordinary circumstances (let’s say an Anglican who was ordained a priest by an Orthodox bishop). It’s a given that all Reformation communities do not have valid ordinations, so anyone ordained in such a community is presumed not to be validly ordained unless he can prove otherwise.