Is this Episcopalian Eucharist valid?

[greenrangerx]

I am having trouble wrapping my head around why a priest would leave the CC to join the EC

During my short time in the Episcopal Church, one of the priests where I went fell under this situation. While he was a Catholic priest, he fell in love with the widow of a man he had buried and wanted to raise her children. He still felt called to ministry, so he became Episcopalian so he could be both married and a minister. He just celebrated the 50th anniversary of his ordination two years ago.

 

[QContinuum]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[CatholicTurk]

TheAdvocate197:

Say a priest decided to leave the Catholic church to become an Episcopalian. When he says Mass, due to the fact that he is a validly ordained priest, are the Episcopalian congregants receiving a valid Eucharist? Say there were two priests at that parish, with one of the priests ordained by the Episcopal church, and the other priest, a former Catholic, like in the example above. Further, let’s say that Episcopalian priest does an 8am Mass, and the former Catholic one, a 10am. Would that mean that the 8am congregation are receiving an invalid Eucharist, while the 10am congregants would receive a valid one?

Let’s further assume that the former Catholic priest intends to do what the Church intends insofar as the sacrificial offering is concerned, and he fully believes in the Real Presence.

Some will say that since he is no longer under a Catholic bishop, that his Mass offerings are invalid. Are they? Or are they only illicit, but still valid? Such as when a bishop ordains someone to the episcopate without papal approval. Such ordinations would be valid, but illicit.

The answer is “it’s questionable.”

Really, that is the answer.

We don’t presume it to be valid (reason: it occurs in a community which the Holy See has determined does not have valid sacraments).

We don’t presume it to be invalid (reason: he’s still a priest, and you did offer the right qualifications when you posed the question).

So, again, the answer really is “questionable.”

I agree with the above explanation. Nonetheless, God help all those who serve or receive the Holy Communion unworthily. And so i cry out for those souls: Lord Have Mercy, Christ Have Mercy!

 

[promethian_rule]

Except that the article you linked is incorrect about the intention of the priest in question. The intent involved with the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the intend to do as the church does… not the intent to transubstantiate bread and wine into Body and Blood. If that were the case, any priest who did not believe in transubstantiation would be feeding an invalid Eucharist to his flock! There are other prerequisites for valid intent as well, that it be classified appropriately as here:

Now, if a priest intends to transubstantiate as a part of what they believe the church does in offering the Eucharistic rite, then that works… but an anglican minister who was a priest intending to change bread and wine into Body and Blood but NOT intending to do what the church does (aka, I want to consubstantiate, not as the Catholic church intends, but as the Anglican church does), then the intent is incorrect, and the Eucharist is not valid.

All that is highly complex though, and fairly nuanced since it relies on the priest in question believing that whatever they are doing is what the Catholic church intends to do.

 

[thistle]

Yes. Meaning that he would have so use some valid form of a Eucharistic prayer.

Again, this makes it “questionable” because we’re dealing with a hypothetical, and with such, the situation can be anything the author imagines.

Father, does what the Host is made of affect the validity of the Eucharist?

 

[RyanBlack]

does what the Host is made of affect the validity of the Eucharist?

Yes, it does.

 

[steve-b]

“The Catholic Church has not made a decision”?
How is that a good answer? Or really, better than questionable?

Did you not read the entire article?

 

[steve-b]

Except that the article you linked is incorrect about the intention of the priest in question. The intent involved with the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the intend to do as the church does… not the intent to transubstantiate bread and wine into Body and Blood.

That’s a distinction without a difference

Even from the article you post
"1. AN INTENTION IS REQUIRED, as the Council of Trent defined in the
place already cited: “If anyone says that there is not required in the
ministers, while they confect and confer the sacraments, an intention at
least of doing what the Church does, let him be anathema.”

promethian_rule:

If that were the case, any priest who did not believe in transubstantiation would be feeding an invalid Eucharist to his flock! There are other prerequisites for valid intent as well, that it be classified appropriately as
here

Now, if a priest intends to transubstantiate as a part of what they believe the church does in offering the Eucharistic rite, then that works… but an anglican minister who was a priest intending to change bread and wine into Body and Blood but NOT intending to do what the church does (aka, I want to consubstantiate, not as the Catholic church intends, but as the Anglican church does), then the intent is incorrect, and the Eucharist is not valid.

All that is highly complex though, and fairly nuanced since it relies on the priest in question believing that whatever they are doing is what the Catholic church intends to do.

did you read the entire article I posted

 

[Dovekin]

Did you not read the entire article?

I did read it. That is why I know it said the Catholic Church has not made any ruling on the validity of an Anglican service led by someone who had been validily ordained (in the Catholic Church).

I do not see how that is different from saying such a consecration is “questionable.” What did you think she added to the discussion? It is a good article, and if I were to have a discussion like this, I would use it for background material if I could.

But what does it add?

 

[joeybaggz]

I am having trouble wrapping my head around why a priest would leave the CC to join the EC.

While I don’t know the reasons, I know that difficulty with the RCC position on divorce and remarriage, and the financial security in old age have been issues.

I do know of one priest who did exactly this. As to validity and liceity, I can’t answer, and as Fr. David has said, it is questionable, but I do know this priest when leaving was excommunicated from the RCC.

 

[Dovekin]

not as the Catholic church intends, but as the Anglican church does

To my mind, this is the critical point, but it is a little trickier evn than you have it. The priest has to intend “as the Church intends.” Not simply as the Catholic Church intends, but as the whole Church intends.

Before Vatican II, the Catholic Church assumed it was the Church, but that “is” changed subtly into “subsists in.” The Church includes more than just the Catholic Church; the Church includes everyone who has been baptized!

The Eucharist is what makes the Church. If the minister intends to do what the Anglican Church does, or what they Catholic Church does, he may fall short of intending the breadth of God’s desire to feed all of the Church. In some ways, the Anglicans express that better: it is clearly for all Christians. Catholic closed communion seems to miss that element, as if it is only for the few.

That is the background for addressing this question. Does someone, forbidden by the Catholic Church to say mass, who goes into an Anglican church to avoid that restriction, really intend to serve the whole Church? The optics suggest it is a more sectarian affair, so it is questionable. But the intention may be there. I suspect the Catholic Church will only rule on it in individual cases, unless they come up with a joint ruling with the Anglican community.

 

[TheAdvocate197]

point

Catholic ARE allowed to receive Communion in Orthodox churches provided the hierarch has no objection.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Did you not read the entire article?

I did read it. That is why I know it said the Catholic Church has not made any ruling on the validity of an Anglican service led by someone who had been validily ordained (in the Catholic Church).

I do not see how that is different from saying such a consecration is “questionable.” What did you think she added to the discussion? It is a good article, and if I were to have a discussion like this, I would use it for background material if I could.

But what does it add?

Excerpt from the article I referenced, which actually said

(emphasis mine)

“….In short, as Catholics, we already know that is is a tragedy when any “Catholic priest leaves the Church and becomes a minister of a non-Catholic faith. But a priest always retains his ability to confect the Eucharist, even if he has left the priesthood and has been forbidden by his superiors to do so—so if all of the necessary conditions are met, he may actually be consecrating the Body and Blood of Christ for non-Catholics who don’t believe who don’t believe in the Real Presence. The Catholic Church has not officially drawn any conclusions about what is happening, in a metaphysical sense at these non-Catholic services conducted by an ex-Catholic priest , and this is just as well ! Catholics are not permitted to receive the sacraments from ministers of the Church of England, no matter who the are; and attendance at an Episcopal/Anglican Sunday service does not fulfill a Catholic’s duty to attend Sunday Mass—because it isn’t a Mass. Even if the service is celebrated by an ex-Catholic priest, we are required to avoid it. Let’s commend the whole sad situation to God, and pray for those priests who have left the Church.”

If one reads the entire article, it’s clear what a Catholic is to think about this.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

point

Catholic ARE allowed to receive Communion in Orthodox churches provided the hierarch has no objection.

May I suggest reading the following

 

[Dovekin]

Was that under discussion?

Canon law tells us how to behave in this situation, it does not tell us what to think about it.

The Catholic Church has not taken a position. Are we to revere Christ present in the Eucharistic species? Are we to NOT revere Christ present? We are not to commune with them, but there are no guidelines for other Eucharist related activities, attitudes.

 

[steve-b]

Was that under discussion?

“Valid” was clearly under discussion. And it clearly covers a broader area which the article covered

Dovekin:

Canon law tells us how to behave in this situation, it does not tell us what to think about it.

Isn’t that a bit of a distinction without a difference

If we aren’t to do something, and the reason is given, isn’t that also telling us what to think about it?

Dovekin:

The Catholic Church has not taken a position.

Finish the sentence and the thought

“The Catholic Church has not officially drawn any conclusions about what is happening, in a metaphysical sense at these non-Catholic services conducted by an ex-Catholic priest , and this is just as well ! Catholics are not permitted to receive the sacraments from ministers of the Church of England, no matter who they are; and attendance at an Episcopal/Anglican Sunday service does not fulfill a Catholic’s duty to attend Sunday Mass—because it isn’t a Mass. Even if the service is celebrated by an ex-Catholic priest, we are required to avoid it.”

Dovekin:

Are we to revere Christ present in the Eucharistic species? Are we to NOT revere Christ present? We are not to commune with them, but there are no guidelines for other Eucharist related activities, attitudes.

I personally thought the entire article, covered the subject well.

 

[Dovekin]

Let me ask it another way.

Without knowing if Christ is “present in a metaphysical sense” “we are required to avoid it.” Does that seem like good advice?

The question was a hypothetical, ie asking about the metaphysical. In a concrete circumstance, most of us knew we should not attend an Anglican service. If the article helps someone, great.

 

[steve-b]

Let me ask it another way.

Without knowing if Christ is “present in a metaphysical sense” “we are required to avoid it.” Does that seem like good advice?

Yes

Allow me to explain

Dovekin:

The question was a hypothetical, ie asking about the metaphysical. In a concrete circumstance, most of us knew we should not attend an Anglican service. If the article helps someone, great.

We know

Protestantism is heresy

AND

Broadening this out, Orthodoxy AND Protestantism are also in schism

We know what the Scriptures and Tradition and the ongoing teaching of the Catholic Church says about heresy and schism.

Here’s my question in return. What more advice do we need to know?

 

[Dovekin]

If we are “required to avoid” a place where Christ may be present, not much other advice is needed. People will Just ignore advice like that.

By the article you post, Anglicans are not heretics. They never accepted the idea of sola scriptura, ultimately coming to Scripture, creeds, sacraments and episcopate. The Lutheran Catholic agreement on justification essentially eliminated the sola fide accusation. Unless you have something else?

Schism is another matter, but still far from certain. Vatican II said the people today can not be held accountable for the sins of those who lived in the Reformation era.

The advice we need from the Church is how to find Christ, where to find Christ. Saying we are required to avoid a place where Christ may be truly present is the opposite.

 

[poche]

You also need to have the right intention. The Episcopal religion explicitly excludes transubstantiation. If there is no transubstantiation then there is no mass.