Is this Episcopalian Eucharist valid?

[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.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.”

 

[commenter]

One thing I like about CAF is that there are people on here who appear to know what they are talking about, and they are not afraid to give a response like “questionable”, when that is what the facts call for.

I am one of those trigger-finger types who is itching to hear, or to provide, a definitive Yes or No answer to every question. Some questions DO lead to that, but in real life some do not.

 

[Nelka]

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.”

Wouldn’t he have to use the Eucharistic prayer to consecrate?

 

[FrDavid96]

Wouldn’t he have to use the Eucharistic prayer to consecrate?

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.

 

[Gorgias]

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).

Didn’t I get a bunch of nasty glares around here, a few months back, for suggesting precisely this notion?

 

[joeybaggz]

For (To) Episcopalians - I guess.

 

[TheAdvocate197]

To me, it would just seem strange that one Episcopalian congregation could receive the graces of Communion, while the other doesn’t. But the other doesn’t know that they’re not.

 

[poche]

Even if the priest says the words of an Episcopal ‘mass’ it would not be a valid mass because there is a defect in their liturgy. If however he were to take a Catholic missal and use it instead of the Episcopal liturgy then the mass would be valid but illicit.

 

[commenter]

To me, it would just seem strange that one Episcopalian congregation could receive the graces of Communion, while the other doesn’t. But the other doesn’t know that they’re not.

Keep in mind the TEC includes a wide variety of congregations, some Evangelical, some Anglo Catholic, some ultra liberal. This is even before you consider individual variation.

 

[tafan2]

I thought the Church said that the only part that has to be said correctly are the words of consecration for a mass to be valid. If the Episcopals use the correct words for consecration (which I assume he does in the OP case, since he fully intends to do what the Church intends)???

 

[OldCAFMember]

Just for the sake of clarity, when speaking of the Episcopal Church in the USA, Episcopal is an adjective, and Episcopalian is a noun. So the clergy are Episcopal priests and there are Episcopal canons, parishes, organizations, etc, while the people, as members of that church, are referred to as Episcopalians.

 

[Dovekin]

Proper form for the Eucharist is rarely a problem. Catholics and Anglicans usually quote the Bible at that point of the service.
The issue in this hypothetical is the intent of the priest. It says he intends to do what the Church intends, but does he? Can someone who joins with a community of non-Catholics be said to be doing what the Church intends? From a RC perspective, it is questionable, as Fr said. From an Anglican perspective, it is valid.
Only God knows what it is from God’s perspective, but what makes us Catholic is that we adhere to the Catholic perspective.

 

[tafan2]

I agree that it seems impossible to see that it could in anyway be valid, due to his intent. The actual scenario that the OP specified, which says the priest did have the proper intent, would be next to impossible. Intent is assumed with the proper form and matter, but that could not cover this scenario. If he knows he is performing a mass with a completely unapproved liturgical form, for people who are not in communion with the Church, in an church building which has not been consecrated as a Catholic Church, etc, etc: how is the it even possible for the priest to “intends to do what the Church intends”.

But, if we assume the impossible and the scenario the OP specifies is the case, ie he does have the proper intent. I think the words of consecration and the matter is all that matters.

 

[promethian_rule]

The issue in this hypothetical is the intent of the priest. It says he intends to do what the Church intends, but does he? Can someone who joins with a community of non-Catholics be said to be doing what the Church intends? From a RC perspective, it is questionable, as Fr said. From an Anglican perspective, it is valid.

Only God knows what it is from God’s perspective, but what makes us Catholic is that we adhere to the Catholic perspective.

That was the sticking point for me. The priest, being validly ordained, is a proper minister. Using proper matter and the proper form (This is My Body, This is My Blood). The big shady area is whether or not the priest now acting out an Episcopalian service would have valid intent (to do as the Catholic church does). He doesn’t even have to believe as the church does, so it’s possible, but I would also question whether or not he was actively intending to do what the Catholic church does at such time.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Does he have the proper form, matter and intention? Because if so, then yes. It is valid.

 

[dconklin]

Say a priest decided to leave the Catholic church to become an Episcopalian.

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

 

[steve-b]

One thing I like about CAF is that there are people on here who appear to know what they are talking about, and they are not afraid to give a response like “questionable”, when that is what the facts call for.

I am one of those trigger-finger types who is itching to hear, or to provide, a definitive Yes or No answer to every question. Some questions DO lead to that, but in real life some do not.

This opening question was discussed in a canon law question here

oops that link didn’t work
Try here

 

[RyanBlack]

Only we the One Holy Catholic Universal Church have the true Eucharist. Everyone else is denied the Real Presence unless they come and convert to the Mother Church. Come home where they belong. Mary and the Saints is waiting.

Well, that depends on exactly who is being included in speaking of the “One Holy Catholic Universal Church.” The Orthodox have the true Eucharist. The Assyrian Church of the East has the true Eucharist. The Polish National Catholic Church has the true Eucharist.

 

[steve-b]

VicaroVicaro:

Only we the One Holy Catholic Universal Church have the true Eucharist. Everyone else is denied the Real Presence unless they come and convert to the Mother Church. Come home where they belong. Mary and the Saints is waiting.

Well, that depends on exactly who is being included in speaking of the "One Holy Catholic Universal Church."

We know what @VicaroVicaro was referring to.

RyanBlack:

The Orthodox have the true Eucharist. The Assyrian Church of the East has the true Eucharist. The Polish National Catholic Church has the true Eucharist.

schism which is condemned in scripture and Tradition, Is being in schism and the consequences for that, worth it?