Is this Episcopalian Eucharist valid?

[alexl437]

Under no circumstances whatsoever should a person receive communion at a church other than the Roman Catholic Church or one of the Eastern Churches sui iuris (in communion with the Holy See). This is because they do not have valid sacraments or a valid eucharist. In the example given, one can’t be sure. Although, I would assume the Episcopal church would re-ordain said priest or have some kind of formal rite of defection.

 

[Dovekin]

I doubt very much that the Episcopal Church or any Anglican body would reordain a Catholic priest. There may be some demand, but surely not more than Catholics ask of the Orthodox, ie sharing the creed.

You outline the basic rule, do not attend Anglican services. But how realistic is this rule if Christ might be present there? “Stay away! Christ might be there, but you should not approach. Stay where it is safe.”

Is that really a message we want to send?

 

[alexl437]

Well yes it is, since we have absolute certainty as to the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord in a Catholic church. The Anglican church lost any semblance of a valid sacrament when it separated itself from Rome. Also, one would have no business routinely attending Anglican services anyway (there are, of course, certain exceptions such as for the sake of harmony in a mixed marriage).

 

[RyanBlack]

The Anglican church lost any semblance of a valid sacrament when it separated itself from Rom

Being in communion with Rome is not necessary for having valid sacraments. The Orthodox (both non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian), and the Assyrian Church of the East have valid sacraments, but are not in communion with Rome.

 

[steve-b]

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.

When I’ve been shown the truth properly referenced, I don’t have to guess or be put in a position then, of wondering whether Christ might be present…or not. And I sure won’t be a part of an ex-Catholic priest activity who left the Church to become a heretic or a schismatic.

Dovekin:

By the article you post, Anglicans are not heretics.

Anglicans are Protestant. Protestantism is heresy.

Dovekin:

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?

The CCC identifies heresy It’s NOT just sola scriptura.

Dovekin:

Schism is another matter, but still far from certain.

Look at the above link. It also defines schism. Anglicans qualify on heresy as well.

Dovekin:

Vatican II said the people today can not be held accountable for the sins of those who lived in the Reformation era.

and THAT is NOT a be all to end all statement. People aren’t presumed to be permanently ignorant of their situation. Especially WHEN “This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.” From 1791 Do you see how that changes things?

Ask a Protestant to look back in history. Protestantism doesn’t exist prior to the 16th century. NONE of them existed. The Catholic Church is there and in writing from the first century. And Division from the Church that THEY divided from in their history, is condemned in scripture. They can’t plead ignorance. John Newman while still a Protestant, made the following phrase famous. “To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”. He said that while still an Anglican. A huge statement. He became Catholic

Dovekin:

The advice we need from the Church is how to find Christ, where to find Christ.

Is that still a question?

Dovekin:

Saying we are required to avoid a place where Christ may be truly present is the opposite.

What we need from the 2000 year old Catholic Church is truth…period dot end of sentence. Not squishy phrases and fake ecumenism.

 

[Dovekin]

People aren’t presumed to be permanently ignorant of their situation. Especially WHEN “This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.” From 1791 Do you see how that changes things?

I can see many ways that this changes things. It is a call to know more, to not continue in ignorance.

Ask a Protestant to look back in history. Protestantism doesn’t exist prior to the 16th century. NONE of them existed. The Catholic Church is there and in writing from the first century. And Division from the Church that THEY divided from in their history, is condemned in scripture. They can’t plead ignorance. John Newman while still a Protestant, made the following phrase famous. “To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”. He said that while still an Anglican.

The Church of England existed for 1000 years before the 16th century. Newman, as an Anglican, ceased to be a Protestant? You know these things, but still repeat that Anglicans are Protestants, that none of them existed prior to the 16th century. These contradictions are not truth.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

People aren’t presumed to be permanently ignorant of their situation. Especially WHEN “This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.” From 1791 Do you see how that changes things?

I can see many ways that this changes things. It is a call to know more, to not continue in ignorance.

Ask a Protestant to look back in history. Protestantism doesn’t exist prior to the 16th century. NONE of them existed. The Catholic Church is there and in writing from the first century. And Division from the Church that THEY divided from in their history, is condemned in scripture. They can’t plead ignorance. John Newman while still a Protestant, made the following phrase famous. “To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”. He said that while still an Anglican.

The Church of England existed for 1000 years before the 16th century.

Fr Longnecker was from England. He describes a brief history

They left Catholicism.

Dovekin:

Newman, as an Anglican, ceased to be a Protestant?

Newman as an Anglican was a Protestant. He left Anglicanism and became Catholic.

Dovekin:

You know these things, but still repeat that Anglicans are Protestants, that none of them existed prior to the 16th century. These contradictions are not truth.

They became Protestant by their acts, and their theology

Newman wrote Anglicans are Protestants.

(emphasis mine)
"Such, then, is the Anglican Church and its Via Media, {377} and such the practical application of it; it is an interposition or arbitration between the extreme doctrines of Protestantism on the one hand, and the faith of Rome which Protestantism contradicts on the other. At the same time, though it may be unwilling to allow it, it is, from the nature of the case, but a particular form of Protestantism. I do not say that in secondary principles it may not agree with the Catholic Church; but, its essential idea being that she has gone into error, whereas the essential idea of Catholicism is the Church’s infallibility, the Via Media is really nothing else than Protestant. Not to submit to the Church is to oppose her, and to side with the heretical party; for medium there is none.
From Newman Reader sect 4 lecture 12

 

[FrDavid96]

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

Yes, of course.

To be valid, it must be wheaten bread (with or without leavening).

If it’s not wheat bread, it cannot be valid. So bread made from potato, rice, corn, etc. cannot be valid matter.

Once something else is added to the wheat (such as honey or some other grain, etc.) it becomes “questionable matter” because the Church has never tried (and probably never will try) to define just how much of an invalid substance can be mixed-in with the wheat.

Likewise the wine must be pure grape wine. Anything else is invalid matter.

Aside: if the addition is insignificant, it’s still valid matter. For example, if a farmer has 10 acres of wheat, but there’s 5 stalks of barley growing there, and he harvests all of it, the end product is still wheat. That minuscule amount of barley doesn’t make it invalid.

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

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

The priest must have the intent to “do as the Church does” or “intend what the Church intends.”

That’s not the same thing as saying that he must specifically intend “transubstantiation” in the sense of having that specific word in his own mind.

For example, the Eastern Churches do not use the word “transubstantiation” yet their consecrations are still valid.

That’s why this is not a “distinction without a difference.”

 

[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.

FrDavid96:

The priest must have the intent to “do as the Church does” or “intend what the Church intends.”

That’s not the same thing as saying that he must specifically intend "transubstantiation" in the sense of having that specific word in his own mind.

For example, the Eastern Churches do not use the word “transubstantiation” yet their consecrations are still valid.

“Transubstantiation” is an explanation as to how the Real Presence comes about. … As a general rule Eastern Orthodox Christians are not comfortable with the term, … …
Among Eastern Catholics, although we do not disagree with transubstantiation, we generally do not use the term… Ultimately what matters is not what philosophical language is used to describe the change, but that one believes in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist." From Dr. Anthony Dragani, theologian and Byzantine Catholic

FrDavid96:

That’s why this is not a “distinction without a difference.”

Dr Anthomy’s point… even if transubstantiation is not the word used, E Catholics have no disagreement, with the term because we know as Catholics what the Church intends.

 

[dochawk]

or one of the Eastern Churches sui iuris (in communion with the Holy See).

To be clear, many (may think it’s a majority) of the two dozen or so Eastern churches in communion with Rome are not sui juris. A sui juris church is self governing, while some others (e.g., Greco-Italo-Albanian) have bishops but don’t govern themselves, while others don’t even have bishops.

This is because they do not have valid sacraments or a valid eucharist

No, that is not why, and it directly contradicts papal teaching on the Orthodox (although it is correct about Protestants, anabaptists, etc.). The RC church explicitly recognizes that the EO and OO have valid orders and sacraments, and need only the re-establishemt of communion to be in communion, and not any changes or intervention.

Anglicans are Protestant.

Some are, and some are not. “Protestant” doesn’t mean “not Catholic”. There are other non-Protestant, non-Apostolic Christians, such as the anabaptists and high church Anglicans.

Newman, as an Anglican, ceased to be a Protestant?

Newman became Catholic. Many others (e.g., Lewis) in the Oxford Movement were quite clearly not Protestant, but did not convert–as they were expecting Communion to be established. They quite clearly, though, rejected Protestantism.

Today’s TAC (the Traditional Anglican Communion) has also clearly rejected Protestantism, their entire clergy has signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and is actively seeking Communion (including conditional re-ordination) with Rome.
That doesn’t make it OK to receive at their services, though.

hawk

 

[Dovekin]

John Newman while still a Protestant, made the following phrase famous. “To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”. He said that while still an Anglican

I was responding to this statement when I suggested Newman, while still an Anglican, ceased being a Protestant, despite Steve b’s assertion that Anglicans are Protestants.

Of course, I know that Newman struggled throughout his life with the relationship of Anglicanism with Catholicism. He had only one option, Catholicism, but his struggles laid the groundwork for Vatican II to assert that elements of holiness and sanctification exist outside the Catholic Church. Some here obviously do not accept that idea, or don’t know how it should affect their behavior.

There are some fascinating things happening these days, but people are wrapped up in yesterday’s battles. So much that they don’t even understand the modern dynamics. It is quite frustrating sometimes.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

John Newman while still a Protestant, made the following phrase famous. “To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”. He said that while still an Anglican

I was responding to this statement when I suggested Newman, while still an Anglican, ceased being a Protestant, despite Steve b’s assertion that Anglicans are Protestants.

Of course, I know that Newman struggled throughout his life with the relationship of Anglicanism with Catholicism. He had only one option, Catholicism, but his struggles laid the groundwork for Vatican II to assert that elements of holiness and sanctification exist outside the Catholic Church.

Is that such a groundbreaking understanding? Go back in history, were there at least some elements of good in previous heresies?

Dovekin:

Some here obviously do not accept that idea, or don’t know how it should affect their behavior.

There are some fascinating things happening these days, but people are wrapped up in yesterday’s battles. So much that they don’t even understand the modern dynamics. It is quite frustrating sometimes.

Could you

1. name some of those fascinating things that are happening these days?
2. name what modern dynamics you are referring to?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Anglicans are Protestant.

Some are, and some are not. “Protestant” doesn’t mean “not Catholic”. There are other non-Protestant, non-Apostolic Christians, such as the anabaptists and high church Anglicans.

anabaptists came on the scene in 1521. Same year Luther was excommunicated for his actions.

That said

There is an Anglican use from 1980, for former Anglican clergy and their parishes who were converting to Catholicism

 

[Dovekin]

“Of course, I know that Newman struggled throughout his life with the relationship of Anglicanism with Catholicism. He had only one option, Catholicism, but his struggles laid the groundwork for Vatican II to assert that elements of holiness and sanctification exist outside the Catholic Church.”

Is that such a groundbreaking understanding? Go back in history, were there at least some elements of good in previous heresies?

I believe the Church has always recognized that elements of sanctification and holiness existed outside the Catholic Church, but it holds the idea in tension with the notion that salvation comes from Christ through the Church. Reformation era teaching tended to overemphasize the Catholic Church, excluding Protestants as heretics without acknowledging elements within their communities that are rightly part of the Church.
Newman’s struggles helped people to understand the presence of the Church (through the elements of sanctification) outside the Catholic Church. Thus “subsists” instead of “is” and ‘separated family’ instead of ‘heretics.’

 

[steve-b]

I believe the Church has always recognized that elements of sanctification and holiness existed outside the Catholic Church,…

Vat II puts this in plain language in paragraphs ( #14 & # 28 ) from Lumen Gentium.

1. … “Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

28 …“Because the human race today is joining more and more into a civic, economic and social unity, it is that much the more necessary that priests, by combined effort and aid, under the leadership of the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff, wipe out every kind of separateness, so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of the family of God.”

IOW,
NO one is to encourage, or tell one who is separated from the Catholic Church, that their separateness from the Catholic Church is OK. Or say just be a good separated brother/sister and the Church says they are okay… THAT would fall into error warned about by Pius IX syllabus of errors

excerpt: (false statements) From
THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX
III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
2. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
3. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
4. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. – Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

Bottom line,
Jesus willed perfect oneness that is (to wipe out every separateness)

Dovekin:

Reformation era teaching overemphasize the Catholic Church, excluding Protestants as heretics

Thus “subsists” instead of “is”

Have you not seen subsists in, vs is explained?

 

[Dovekin]

28 …“Because the human race today is joining more and more into a civic, economic and social unity, it is that much the more necessary that priests, by combined effort and aid, under the leadership of the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff, wipe out every kind of separateness, so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of the family of God.”

I am not the one pushing “separateness.” Your summation of it distorts the meaning of this passage and reverts to an us v them distinction that is the meaning of separation. Those being sanctified, being made holy, should certainly become part of the Catholic Church, but it would be wrong to separate them from the elements of sanctification that are already at work in them. Those elements belong in the Catholic Church as well, and piecemeal transfers will leave us alienated from them, separate.

Which is what I mean by “thus subsists.” And what the author of your link seems to be saying. “These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”

As to the syllabus of errors, it is an example of an overemphasis on being separate as opposed to concern for the elements of holiness and truth that exist outside the visible boundaries of the Church.

 

[steve-b]

but it would be wrong to separate them from the elements of sanctification that are already at work in them. Those elements belong in the Catholic Church as well, and piecemeal transfers will leave us alienated from them, separate.

That is reading into their division, that they are ok the way they are.

paragraph 28 from Lumen Gentium directs wiping out all separateness

28 …“Because the human race today is joining more and more into a civic, economic and social unity, it is that much the more necessary that priests, by combined effort and aid, under the leadership of the bishops and the Supreme Pontiff, wipe out every kind of separateness, so that the whole human race may be brought into the unity of the family of God.”
[/quote]

Dovekin:

I am not the one pushing “separateness.” Your summation of it distorts the meaning of this passage and reverts to an us v them distinction that is the meaning of separation. Those being sanctified, being made holy, should certainly become part of the Catholic Church,

THAT’s the point

Dovekin:

but it would be wrong to separate them from the elements of sanctification that are already at work in them.

THAT is saying they are ok where they are. THAT is incorrect.

Dovekin:

Those elements belong in the Catholic Church as well,

NOT “as well”. They originate and remain in the Catholic Church.

Dovekin:

and piecemeal transfers will leave us alienated from them, separate.

Point being, Protestants have only some elements. If THAT argument was ok, then there would be no point in being Catholic. As you recall, from “Syllabus of errors” THAT idea is anathema

Dovekin:

Which is what I mean by “thus subsists.” And what the author of your link seems to be saying. “These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”

As to the syllabus of errors, it is an example of an overemphasis on being separate as opposed to concern for the elements of holiness and truth that exist outside the visible boundaries of the Church.

The syllabus of errors shows where all our errors of today come from.

 

[steve-b]

I am not the one pushing “separateness.” Your summation of it distorts the meaning of this passage and reverts to an us v them distinction that is the meaning of separation. Those being sanctified, being made holy, should certainly become part of the Catholic Church, but it would be wrong to separate them from the elements of sanctification that are already at work in them. Those elements belong in the Catholic Church as well, and piecemeal transfers will leave us alienated from them, separate.

Which is what I mean by “thus subsists.” And what the author of your link seems to be saying. “These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”

As to the syllabus of errors, it is an example of an overemphasis on being separate as opposed to concern for the elements of holiness and truth that exist outside the visible boundaries of the Church.

In addition to my previous post, and from VAT II,

From: Unitatis Redintegratio (all emphasis mine)

#3 Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem"…

Also Re: “subsists in”

here’s another article

"subsists in” Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz

 

[Dovekin]

Also Re: “subsists in”

here’s another article

"subsists in” Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz

An excellent letter. I suggest you reread it, keeping in mind the perspective of a Muscovite in the Russian Orthodox Church. What is the proper path for her? Joining the Roman Catholic Church? Or continuing on her current sanctifying path?