Is this Episcopalian Eucharist valid?

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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?

What did Jesus teach about “perfect unity”?

 

[Dovekin]

That even at the Last Supper, with his disciples gathered at the table, “perfect unity” did not exist.

He prayed that all may become one.

 

[steve-b]

That even at the Last Supper, with his disciples gathered at the table, “perfect unity” did not exist.

He prayed that all may , become, one.

Jesus prayed they become "perfectly" one, as He and His Father are one.

That degree of unity doesn’t allow for ANY division. NONE

Jesus also ties perfect unity to the message that sends the world. As Jesus said in connecting His point on perfect unity,

"so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me … so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me"

Only ONE Church has that lineage of Peter and those in union with him. The Catholic Church. Those who leave that union, are on their own…

Re: Judas, Our Lord already foretold everyone, what Judas would do.
Re: Peter’s denial, that was also foretold
Re: the other apostles who took a hike after Jesus was arrested, that was also foretold

Point being, what Jesus established, on Peter and those in union with him, there is to be ZERO division from His plan. Division from Peter and those in union with him then, is contrary to Our Lord’s WILL.

 

[Dovekin]

As I said, you should read the article by Msgr Ocáriz thar you linked to, and then answer my questions.

 

[steve-b]

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?

I answered your question.

My response was to ask this question

"What did Jesus teach about “perfect unity”?

You didn’t answer that.

Re: The Monsignor, he wrote

"Therefore, for a Christian community to be truly a particular Church, “there must be present in it, as a proper element, the supreme authority of the Church: the Episcopal College ‘together with its head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him’ (Lumen Gentium, n. 22)”.23 "

The Monsignor recommends to stay inside the Catholic Church. And never to be apart from the Supreme Pontiff.

 

[Dovekin]

Ocáriz also says “Where, on account of apostolic succession, a valid episcopate exists, the Episcopal College with its Head is objectively present as supreme authority (even if, in fact, that authority is not recognized).”

And I did answer the question about perfect unity. It was not present at the Last Supper, and he continually prays that we will achieve it.

 

[steve-b]

Ocáriz also says “Where, on account of apostolic succession, a valid episcopate exists, the Episcopal College with its Head is objectively present as supreme authority (even if, in fact, that authority is not recognized).”

In context

“One possible path for refection, however, would be the real presence of the Petrine Primacy (and of the Episcopal College) in non-Catholic Churches, based on the unity of the “one and undivided” episcopate:24 a unity that cannot exist without the Bishop of Rome. Where, on account of apostolic succession, a valid episcopate exists, the Episcopal College with its Head is objectively present as supreme authority (even if, in fact, that authority is not recognized).”

Footnote

24 Cf. First Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor Aeternus, proemio; also Lumen Gentium, n. 18.

the context is important to include…

Dovekin:

And I did answer the question about perfect unity. It was not present at the Last Supper, and he continually prays that we will achieve it.

As long as the Church exists with the successor to St Peter at the helm, and those in union with him, then Jesus prayer about His Church is there.

Those who broke away, that is on THEM. THEY will have to answer for that.

 

[Dovekin]

In Moscow, at a service with a Russian Orthodox priest, “the Episcopal College with its Head is objectively present as supreme authority (even if, in fact, that authority is not recognized).”

So why are you talking about “perfect unity” as if that were not true?

 

[steve-b]

In Moscow, at a service with a Russian Orthodox priest, “the Episcopal College with its Head is objectively present as supreme authority (even if, in fact, that authority is not recognized).”

So why are you talking about “perfect unity” as if that were not true?

1. They aren’t Catholic.
2. “We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” from Card Kasper under heading of crisis in ecumenism

Add it up so far.

The Catholic Church has the successor to Peter, and all those in union with him.

 

[Dovekin]

Cardinal Kasper continued: “With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult; the situation is improving with Greece; in the Middle East, in the territory of the ancient See of Antioch, the situation is completely different and there already is almost full communion.”

Kasper also said “We would engage in bad ecumenism if we created new divisions in the other Churches or confessional families, or if we tended to a new form of ´Uniatism.´“

Why do you keep posting articles that support my position and under cut yours? Try an article like this
to get some perspective.

 

[steve-b]

Cardinal Kasper continued: “With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult; the situation is improving with Greece; in the Middle East, in the territory of the ancient See of Antioch, the situation is completely different and there already is almost full communion.”

Kasper also said “We would engage in bad ecumenism if we created new divisions in the other Churches or confessional families, or if we tended to a new form of ´Uniatism.´“

Why do you keep posting articles that support my position and under cut yours?

You’re kidding right?

Dovekin:

Try an article like this
to get some perspective.

I’ve used a similar article Re: Proselytize vs evangelize by pope Francis (2013)
How does he identify it?

Key: tactics to avoid,
Deception, Force, coercion, emotional manipulation, threats, bribery
Or another inappropriate tactics
Don’t Violate free choice
Using motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel;

There are some who don’t know how Pope Francis qualifies proselytism vs evangelization. If one doesn’t use the above tactics they aren’t proselytizing

In the article you present, in the list of actions presented NOT TO DO, I’m wondering how the pope explains #2.

#2. Presenting one’s church or confession as “the true church” and its teachings as “the right faith” and the only way to salvation.

Especially with respect to paragraph 14 in Lumen Gentium

1. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. 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.

 

[Dovekin]

In the article you present, in the list of actions presented NOT TO DO, I’m wondering how the pope explains #2.

#2. Presenting one’s church or confession as “the true church” and its teachings as “the right faith” and the only way to salvation.

Especially with respect to paragraph 14 in Lumen Gentium

The rest of the article is about your question. It boils down to accepting 2 truths

1. “the Church of Christ fully and totally subsists alone in its own right in the Catholic Church…”
2. other communities “are churches in some sense, in a lesser or greater degree to the extent that there exists ecclesial elements of truth and sanctification in them…”

There is a tension between these ideas, but both are correct. Overemphasizing one pole over the other, as Pius IX mostly did in the Syllabus of Errors, tends toward a flat world. It does not match anyone’s experience of reality.

That same tension is behind the articles you have posted. You apparently see only their affirmation of the uniqueness of the Catholic Church and not their affirmation of the worth of other communities. I am not kidding when I say they undercut your position, because they are directed toward affirming the uniqueness of the Catholic Church within the context of many “true particular Churches.”

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

In the article you present, in the list of actions presented NOT TO DO, I’m wondering how the pope explains #2.

#2. Presenting one’s church or confession as “the true church” and its teachings as “the right faith” and the only way to salvation.

Especially with respect to paragraph 14 in Lumen Gentium

The rest of the article is about your question. It boils down to accepting 2 truths

1. “the Church of Christ fully and totally subsists alone in its own right in the Catholic Church…”
2. other communities “are churches in some sense, in a lesser or greater degree to the extent that there exists ecclesial elements of truth and sanctification in them…”

There is a tension between these ideas, but both are correct. Overemphasizing one pole over the other, as Pius IX mostly did in the Syllabus of Errors, tends toward a flat world. It does not match anyone’s experience of reality.

That same tension is behind the articles you have posted. You apparently see only their affirmation of the uniqueness of the Catholic Church

That’s because it is unique.

Dovekin:

and not their affirmation of the worth of other communities. I am not kidding when I say they undercut your position, because they are directed toward affirming the uniqueness of the Catholic Church within the context of many “true particular Churches.”

You’re NOT seeing the differences that matter,
I posted this from Lumen Gentium paragraph 28

1. 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.

And let’s not dismiss from the same document

1. 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.

That’s from VAT II. The council that was loaded with ecumenical language

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

It would certainly be illicit for him to be consecrating a host though would it not?

 

[Dovekin]

No one is denying those statements. We just hold them in tension with other, seemingly contradictory statements.

The conclusions we draw are often different than the ones you come to, because we take other truths seriously, while you only play one note.

 

[steve-b]

No one is denying those statements. We just hold them in tension with other, seemingly contradictory statements.

one could also say, their shouldn’t be contradicting teaching

Dovekin:

The conclusions we draw are often different than the ones you come to, because we take other truths seriously, while you only play one note.

your answer given the links I gave, is an example of why Pius IX wrote his syllabus of errors.

 

[FrDavid96]

It would certainly be illicit for him to be consecrating a host though would it not?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Remember, the word “illicit” means something contrary to the law. Something illegal.

The laws of the Church only bind those who are members of the Church (unless by their very nature they apply to non-members).

We’re discussing a former Catholic person here. Once a person formally leaves the Church, he is no longer bound by the Church’s laws. We’re discussing a hypothetical situation here—and the issue of “how” he left the Church has not been defined (as a hypothetical, that can be whatever the author makes it).

I know there’s a popular phrase “valid but illicit” that often gets used when talking about sacraments celebrated outside the Church.

I am having a hard time even imagining a situation (as described by the OP) that would actually be licit. But, at the same time, I can’t eliminate the slim possibility. Maybe someone could contrive such a hypothetical.

My point here is that the phrase “it’s valid but illicit” is often used here on CAF; but it’s a mis-used phrase.

There are users who read posts and come away thinking that the word “illicit” means “outside the visible structure of the Catholic Church.” I’m thinking of a very animated exchange I had with one user a few months back who thought exactly that.

So the answer to your question is "yes, it’s illicit."
(with the slight caveat that someone might be able to contrive some additional hypothetical additions that would make the OP’s own hypothetical somehow licit)

But it’s necessary to also explain (especially to the many readers here who might not understand the subtlety) that is is illicit because it specifically violates Canon Law; it is not illicit because it happens outside the visible structure of the Church.