Must a Catholic believe that no other Eucharist is valid?

[ChristIsTheWay]

yes it is dogma
the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession and thus valid sacraments including Eucharist

Anglicans do not, nor does any other Christian body outside the Catholic Church.

there is fuller discussion of this on the apologetics forum
dogma is defined by what God has revealed so that is what the Church teaches. Your opinion and mine are of no relevance whatever.

I thought the Polish National Catholic Church, which is not in communion with Rome, has valid orders. I also thought that the Old Catholics in Europe do, too. I am somewhat less sure of the Old Catholics as well as the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church (Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa).

 

[RyanBlack]

The Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox also have Apostolic Succession, and therefore, valid sacraments.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

The Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox also have Apostolic Succession, and therefore, valid sacraments.

I had forgotten about the Assyrians. So, we have Catholic recognition of the holy orders (and by extension the Eucharist) of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. I am also quite sure that the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Polish National Catholic Church sacraments. I’m less sure about the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church and the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht.

 

[NeedImprovement]

There have already been a number of good responses to this statement. I will focus more closely on the emphasized sentence.

Ultimately, it is God who imparts grace. When a non-Catholic participates in a “Lord’s Supper,” God, at His prerogative, may impart grace for approaching Him in some way. The fact that the non-Catholic minister lacks valid orders to confect the Sacrament does not limit God’s ability to use their pious tradition for their benefit. So, while communion in an Anglican church is not a sacrament, God does have the sovereign power to use it for more than “warm fuzzies.”

This is a good post for raising the “other” question which seems to be bobbing up and down but hasn’t yet come all the way up to the surface :

What about a non-Catholic receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church ?

The general norm is it is not permitted, while members of the other churches with valid Sacraments are the exception - still subject to certain conditions though.

One of the reasons is that without the sacraments of initiation and healing to enable a soul to be properly disposed to receive Holy Communion, there is either no sacramental effect in that soul or the sacramental effect is severely impaired… even though our Blessed Lord is truly , substantially and personally present in the Eucharist.

An informative article at EWTN entitled Communion of non-Catholics or Intercommunion defines most of the conditions and exceptions. It also dispels an erroneous notion held by more than a few Catholics and non-Catholics:

*"…it happens quite frequently that Communion ministers believe themselves authorized to extend Eucharistic hospitality, either for the sake of kindness or a genuine sense of unity among the members of the Congregation. While such motives are admirable, the result nonetheless falsifies the sacramental meaning of the Eucharist as both a sign of communion with Christ and communion with the Catholic Church." *

The principal sacramental effects of receiving Holy Communion are :

• the forgiveness of our venial sins
• the reception of actual, sacramental grace to strengthen us in our mission to do what is right and resist evil
• intimate communion with our Lord (the entire Mass is geared towards this one)
• intimate communion with His Body, the Church

More details can be obtained by reading up on the fruits of Holy Communion CCC 1390-1401 .

As Spirithound points out … better to have the full comprehensive working definition of grace before examining these questions.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Unless the Church is in communion with Rome, It is not valid, i.e. the body and blood of Christ.

That is not the teaching of Rome with whom you are in communion.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

the official teaching of the Church is that the Eucharist is present in:

• the Catholic Church
• the Orthodox Church.

that is it.

The teaching is that Anglican Communion is not valid, because they don’t have a valid priesthood. This is because when they split from the Church, they officially changed how they viewed the Mass and the priesthood… they denied the Church’s teachings and did not intend to ordain priests in the way the Church does. This has made the ordinations invalid. None of the Protestant groups have a valid priesthood.

The Orthodox church is in schism from the Catholic Church, they do not have the Pope, but they also have Apostolic Succession, priesthood, and Sacraments.

God bless

Both Catholic and Orthodox Churches are “less” for not being in communion with one another as they were in the first millennium. The term “schism” is no longer used by Rome to describe its relationship with Orthodoxy.

Alex

 

[puzzleannie]

I thought the Polish National Catholic Church, which is not in communion with Rome, has valid orders. I also thought that the Old Catholics in Europe do, too. I am somewhat less sure of the Old Catholics as well as the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church (Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa).

possibly, but that has change in recent years as some of those denoms have ordained women and so there is no longer assurance of apostolic succession. However that does not address OP’s question. Yes Catholics are obliged to believe defined dogma about validity of Eucharist and Holy Orders. Period. No personal opinions are relevant in matters of dogma.

 

[jwinch2]

Follow-on question. It is my understanding that if an Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, etc., married couple who was married comes into the Catholic Church that the Church will recognize both their sacrament of Baptism and Marriage as valid. How can those sacraments be valid while others are not?

 

[markomalley]

Follow-on question. It is my understanding that if an Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, etc., married couple who was married comes into the Catholic Church that the Church will recognize both their sacrament of Baptism and Marriage as valid. How can those sacraments be valid while others are not?

Because those two sacraments do not require a valid priest to serve as the minister. In the Sacrament of Baptism, any person, even a non-Christian, can baptize, provided that the form, matter, and intent are correct (Of course, the ordinary ministers are the priest and deacon, I’m talking about extraordinary situations here). In the Sacrament of Matrimony, the actual ministers are the couple who make the covenant with each other in the presence of God.

 

[jwinch2]

Because those two sacraments do not require a valid priest to serve as the minister. In the Sacrament of Baptism, any person, even a non-Christian, can baptize, provided that the form, matter, and intent are correct (Of course, the ordinary ministers are the priest and deacon, I’m talking about extraordinary situations here). In the Sacrament of Matrimony, the actual ministers are the couple who make the covenant with each other in the presence of God.

Thanks,

 

[vsedriver]

Follow-on question. It is my understanding that if an Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, etc., married couple who was married comes into the Catholic Church that the Church will recognize both their sacrament of Baptism and Marriage as valid. How can those sacraments be valid while others are not?

Baptism does not ‘require’ a priest to perform the ceremony but it is preferred that a priest conduct the Baptism to ensure that correct form is used.

The priest doesn’t marry the couple per se, the couple marry each other. The priest oversees the ceremony thus ensuring again, proper form.

But the Eucharist and Confession require a priest to perform the sacrament. Without out a valid priest the sacrament is invalid.