C
Camondw
Guest
Is it the dogmatic teaching of the Church that there is no valid Eucharist outside the Catholic Church?
Specifically, in the Anglican church.
Specifically, in the Anglican church.
- Status
A
AndrewF1995
Guest
If they have apostolic succession then there is a valid eucharist I think. Anglicans are a little foggy and I think some of them may have it but a lot don’t.
M
markomalley
Guest
Anglican orders are invalid. This was formally pronounced by Leo XIII in his 1896 Bull, Apostolicae Curae
- Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.
No orders, no valid transubstantiation…and therefore, no valid Sacrament of the Eucharist. Or any other sacrament requiring a sacerdotal minister.
S
Spirithound
Guest
This was certainly true in 1896, however since then I have heard they have been co-ordaining with bishops of the union of Utrecht, who I think do have valid orders. Orders may still be lacking in Anglicanism for other reasons however.
F
FAB
Guest
Unless the Church is in communion with Rome, It is not valid, i.e. the body and blood of Christ.
C
Camondw
Guest
Is that Papal Bull considered ex cathedra** or otherwise infallible?
C
Camondw
Guest
The reason I ask, this is a major sticking-point for me.
I desire to follow the infallible teachings of Rome, however, how can I do such when I believe an important aspect of doctrine is incorrect? I believe that I have experienced grace in receiving the Eucharist, and that my family has received grace in a like manner. I cannot accept, however hard I may wish to, that the most important impartation of grace is restricted to just Rome (along with those in communion with).
It seems to be splitting hairs to say that one may be saved outside the Church, (however difficult) but not be able to receive Grace in Christendom’s most important sacrament. Especially when it is so clear that Grace is essential to salvation.
Is there any “wiggle-room” in the teaching of the magisterium on this point?
I desire to follow the infallible teachings of Rome, however, how can I do such when I believe an important aspect of doctrine is incorrect? I believe that I have experienced grace in receiving the Eucharist, and that my family has received grace in a like manner. I cannot accept, however hard I may wish to, that the most important impartation of grace is restricted to just Rome (along with those in communion with).
It seems to be splitting hairs to say that one may be saved outside the Church, (however difficult) but not be able to receive Grace in Christendom’s most important sacrament. Especially when it is so clear that Grace is essential to salvation.
Is there any “wiggle-room” in the teaching of the magisterium on this point?
M
markomalley
Guest
This was re-validated as recently as the 80s by Cardinal Ratzinger. I will have to look for the specific source for an exact quote.
M
Monica4316
Guest
the official teaching of the Church is that the Eucharist is present in:
- the Catholic Church
- the Orthodox Church.
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
G
GloriousOrder
Guest
There can be no wiggle room, friend. Would you like wiggling room on the morality of killing a baby in the 2nd week or 3rd week? Would you like some wide breathing space with regards to killing or murdering? Would you enjoy some foot room while trying to decide whether a war was just or unjust? Things must be defined properly and exactly for the Christian man to be informed. We are here to believe the Truth of our Lord Jesus Christ as revealed through His Church.
Our Lord said that as His apostles speak, so He speaks through them. Can we doubt that anything they say in firm faith and with conviction is the word of Christ our Lord? It cannot be doubted! My dear friend, any grace you thought you received from Anglican communion may have been in one or two of two categories: 1. imagined, 2. smoke from Satan. When you separate from the true Church, your rites become invalid; you lose your mystical connection to the Body of Christ.
The world is not merely material. Sacramental realities and intimate ties to the abyss of infinity do hold true, even if we cannot see them.
F
FAB
Guest
Those in communion with Rome and the Orthodox, who soon will be by the grace of God.
B
baltobetsy
Guest
We are bound by the Sacraments; God is not. If He willed to impart grace to you and your family through the reception of Eucharist in the Anglican church, He was and is perfectly able to do so. That does not mean that Anglican Eucharist is valid, that is, actually IS the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus Christ. It simply means that God chose that occasion to give graces to you and your family.
S
Spirithound
Guest
What do you mean by grace? Grace is not that fuzzy squishy feeling.
Grace comes in two species: sanctifying and actual. Sanctifying grace is reserved to valid sacraments. Actual grace is not.
M
Monica4316
Guest
grace comes through the Sacraments, though not only through the Sacraments… but a great amount of it comes to us in this way. It can reach non Catholics but they receive less graces. This is because the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus started… all Christians were supposed to have the Sacraments - only they separated from the Church.
M
markomalley
Guest
There is a twofold issue to deal with here.
First, the sacrament is not valid. Objectively, you received a piece of bread and some wine. Period. That has been established above.
God is not restricted to the seven sacraments in how He imparts grace. So I won’t argue with you on whether or not grace was imparted to you. Up until posting on this thread, you very well could have been in a state of “invincible ignorance” as to the validity of their communion service and God works with your heart.
Secondly, though, is that your participating in a communion service with an ecclesial community that is not in communion with the Holy Father and, particularly, one that teaches grievous heresies is a profound statement on your part. In participating in communion with them, you are, in effect, stating that you ARE in communion with them. Including their heretical beliefs.
Vatican II had some very stark words about that:
Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.
Decree, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 26
Pope John Paul II, a few decades later, had the following to say about it in his Encyclical, Ut Unum Sint (45.3):
Certainly, due to disagreements in matters of faith, it is not yet possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic Liturgy. And yet we do have a burning desire to join in celebrating the one Eucharist of the Lord, and this desire itself is already a common prayer of praise, a single supplication.
He continues on this theme in his final Encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucaristia:
- Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord’s sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty, in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.
C
ChristIsTheWay
Guest
I believe that the late Cardinal Hume, archbishop of Westminster, conditionally ordained some Anglican convert priests for that reason. However, it is really hard to say. To my knowledge, even Anglican bishops ordained by or with Old Catholic bishops are still of dubious validity.
I believe it is reaffirmed in this document: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
S
SonCatcher
Guest
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.”
M
Monica4316
Guest
God can certainly use Anglican liturgy, but the difference is that Christ is not substantially present there. He can however be spiritually present.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
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.
- Status