non-Catholic church with the Real Presence

[GKC]

I’m going what with everyone else said, the orthodox, the old catholics and the polish national catholics. But I have also read that some where in europe there are lutherans who have valid apostolic succession.

Sweden, in particular.

GKC

 

[ConstantineTG]

The difference between the Orthodox and these other Churches with valid Orders is that the Orthodox Churches were set up by the Apostles themselves. The other Churches are breakaway groups, usually from the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[ProVobis]

It is possible that some churches maintained the Real Presence for a period of time after their splitting off…a Priest’s Holy Orders are permanent, and, as such, a Priest could possibly still confect the Eucharist after leaving the Church and aligning with some other group. This would be illicit, but still a Sacrament, assuming the Priest says the right words, uses the right matter (bread & wine), and has the right intent (i.e., still believes in the Real Presence as we understand it).

However, none of those Priests are alive today, and the current pastors/priests/etc. of the other denominations are no longer in the line of valid Apostolic Succession (nor to they typically have a right understanding of the Real Presence), and thus they can no longer confect the Eucharist.

There are still a few ex-Catholic priests and ex-priests around. And I imagine they’ll be more. But I would think they could only use the Vatican-approved (or Orthodox) texts to consecrate.

 

[laszlo]

All –

Does there exist now, or could there ever exist, a non-Catholic church that has the Real Presence?

That is, is it at all possible, in terms of Catholic doctrine, for any other church other than the Catholic church to have the Real Presence?

Eastern Orthodox (schismatic) churches has the valid apostolic succession, consequently their Sacraments are valid. It is illicit for a Catholic to participate in such sacrament, but the Sacrament is valid.

 

[thistle]

That is incorrect. The Orthodox Church has validly ordained priests with apostolic lineage, and they have valid sacraments. According to the Code of Canon Law, in cases where a Catholic may not be able to receive communion from a Catholic Church, they may receive at an Orthodox Church. The same goes for Confession and Last Rites. More details can be found here.

The Orthodox Church is actually simply in schism from the Catholic Church. They are actually Catholics but don’t want to say so!

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Orthodox Church is actually simply in schism from the Catholic Church. They are actually Catholics but don’t want to say so!

Actually they do. They just recognize the fact that Catholic as title has already been held on to by those in communion with the Pope.

 

[suissemissed]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East all have valid Sacraments, and thus they have the Real Presence. Beyond these Churches, I don’t know if there are any others…

Presumably the Church of England used to have it, but now the Catholic Church says that it doesn’t because of substantial changes in Anglican theology which caused it to lose Apostolic Succession.

 

[JackQ]

Technically speaking, there are currently two bodies that have all seven Sacraments: the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church (meaning its various component churches).

These both have the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Outside of these, there is no valid Priesthood. Without a valid Priesthood, there is no Real Presence.

It is possible that some churches maintained the Real Presence for a period of time after their splitting off…a Priest’s Holy Orders are permanent, and, as such, a Priest could possibly still confect the Eucharist after leaving the Church and aligning with some other group. This would be illicit, but still a Sacrament, assuming the Priest says the right words, uses the right matter (bread & wine), and has the right intent (i.e., still believes in the Real Presence as we understand it).

However, none of those Priests are alive today, and the current pastors/priests/etc. of the other denominations are no longer in the line of valid Apostolic Succession (nor to they typically have a right understanding of the Real Presence), and thus they can no longer confect the Eucharist.

God bless you.

I think the Oriental Orthodox can be included in this as well.

 

[JackQ]

The Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East all have valid Sacraments, and thus they have the Real Presence. Beyond these Churches, I don’t know if there are any others…

Presumably the Church of England used to have it, but now the Catholic Church says that it doesn’t because of substantial changes in Anglican theology which caused it to lose Apostolic Succession.

I missed this. I agree with this entirely, and is what I meant to say in the previous post.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think the Oriental Orthodox can be included in this as well.

From a Roman Catholic perspective, when they say Orthodox they mean Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East.

 

[The_Reginator]

Presumably the Church of England used to have it, but now the Catholic Church says that it doesn’t because of substantial changes in Anglican theology which caused it to lose Apostolic Succession.

Please correct me on this. (Unless, of course, I’m right – as usual.)
I thought that the Anglicans lost Apostolic Succession because they had bishops appointed by the crown rather than having bishops ordained properly.

 

[ProVobis]

Please correct me on this. (Unless, of course, I’m right – as usual.)
I thought that the Anglicans lost Apostolic Succession because they had bishops appointed by the crown rather than having bishops ordained properly.

Although they have nice and reverent services, their “priests” have no power to consecrate. Pope Leo XIII confirmed that the Anglicans had lost their “Apostolic Succession” in APOSTOLICAE CURAE.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L13APCUR.HTM

 

[ConstantineTG]

Please correct me on this. (Unless, of course, I’m right – as usual.)
I thought that the Anglicans lost Apostolic Succession because they had bishops appointed by the crown rather than having bishops ordained properly.

The good news is that some Anglicans elected to come home and is going into full communion with Rome. They will be as Catholic as you and I, the priests and bishops will be ordained properly so we can go to an Anglican Use Mass and receive the Eucharist as it is a 100% Catholic Mass.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Please correct me on this. (Unless, of course, I’m right – as usual.)
I thought that the Anglicans lost Apostolic Succession because they had bishops appointed by the crown rather than having bishops ordained properly.

You’re right that they lost valid Apostolic Succession, but not about the reason. The fact that the Crown chose the nation’s bishops didn’t invalidate the ordinations (in fact, various Catholic countries, particularly Spain, have validly done this in the past). The fact that the Church of England abrogated the traditional ordination rite in favor of a new one that they made up did. The encyclical previously cited, Apostolicae Curae, explains the precise changes if you’re interested in the minutiae.

 

[TheDoctor]

Yes, but it starts and ends with that priest. Only a Bishop can pass on his Apostolic Succession and ordain another clergyman (bishop, priest, deacon). But a Bishop can go into schism, which is the case with the Old Catholics, and retain Apostolic Succession. The priests are validly, but illicitly ordained. They are priests but have no ministry in the Catholic Church, and thus we should never seek them for sacraments except for confession and only if there is danger of death.

Thanks Constantine. I was 99 44/100% sure but it always is best to run it by the knowledgeable folks here.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thanks Constantine. I was 99 44/100% sure but it always is best to run it by the knowledgeable folks here.

Just to add, Bishops who separate from the Church still need to follow proper form, matter and intention to give a proper Ordination. So a schismatic Bishop cannot Ordain a woman into a priest no matter what he does. And as in the case of Anglicans, if they change the words and the rite of Ordination, it would render the Ordination invalid.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m going what with everyone else said, the orthodox, the old catholics and the polish national catholics. But I have also read that some where in europe there are lutherans who have valid apostolic succession.

No Lutherans have preserved Apostolic Succession.

The Old Catholics are now an open question. There are several different Old Catholic groups, some may have Apostolic Succession, some certainly do not.

 

[Aramis]

All –

Does there exist now, or could there ever exist, a non-Catholic church that has the Real Presence?

That is, is it at all possible, in terms of Catholic doctrine, for any other church other than the Catholic church to have the Real Presence?

(It occurs to me that I believe the answer is “no” but I do not have the specifics in terms of Catholic doctrine. Generally, I think it falls under “there is no salvation outside of the Catholic church”, but that is a bit gray for me because here “Church” can me the “whole Catholic Church” not just the “visible Catholic Church”-- in the sense that “we know where the Catholic Church IS but we do not know where the Catholic Church IS NOT, etc”.

Anyway, to the question, does anyone have some specifics, CCC paragraphs, etc?

Thank you.

May Jesus Christ, The Lord, let his face shine upon you always.

– Mark Kamoski

Quite a Surprising number.

The Oriental Orthodox Communion, the Eastern Orthodox Communion, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church, The Polish National Catholic Church, most churches of the Utrecht Union, Some of the Old Catholic churches (those without Female priests and female bishops, and without too protestantized a theology), many Vagante churches whose episcopal consecrations were valid but illicit.

Mention is made of them in CIC Canon 844, noting §§2-4… Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-

Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

and in the CCC…

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM#28K

And
1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."235

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."236 It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."237

1401 When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.238vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P42.HTM

Specific details of whom and when are handled in less long-term documents, most of which are not online.

 

[ProVobis]

Only a Bishop can pass on his Apostolic Succession and ordain another clergyman (bishop, priest, deacon).

I thought it took at least TWO bishops who could consecrate a third.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I thought it took at least TWO bishops who could consecrate a third.

Thats just rubrics, a symbolism of a number of bishops elevating one and welcoming him to the brotherhood. When it comes down to it for bare minimum of validity, only one is enough.