Priest to me today: The Lutherans have valid eucharist

[Vincent1984]

Some priests may be ex-Anglican for example, so they obviously will have a very hard time accepting the teaching that Anglican Eucharists are invalid.

Ex-Anglican priests must implicitly accept the nullity of Anglican orders when they are ordained as Catholic priests, otherwise the Catholic ordination would make no sense at all.

Though some who can prove the ‘Dutch touch’ as noted above are ‘conditionally ordained’, because it is uncertain if they are already priests or not.

 

[PiousTemplar]

Ex-Anglican priests must implicitly accept the nullity of Anglican orders when they are ordained as Catholic priests, otherwise the Catholic ordination would make no sense at all.

Though some who can prove the ‘Dutch touch’ as noted above are ‘conditionally ordained’, because it is uncertain if they are already priests or not.

You are missing my point. They might accept it, but they, because of their history, might have personal struggles trying to accept the teaching. There is a difference between outright rejecting a teaching and struggling with it. What I was trying to say is that the priest probably meant no harm, he wasn’t trying to spread heresy, he was just uninformed.

 

[Fink]

I know priests who say similar things…
…In my experience, it is part of a wider issue of deliberate disagreement with anything in the Church’s own teachings which separate it from protestantism.

Yeah: like a misguided ecumenism.

 

[juno24]

I said something to the effect of, “You mean that St. Paul’s Lutheran Church - the one down the road - can validly consecrate the Eucharist?” And he said back, “Yes. They may not know it, but they have a valid Eucharist. Anglicans have it too, even if they don’t call it transubstantiation. Their orders are valid.”

I’m definitely sure he was talking about confecting the Eucharist into the body and blood of Christ. Not just some light-hearted thing about sacrificial symbolism. I was absolutely shocked.

Now, see, charity demands that I look at his statements in the best possible light, so if I were not going to press for further clarification I would have to think that Father is simply not communicating his beliefs very well, or that he is confused about what the Church has stated about some non-Catholic, non-Orthodox ministers having valid ordinations.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I said something to the effect of, “You mean that St. Paul’s Lutheran Church - the one down the road - can validly consecrate the Eucharist?” And he said back, “Yes. They may not know it, but they have a valid Eucharist. Anglicans have it too, even if they don’t call it transubstantiation. Their orders are valid.”

I’m definitely sure he was talking about confecting the Eucharist into the body and blood of Christ. Not just some light-hearted thing about sacrificial symbolism. I was absolutely shocked.

So God has changed their hosts and wine into the Body and Blood on the sly??? “They may not know it???” That amazes me. I guess if God can randomly do that, he could make the Protestant grape juice and bread valid too?

Wow. I thought that a church had to have the INTENTION to perform the rite of Consecration before God made the change. But I sure don’t know everything regarding Catholicism.

 

[FrancisB]

My best guess would be that he is misunderstanding some claims that certain Lutheran and Anglican groups make about Apostolic Succession and thinking that it would confer valid holy orders and therefore valid Euchriast. Certain Anglo-Catholic priests and bishops have claimed ordination through the Old Catholics, although I’m still uncertain how valid this can be, since the Old Catholics and the Anglicans ordain women. I’m fairly certain that the fact that this is allowed in their churches proves that they do not have valid anything. Similarly, certain parts of the Lutheran movement (and we must be careful here because there isn’t a singular Lutheran Church like there is with the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church), particularly the local churches of Scandinavia had their Catholic bishops convert to Protestantism when it was brought to the north. Even if that constitutes Apostolic Succession amongst those bishops, that doesn’t apply to any bishops that are not part of that unbroken chain.

 

[Bluegoat]

That’s exactly what I was refering to, as I understand it some Anglican ordinations and consecrations have been performed with the assistance of Old Catholic bishops… which slightly muddies the waters of Apostolicae Curae, as Leo XIII was operating before such things occured. That said - you’re still talking 1000 to 1 I reckon, so pretty much “absolutely null and utterly void”!

No, actually almost all Anglican priests can be traced back to valid Old Catholic orders this way - there was at one time a point made of making sure this happened.

I agree completely with the bolded. Part of what makes for a valid celebration is that a priest intends to do what the Church intends him to do. The Church certainly does not intend even a validly ordained priest to illicitly celebrate the Eucharist outside of the boundaries of the Catholic Church. A priest who does such is acting in extreme disobedience against the pope, Canon law and the Church.

If your reasoning was correct here, the Orthodox, Old Catholics, or even the SSPX at times would have had invalid Masses, but that is not the position of the Catholic Church. It is from a Catholic perspective entirely possible to have illicit but valid Sacraments.

 

[ProVobis]

If your reasoning was correct here, the Orthodox, Old Catholics, or even the SSPX at times would have had invalid Masses, but that is not the position of the Catholic Church. It is from a Catholic perspective entirely possible to have illicit but valid Sacraments.

The DL, TLM, and even the Sarum Rite (I believe) would be valid rites. So yes, if you have a duly authorized priest or ex-priest, having been ordained by Apostolic Succession, celebrating them, then IMO the Mass/Eucharist would be valid.

 

[Bluegoat]

The DL, TLM, and even the Sarum Rite (I believe) would be valid rites. So yes, if you have a duly authorized priest or ex-priest, having been ordained by Apostolic Succession, celebrating them, then IMO the Mass/Eucharist would be valid.

As far as I know, there are no issues that the CC has with the modern Anglican rites - have you seen this in some sort of authoritative document? They do tweak them for their own use, but I don’t believe declare them invalid for use in the way you mean.

Now, AC does make a claim that some previous texts for the ordination were no good, and that seems to be the basis of the decision of AC, but that doesn’t refer to the Eucharistic rite at all.

 

[Timothysis]

If your reasoning was correct here, the Orthodox, Old Catholics, or even the SSPX at times would have had invalid Masses, but that is not the position of the Catholic Church. It is from a Catholic perspective entirely possible to have illicit but valid Sacraments.

The Orthodox, Old Catholics and sspx are actually within the confines of the Church. I know that the Church does not question the validity of their Eucharistic liturgies though I do think it interesting that the Orthodox do not generally allow Catholics to participate in the reception of the Eucharist since it implies a oneness in faith that they, at least, do not believe to exist.

Once there was the question raised of an apostate priest who would preside at a “black mass” to consecrate the bread and wine in order to blaspheme against Our Lord Jesus. My position was/is that regardless of the fact that the priest is a true priest, doing such a thing is outside of what the Church intends and would thus not be valid (I was also curious which Eucharistic Prayer one would use at a black mass). Others disagreed but I remain steadfast in my opinion. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is held to some legal, technical mumbo jumbo that weighs upon the question of validity. I think that if a priest were to defect to an ecclesial community, then his intention to do what the Church intends is in serious doubt, since the intention of the Church is to consecrate bread and wine as part of the Church, in union with the pope and his bishop, fellow priests and the Church as a whole.

However, this is just my personal conjecture and opinion so you’ll get from it what you paid for it!

 

[Bluegoat]

The Orthodox, Old Catholics and sspx are actually within the confines of the Church. I know that the Church does not question the validity of their Eucharistic liturgies though I do think it interesting that the Orthodox do not generally allow Catholics to participate in the reception of the Eucharist since it implies a oneness in faith that they, at least, do not believe to exist.

Once there was the question raised of an apostate priest who would preside at a “black mass” to consecrate the bread and wine in order to blaspheme against Our Lord Jesus. My position was/is that regardless of the fact that the priest is a true priest, doing such a thing is outside of what the Church intends and would thus not be valid (I was also curious which Eucharistic Prayer one would use at a black mass). Others disagreed but I remain steadfast in my opinion. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is held to some legal, technical mumbo jumbo that weighs upon the question of validity. I think that if a priest were to defect to an ecclesial community, then his intention to do what the Church intends is in serious doubt, since the intention of the Church is to consecrate bread and wine as part of the Church, in union with the pope and his bishop, fellow priests and the Church as a whole.

However, this is just my personal conjecture and opinion so you’ll get from it what you paid for it!

The understanding of the Eucharist you are talking about is similar to what the Orthodox believe - that you must be within the Church. It is not what the CC teaches, which is you need valid intent, form, and matter. It is clear that they don’t reject Anglican sacraments as invalid because they are “outside” the Church, it is because they believe Anglicans have not got real priests.

The problem with what you are saying with regard to intent is that an Anglican (or other) priest does not consider himself to be outside the Church. As far as he is concerned, he is doing what the Church has always done, and he is even doing it as part of the Church.

A priest at a black mass is totally different - clearly the whole point of such a thing is to deny the nature of what the Church believes and does. That could never be valid.

I also think that being “within” or “without” the Church is a bit tricky in this context. The SSPX were for a time excommunicated, and the Old Catholics, while their origins are conservative, are today often far more liberal and radical than the average Anglican. Also, you suggested that it was participating in an illicit Mass that was the problem - but even now the SSPX masses are illicit, though there excommunication has been lifted.

 

[Edward_H]

Hand him the facts charitably in a friendly matter. Allow him to spell out his terms. If he rejects or still seems not docile to the facts you give him, to the Bishop’s vicar. This seems pretty serious.

 

[Timothysis]

The problem with what you are saying with regard to intent is that an Anglican (or other) priest does not consider himself to be outside the Church. As far as he is concerned, he is doing what the Church has always done, and he is even doing it as part of the Church.

But what a person personally considers does not make something legitimate. There are women who were “ordained” by legitimate bishops, yet the Holy See does not recognize these ordinations as valid for one reason or another. In the same way, an Anglican priest may consider his actions to be part of the Church (what we consider to be the Church of Christ, or the Catholic Church) though we recognize that he does not possess the necessary legitmacy to effectively do what he intends. His intent is certainly not the same as what the Church intends her priests to do.

A priest at a black mass is totally different - clearly the whole point of such a thing is to deny the nature of what the Church believes and does. That could never be valid.

I agree. I’ve often thought it amusing that some think the Holy Spirit is limited to Canon law.

I also think that being “within” or “without” the Church is a bit tricky in this context. The SSPX were for a time excommunicated, and the Old Catholics, while their origins are conservative, are today often far more liberal and radical than the average Anglican. Also, you suggested that it was participating in an illicit Mass that was the problem - but even now the SSPX masses are illicit, though there excommunication has been lifted.

Yes, it does sometimes get tricky. I do believe that, for whatever reason, attendance at an illicit Mass (which is by definition a celebration that is not allowed by the Church) is a serious decision. I do not question the validity of it in the case of the sspx, but it is *to me personally * a serious decision that really is not justified as long as there are locally available celebrations of the Eucharist that are in union with the local bishop.

 

[Bluegoat]

But what a person personally considers does not make something legitimate. There are women who were “ordained” by legitimate bishops, yet the Holy See does not recognize these ordinations as valid for one reason or another. In the same way, an Anglican priest may consider his actions to be part of the Church (what we consider to be the Church of Christ, or the Catholic Church) though we recognize that he does not possess the necessary legitimacy to effectively do what he intends. His intent is certainly not the same as what the Church intends her priests to do.

A woman is not a valid priest because she is the wrong matter - her intent could be perfectly correct, but it wouldn’t mater (ha ha).

But intent is, buy its very nature, precisely about what a person considers or thinks. The CC says the test is that the priest intends to do what the Church has always done. Even if a valid Catholic priest has a total misunderstanding of the Eucharist, if he meets that test for intent, the Eucharist is valid.

The view you are expressing is the one held by the Orthodox Church - they say that once you have gone outside the Church, you cannot have sacraments because they come through the Church. A priest that breaks away, in their view, can no longer perform as a priest - it won’t “work”.

But the Catholic Church has never argued that.

 

[Timothysis]

A woman is not a valid priest because she is the wrong matter - her intent could be perfectly correct, but it wouldn’t mater (ha ha).

But intent is, buy its very nature, precisely about what a person considers or thinks. The CC says the test is that the priest intends to do what the Church has always done. Even if a valid Catholic priest has a total misunderstanding of the Eucharist, if he meets that test for intent, the Eucharist is valid.

The view you are expressing is the one held by the Orthodox Church - they say that once you have gone outside the Church, you cannot have sacraments because they come through the Church. A priest that breaks away, in their view, can no longer perform as a priest - it won’t “work”.

But the Catholic Church has never argued that.

Good points. Perhaps the waters are deeper than I perceive.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Insofar as I am aware, in summary, these are the churches Rome recognizes as having valid orders AND valid sacraments:

The Eastern Churches
The Old Catholic Church (who do not ordain women)
The Old Roman Catholic Church
The Polish National Catholic Church
Assyrian Church of the East
Oriental Orthodox (In most cases, Ethiopians are doubtful)
The Liberal Catholic Church (the one that does not ordain women)

The Anglicans are an interesting case, since by virtue of the Bonn Agreement of 1931, after which all Anglican bishops were co-consecrated by the Old Catholics. It was therefore believe that by the 1980’s all Anglican Bishops then serving now once again had valid orders thanks to the Old Catholics. However, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate complicated matters, and so there is still a prudent doubt. Lutherans have never had valid orders, although their ordinal can be arguably valid

 

[secjga]

I find many of the replies very disturbing, as well, of course, as the priest’s comment. Any “Mass” other than Catholic has absolutely no validity and is, in fact, sinful in the eyes of God. There is no valid Eucharist other than that resulting from a Catholic Roman Rite Mass [edited] and the other Eastern Rite Masses, which are identical to the Roman Rite in all manner except cultural traditions like kneeling vs. standing, etc. That a priest would make that claim in the first place is symptomatic of the great crisis we are facing today. Can what was once condemned now be OK?! Was the Church wrong all those years?! Does the Faith, which is heaven sent, change with time?! Can heresy become doctrine?! Obviously, no. Previous popes and councils have already given us the answers to these questions. Our priests and Bishops, when they lead us astray, are not to be obeyed by the Faithful. In fact, in those cases, we have a right and duty to challenge them and correct them for the sake of souls who depend on them. That is the true nature of Catholic “charity”.

 

[ProVobis]

As far as I know, there are no issues that the CC has with the modern Anglican rites - have you seen this in some sort of authoritative document? They do tweak them for their own use, but I don’t believe declare them invalid for use in the way you mean.

If the Catholic Church has to “tweak” them in order to use them, even the new English translation, that alone should tell you that the only valid rites are the ones that they have explicitly approved and each translation of it has to be approved. Does that make sense? Otherwise any ex-priest can recite any translation of 1 Corinthians 11 and make a claim his “Mass” or Eucharist was valid. (I’m equating Mass and Eucharist here, though I’m sure there are theologicans who wouldn’t agree.)

 

[AntalKalnoky]

I know of one other way.
One of my shirttail relatives is a validly ordained Jesuit priest who switched sides and is now an Episcopal priest. There are quite a few others like him. Their Masses are valid.

Masses are only Valid if in proper Form and Substance. The Episcopal Rite has neither, nor are the many variants of ‘episcopal’ valid anymore, because operate against Basic Christian Traditions, the Commandments, and/or Bible teaching. 'Gay ‘Married’ episcopal bishop lives in violation of the Commandments and the Bible, much less Christian Tradition.

 

[secjga]

Form and matter are only one third of the formula. The other two are A) valid minister and B) proper intent.

Leo XIII already declared Anglican orders as null and void, the issue is settled. There are no other valid orders, period. Lutheran ministers are not priests in the first place and do not believe in the sacrificail nature of the Mass anyway. A Lutheran Mass is nothing more than individuals coming together to pray. God does not recognize them as a “church”.

Proper intent is also required as many others have stated.

As for the many comments concerning the “Old” Catholic Church, please do not confuse them with “Traditional” Catholics. The Old Catholic Church is a heretical sect that was born in Holland after Vatican I. They reject the infallible nature of the Pope when teaching matters of Faith and Morals. Therefore they are in schism.