Priest to me today: The Lutherans have valid eucharist

[Bluegoat]

I would disagree. For a more true-to-source “definition” of the word, I cite what the Council of Florence (1431-1445) taught.

Your argument seems to be that he can intend to confect regardless of what the church does or says. Not quite the same thing.

I’m not sure how your quote helps at all. It doesn’t shed any light on the topic that I can see - it seems more general and lacking in specifics rather than more specific.

How the CC understands intent is pretty well laid out. It’s been a while since I looked at it, so I don’t really want to quote it lest I get it wrong, but it is pretty clear that being in the Catholic Church is not at issue.

But yes, I am saying that he can intend to confect despite what the Church says or does. THat is why the CC recognizes excommunicated priests as still being valid priests, and says they can still preside at a valid Eucharist. That is why one can have a Eucharist that is valid, but illicit. Intent is not intent of the Church - it is intent of the person performing the Sacrament.

Consider other Sacraments to see the principle. The Catholic Church believes a baptism done by heretics is valid - even one done by a non-Christian. The CC even accepts baptisms from those who do not consider it to be a sacrament or effectual, but only a symbol. The point is not that it is licit, or even that the person has a clear understanding, but that he intends to do what the Church has always done - even if he is quite mistaken about what that is.

 

[secjga]

I’m not sure how your quote helps at all. It doesn’t shed any light on the topic that I can see - it seems more general and lacking in specifics rather than more specific.

How the CC understands intent is pretty well laid out. It’s been a while since I looked at it, so I don’t really want to quote it lest I get it wrong, but it is pretty clear that being in the Catholic Church is not at issue.

But yes, I am saying that he can intend to confect despite what the Church says or does. THat is why the CC recognizes excommunicated priests as still being valid priests, and says they can still preside at a valid Eucharist. That is why one can have a Eucharist that is valid, but illicit. Intent is not intent of the Church - it is intent of the person performing the Sacrament.

Consider other Sacraments to see the principle. The Catholic Church believes a baptism done by heretics is valid - even one done by a non-Christian. The CC even accepts baptisms from those who do not consider it to be a sacrament or effectual, but only a symbol. The point is not that it is licit, or even that the person has a clear understanding, but that he intends to do what the Church has always done - even if he is quite mistaken about what that is.

The reason why priests who have left the Church MAY confect valid Sacraments still is because Holy Orders are a Sacrament and Sacraments cannot be undone. A priest, once validly ordained, is a priest until he dies, whether or not he is good standing. If one is laicized one is still a priest but has been absolved of the requirement to perform priestly duties.

The intent you talk of is the intent of the Church. What the church says is that the minister must have the same intent as that of the Church. If a priest says a Mass exactly as prescribed and believes in the Real Presence even, if he believes that the bread and wine are the subject of the Sacrifice, then the consecration may be invalid because it is Christ’s death on the cross that is the Sacrifice, not the mere bread and wine. There must be no difference between what the teaches concerning the Sacrament and what he priest’s intention is as he confects it.

A heretic may confect a valid Baptism because of all the Sacraments, that is the one that does not absolutely require a priest to confect. Still, the one confecting must baptize in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, use water over the head and believe that the result of the Baptism is the washing away of Original Sin, an absolute requirement for salvation. For those who do not believe in Original Sin, that would be problematic.

 

[ProVobis]

A heretic may confect a valid Baptism because of all the Sacraments, that is the one that does not absolutely require a priest to confect. Still, the one confecting must baptize in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, use water over the head …

This is correct and it must be that exact formula. If one were to baptize only in the name of Jesus, for example, his intent to baptize may be there, but it would not be a valid baptism in the eyes of the Church. If there is a Protestant denomination that says otherwise, that would be problematic.

 

[EnchantedEve]

What is interesting to me is that many Old Catholics are far more liberal theologically than Anglicans, but the CC accepts their orders. It makes it a bit hard to take some of the talk about how separating oneself from the “true body” means the Eucharist is invalid seriously.

Bringing in the intent issue, this is why the Roman Catholic Church accepts the orders of the groups I cited above. Not only do they emphatically accept the Sacraments in the same sense as Rome, but they use the pre-1955 Roman Missal, unquestionably valid, in the vernacular. Some even still use the minor orders. So, it is apparent, both by praxis and belief, that the Old Catholics, at least sacrament-wise, adhere to the Catholic Faith. Their diversions to not generally touch the sacraments. This is why, unless the have female clergy, their orders are always accepted as valid. However, the Lutherans and Anglicans both, at one time or another, rejected the Catholic understaning of the sacraments, which is generally where they lost validity, especially when they attempted to transmit orders. You cannot transmit what you do not intend to give.

 

[ProVobis]

Bringing in the intent issue, this is why the Roman Catholic Church accepts the orders of the groups I cited above. Not only do they emphatically accept the Sacraments in the same sense as Rome, but they use the pre-1955 Roman Missal, unquestionably valid, in the vernacular.

Where is the document that says the 1955 Roman Missal in the vernacular is valid? The EF is allowable only in the Latin, at least where the Latin Rite is used. There is no intent involved when one uses his own translations to substitute for the received and approved language. Seems to me that was one of the reasons Trent was convened, to prevent this.

Even in the OF, vernacular pre-supposes translational (from the Latin) approval by both the bishops in that country and the Vatican. Without this approval, one can’t use his own translation in his liturgy like he can with his Bible, for example.

 

[Bluegoat]

I wonder if it would be useful to start another thread specifically on intent and how it is understood? It might get some more participation.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Where is the document that says the 1955 Roman Missal in the vernacular is valid? The EF is allowable only in the Latin, at least where the Latin Rite is used. There is no intent involved when one uses his own translations to substitute for the received and approved language. Seems to me that was one of the reasons Trent was convened, to prevent this.

Even in the OF, vernacular pre-supposes translational (from the Latin) approval by both the bishops in that country and the Vatican. Without this approval, one can’t use his own translation in his liturgy like he can with his Bible, for example.

What is allowable is irrelevant to substance. If we were discussing what was allowed, we would not be discussing Old Catholic orders now, would we? So long as the translation is in the same sense and intent as what was originally rendered in the Latin it is valid. For example, “Tu es sacerdotus” cannot be translated “Thou art Mickey Mouse.”

 

[AntalKalnoky]

From an Anglican missal:

"[16] WHO the day before he suffered. He takes the Host, took bread into his holy and venerable hands. He lifts up his eyes to heaven, and lifting up his eyes to heaven unto thee, O God, his almighty Father, He bows his head. Giving thanks to thee. He signs over the Host, he bles+ sed, brake and gave to his disciples, saying: Take and eat all ye of this.

Holding the Host with both hands between the thumbs and forefingers, he utters the words of consecration secretly, distinctly, and attentively over the Host, and at the same time over all, if more are to be consecrated.

FOR THIS IS MY BODY"

Vatican approved or not, with a recycled Jesuit as minister and the words above, my bet would be on validity.

The Form and substance of this Anglican ‘consecration’ are not valid: a Catholic Priest uses the exact Words of Christ, as Christ changes the Bread/Wine into his body and blood. The Anglican words are their own, not Christ’s. And Pope Leo the XIII declared that Anglican ministers do not have Apostolic Powers to Consecrate.

 

[ProVobis]

So long as the translation is in the same sense and intent as what was originally rendered in the Latin it is valid. For example, “Tu es sacerdotus” cannot be translated “Thou art Mickey Mouse.”

But that’s exactly my point. Who determines what was in the same sense and what was originally rendered in the Latin and is valid? Your example is good but many (even ministers) wouldn’t know the difference between “Tu es sacerdotus” and “Thou art Mickey Mouse.” Would it still be valid for them?

As far as I know and I don’t mean to be uncharitable here, but there have been many criticisms of the Anglican Rite(s) pertaining to the Holy Sacrifice and in other ways. Why should I believe that it is/they are valid rite(s) any more than those who questioned the validity of the all-English vernacular even before the 1970 Missal was promulgated (Omlor being one)? And these questions extended more than just to the “pro multis/for all” translation which they are now attempting to correct.

 

[Almagore]

That is certainly not what the Church teaches. In fact, Pope Leo XIII wrote a Papal Bull on the matter. According to the New Advent Encyclopedia:

You can find the whole thing here at:

newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm

I hope this helps answer your question as to the invalidity (if there is such a word) of Anglican orders.

Thank you for this information. I was unsure before and this has clarified the issue for me.

 

[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.

There are very few Catholic Priests who switch to Protestant Ministers; Very Few. There are a Very Large number of Protestant Ministers who switch to Catholic Church Membership; some even studying, then being ordained as Catholic Priest; many Anglicans in that Group. “Journey Home” on EWTN interviews Numerous such; Definitive Bible Expert Scott Hahn is another. :tiphat: And Only the Caholic Church has The Mass; our Orthodox brothers have the “Divine Liturgy”, which is their version, same key elements of the Mass. There are 22 Eastern Rite/Orthodox denominations In Union with the Vatican, and Their Sacraments, which no Protestant Church Has, are Recognized Valid by The Vatican. No Protestant Church has The Mass, Unique to the Catholic Church: The Last Supper Feast which Our Lord told the Apostles to do “In His Remembrance”, as the Consecration of Bread/Wine into Real Presence Eucharist. Incidentally, in 2000, there were 1.3 Billion Catholic/Orthodox Members of the 2 Billion “Christians”, of thousands of Sects.

 

[Louise71]

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.

Maybe it’s best not to judge him and just focus on the love of Jesus