Real Presence in the Anglican/Episcopalian Eucharist?

[Everyman]

What is the Catholic Church’s stance on what happens at an Episcopalian mass? Is it seen as an apostolic church and, therefore, containing a transubstatiated Host?

I’m attending an Episcopalian church tomorrow; and I’m curious as to what the Catholic Church would say about what goes on there. I know some Anglicans believe in Real Presence and some do not.

Also, I read of a couple of times Hilaire Belloc worshiped in an Anglican church. Like Westminster Abbey, for instance. Is that okay?

-Everyman

 

[JOHNYJ]

Apostolica Curae Decree 1896 .Episcopalians have no Valid anything.No Sacraments,Priestood, or Apostolic succession. The behvaiour of Episcopalians since than and most especialy the `1970’s has proven how right the church was in 1896.

 

[twiztedseraph]

Everyman:

What is the Catholic Church’s stance on what happens at an Episcopalian mass? Is it seen as an apostolic church and, therefore, containing a transubstatiated Host?

I’m attending an Episcopalian church tomorrow; and I’m curious as to what the Catholic Church would say about what goes on there. I know some Anglicans believe in Real Presence and some do not.

Also, I read of a couple of times Hilaire Belloc worshiped in an Anglican church. Like Westminster Abbey, for instance. Is that okay?

-Everyman

Don’t take communion there…And also discern whether you’re causing scandal, you know a Catholic coming to an Anglican Church…tut But I really shouldn’t judge, sorry.

 

[Eileen_T]

From what I remember, under King Edward VI the Ritual changed substantially regarding ordination, to such a degree that the Catholic Church deemed them invalid. Years later, the Ritual changed back, but by then, there were no validly ordained Bishops in the Anglican Church with the power to confer the sacrament of Holy Orders.

It follows from this that, even if they used the correct words of consecration, they have no more power to do so in fact than any layperson.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Everyman:

What is the Catholic Church’s stance on what happens at an Episcopalian mass? Is it seen as an apostolic church and, therefore, containing a transubstatiated Host?

I’m attending an Episcopalian church tomorrow; and I’m curious as to what the Catholic Church would say about what goes on there. I know some Anglicans believe in Real Presence and some do not.

Also, I read of a couple of times Hilaire Belloc worshiped in an Anglican church. Like Westminster Abbey, for instance. Is that okay?

-Everyman

What is the Catholic Church’s stance on what happens at an Episcopalian mass?

Nothing

Is it seen as an apostolic church and, therefore, containing a transubstatiated Host?

No, this is why Catholics are forbidden to receive “communion” in their church.

Of course anyone can worship, pray together, gather as a community of Christians in the Episcopalian church. But a true Divine Liturgy or Mass cannot be celebrated without a validly Ordained priest.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

JOHNYJ:

Apostolica Curae Decree 1896 .Episcopalians have no Valid anything.No Sacraments,Priestood, or Apostolic succession. The behvaiour of Episcopalians since than and most especialy the `1970’s has proven how right the church was in 1896.

“Episcopalians have no Valid anything.No Sacraments,Priestood, or Apostolic succession.”

They do have valid Sacraments of Baptism and valid Marriage.

 

[Jabronie]

“Episcopalians have no Valid anything.No Sacraments,Priestood, or Apostolic succession.”

They do have valid Sacraments of Baptism and valid Marriage.

They have valid sacramental baptism, but from what I understand any marriage outside of the church may be valid, but not sacramental.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Jabronie:

They have valid sacramental baptism, but from what I understand any marriage outside of the church may be valid, but not sacramental.

That is incorrect ANY valid Marriage between two validly Baptized Christians is a Sacrament.

 

[QUICUMQUE_VULT]

Br. Rich SFO:

That is incorrect ANY valid Marriage between two validly Baptized Christians is a Sacrament.

Right on Brother Rich!
In todays poorly catechized world, it is refreshing to see someone who knows the Faith.
The baptized are the Ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony. In Emergency all that is required is mutual consent. for the Sacrament to be confered. That and and both parties must be in A state of grace.
kudos Br. Rich

 

[cyprian]

Br. Rich SFO:

That is incorrect ANY valid Marriage between two validly Baptized Christians is a Sacrament.

Do you mean two Catholics??
I was married cath and then divorced and re-married episcopal. After my annulment our episcopal marriage(my wife is not Cath) was validated in the Cath Church. We lived in continence during all of this because we were technically living in sin. Our marriage had to be validated for me to recieve sacraments and for us to resume marital relations. Does validation in the Catholic sense mean sacramental??
What’s the point it seems to me, to have a catholic marriage if not for the conference of grace? A sacrament is as such, no??

 

[John_Higgins]

To add to the mystery, many Episcopal/Anglican priests have valid apostolic succession. The last four Archbishops of Canterbury had Old Catholic or Orthodox (read, valid) bishops assisting in their ordinations. So, what was true in 1896 is not necessarily true now. In fact, Anglican/Episcopal priests “coming over” are ordained sub conditione (that is in case their first ordination was NOT valid).

John

 

[Joan_M]

cyprian:

Do you mean two Catholics??
I was married cath and then divorced and re-married episcopal. After my annulment our episcopal marriage(my wife is not Cath) was validated in the Cath Church. We lived in continence during all of this because we were technically living in sin. Our marriage had to be validated for me to recieve sacraments and for us to resume marital relations. Does validation in the Catholic sense mean sacramental??
What’s the point it seems to me, to have a catholic marriage if not for the conference of grace? A sacrament is as such, no??

No, Cyprian, we mean two baptized Christians. Any two baptized Christians who marry are presumed to have a Sacramental marriage. That is why it is necessary for a divorced person to apply for an annulment prior considering re-marriage. A Catholic must marry in accordance with the rules laid down by the Catholic Church - usually, in a Catholic Church.

Yes, once your marriage was validated, it became a true marriage, and, thus, Sacramental.

 

[Jabronie]

QUICUMQUE VULT:

Right on Brother Rich!
In todays poorly catechized world, it is refreshing to see someone who knows the Faith.
The baptized are the Ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony. In Emergency all that is required is mutual consent. for the Sacrament to be confered. That and and both parties must be in A state of grace.
kudos Br. Rich

So when is a marriage considered valid, but not sacramental? Is it if just one of the party are validly baptised but the other is not? Or is it if neither are validly baptised?

 

[Chatter163]

To add to the mystery, many Episcopal/Anglican priests have valid apostolic succession. The last four Archbishops of Canterbury had Old Catholic or Orthodox (read, valid) bishops assisting in their ordinations. So, what was true in 1896 is not necessarily true now. In fact, Anglican/Episcopal priests “coming over” are ordained sub conditione (that is in case their first ordination was NOT valid).

The fact of the matter is that only a relatively small percentage of Anglican ordinations have included Old Catholic or Orthodox clergy, and only a handful of (but highly publicized) ordinations of Anglican priests to the Roman Catholic priesthood have been *sub conditione, *most notably Graham Leonard, former Anglican Bishop of London. To imply that this is the norm is misleading, as most are still ordained anew.

 

[David_Zampino]

John Higgins:

To add to the mystery, many Episcopal/Anglican priests have valid apostolic succession. The last four Archbishops of Canterbury had Old Catholic or Orthodox (read, valid) bishops assisting in their ordinations. So, what was true in 1896 is not necessarily true now. In fact, Anglican/Episcopal priests “coming over” are ordained sub conditione (that is in case their first ordination was NOT valid).

John

This is quite correct. The same is true in the Episcopal church in the United States.

 

[David_Zampino]

Chatter163:

The fact of the matter is that only a relatively small percentage of Anglican ordinations have included Old Catholic or Orthodox clergy, and only a handful of (but highly publicized) ordinations of Anglican priests to the Roman Catholic priesthood have been *sub conditione, *most notably Graham Leonard, former Anglican Bishop of London. To imply that this is the norm is misleading, as most are still ordained anew.

While it is true that not all clergy who move from Canterbury to Rome are, in fact, ordained sub conditione, it IS true that the number of Anglicans/Episcopalians with (potentially) valid orders is not an insignificant number.

 

[David_Zampino]

Everyman:

What is the Catholic Church’s stance on what happens at an Episcopalian mass? Is it seen as an apostolic church and, therefore, containing a transubstatiated Host?

I’m attending an Episcopalian church tomorrow; and I’m curious as to what the Catholic Church would say about what goes on there. I know some Anglicans believe in Real Presence and some do not.

Also, I read of a couple of times Hilaire Belloc worshiped in an Anglican church. Like Westminster Abbey, for instance. Is that okay?

-Everyman

Leaving aside for a moment the question of the validity of Anglican/Episcopalian orders, Anglican theology denies any form of Eucharistic Sacrifice, even when they accept a doctrine of Real Presence. This is problematic, at best.

 

[David_Zampino]

Eileen T:

From what I remember, under King Edward VI the Ritual changed substantially regarding ordination, to such a degree that the Catholic Church deemed them invalid. Years later, the Ritual changed back, but by then, there were no validly ordained Bishops in the Anglican Church with the power to confer the sacrament of Holy Orders.

It follows from this that, even if they used the correct words of consecration, they have no more power to do so in fact than any layperson.

This is correct. The Ordinal of Edward VI is intensely problematic – and frankly, even assuming it was NOT problematic, the 1552 Prayer Book does not present anything remotely resembling an acceptable Eucharistic theology.

 

[Maurelian]

Jabronie:

So when is a marriage considered valid, but not sacramental? Is it if just one of the party are validly baptised but the other is not? Or is it if neither are validly baptised?

We just had a lecture Sunday on annulments given by the pastor. He told us that a marriage between a Catholic and a Muslim or a Jew would be valid, but not sacramental. So the Church recognizes as valid a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian, but only a union of two baptized Christians is sacramental.

 

[GoLatin]

In my local area, there was a man who died recently. He was ordained a Roman Catholic Priest. He left the active Priesthood and got “married”. He was not officially laicised, he just left.

He was received into the Episcopal(Anglican) Church, and the local Anglican bishop recognised his Catholic priestly orders as valid. The man was a functioning Anglican priest when he died, and was apparently still “married” to this woman. They were “married” for around 17 years, I think.

Do you think that when this Priest said the Anglican “Holy Eucharist”, that he might have actually confected the Eucharist, since the Anglicans do have words of consecration, and this man was a genuinely ordained Catholic Priest? I guess that it would depend on his intent, right?

I FULLY accept the invalidity of Anglican orders, I just would like your opinions on this.

Thank you!