Receiving invalid communion, does it transubstantiate anyway

[Episcopalian]

My Catholic friends attended my Episcopal Church’s Sunday Eucharist service.

I gave them fair warning that the Communion was different, it doesn’t transubstantiate, they shouldn’t eat it, and that they should attend a Saturday Vigil or Sunday Mass before/after the one they attended with me, to stay in good standing and get a valid Communion.

They planned on going after, but then they ended up receiving Episcopal communion anyway and told me after, since the consecration words were the same, the priests referenced Mary and the saints, the liturgy surrounding the consecration was the same… they were ok to receive it since they believed all the “ingredients” were there and they firmly believed it actually changed, regardless of it being a non-Catholic denomination.

Anyway, my ultimate question is: if a Catholic firmly believes they received a valid Communion, does it become valid once they ingest it? Or is it considered non-sinful, but still invalid?

 

[ioannes_pius]

No, it does not.

Not all the “ingredients” are present in an Episcopal Liturgy; (most often) a valid minister is lacking.

 

[Wesrock]

It’s not a valid or licit Eucharist.

As for your friends culpability. One can point out that they don’t know. One might also point out that as adult Catholics they have easy access to information and a responsibility for knowing beyond making vague personal speculation and that the Church has clear teaching on this matter and their Sunday obligation (which they didn’t meet by going to mass regardless of whether they receive the Eucharist there or not).

 

[Thom18]

Anyway, my ultimate question is: if a Catholic firmly believes they received a valid Communion, does it become valid once they ingest it? Or is it considered non-sinful, but still invalid?

The Eucharist does not become valid because of a person’s belief. It requires a valid minister, which, odds are, this particular minister was not.

So, why are they coming to these services, anyways?

 

[Episcopalian]

So, why are they coming to these services, anyways?

In passing, I was talking about the music and how it’s super pretty (my church has a 20 member choir and a huuuuge newly refurbished pipe organ) and that the services are reminiscent of pre-Vatican II style Masses. They were curious and asked to come on Gaudete Sunday.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

if a Catholic firmly believes they received a valid Communion, does it become valid once they ingest it?

No

Or is it considered non-sinful, but still invalid?

It’s invalid. Regarding “non-sinful”, if your friends somehow didn’t know they’d stumbled into an Episcopal Church and went up to Communion thinking they were in a Catholic Church and received, then it wouldn’t be sinful. As it is, they clearly knew they were in an Episcopal, not a Catholic, church and you warned them about Communion. They decided to receive anyway. They sinned by doing so.

 

[1ke]

if a Catholic firmly believes they received a valid Communion, does it become valid once they ingest it?

No.

Validity of the Eucharist is not based on what a person believes to be true. Validity of the Eucharist (or any sacrament) depends on valid matter and valid form.

Or is it considered non-sinful, but still invalid?

It is objectively grave matter to do what your friends did. So, objectively it is sinful.

Culpability for sin requires knowledge and will. Sounds like your Catholic friends are lacking in their Catholic catechesis.

You were correct to instruct them to refrain from receiving at the Episcopal service and to go to Mass to fulfill their Catholic obligation.

That is what I do when I go to Episcopal services with my family— refrain from communion and I also go to Mass.

 

[mdgspencer]

.
For them to actually believe it is the body of Christ is like someone believing the moon is made of green cheese.
.
The Church looked into the question of whether Anglicans/Episcopalians have valid orders, that is if their clergymen actually have the sacrament of priesthood, and after a thorough look, ruled that they are not actually priests, with the sacrament of priesthood. As a result, there is no eucharist during their services.

 

[TomH1]

They should not have taken communion at an Episcopalian church.

The validity (or lack of it) regarding the Eucharist has nothing to do with what the recipients think or believe.

The Eucharist can only be validly confected by a bishop or priest who has valid orders. Episcopalian priests do not have valid orders. They cannot confect the Eucharist. Those who receive communion at an Episcopalian Eucharistic service receive bread and wine. They do not receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

If it was a holy day of obligation they did not fulfil their obligation at this Eucharistic service.

I really do not know how adult Catholics can be ignorant of these facts.

 

[TK421]

There was a brief time when the Anglican Church was in schism and it did have valid Holy Orders, but this was nullified when the archbishop changed the rite for ordinations and the Catholic Church no longer recognized the ordinations as valid. The Episcopalian Church, by extension, doesn’t have valid Holy Orders according to the Catholic Church, which means no transubstantiation.

As others have said, Catholics can’t receive communion here. It doesn’t seem that they were effectively catechized on the subject but this is not something they should do in the future.