Valid Eucharist by Episcopal priest, formerly Catholic?

[Lapey]

But many high-Church Episcopalians do believe in the Real Presence. And if that is the intent of the former (but always) Catholic priest…

I don’t believe it has anything at all to do with the intent of a few, it is the intent of Mother Church and Her teachings on teh Sacraments.

Again, my opinion only and not aurguing with anyone.

 

[Lapey]

It has nothing to do with communion with Rome; I know Anglo-Catholics are Anglicans and with invalid Orders. We’re just talking about this one man’s valid holy Orders.

What I mean is, if he joined an Anglo-Catholic congregation, it could be taken as an indicator that he did not abandon his Catholic beliefs regarding the Eucharist and the priesthood, which could be taken as a strong hint that he will still be holding at least a virtual intention to do what the Church does.

Communion with the Catholic Church is not required to form a proper intention. A validly ordained minister does not need to intend what the Church intends; he needs only intend to do what the Church does. This is why the Orthodox do not have a defect in intention despite their not being in communion with us.

But don’t get me wrong; I’m certain many former Catholic now Anglican/Episcopal ministers have abandoned or formed a defective theology and intention, rendering their Eucharists invalid, which is why we cannot form a general consensus based simply on the validity of Orders. What I’m saying though, is that all necessary things being intact, there can indeed be Anglican congregations with a valid Eucharist.

I see what you are saying, I just am of the thought that if a person holds to the truth of the Eucharist then he would still be a Catholic Priest and not have left. It just seem illogical, the scenario you present.

This would be a good question for “Ask the Appologists”

 

[porthos11]

I don’t believe it has anything at all to do with the intent of a few, it is the intent of Mother Church and Her teachings on teh Sacraments.

Again, my opinion only and not aurguing with anyone.

And what does the Church teach for the validity of a Sacrament?

Proper form;
Proper matter;
Proper intention. And on this matter, again, the Church teaches that the minister must have the at least the intention, at least virtual, do what the Church does. That’s all. One is not required to intend what the Church intends. It is entirely possible for an Anglican minister to have this intention, especially if he never abandoned his faith in the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Lapey]

And what does the Church teach for the validity of a Sacrament?

Proper form;
Proper matter;
Proper intention. And on this matter, again, the Church teaches that the minister must have the at least the intention, at least virtual, do what the Church does. That’s all. One is not required to intend what the Church intends. It is entirely possible for an Anglican minister to have this intention, especially if he never abandoned his faith in the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass.

I understand what you are saying…I will just have to agree to disagree. I say the consecration is invalid and ilicit…but again, my opinion only.

 

[VivienneJ]

So, I just learned something new this evening, I thought that I’d received my first Catholic Eucharist on 10 November 2007, but in fact I had received the Eucharist many years earlier, although unknowingly.

The priest concerned is someone I worked with and attended many of the Bible studies he led and it was clear that his heart and attitude remained Catholic. I thought I liked to attend the services he presided at because of his great sense of humour and down-to-earth preaching; perhaps my longing to be Catholic spirit knew something was different.

If he left the Catholic Church and became Episcopalian, it’s not likely he will care what the Catholic bishop permits or denies. From the Catholic perspective, any Eucharist he celebrates will be illicit, but I somehow don’t think that will actually concern him.

That said, the consecration of the Eucharist is a power of Order, not jurisdiction. That means, if a former Catholic and now Episcopalian/Anglican priest consecrates the bread and wine according to, say, the Book of Common Prayer or the English Missal, with the proper intention, yes there will be a true Consecration at that service.

What he will NOT be able to do validly though, is absolve in Confession, except in danger of death because that Sacrament does require proper faculties as well, which he would no longer have.

 

[RyanBlack]

I understand what you are saying…I will just have to agree to disagree. I say the consecration is invalid and ilicit…but again, my opinion only.

The same reasoning you’re using would also render non-Catholic baptisms invalid, and we know that the Church teaches otherwise. While I’m not an expert, it seems to me that an Anglican minister who was previously ordained to the priesthood still can validly, though not licitly confect the Eucharist, provided that he uses valid matter, correct form, and proper intent. I assure you from my experience in the Episcopal Church that there are a number of Anglican ministers who do indeed intend to exactly what the Church does in celebrating the Eucharist.

 

[Lapey]

The same reasoning you’re using would also render non-Catholic baptisms invalid, and we know that the Church teaches otherwise. While I’m not an expert, it seems to me that an Anglican minister who was previously ordained to the priesthood still can validly, though not licitly confect the Eucharist, provided that he uses valid matter, correct form, and proper intent. I assure you from my experience in the Episcopal Church that there are a number of Anglican ministers who do indeed intend to exactly what the Church does in celebrating the Eucharist.

No not at all…the intent of the Church is the same in teh case of baptism, to bring the person into the family of God by removing orriginal sin and personal sin. Baptism is not in the same category.

And remember…I have repeatedly stated this is only my opinion. I very well may be wrong here.

One must admit, this is a very interesting topic…

 

[Steveabrous]

During the reign of Henry VIII right after he broke with Rome, Anglican bishops were indeed validly ordained and could validly consecrate the Eucharist. Because Henry did not jettison Catholic ritual or dogma, any priests such Anglican bishops ordained were indeed valid priests. This meant that even after the break from Rome, the Anglican Church had a valid Eucharist.

However, during the reign of Edward VI, the Anglican church promulgated a new rite of ordination whose wording indicated that the intention to ordain for the purpose of offering the Sacrifice of the Mass was repudiated. On this ground, the Catholic church declared (papal bull* Apostolicae curae*) that any Anglican ordinations with this new ritual were invalid. It was at this point that Anglicans lost their Apostolic Succession and from then on were deemed to have invalid orders. This is why Anglican priests who enter the Catholic Church and bring their congregations with them are re-ordained in the absolute form.

The original post though, dealt with a single theoretical priest who, ordained validly in the Catholic Church, becomes Anglican. He takes his valid Holy Orders with him, but not his faculties. For as long as such man keeps his intention to do what the Catholic Church does, he does consecrate a valid Eucharist even as an Anglican.

Thanks for the clarification. I always wondered why some groups that broke off, like the Polish national Catholic church, were still considered valid but the Anglicans were not. Now I know.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

And what does the Church teach for the validity of a Sacrament?

Proper form;
Proper matter;
Proper intention. And on this matter, again, the Church teaches that the minister must have the at least the intention, at least virtual, do what the Church does. That’s all. One is not required to intend what the Church intends. It is entirely possible for an Anglican minister to have this intention, especially if he never abandoned his faith in the Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass.

This could be problematic for any Church that does not follow the “Catholic formula” for consecration. If it is not exactly the same, then what is the priest’s intention? Is he confecting the Eucharist in the manner the Catholic Church requires which is contrary to the Church he belongs to, or his he using the invalid and illicit manner of the Church he now represents.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

A priest who leaves the church for any reason would be Defrocked. Plus the authority to administer the sacraments (eucharist, penance) resides with the bishop, the priest is acting on the authority of the bishop, if he leaves the church he no longer has the bishops permission to administer the sacraments

It’s a little more complicated than that. I think Brother Jay went into this in detail in one of the threads about the SSPX. I believe that most sacraments would be valid, though illicit, with proper form, matter, and intention. The exception would be confession, which also requires jurisdiction. Confession would therefore be invalid, excepting in an emergency.

 

[RyanBlack]

No not at all…the intent of the Church is the same in teh case of baptism, to bring the person into the family of God by removing orriginal sin and personal sin. Baptism is not in the same category.

And remember…I have repeatedly stated this is only my opinion. I very well may be wrong here.

One must admit, this is a very interesting topic…

You wrote “To my understanding, and I am no expert in this topic, once a person leaves the Church he no longer works within the intent of the Church which is necessary.” You’re saying that leaving the Church means that a minister no longer has the Church’s intent. That reasoning most certainly could apply to baptism as well, since it is necessary to intend to do what the Church does in baptism for validity of the sacrament. Since that is clearly not the case, given that the Church accepts baptisms done outside the Church, provided that their is correct form, valid matter, and proper intent, why would that not also apply to the Eucharist? It is certainly possible for an Anglican minister who was ordained a Catholic priest to intend to do exactly what the Catholic Church does in celebrating the Eucharist, as well as to use correct form and valid matter.

Also, given your reasoning, how is it the case that there are valid sacraments, including Eucharist, among the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East, since they all left the Church in the past? Did their mere act of leaving communion with the Catholic Church amount to an abandonment of doing what the Church does when the Church celebrates the sacraments? Clearly not, since the Catholic Church teaches that all of their sacraments are valid.

 

[Lapey]

You wrote “To my understanding, and I am no expert in this topic, once a person leaves the Church he no longer works within the intent of the Church which is necessary.” You’re saying that leaving the Church means that a minister no longer has the Church’s intent. That reasoning most certainly could apply to baptism as well, since it is necessary to intend to do what the Church does in baptism for validity of the sacrament. Since that is clearly not the case, given that the Church accepts baptisms done outside the Church, provided that their is correct form, valid matter, and proper intent, why would that not also apply to the Eucharist? It is certainly possible for an Anglican minister who was ordained a Catholic priest to intend to do exactly what the Catholic Church does in celebrating the Eucharist, as well as to use correct form and valid matter.

Also, given your reasoning, how is it the case that there are valid sacraments, including Eucharist, among the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East, since they all left the Church in the past? Did their mere act of leaving communion with the Catholic Church amount to an abandonment of doing what the Church does when the Church celebrates the sacraments? Clearly not, since the Catholic Church teaches that all of their sacraments are valid.

Please don’t argue with me on a point in which I qualified as my opinion. I give, you win…

 

[porthos11]

You wrote “To my understanding, and I am no expert in this topic, once a person leaves the Church he no longer works within the intent of the Church which is necessary.” You’re saying that leaving the Church means that a minister no longer has the Church’s intent. That reasoning most certainly could apply to baptism as well, since it is necessary to intend to do what the Church does in baptism for validity of the sacrament. Since that is clearly not the case, given that the Church accepts baptisms done outside the Church, provided that their is correct form, valid matter, and proper intent, why would that not also apply to the Eucharist? It is certainly possible for an Anglican minister who was ordained a Catholic priest to intend to do exactly what the Catholic Church does in celebrating the Eucharist, as well as to use correct form and valid matter.

And that’s just it. Again, it’s not necessary to even have the Church’s intent. One only needs to intend to do what the Church does, not intend what the Church intends.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Also, given your reasoning, how is it the case that there are valid sacraments, including Eucharist, among the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East, since they all left the Church in the past? Did their mere act of leaving communion with the Catholic Church amount to an abandonment of doing what the Church does when the Church celebrates the sacraments? Clearly not, since the Catholic Church teaches that all of their sacraments are valid.

You answered your own question with the last sentence.

Are the sacraments of the Catholic and Orthodox considered valid by the Latin Church? Yes.

How about the Episcopalian Church? No, with the exceptions of marriage and baptism.

That’s the starting point of the discussion.

FWIW, if the question was “formerly Catholic Bishop/Cardinal” that would entirely change the answer.

 

[mayogirl25]

So a Catholic priest becomes an Episcopalian, and he presides over Mass at his Episcopal parish. Since “once a priest, always a priest”, wouldn’t that mean that when says the words of Institution (consecration), that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ?

That would mean that the Episcopalians attending that service would be receiving the Eucharist!

NO to both questions. The former Catholic priest would not be celebrating a Catholic Mass and the Episcopalians would not be receiving the Body and Blood of Christ and anyway they don’t believe in transubstantiation anyway so they should know that.

 

[mayogirl25]

So by what your saying all masses in the Anglican/episcople church have a true consecration. Since at one time all of the preists were catholic and then left all at once. Since they can still ordain and consecrate it wouldnt matter if a former catholic priest did it today since it already exists in the Anglican church. But my understanding is that the catholic church denies that true consecration happens in the Anglican church. Am I wrong?

No you are correct. Anglican/High Episcopal/Low Episcopal etc. none of them can consecrate. They already know that since they deny transubstantiation anyway and that is why they are Protestants and we are Catholics. There is the BIG difference in a nutshell.

 

[RyanBlack]

NO to both questions. The former Catholic priest would not be celebrating a Catholic Mass and the Episcopalians would not be receiving the Body and Blood of Christ and anyway they don’t believe in transubstantiation anyway so they should know that.

Some Episcopalians do believe in transubstantiation. Furthermore, a celebration of the Eucharist need not be a Catholic Mass in order to for the sacrament to be valid. The Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church all have a valid Eucharist, because they have valid Holy Orders. A Catholic priest who leaves the Church to become Episcopalian does not lose his priestly character, and does not lose the power to confect the Eucharist. If he celebrates the Eucharist using the correct form, valid matter, and the intent to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, then the Eucharist, thought not licit, is indeed valid.

 

[cheezey]

**Some Episcopalians do believe in transubstantiation. **

thank you

 

[quiet52]

A Catholic priest who leaves the Church to become Episcopalian does not lose his priestly character, and does not lose the power to confect the Eucharist. If he celebrates the Eucharist using the correct form, valid matter, and the intent to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, then the Eucharist, thought not licit, is indeed valid.

When a Catholic priest is laicized and subsequently joins the Episcopalian or Anglican Church, isn’t he re-ordained, as an Episcopalian or Anglican priest? If that is the case, it seems to me that he would not be celebrating the Mass as a Catholic priest, and Eucharistic celebration would not be a valid one.

 

[RyanBlack]

When a Catholic priest is laicized and subsequently joins the Episcopalian or Anglican Church, isn’t he re-ordained, as an Episcopalian or Anglican priest? If that is the case, it seems to me that he would not be celebrating the Mass as a Catholic priest, and Eucharistic celebration would not be a valid one.

No, he would not be “re-ordained.” Furthermore, it would not matter if he were, since Holy Orders places an indelible mark on the soul. Once a man receives Holy Orders in the Catholic Church, he never ceases to be a priest. If a Catholic priests goes into schism and becomes and Anglican minister, as long as he uses valid matter, correct form, and has the intent to change bread and wine into the true body and blood of Christ (which is not at all uncommon among Anglican ministers, since a number of them actually believe in transubstantiation), all of the conditions for a valid sacrament have been satisfied. I fail to see why it would not be valid. It certainly would not be licit, but that’s a separate issue from validity.