Valid Eucharist by Episcopal priest, formerly Catholic?

[quiet52]

Three former Catholic priests, now Episcopalian priests, formally laicized by the Vatican

virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=16036

By being laicized in the Catholic Church, the Episcopal priests would be relieved of the canonical and spiritual responsibilities of the Catholic priesthood. They would have the rights of any baptized layman to live out their faith without the binding obligations of the Catholic priesthood. However, they cannot ever again celebrate a Catholic Mass or any other Catholic Sacraments, wear Catholic clerical garb, or be recognized as a Catholic priest. If they ever returned to the Catholic Church, even through the Anglican Ordinariate, they would not be able to recoup the sacerdotal ministry of their Catholic priesthood.

The Catholic Church is not denying the validity of its priesthood. It recognizes that a priest is a priest forever and the mark of the priesthood is imprinted on the priest’s soul for all eternity. What the Diocese of Allentown is trying to do is release their former Catholic priests from continued Catholic spiritual obligations thus allowing them to continue their priestly ministry in The Episcopal Church unabated.

 

[VivienneJ]

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.

In the only case I personally know of, the former Catholic priest met with the priest of the parish in which he was working as a lay worker, once the priest had evaluated him, his situation and request to work as a priest in the Anglican church was referred to the Bishop of the Diocese. He and the Bishop met and he was subsequently ‘appointed’ to work in our Parish. I heard recently that he has now been appointed to his own Parish in a different Diocese.

And thank you, Ryan, for affirming that some Anglicans do indeed believe in transubstantiation.

 

[fred_conty]

It is the church’s power to confer the power of the priesthood. It is done so by a bishop laying hands on the man and making him a priest FOREVER. Even tho layicised, he is still a priest forever. Even tho defrocked, he is still a priest forever. Being a priest forever means he may say the words of consecration and turn the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ anywhere, any time, any place, as long as he fulfills the requirements and does it correctly.

The church has no power to remove the priesthood once it is bestowed, because it is forever.
There are three sacraments that leave a special character on the soul: baptism, confirmation, and priesthood. These characters, once given, cannot be removed, taken back, erased,given back, or destroyed, they are permanent, at least as long as one is alive.

The reason the anglican priesthood is not recognized as true, is because it takes a bishop to make a priest, and a priest cannot make another priest. In the anglican church, down thru the centuries, some anglican bishops were true bishops, while other anglican bishops were not true bishops. Thru the centuries it was not possible to trace every priest and bishop back to a real bishop because records were not available. So the anglican priest is not considered to be a priest, but there may be some who are priests, but they cannot prove it by records. So in the late 19th century the pope delcared anglican orders of the priesthood to be considered unacceptable.

But those priests leaving the catholic church can still change the bread and wine, call them by whatever name a person wants. They are still priests forever with the power.

Just some thoughts.​

“May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.” (hymn)

 

[Lapey]

It is the church’s power to confer the power of the priesthood. It is done so by a bishop laying hands on the man and making him a priest FOREVER. Even tho layicised, he is still a priest forever. Even tho defrocked, he is still a priest forever. Being a priest forever means he may say the words of consecration and turn the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ anywhere, any time, any place, as long as he fulfills the requirements and does it correctly.

The church has no power to remove the priesthood once it is bestowed, because it is forever.
There are three sacraments that leave a special character on the soul: baptism, confirmation, and priesthood. These characters, once given, cannot be removed, taken back, erased,given back, or destroyed, they are permanent, at least as long as one is alive.

The reason the anglican priesthood is not recognized as true, is because it takes a bishop to make a priest, and a priest cannot make another priest. In the anglican church, down thru the centuries, some anglican bishops were true bishops, while other anglican bishops were not true bishops. Thru the centuries it was not possible to trace every priest and bishop back to a real bishop because records were not available. So the anglican priest is not considered to be a priest, but there may be some who are priests, but they cannot prove it by records. So in the late 19th century the pope delcared anglican orders of the priesthood to be considered unacceptable.

But those priests leaving the catholic church can still change the bread and wine, call them by whatever name a person wants. They are still priests forever with the power.

Just some thoughts.​

“May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.” (hymn)

What we are forgetting though is this, every priest and deacon works though the authority of his bishop. Without that he has no authority, therefore no power.

 

[porthos11]

What we are forgetting though is this, every priest and deacon works though the authority of his bishop. Without that he has no authority, therefore no power.

In some cases only, not all. While all liciety comes from a cleric’s permission from his bishop, validity is not always dependent upon faculties.

The Holy Eucharist depends only upon one’s power of priestly orders. Any priest acting without his Bishop’s permission (laicized, suspended, excommunicated), still validly confects the Holy Eucharist, but it’s gravely illicit and he commits a grave sin for doing this. The same is true for Holy Orders. A bishop who ordains another bishop without a papal mandate is automatically excommunicated, as is the bishop he just ordained, but the ordinand is indeed a valid bishop. Any man this new excommunicated bishop ordains to the priesthood is ordained a true priest.

Some sacraments, however depend on the power of jurisdiction as well to be valid. Priests who have no faculties from their bishop cannot absolve validly (except in danger of death) or validly solemnize a marriage.

 

[Aramis]

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!

Per the canons - he needs three things for a valid eucharist

1. Valid matter
2. Correct intent
3. Correct form.

The matter used is likely valid - bread of wheat* and wine of grape, and water.

Correct form - if he’s using the BCP, the form is close enough - it’s not just the words of institution, but also the invocation of the Holy Spirit.

Correct intent - he has to still intend for transubstantiation to occur, and to believe it to be truly transubstantiated. Consubstantiation (the temporary indwelling of Christ into the Eucharist) is an allowed belief within the Anglican Communion, and isn’t sufficient for validity.

There is another matter, however - Licity

To be “Licit” is to be “within the law” or “allowed by law” or “rightly done under the law”

A defrocked priest is (usually) in fact forbidden to say the mass at all, except in certain dire circumstances, under pain of mortal sin.

To be licit, a priest must have permission from a Valid Catholic (or Orthodox) bishop-ordinary, use a licit liturgical text (The BCP isn’t), in an approved venue, not be suspended, and be obeying the rubrics of the Missal, the Conference, and the Bishop, with the allowed forms of bread and wine.

Note that the BCP - Book of Common Prayer - as a missal is valid - it has all the needed parts, and then some - but it’s not permitted as a Catholic missal. (There is a Catholic version which is licit, however; that wouldn’t be licit for the Anglican church, however…)

So, no matter what, the priest in question is not saying a licit mass; if he intends consubstantiation, he’s also saying an invalid mass, but you’d have to ask him specifically about it to be certain. One of the reasons some priests go to the Lutheran or Anglican churches is because they don’t believe in Transubstantiation, but do believe in the real presence. Others do so in order to marry.

It’s been said that “the Road to Hell is paved with the skulls of clergy.” (I’ve usually heard it as “skulls of bishops,” but Father Milan said “heads of Priests and Bishops” this morning.) That priest needs your prayers more than most priests, for every Anglican mass he says is a sin by Catholic understanding. And participating if a licit mass is available would be a sin (your specific culpability would vary based upon many things).

Notes
Leaven does not render the bread invalid. Lacking wheat would. Having anything other than wheat, water, yeast, and salt in the bread puts it into dubious validity. (Some Eastern Orthodox and some Eastern Catholics use yeast and salt; almost all of same use yeast. The Catholic Church counts Eastern Catholics as Catholics, with valid and licit liturgies.)

Sulfites do not render the wine invalid, but it must be grape wine. Berry wine is invalid.

The priest’s sins do not render the mass invalid; they do render it a sin, but if he’s deluded himself into believing the Anglican church is valid, he might not be culpable for those sins of schism and disobedience.

Bottom line: Unless you specifically ask the right questions, it’s not possible to be certain if it is valid, because as an Anglican, his intent is suspect.

 

[Lapey]

Per the canons - he needs three things for a valid eucharist

1. Valid matter
2. Correct intent
3. Correct form.

The matter used is likely valid - bread of wheat* and wine of grape, and water.

Correct form - if he’s using the BCP, the form is close enough - it’s not just the words of institution, but also the invocation of the Holy Spirit.

Correct intent - he has to still intend for transubstantiation to occur, and to believe it to be truly transubstantiated. Consubstantiation (the temporary indwelling of Christ into the Eucharist) is an allowed belief within the Anglican Communion, and isn’t sufficient for validity.

There is another matter, however - Licity

To be “Licit” is to be “within the law” or “allowed by law” or “rightly done under the law”

A defrocked priest is (usually) in fact forbidden to say the mass at all, except in certain dire circumstances, under pain of mortal sin.

To be licit, a priest must have permission from a Valid Catholic (or Orthodox) bishop-ordinary, use a licit liturgical text (The BCP isn’t), in an approved venue, not be suspended, and be obeying the rubrics of the Missal, the Conference, and the Bishop, with the allowed forms of bread and wine.

Note that the BCP - Book of Common Prayer - as a missal is valid - it has all the needed parts, and then some - but it’s not permitted as a Catholic missal. (There is a Catholic version which is licit, however; that wouldn’t be licit for the Anglican church, however…)

So, no matter what, the priest in question is not saying a licit mass; if he intends consubstantiation, he’s also saying an invalid mass, but you’d have to ask him specifically about it to be certain. One of the reasons some priests go to the Lutheran or Anglican churches is because they don’t believe in Transubstantiation, but do believe in the real presence. Others do so in order to marry.

It’s been said that “the Road to Hell is paved with the skulls of clergy.” (I’ve usually heard it as “skulls of bishops,” but Father Milan said “heads of Priests and Bishops” this morning.) That priest needs your prayers more than most priests, for every Anglican mass he says is a sin by Catholic understanding. And participating if a licit mass is available would be a sin (your specific culpability would vary based upon many things).

Notes
Leaven does not render the bread invalid. Lacking wheat would. Having anything other than wheat, water, yeast, and salt in the bread puts it into dubious validity. (Some Eastern Orthodox and some Eastern Catholics use yeast and salt; almost all of same use yeast. The Catholic Church counts Eastern Catholics as Catholics, with valid and licit liturgies.)

Sulfites do not render the wine invalid, but it must be grape wine. Berry wine is invalid.

The priest’s sins do not render the mass invalid; they do render it a sin, but if he’s deluded himself into believing the Anglican church is valid, he might not be culpable for those sins of schism and disobedience.

Bottom line: Unless you specifically ask the right questions, it’s not possible to be certain if it is valid, because as an Anglican, his intent is suspect.

These are two canons of the Council of Trent from the section titled “Canons on the Sacraments in General”, 11 clearly states the need to be in line with the intent of Mother Church. A priest who has been laicized and now acts in the person of a priest in another tradition not in communion, and in this case a protestant community, is not capable of acting with the intent of the Catholic Church. Anglo-catholic, or whatever you care to call the denomination is not Catholic. Therefore cannot be said to be “with the intent of the Church.”

The second I have listed here is Canon 12 states that a minister in mortal sin but acts in observance of all the essentials that pertain to the sacrament would not be outside of Mother Church. A former Catholic priest who is now an Episcopal priest is not observing all the essentials that pertain to conferring the sacraments.

Canon 11. If anyone says that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required at least the intention of doing what the Church does,6 let him be anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that a minister who is in mortal sin, though he observes all the essentials that pertain to the effecting or conferring of a sacrament,7 neither effects nor confers a sacrament, let him be anathema.

In my opinion again, the Eucharist in the cases discussed here are neither valid nor licit. Now I have seen several defend the validity here but you have produced nothing to defend your opinions except statements. The challenge is on you to find documentation to show otherwise. I have submitted a question to the apologist but so far no response. Hopefully they will help us with this.

PS. Leavened bread from my understanding is invalid matter, so therefore would be invalid Eucharist. This was a big issue several years ago where many parishes were using homemade bread for use in the Mass. This has been mandated to stop here in my area. I’m sure it may still take place in some areas but there are strict guidelines as to the make up of the matter. It’s not just simply “wheat bread” that constitutes proper matter, nor is it simply grape wine, there are certain requirements that must be met.

 

[Lapey]

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.

Again, I challenge this premise; that simply by being a validly ordained priest that a valid Eucharist can be confected in direct opposition of the local ordinary and in direct disobedience of the Church and Her intent.

If we take this mindset, does this mean that if some Latin Rite Catholics do not believe in the transubstantiation that the Eucharist is not valid in those Masses with those priests? It matters whether the validly ordained priest intends to do what the Church, Catholic Church, intends. If he is outside of communion how can this be possible?

Furthermore, to say that the Eucharist, the true Eucharist, can be confected outside of the Catholic Mass, all Rites in communion, is heresy. This is not true.

The Eucharist cannot be validly or licitly confected outside of the Catholic Mass because it cannot be done inside of the intent of Mother Church nor can this be done under the authority of the bishop, therefore the priest is not authorized to confect the Eucharist.

The priest stands in “persona Christi” and holds the authority of Jesus Christ through the fullness of the priesthood held by the bishop.

 

[Lapey]

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.

Amen!

 

[Lapey]

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.

Indelible mark? Yes, no issue there. Ability to confect valid Eucharist in a non-Catholic Mass against the intent of Mother Church, big issue and not valid.

Episcopal, Anglo-catholic, you name it; not Catholic. They are in fact catholic as this would include all. But these denominations are in no way Catholic.

 

[Lapey]

In the only case I personally know of, the former Catholic priest met with the priest of the parish in which he was working as a lay worker, once the priest had evaluated him, his situation and request to work as a priest in the Anglican church was referred to the Bishop of the Diocese. He and the Bishop met and he was subsequently ‘appointed’ to work in our Parish. I heard recently that he has now been appointed to his own Parish in a different Diocese.

And thank you, Ryan, for affirming that some Anglicans do indeed believe in transubstantiation.

So are you saying that a former Catholic priest, now an Episcopal priest, was assigned by a Latin Rite Catholic bishop to a LRC parish? If this is what you are saying, much more happened than a simple conversation.

We seem to have a misunderstanding here in this thread what the difference is between catholic & Catholic. Please be specific.

 

[Lapey]

In some cases only, not all. While all liciety comes from a cleric’s permission from his bishop, validity is not always dependent upon faculties.

The Holy Eucharist depends only upon one’s power of priestly orders. Any priest acting without his Bishop’s permission (laicized, suspended, excommunicated), still validly confects the Holy Eucharist, but it’s gravely illicit and he commits a grave sin for doing this. The same is true for Holy Orders. A bishop who ordains another bishop without a papal mandate is automatically excommunicated, as is the bishop he just ordained, but the ordinand is indeed a valid bishop. Any man this new excommunicated bishop ordains to the priesthood is ordained a true priest.

Some sacraments, however depend on the power of jurisdiction as well to be valid. Priests who have no faculties from their bishop cannot absolve validly (except in danger of death) or validly solemnize a marriage.

In the case we are discussing here, validity of the Eucharist confected by a former Catholic priest in a protestant “mass”, there is never a situation where the priest can work inside of the intent to do what the Church does, he is in protest and operating outside of Mother Church and outside of Her authority. Is he still a priest? Yes, but outside of communion with his bishop puts him outside of the authority of Mother Church. He is presiding over a holy meal but not the Eucharist.

Please provide something to back up what you have written, I am willing to listen. However, what I have found so far backs up my opinion.

 

[RyanBlack]

PS. Leavened bread from my understanding is invalid matter, so therefore would be invalid Eucharist. This was a big issue several years ago where many parishes were using homemade bread for use in the Mass. This has been mandated to stop here in my area. I’m sure it may still take place in some areas but there are strict guidelines as to the make up of the matter. It’s not just simply “wheat bread” that constitutes proper matter, nor is it simply grape wine, there are certain requirements that must be met.

Leavened bread is not invalid matter. Have you ever been to an Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy? We use leavened bread. Leavened bread is illicit in the Latin rite, but it most certainly is not invalid matter,

 

[RyanBlack]

In my opinion again, the Eucharist in the cases discussed here are neither valid nor licit. **Now I have seen several defend the validity here but you have produced nothing to defend your opinions except statements. ** The challenge is on you to find documentation to show otherwise. I have submitted a question to the apologist but so far no response. Hopefully they will help us with this.

We most certainly have not responded with anything except statements. We have responded with actual Church teaching on what constitutes a sacrament. BTW, as I tried to point out previously, your reasoning on acting with the intent of the Church would invalidate all sacraments, including baptism, that take place outside of communion with the Catholic Church, including those sacraments that take place among the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East, and we know that the Catholic Church herself teaches otherwise.

 

[RyanBlack]

In my opinion again, the Eucharist in the cases discussed here are neither valid nor licit. Now I have seen several defend the validity here but you have produced nothing to defend your opinions except statements. The challenge is on you to find documentation to show otherwise. I have submitted a question to the apologist but so far no response. Hopefully they will help us with this.

What we have responded with actual Church teaching on what constitutes a sacrament, not merely statements. BTW, as I tried to point out previously, your particular take on acting with the intent of the Church would invalidate all sacraments, including baptism, that take place outside of the minister being in communion with the Catholic Church, including those sacraments that take place among the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East, and we know that the Catholic Church herself teaches otherwise.

 

[Lapey]

Leavened bread is not invalid matter. Have you ever been to an Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy? We use leavened bread. Leavened bread is illicit in the Latin rite, but it most certainly is not invalid matter,

No, I never have…I am Latin Rite and I have no knowlege of the eastern Rites, I will leave that to you. I’ll conceed that point as it seems you know it to be true, but can you show us some documentation? Where would we go to see this information from your Rite of the Catholic Church? Not a challenge by the way, this is only a request for information.

 

[RyanBlack]

Furthermore, to say that the Eucharist, the true Eucharist, can be confected outside of the Catholic Mass, all Rites in communion, is heresy. This is not true.

The Eucharist cannot be validly or licitly confected outside of the Catholic Mass because it cannot be done inside of the intent of Mother Church nor can this be done under the authority of the bishop, therefore the priest is not authorized to confect the Eucharist.

The priest stands in “persona Christi” and holds the authority of Jesus Christ through the fullness of the priesthood held by the bishop.

This is entirely wrong. Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and a few others that are not Catholic and are not in communion with the Catholic Church have valid sacraments, including the Eucharist, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church herself. I am not the one who has made a heretical claim in this thread.

 

[Lapey]

What we have responded with actual Church teaching on what constitutes a sacrament, not merely statements. BTW, as I tried to point out previously, your particular take on acting with the intent of the Church would invalidate all sacraments, including baptism, that take place outside of the minister being in communion with the Catholic Church, including those sacraments that take place among the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East, and we know that the Catholic Church herself teaches otherwise.

No, it does not. Baptism is the “gate way” sacrament and can be conferred by a non-baptized in the case of death, with the intent of the Church. To be “in” the Church matters. A former priest in an Episcopalian Mass is not acting within the authority he was ordained and is not in line with the intent of the Church, no matter what he believes.

Also, remember thet the Eastern and Orthodox Churches are not Protestant communities, they may not be in full communion but we are talking about Episcopal communities here which are in fact Protestant no matter how "catholic’ they consider themselves.

 

[Lapey]

This is entirely wrong. Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and a few others that are not Catholic and are not in communion with the Catholic Church have valid sacraments, including the Eucharist, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church herself. I am not the one who has made a heretical claim in this thread.

Again, we are talking Protestant communities, not Catholic. Keep it in context.

 

[RyanBlack]

Again, we are talking Protestant communities, not Catholic. Keep it in context.

But the reasoning you apply to the Anglican Church negates the validity of all sacraments not occuring in communion with the Catholic Church, which includes the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, as well as the Assyrian Church of the East. And yes, the reasoning you use would also invalidate all non-Catholic baptisms as well, in spite of your protests to the contrary, because you insist that it is necessary for a minister to be Catholic, under Catholic authority, to be able to act with the intent of the church.