It seems that I know this to be true? I assure you it is. I was Eastern Orthodox before becoming Eastern Catholic, and I’ve been Eastern Catholic for seven years. It’s true. I have to go to work now. Perhaps I can respond further later.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.
Ok, good. I’d like to learn more about what you say here. I didn’t mean that statement in a derogatory way, simply words.**It seems that I know this to be true? ** I assure you it is. I was Eastern Orthodox before becoming Eastern Catholic, and I’ve been Eastern Catholic for seven years. It’s true. I have to go to work now. Perhaps I can respond further later.
No I don’t think so. Because the Protestant communities have no regard for Rome, but the same cannot be said for the others you mention. Again, Episcopalian is different than the Rites you mention.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.
This is a broad statement and I can assure you that there are Anglican priests who did have the necessary intention to do what the Church does at their Eucharist. I know one of them. Of course such priests are most likely High Church Anglo-Catholics. His orders were invalid then, of course and therefore so was his Mass, but because of his theology and ecclesiology, he did have the necessary intention. In fact, because all that is required is for the minister to intend to do what the Church does, it’s quite easy to meet this requirement even for ex-Catholics.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.
Very well then.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.
Actually, the question of the Orthodox churches does apply in this case because the objection raised appeals to communion with Rome as required for validity. Ryan correctly points out that communion does not exist between us and the Orthodox, and yet we do not question the validity of their sacraments.The question deals with the Episcopal Church, not Catholic/Orthodox. Conflating the two and answering as if what applies to one applies to the other just confuses the issue and doesn’t answer the question.
Some of the other groups I mentioned, in some cases, have even less regard for Rome than some Protestants do.No I don’t think so. Because the Protestant communities have no regard for Rome, but the same cannot be said for the others you mention. Again, Episcopalian is different than the Rites you mention.
You might Google “Eastern Catholic leavened bread.” There will be links that explain the tradition of the use of leavened bread among Eastern Catholics.Ok, good. I’d like to learn more about what you say here. I didn’t mean that statement in a derogatory way, simply words.
There is a world of difference between an Apostolic and non-Apostolic Church, and I don’t see how comparing a non-Apostolic Church to an Apostolic one is relevant to the discussion.Actually, the question of the Orthodox churches does apply in this case because the objection raised appeals to communion with Rome as required for validity. Ryan correctly points out that communion does not exist between us and the Orthodox, and yet we do not question the validity of their sacraments.
The term apostate in this case is not appropriate. Apostasy is “the total repudiation of the Christian faith.” (CCC, 2089). Schismatic would be the more appropriate term.The answer simply comes down to whether or not the priest has proper intent, matter, and form. Given the the apostate priest is involved in a forbidden act (Canon 908) in a non-Apostolic Church, the validity is obviously called into question.
Once again, there is more than one type of apostasy. I’m am referring to “apostate ab ordine” (assuming the priest is not a religious, for which “apostate a relgione” would apply).The term apostate in this case is not appropriate. Apostasy is “the total repudiation of the Christian faith.” (CCC, 2089). Schismatic would be the more appropriate term.
Oh, most certainly. I said as much in my previous posts on the topic. One cannot paint all former priests’ consecrations as valid solely on the basis of valid holy orders. But the converse is also true, as we have pointed out (with support and sources) that valid consecrations is also possible and that yes, it is very much possible for Anglicans to possess the proper intent (just as it is very much possible for them to have defective intent).There is a world of difference between an Apostolic and non-Apostolic Church, and I don’t see how comparing a non-Apostolic Church to an Apostolic one is relevant to the discussion.
The answer simply comes down to whether or not the priest has proper intent, matter, and form. Given the the apostate priest is involved in a forbidden act (Canon 908) in a non-Apostolic Church, the validity is obviously called into question.
That’s a given. There is no doubt in this situation that the priest is excommunicated.But one thing I know for sure. I Better not go to a “Mass” of those ever.
You can’t even go to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, despite its being valid, and still fulfil any obligation. You’re also not supposed to receive any kind of non-Catholic communion, for various reasons (invalid, or because the other church, e.g. Orthodox doesn’t want you to).Nice topic guys. I have no idea which of you has the correct answer as to the validity of the Eucharist of such priest in that situation.
But one thing I know for sure. I Better not go to a “Mass” of those ever. I wouldn’t like “gambling”. Id have the feeling of not being sure if I received Christ, or a piece of bread…That is the biggest difference in the Universe.
If he uses the Book of Common Prayer as used by Episcopalians and Anglicans presently, the Eucharist would not be valid. I recall that the Book of Common Prayer used in the Anglican Communion states that the consecration is not intended to effect transubstantiation as understood by us Catholics. That would rob the minister of the intent to do what the Church does.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.
Everything I have found points to the reality of the invalidity of the Eucharist in these situations for former Latin Rite Catholic priests, or even those ordained by dissident LRC bishops, is more likely than the Eucharist being valid.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!
This is correct, the institution prayers and the odination rite has been alterred since the middle 1500’s which makes them invalid.If he uses the Book of Common Prayer as used by Episcopalians and Anglicans presently, the Eucharist would not be valid. I recall that the Book of Common Prayer used in the Anglican Communion states that the consecration is not intended to effect transubstantiation as understood by us Catholics. That would rob the minister of the intent to do what the Church does.